Associations of Escherichia coli K-12 OmpF trimers with rough and smooth lipopolysaccharides.

The associations of both rough and smooth lipopolysaccharides (LPS) with the OmpF porin of Escherichia coli K-12 were examined in galE strains deleted for ompC. Transformation with pSS37 and growth with galactose conferred the ability to assemble a Shigella dysenteriae O antigen onto the core oligosaccharide of E. coli K-12 LPS. The association of LPS with OmpF trimers was assessed by staining, autoradiography of LPS specifically labeled with [1-14C]galactose, and Western immunoblotting with a monoclonal antibody specific for OmpF trimers. These techniques revealed that the migration distances and multiple banding patterns of OmpF porin trimers in sodium dodecyl sulfate-polyacrylamide gels were dictated by the chemotype of associated LPS. Expression of smooth LPS caused almost all of the trimeric OmpF to run in gels with a slower mobility than trimers from rough strains. The LPS associated with trimers from a smooth strain differed from the bulk-phase LPS by consisting almost exclusively of molecules with O antigen.     

Rational confederation of genes and diseases: NGS interpretation via GeneCards,MalaCards and VarElect

Background

A key challenge in the realm of human disease research is next generation sequencing (NGS) interpretation, whereby identified filtered variant-harboring genes are associated with a patient’s disease phenotypes. This necessitates bioinformatics tools linked to comprehensive knowledgebases. The GeneCards suite databases, which include GeneCards (human genes), MalaCards (human diseases) and PathCards (human pathways) together with additional tools, are presented with the focus on MalaCards utility for NGS interpretation as well as for large scale bioinformatic analyses.

Results

VarElect, our NGS interpretation tool, leverages the broad information in the GeneCards suite databases. MalaCards algorithms unify disease-related terms and annotations from 69 sources. Further, MalaCards defines hierarchical relatedness—aliases, disease families, a related diseases network, categories and ontological classifications. GeneCards and MalaCards delineate and share a multi-tiered, scored gene-disease network, with stringency levels, including the definition of elite status—high quality gene-disease pairs, coming from manually curated trustworthy sources, that includes 4500 genes for 8000 diseases. This unique resource is key to NGS interpretation by VarElect. VarElect, a comprehensive search tool that helps infer both direct and indirect links between genes and user-supplied disease/phenotype terms, is robustly strengthened by the information found in MalaCards. The indirect mode benefits from GeneCards’ diverse gene-to-gene relationships, including SuperPaths—integrated biological pathways from 12 information sources. We are currently adding an important information layer in the form of “disease SuperPaths”, generated from the gene-disease matrix by an algorithm similar to that previously employed for biological pathway unification. This allows the discovery of novel gene-disease and disease–disease relationships. The advent of whole genome sequencing necessitates capacities to go beyond protein coding genes. GeneCards is highly useful in this respect, as it also addresses 101,976 non-protein-coding RNA genes. In a more recent development, we are currently adding an inclusive map of regulatory elements and their inferred target genes, generated by integration from 4 resources.

Conclusions

MalaCards provides a rich big-data scaffold for in silico biomedical discovery within the gene-disease universe. VarElect, which depends significantly on both GeneCards and MalaCards power, is a potent tool for supporting the interpretation of wet-lab experiments, notably NGS analyses of disease. The GeneCards suite has thus transcended its 2-decade role in biomedical research, maturing into a key player in clinical investigation.

     

Production of G protein‐coupled receptors in an insect‐based cell‐free system

The biochemical analysis of human cell membrane proteins remains a challenging task due to the difficulties in producing sufficient quantities of functional protein. G protein‐coupled receptors (GPCRs) represent a main class of membrane proteins and drug targets, which are responsible for a huge number of signaling processes regulating various physiological functions in living cells. To circumvent the current bottlenecks in GPCR studies, we propose the synthesis of GPCRs in eukaryotic cell‐free systems based on extracts generated from insect (Sf21) cells. Insect cell lysates harbor the fully active translational and translocational machinery allowing posttranslational modifications, such as glycosylation and phosphorylation of de novo synthesized proteins. Here, we demonstrate the production of several GPCRs in a eukaryotic cell‐free system, performed within a short time and in a cost‐effective manner. We were able to synthesize a variety of GPCRs ranging from 40 to 133 kDa in an insect‐based cell‐free system. Moreover, we have chosen the μ opioid receptor (MOR) as a model protein to analyze the ligand binding affinities of cell‐free synthesized MOR in comparison to MOR expressed in a human cell line by “one‐point” radioligand binding experiments. Biotechnol. Bioeng. 2017;114: 2328–2338. © 2017 The Authors. Biotechnology and Bioengineering Published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

