Tomato BRI1 and systemin wound signalling

Brassinosteroids (BRs) are perceived by Brassinosteroid Insensitive 1 (BRI1), that encodes a leucine-rich repeat receptor kinase. Tomato BRI1 has previously been implicated in both systemin and BR signalling. The role of tomato BRI1 in BR signalling was confirmed, however it was found not to be essential for systemin/wound signalling. Tomato roots were shown to respond to systemin but this response varied according to the species and growth conditions. Overall the data indicates that mutants defective in tomato BRI1 are not defective in systemin-induced wound signalling and that systemin perception can occur via a non-BRI1 mechanism.Key words: tomato BRI1, brassinosteroids, systemin, wound signallingBrassinosteroids (BRs) are steroid hormones that are essential for normal plant growth. The most important BR receptor in Arabidopsis is BRASSINOSTERIOD INSENSITIVE 1 (BRI1), a serine/threonine kinase with a predicted extracellular domain of ∼24 leucine-rich repeats (LRRs).^1,2 BRs bind to BRI1 via a steroid-binding domain that includes LRR 21 and a so-called “island” domain.^2,3 In tomato a BRI1 orthologue has been identified that when mutated, as in the curl3 (cu3) mutation, results in BR-insensitive dwarf plants.⁴ Tomato BRI1 has also been purified as a systemin-binding protein.⁵ Systemin is an eighteen amino acid peptide, which is produced by post-translational cleavage of prosystemin. Systemin has been implicated in wound signalling and is able to induce the production of jasmonate, protease inhibitors (PIN) and rapid alkalinization of cell suspensions (reviewed in ref. ⁶).To clarify whether tomato BRI1 was indeed a dual receptor it was important to first confirm its role in BR signalling. Initially this was carried out by genetic complementation of the cu3 mutant phenotype.⁷ Overexpression of tomato BRI1 restored the dwarf phenotype and BR sensitivity and normalized BR levels (

Natural Infection of Burkholderia pseudomallei in an Imported Pigtail Macaque (Macaca nemestrina) and Management of the Exposed Colony

Identification of the select agent Burkholderia pseudomallei in macaques imported into the United States is rare. A purpose-bred, 4.5-y-old pigtail macaque (Macaca nemestrina) imported from Southeast Asia was received from a commercial vendor at our facility in March 2012. After the initial acclimation period of 5 to 7 d, physical examination of the macaque revealed a subcutaneous abscess that surrounded the right stifle joint. The wound was treated and resolved over 3 mo. In August 2012, 2 mo after the stifle joint wound resolved, the macaque exhibited neurologic clinical signs. Postmortem microbiologic analysis revealed that the macaque was infected with B. pseudomallei. This case report describes the clinical evaluation of a B. pseudomallei-infected macaque, management and care of the potentially exposed colony of animals, and protocols established for the animal care staff that worked with the infected macaque and potentially exposed colony. This article also provides relevant information on addressing matters related to regulatory issues and risk management of potentially exposed animals and animal care staff.Abbreviations: CDC, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; IHA, indirect hemagglutination assay; PEP, postexposure prophylacticBurkholderia pseudomallei, formerly known as Pseudomonas pseudomallei, is a gram-negative, aerobic, bipolar, motile, rod-shaped bacterium. B. pseudomallei infections (melioidosis) can be severe and even fatal in both humans and animals. This environmental saprophyte is endemic to Southeast Asia and northern Australia, but it has also been found in other tropical and subtropical areas of the world.^7,22,32,42 The bacterium is usually found in soil and water in endemic areas and is transmitted to humans and animals primarily through percutaneous inoculation, ingestion, or inhalation of a contaminated source.^{8, 22,28,32,42} Human-to-human, animal-to-animal, and animal-to-human spread are rare.^8,32 In December 2012, the National Select Agent Registry designated B. pseudomallei as a Tier 1 overlap select agent.³⁹ Organisms classified as Tier 1 agents present the highest risk of deliberate misuse, with the most significant potential for mass casualties or devastating effects to the economy, critical infrastructure, or public confidence. Select agents with this status have the potential to pose a severe threat to human and animal health or safety or the ability to be used as a biologic weapon.³⁹Melioidosis in humans can be challenging to diagnose and treat because the organism can remain latent for years and is resistant to many antibiotics.^12,37,41 B. pseudomallei can survive in phagocytic cells, a phenomenon that may be associated with latent infections.^19,38 The incubation period in naturally infected animals ranges from 1 d to many years, but symptoms typically appear 2 to 4 wk after exposure.^13,17,35,38 Disease generally presents in 1 of 2 forms: localized infection or septicemia.²² Multiple methods are used to diagnose melioidosis, including immunofluorescence, serology, and PCR analysis, but isolation of the bacteria from blood, urine, sputum, throat swabs, abscesses, skin, or tissue lesions remains the ‘gold standard.’^9,22,40,42 The prognosis varies based on presentation, time to diagnosis, initiation of appropriate antimicrobial treatment, and underlying comorbidities.^7,28,42 Currently, there is no licensed vaccine to prevent melioidosis.There are several published reports of naturally occurring melioidosis in a variety of nonhuman primates (NHP; 2,10,13,17,25,30,31,35 The first reported case of melioidosis in monkeys was recorded in 1932, and the first published case in a macaque species was in 1966.³⁰ In the United States, there have only been 7 documented cases of NHP with B. pseudomallei infection.^2,13,17 All of these cases occurred prior to the classification of B. pseudomallei as a select agent. Clinical signs in NHP range from subclinical or subacute illness to acute septicemia, localized infection, and chronic infection. NHP with melioidosis can be asymptomatic or exhibit clinical signs such as anorexia, wasting, purulent drainage, subcutaneous abscesses, and other soft tissue lesions. Lymphadenitis, lameness, osteomyelitis, paralysis and other CNS signs have also been reported.^{2,7,10,22,28,32} In comparison, human''s clinical signs range from abscesses, skin ulceration, fever, headache, joint pain, and muscle tenderness to abdominal pain, anorexia, respiratory distress, seizures, and septicemia.^7,9,21,22

Table 1.

Summary of reported cases of naturally occurring Burkholderia pseudomalleiinfections in nonhuman primates

Stress-induced flowering

Many plant species can be induced to flower by responding to stress factors. The short-day plants Pharbitis nil and Perilla frutescens var. crispa flower under long days in response to the stress of poor nutrition or low-intensity light. Grafting experiments using two varieties of P. nil revealed that a transmissible flowering stimulus is involved in stress-induced flowering. The P. nil and P. frutescens plants that were induced to flower by stress reached anthesis, fruited and produced seeds. These seeds germinated, and the progeny of the stressed plants developed normally. Phenylalanine ammonialyase inhibitors inhibited this stress-induced flowering, and the inhibition was overcome by salicylic acid (SA), suggesting that there is an involvement of SA in stress-induced flowering. PnFT2, a P. nil ortholog of the flowering gene FLOWERING LOCUS T (FT) of Arabidopsis thaliana, was expressed when the P. nil plants were induced to flower under poor-nutrition stress conditions, but expression of PnFT1, another ortholog of FT, was not induced, suggesting that PnFT2 is involved in stress-induced flowering.Key words: flowering, stress, phenylalanine ammonia-lyase, salicylic acid, FLOWERING LOCUS T, Pharbitis nil, Perilla frutescensFlowering in many plant species is regulated by environmental factors, such as night-length in photoperiodic flowering and temperature in vernalization. On the other hand, a short-day (SD) plant such as Pharbitis nil (synonym Ipomoea nil) can be induced to flower under long days (LD) when grown under poor-nutrition, low-temperature or high-intensity light conditions.^1–9 The flowering induced by these conditions is accompanied by an increase in phenylalanine ammonia-lyase (PAL) activity.¹⁰ Taken together, these facts suggest that the flowering induced by these conditions might be regulated by a common mechanism. Poor nutrition, low temperature and high-intensity light can be regarded as stress factors, and PAL activity increases under these stress conditions.¹¹ Accordingly, we assumed that such LD flowering in P. nil might be induced by stress. Non-photoperiodic flowering has also been sporadically reported in several plant species other than P. nil, and a review of these studies suggested that most of the factors responsible for flowering could be regarded as stress. Some examples of these factors are summarized in 12^–14