African trypanosomes and brain infection – the unsolved question

African trypanosomes induce sleeping sickness. The parasites are transmitted during the blood meal of a tsetse fly and appear primarily in blood and lymph vessels, before they enter the central nervous system. During the latter stage, trypanosomes induce a deregulation of sleep–wake cycles and some additional neurological disorders. Historically, it was assumed that trypanosomes cross the blood–brain barrier and settle somewhere between the brain cells. The brain, however, is a strictly controlled and immune‐privileged area that is completely surrounded by a dense barrier that covers the blood vessels: this is the blood–brain barrier. It is known that some immune cells are able to cross this barrier, but this requires a sophisticated mechanism and highly specific cell–cell interactions that have not been observed for trypanosomes within the mammalian host. Interestingly, trypanosomes injected directly into the brain parenchyma did not induce an infection. Likewise, after an intraperitoneal infection of rats, Trypanosoma brucei brucei was not observed within the brain, but appeared readily within the cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) and the meninges. Therefore, the parasite did not cross the blood–brain barrier, but the blood–CSF barrier, which is formed by the choroid plexus, i.e. the part of the ventricles where CSF is produced from blood. While there is no question that trypanosomes are able to invade the brain to induce a deadly encephalopathy, controversy exists about the pathway involved. This review lists experimental results that support crossing of the blood–brain barrier and of the blood–CSF barrier and discuss the implications that either pathway would have on infection progress and on the survival strategy of the parasite. For reasons discussed below, we prefer the latter pathway and suggest the existence of an additional distinct meningeal stage, from which trypanosomes could invade the brain via the Virchow–Robin space thereby bypassing the blood–brain barrier. We also consider healthy carriers, i.e. people living symptomless with the disease for up to several decades, and discuss implications the proposed meningeal stage would have for new anti‐trypanosomal drug development. Considering the re‐infection of blood, a process called relapse, we discuss the likely involvement of the newly described glymphatic connection between the meningeal space and the lymphatic system, that seems also be important for other infectious diseases.     

Potential Conflicts of Interest of Editorial Board Members from Five Leading Spine Journals

Conflicts of interest arising from ties between pharmaceutical industry and physicians are common and may bias research. The extent to which these ties exist among editorial board members of medical journals is not known. This study aims to determine the prevalence and financial magnitude of potential conflicts of interest among editorial board members of five leading spine journals. The editorial boards of: The Spine Journal; Spine; European Spine Journal; Journal of Neurosurgery: Spine; and Journal of Spinal Disorders & Techniques were extracted on January 2013 from the journals’ websites. Disclosure statements were retrieved from the 2013 disclosure index of the North American Spine Society; the program of the 20th International Meeting on Advanced Spine Techniques; the program of the 48th Annual Meeting of the Scoliosis Research Society; the program of the AOSpine global spine congress; the presentations of the 2013 Annual Eurospine meeting; and the disclosure index of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. Names of the editorial board members were compared with the individuals who completed a disclosure for one of these indexes. Disclosures were extracted when full names matched. Two hundred and ten (29%) of the 716 identified editorial board members reported a potential conflict of interest and 154 (22%) reported nothing to disclose. The remaining 352 (49%) editorial board members had no disclosure statement listed for one of the indexes. Eighty-nine (42%) of the 210 editorial board members with a potential conflict of interest reported a financial relationship of more than $10,000 during the prior year. This finding confirms that potential conflicts of interest exist in editorial boards which might influence the peer review process and can result in bias. Academia and medical journals in particular should be aware of this and strive to improve transparency of the review process. We emphasize recommendations that contribute to achieving this goal.