Table 1

Some cases of stress-induced flowering

Dementia screening, biomarkers and protein misfolding: Implications for public health and diagnosis

Misfolded proteins are at the core of many neurodegenerative diseases, nearly all of them associated with cognitive impairment. For example, Creutzfeldt-Jacob disease is associated with aggregation of prion protein,^1,2 Lewy body dementia and Parkinson disease with α-synuclein^3,4 and forms of frontotemporal dementia with tau, TDP43 and a host of other proteins.^5,6 Alzheimer disease (AD), the most common cause of dementia,⁷ and its prodromal syndrome mild cognitive impairment (MCI)⁸ are an increasing public health problem and a diagnostic challenge to many clinicians. AD is characterized pathologically by the accumulation of amyloid β-protein (Aβ)^9,10 as senile plaques and in the walls of blood vessels as amyloid angiopathy.^11,12 Additionally, there are accumulations of tau-protein as neurofibrillary tangles and dystrophic neurites.^11,12 Biological markers of AD and MCI can serve as in vivo diagnostic indicators of underlying pathology, particularly when clinical symptoms are mild^13–15 and are likely present years before the onset of clinical symptoms.^16–19 Research to discover and refine fluid and imaging biomarkers of protein aggregation has undergone a rapid evolution^20–22 and combined analysis of different modalities may further increase diagnostic sensitivity and specificity.^23–26 Multi-center trials are now investigating whether imaging and/or cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) biomarker candidates can be used as outcome measures for use in phase III clinical trials for AD.^27–29Key words: dementia, screening, biomarkers, amyloid, tau, Alzheimer disease, preclinical, presymptomaticCurrently, the diagnosis of AD is based on exclusion of other forms of impairment with definitive diagnosis requiring autopsy confirmation.³⁰ Thus, there is a strong need to find easily measurable in vivo AD biomarkers that could facilitate early and accurate diagnosis³¹ as well as prognostic data to assist in monitoring therapeutic efficacy.³² Although biological markers such as MRI, PET scans and CSF increase the diagnostic likelihood that AD is present,^{9,18–20,33,34} biomarkers are invasive, uncomfortable, expensive and may not be readily available to rural areas, underserved communities, underinsured individuals or developing countries, making them impractical for broad use. However, the lessons learned from biomarkers can be applied to increase the likelihood that clinicians will be able to detect disease at earlier stages in the form of dementia screening.Public health may be best defined as the organized efforts of society to improve health, often framed in terms of primary, secondary and tertiary prevention. Prevention encompasses an understanding of causation, alteration of natural history of disease and understanding of pathophysiological mechanisms.³⁵ The clearest application of this from a public health perspective is in the setting of secondary prevention (i.e., screening)—early detection as a core element, coupled with treatments or preventative actions to reduce the burden of disease.³⁵ In this instance we seek to identify individuals in whom a disease has already begun and who may be experiencing very mild clinical symptoms but have not yet sought out medical care. The objective of effective screening is to detect the disease earlier than it would have been detected with usual care. Recent healthcare reform (Accountable Care Act)³⁶ proposes a Personalized Prevention Plan including screening for cognitive disorders, reimbursable through Medicare. Thus tying knowledge about dementia screening with underlying biology of protein misfolding associated with neurodegenerative disease can have enormous implications.A review of the natural history of dementia illustrates this point (Fig. 1). The timeline of disease from presumptive start to the patient demise is plotted. Stage I marks the biologic onset of disease; however this point often cannot be identified and may begin years to decades before any evidence is apparent (represented by dashed lines). As this stage is subclinical, it is difficult to study in humans but lends itself nicely to animal models. At some point in the progression of the biology, stage II begins heralding the first pathologic evidence of disease could be obtained—in the case of AD this could include CSF measurements of amyloid and tau^22,26,27 or PET imaging with amyloid ligands.^18,37 Subsequently, the first signs and symptoms of disease develop (stage III). Till this point, the disease process has been entirely presymptomatic. Beginning with the onset of symptoms, the patient may seek medical care (stage IV) and eventually be diagnosed (stage V). From stage III onwards, the patient enters the symptomatic phase of disease. From this point, the patient is typically treated with various pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic approaches towards some outcome. Another way to envision the disease spectrum is from the biological onset to the seeking of medical attention as the preclinical phase of disease with the clinical phase beginning with the initial clinical investigations into the cause of the patients'' symptoms.Open in a separate windowFigure 1Model of the natural history of AD. Timeline from presumptive start of AD through patient diagnosis is plotted. The initiation of biological changes (stage I) marks the onset of disease and begins years to decades before any evidence is apparent (represented by dashed lines). At some point the first pathologic evidence of disease (stage II) begins and in theory can be detected with biomarkers such as CSF measurements of amyloid and tau or PET imaging with amyloid ligands. Subsequently, the first signs and symptoms of disease develop (stage III) followed by the patient seeking medical attention (stage IV) and finally a diagnosis is established (stage V). This timeline can be clustered into a presymptomatic phase (stages I–III) and a symptomatic phase (stages III–V). An alternative way to envision the disease spectrum is from the biological onset to the seeking of medical attention (stages I–IV) as the preclinical phase of disease with the clinical phase beginning with the initial clinical investigations into the cause of the patients'' symptoms (stages IV and V). Stage III is the ideal time for dementia screening.What is the value of thinking about disease in this fashion? Such models allow researchers and clinicians to model the approach to finding and applying new diagnostics and offering new interventions. From stage I to stage III, the patient is the presymptomatic, preclinical phase of disease. The only means of detection would be with a biological marker that reflected protein misfolding or some proxy marker of these events. Although longitudinal evidence of cognitive change exist from 1–3 years before clinical diagnosis, raw scores on neuropsychological testing during this time remains in the normal range.³⁸ After stage IV, the patient is in the symptomatic, clinical phase of disease. Testing here is centered on confirming the suspected diagnosis, correctly staging the disease and initiating the appropriate therapies. Basic scientific approaches focusing on the presymptomatic, preclinical phase and clinical care approaches focusing on the symptomatic, clinical phase are well established and will continue to benefit from additional research.However, if we focus only on these two phases, an opportunity will be missed to make a decidedly important impact in the patient''s well-being. From stage III to stage IV, the patient enters symptomatic, preclinical phase of disease; symptomatic because the patient or family is beginning to detect some aspect of change, but preclinical because these signs and symptoms have not yet been brought to medical attention. In the case of AD (and the other forms of dementia) this period may go for an extended length of time as patients, families and clinicians dismiss early cognitive symptoms as part of the normal aging process. Thus, the rationale for screening is that if we can identify disease earlier in its natural history than would ordinarily occur, intervention measures (those currently available and those that are being developed) would be more effective. Dementia screening therefore would be best suited to detect cognitive impairment at the beginning of disease signs (stage III), particularly if these screening measures reflect what is known about the symptomatic, clinical phase of disease and correlate with the pathologic changes occurring in the brain during the pre-symptomatic, preclinical phase of disease.In a recent paper, we evaluated the relationship between several dementia screening tests and biomarkers of AD.⁴⁰ We tested whether a reliable and validated informant-based dementia screening test (the AD8)^41,42 correlates with changes in AD biomarkers and, if positive, screening with the AD8 clinically supports an AD clinical phenotype, superior to a commonly used performance-based screening tests including the Mini Mental State Exam (MMSE)⁴³ and the Short Blessed Test (SBT).⁴⁴ A total of 257 participants were evaluated, administered a comprehensive clinical and cognitive evaluation with the Clinical Dementia Rating scale (CDR)⁴⁵ used as the gold standard. Participants consented to and completed a variety of biomarker studies including MRI, amyloid imaging using the Pittsburgh Compound B (PiB)^37,46 and CSF studies of Aβ₄₂, tau and phosphorylated tau at Serine 181 (p-tau₁₈₁).^23,24 The sample had a mean age of 75.4 ± 7.3 years with 15.1 ± 3.2 years of education. The sample was 88.7% Caucasian and 45.5% male with a mean MMSE score of 27.2 ± 3.6. The formal diagnoses of the sample was 156 CDR 0 cognitively normal, 23 CDR 0.5 MCI, 53 CDR 0.5 very mild AD and 25 CDR 1 mild AD. Participants with positive AD8 scores (graded as a score of 2 or greater) exhibited the typical AD fluid biomarker phenotype characterized by significantly lower mean levels of CSF Aβ₄₂, greater CSF tau, p-tau₁₈₁ and the tau(s)/Aβ₄₂ ratios.^26,27 They also exhibited smaller temporal lobe volumes and increased mean cortical binding potential (MCBP) for PiB imaging similar to studies of individuals with AD.^18,19 These findings support that informant-based assessments may be superior to performance-based screening measures such as the MMSE or SBT in corresponding to underlying AD pathology, particularly at the earliest stages of decline. The use of a brief test such as the AD8 may improve strategies for detecting dementia in community settings where biomarkers may not be readily available and also may enrich clinical trial recruitment by increasing the likelihood that participants have underlying biomarker abnormalities.⁴⁰To gain a better understanding of changes in biomarkers in the symptomatic, preclinical phase, a post hoc evaluation of the 156 individuals who were rated as CDR 0 no dementia at the time of their Gold Standard assessment was completed. Some of these nondemented individuals have abnormal AD biomarkers, but in the absence of performing lumbar punctures or PET scans, is it possible to detect evidence of change? AD8 scores for 132 individuals were less than 2; thus their screening test suggests no impairment (mean AD8 score = 0.30 ± 0.46). However 25 of these individuals had AD8 scores (≥2) suggesting impairment (mean AD8 score = 2.4 ± 0.91). Applying the model described in Figure 1, some of these individuals are hypothesized to be in the symptomatic, preclinical phase of disease. No difference in age, education, gender or brief performance tests (MMSE or SBT) were detected between groups (45 is increased in the individuals with higher AD8 scores supporting that informants were noticing and reporting changes in the participants cognitive function. A review of the individual AD8 questions that were first reported to change suggest that informants endorsement of subtle changes in memory (repeats questions, forgets appointments) and executive ability (trouble with judgment, appliances, finances) are valuable early signs. This is consistent with previous reports that changes in memory and judgment/problem solving CDR boxscores in nondemented individuals correlate with findings of AD pathology at autopsy.¹⁷ Although biomarkers do not reach significance in this small sample, the direction of change in favor of “Alzheimerization” of this group suggests that some of these individuals may be in the symptomatic, preclinical phase of disease. More research with larger sample sizes and longitudinal follow-up is needed to confirm this hypothesis. It should be also noted that not all individuals with an AD8 score of 2 or greater have AD. The AD8 was designed to detect cognitive impairment from all causes, and as such, these mildly affected individuals may have other causes for their cognitive change such as depression, Lewy body dementia or vascular cognitive impairment.^41,42

Table 1

Characteristics of nondemented CDR 0 individuals stratified by AD8 scores

Evidence for a New Avian Paramyxovirus Serotype 10 Detected in Rockhopper Penguins from the Falkland Islands

The biological, serological, and genomic characterization of a paramyxovirus recently isolated from rockhopper penguins (Eudyptes chrysocome) suggested that this virus represented a new avian paramyxovirus (APMV) group, APMV10. This penguin virus resembled other APMVs by electron microscopy; however, its viral hemagglutination (HA) activity was not inhibited by antisera against any of the nine defined APMV serotypes. In addition, antiserum generated against this penguin virus did not inhibit the HA of representative viruses of the other APMV serotypes. Sequence data produced using random priming methods revealed a genomic structure typical of APMV. Phylogenetic evaluation of coding regions revealed that amino acid sequences of all six proteins were most closely related to APMV2 and APMV8. The calculation of evolutionary distances among proteins and distances at the nucleotide level confirmed that APMV2, APMV8, and the penguin virus all were sufficiently divergent from each other to be considered different serotypes. We propose that this isolate, named APMV10/penguin/Falkland Islands/324/2007, be the prototype virus for APMV10. Because of the known problems associated with serology, such as antiserum cross-reactivity and one-way immunogenicity, in addition to the reliance on the immune response to a single protein, the hemagglutinin-neuraminidase, as the sole base for viral classification, we suggest the need for new classification guidelines that incorporate genome sequence comparisons.Viruses from the Paramyxoviridae family have caused disease in humans and animals for centuries. Over the last 40 years, many paramyxoviruses isolated from animals and people have been newly described (16, 17, 22, 29, 31, 32, 36, 42, 44, 46, 49, 58, 59, 62-64). Viruses from this family are pleomorphic, enveloped, single-stranded, nonsegmented, negative-sense RNA viruses that demonstrate serological cross-reactivity with other paramyxoviruses related to them (30, 46). The subfamily Paramyxovirinae is divided into five genera: Respirovirus, Morbillivirus, Rubulavirus, Henipavirus, and Avulavirus (30). The Avulavirus genus contains nine distinct avian paramyxovirus (APMV) serotypes (Table ​(Table1),1), and information on the discovery of each has been reported elsewhere (4, 6, 7, 9, 12, 34, 41, 50, 51, 60, 68).

TABLE 1.

Characteristics of prototype viruses APMV1 to APMV9 and the penguin virus

Decorin regulates endothelial cell-matrix interactions during angiogenesis

Interactions between endothelial cells and the surrounding extracellular matrix are continuously adapted during angiogenesis, from early sprouting through to lumen formation and vessel maturation. Regulated control of these interactions is crucial to sustain normal responses in this rapidly changing environment, and dysfunctional endothelial cell behaviour results in angiogenic disorders. The proteoglycan decorin, an extracellular matrix component, is upregulated during angiogenesis. While it was shown previously that the absence of decorin leads to dysregulated angiogenesis in vivo, the molecular mechanisms were not clear. These abnormal endothelial cell responses have been attributed to indirect effects of decorin; however, our recent data provides evidence that decorin directly regulates endothelial cell-matrix interactions. This data will be discussed in conjunction with findings from previous studies, to better understand the role of this proteoglycan in angiogenesis.Key words: decorin, angiogenesis, motility, α2β1 integrin, insulin-like growth factor I receptor, Rac GTPaseLed by appropriate cues, the vascular system undergoes postnatal remodelling (angiogenesis), to maintain tissue homeostasis. Thus while much of the mature endothelium is quiescent, locally activated endothelial cells re-enter the cell cycle, and assume a motile phenotype essential for sprouting and neo-vessel formation. Concomitantly, the surrounding extracellular matrix (ECM) is significantly altered through de novo protein expression, deposition of plasma components and protease-mediated degradation. The latter liberates cryptic binding sites and sequestered growth factors in addition to intact and degraded ECM components, which themselves possess pro- and anti-angiogenic signalling properties. For supported blood flow, endothelium quiescence and integrity is re-established, and the ECM is organized into mature, cross-linked networks. In short, endothelial cells regulate ECM synthesis, assembly and turnover while the structure and composition of ECM in turn influences cellular phenotype. The ECM therefore, plays a critical role in control of endothelial cell behaviour during angiogenesis.Decorin is a member of the small leucine-rich repeat proteoglycan (SLRP) family, which was first discovered ‘decorating’ collagen I fibrils and was subsequently shown to regulate fibrillogenesis.^1,2 Both the protein core and the single, covalently attached glycosaminoglycan (GAG) moieties of decorin are involved in this function, the relevance of which is demonstrated by the phenotype of the decorin null mouse, which exhibits loose, fragile skin due to dysregulated fibrillogenesis.² Interestingly, a role for decorin in postnatal angiogenesis was also revealed by studies in the decorin null background. Corneal neoangiogenesis was reduced.³ Conversely, neo-angiogenesis was enhanced during dermal wound healing, although surprisingly this led to delayed wound closure.⁴ In this case, skin fragility due to the absence of decorin may have hindered wound closure, despite an increased blood supply. It is apparent however, that decorin plays a role in inflammation-associated angiogenesis. Indeed, endothelial cells undergoing angiogenic morphogenesis in this environment express decorin, while quiescent endothelial cells do not,^3–6 indicating that decorin modulates endothelial cell behaviour specifically during inflammatory-associated remodelling of the vascular system.To understand decorin effects on angiogenic morphogenesis within a minimalist environment, various in vitro models of angiogenesis have been employed (6 Similarly, decorin expression enhanced tube formation on matrigel,⁸ but in other studies utilising this substrate was found to either have no influence⁹ or to inhibit tubulogenesis induced by growth factors.¹⁰ In yet another study, decorin inhibited tube formation when presented as a substrate prior to addition of collagen I.⁷ These contrasting observations may reflect the importance of the micro-environment within which decorin is presented. Alternatively, controversial results could result from different sources of decorin since cell types differ in their post-translational modifications of the GAG moiety. Hence, varying length or sulfation patterns of GAG chains may account for different biological activities of decorin. Discrepancies can also be explained as artefacts due to different purification protocols, such as when denaturing conditions are used to extract decorin from tissue. Taken together however, these observations suggest that decorin is neither a pro- nor an anti-angiogenic factor per se, but rather a regulator of angiogenesis, dependent on local cues for different activities. Further, that decorin is capable of both enhancing and inhibiting tubulogenesis may suggest a role in balancing vessel regression versus persistence. Immature vessels have a period of plasticity prior to maturation, during which they can be remodelled, and either regress, or given the appropriate signals, proceed to maturity.¹¹ As a modulator of tube formation, it is tempting to speculate that decorin could influence the switch from immature to mature vessels, favouring one or the other in conjunction with signals from the local environment.

Table 1

Summary of the key functions of decorin in controlling cell behaviour

Chitosan as a MAMP,searching for a PRR

Chitosan, a deacetylated chitin derivative, behaves like a general elicitor, inducing a non-host resistance and priming a systemic acquired immunity. The defence responses elicited by chitosan include rising of cytosolic H⁺ and Ca²⁺, activation of MAP-kinases, callose apposition, oxidative burst, hypersensitive response (HR), synthesis of abscissic acid (ABA), jasmonate, phytoalexins and pathogenesis related (PR) proteins. Putative receptors for chitosan are a chitosan-binding protein, recently isolated, and possibly the chitin elicitor-binding protein (CEBiP). Nevertheless, it must be pointed out that biological activity of chitosan, besides the plant model, strictly depends on its physicochemical properties (deacetylation degree, molecular weight and viscosity), and that there is a threshold for chitosan concentration able to switch the induction of a cell death programme into necrotic cell death (cytotoxicity).Key words: chitosan, induced resistance, MAMP, PAMP, PCD, PRR, SARRecognition of microbe-associated molecular patterns (MAMPs), by pattern recognition receptors (PRRs), represents the major trait of innate immunity common to plants and animals. In plant immunity, MAMPs, more commonly known as general elicitors, include lipopolysaccharides (LPS), peptidoglycans, flagellin and fungal cell wall fragments (chitin/chitosan oligomers), phospholipids, oxylipins, fatty acids, sterols, proteins, double stranded RNA and methylated DNA, able to elicit a host defence response by binding to specific PRRs. In this view, chitosan, a deacetylated chitin derivative, behaves like a general elicitor, inducing a non-host resistance, by a PRR-mediated recognition, and priming a systemic acquired immunity (or systemic acquired resistance, SAR).¹ The defence responses elicited by chitosan include: raising of cytosolic Ca²⁺, activation of MAP-kinases, callose apposition, oxidative burst, hypersensitive response (HR), synthesis of abscissic acid (ABA), jasmonate, phytoalexins and pathogenesis related proteins (PR) (Fig. 1 and 2^–20Open in a separate windowFigure 1Different responses induced on Phaseolus vulgaris leaves by treatment with solutions of chitosan with 85% deacetylation degree and different molecular weights; all solutions have been prepared at 0.15% w/v in 0.05 M acetic acid and adjusted at pH 5.6. Callose detection with aniline blue (A–C) 12 h after treatment shows that 76 kD-chitosan elicits the formation of a network of small bright yellow fluorescent spots (B) due to callose apposition between the plasmalemma and the cell wall of some mesophyll cells (see the enlargement in the inset), while 6 kD-chitosan induces lesions involving numerous cells fluorescing in yellow-orange, possibly as consequence of the overlap of phenolics autofluorescence and callose fluorescence (see the enlargement in the inset). In 322 kD chitosan-treated leaves numerous green-fluorescent patches (C), due to chitosan deposits, are present on the leaf epidermis along cell walls, but rarely callose apposition is present. Detection of H₂O₂ deposits (as brownish precipitates in D–F) with 3-3′-diaminobenzydine (DAB), 24 h after 6 kD-chitosan treatment, indicates that the lesions in (A) are constituted by necrotizing cells as a consequence of extensive H₂O₂ deposition (D). At the same time, leaves treated with 76 kD-chitosan show moderate H₂O₂ deposits limited to the same mesophyll cells involved in callose apposition, and often localized around the substomatal cavity into which chitosan can permeate (E, arrow). No H₂O₂ deposition is present in 322 kD-chitosan treated plants (F). Evans blue staining to detect dead cells (stained in blue) 24 h after treatment (G–I) shows that the lesions in (A) have already evolved in extensive necrotic cell death, while only some of the cells with callose deposition visible in (B) had turned to programmed cell death (H) (as previously shown with other techniques). No dead cells are present in leaves treated with 322 kD-chitosan (I).

Table 1

Defence responses elicited by chitosan

De novo mammalian prion synthesis

Prions are responsible for a heterogeneous group of fatal neurodegenerative diseases. They can be sporadic, genetic, or infectious disorders involving post-translational modifications of the cellular prion protein (PrP^C). Prions (PrP^Sc) are characterized by their infectious property and intrinsic ability to convert the physiological PrP^C into the pathological form, acting as a template. The “protein-only” hypothesis, postulated by Stanley B. Prusiner, implies the possibility to generate de novo prions in vivo and in vitro. Here we describe major milestones towards proving this hypothesis, taking into account physiological environment/s, biochemical properties and interactors of the PrP^C.Key words: prion protein (PrP), prions, amyloid, recombinant prion protein, transgenic mouse, protein misfolding cyclic amplification (PMCA), synthethic prionPrions are responsible for a heterogeneous group of fatal neurodegenerative diseases (1 They can be sporadic, genetic or infectious disorders involving post-translational modifications of the cellular prion protein (PrP^C).² Prions are characterized by their infectious properties and by their intrinsic ability to encipher distinct biochemical properties through their secondary, tertiary and quaternary protein structures. In particular, the transmission of the disease is due to the ability of a prion to convert the physiological PrP^C into the pathological form (PrP^Sc), acting as a template.³ The two isoforms of PrP appear to be different in terms of protein structures, as revealed by optical spectroscopy experiments such as Fourier-transform infrared and circular dichroism.⁴ PrP^C contains 40% α-helix and 3% β-sheet, while the pathological isoform, PrP^Sc, presents approximately 30% α-helix and 45% β-sheet.^4,5 PrP^Sc differs from PrP^C because of its altered physical-chemical properties such as insolubility in non-denaturing detergents and proteinases resistance.^2,6,7

Table 1

The prion diseases