Uniform nomenclature for the mitochondrial contact site and cristae organizing system

The mitochondrial inner membrane contains a large protein complex that functions in inner membrane organization and formation of membrane contact sites. The complex was variably named the mitochondrial contact site complex, mitochondrial inner membrane organizing system, mitochondrial organizing structure, or Mitofilin/Fcj1 complex. To facilitate future studies, we propose to unify the nomenclature and term the complex “mitochondrial contact site and cristae organizing system” and its subunits Mic10 to Mic60.Mitochondria possess two membranes of different architecture and function (Palade, 1952; Hackenbrock, 1968). Both membranes work together for essential shared functions, such as protein import (Schatz, 1996; Neupert and Herrmann, 2007; Chacinska et al., 2009). The outer membrane harbors machinery that controls the shape of the organelle and is crucial for the communication of mitochondria with the rest of the cell. The inner membrane harbors the complexes of the respiratory chain, the F₁F_o-ATP synthase, numerous metabolite carriers, and enzymes of mitochondrial metabolism. It consists of two domains: the inner boundary membrane, which is adjacent to the outer membrane, and invaginations of different shape, termed cristae (Werner and Neupert, 1972; Frey and Mannella, 2000; Hoppins et al., 2007; Pellegrini and Scorrano, 2007; Zick et al., 2009; Davies et al., 2011). Tubular openings, termed crista junctions (Perkins et al., 1997), connect inner boundary membrane and cristae membranes (Fig. 1, A and B). Respiratory chain complexes and the F₁F_o-ATP synthase are preferentially located in the cristae membranes, whereas preprotein translocases are enriched in the inner boundary membrane (Vogel et al., 2006; Wurm and Jakobs, 2006; Davies et al., 2011). Contact sites between outer membrane and inner boundary membrane promote import of preproteins, metabolite channeling, lipid transport, and membrane dynamics (Frey and Mannella, 2000; Sesaki and Jensen, 2004; Hoppins et al., 2007, 2011; Neupert and Herrmann, 2007; Chacinska et al., 2009; Connerth et al., 2012; van der Laan et al., 2012).Open in a separate windowFigure 1.MICOS complex. (A) The MICOS complex (hypothetical model), previously also termed MINOS, MitOS, or Mitofilin/Fcj1 complex, is required for maintenance of the characteristic architecture of the mitochondrial inner membrane (IM) and forms contact sites with the outer membrane (OM). In budding yeast, six subunits of MICOS have been identified. All subunits are exposed to the intermembrane space (IMS), five are integral inner membrane proteins (Mic10, Mic12, Mic26, Mic27, and Mic60), and one is a peripheral inner membrane protein (Mic19). Mic26 is related to Mic27; however, mic26Δ yeast cells show considerably less severe defects of mitochondrial inner membrane architecture than mic27Δ cells (Harner et al., 2011; Hoppins et al., 2011; von der Malsburg et al., 2011). The MICOS complex of metazoa additionally contains Mic25, which is related to Mic19, yet subunits corresponding to Mic12 and Mic26 have not been identified so far. MICOS subunits that have been conserved in most organisms analyzed are indicated by bold boundary lines. (B, top) Wild-type architecture of the mitochondrial inner membrane with crista junctions and cristae. (bottom) This architecture is considerably altered in micos mutant mitochondria: most cristae membranes are detached from the inner boundary membrane and form internal membrane stacks. In some micos mutants (deficiency of mammalian Mic19 or Mic25), a loss of cristae membranes was observed (Darshi et al., 2011; An et al., 2012). Figure by M. Bohnert (Institute of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany).To understand the complex architecture of mitochondria, it will be crucial to identify the molecular machineries that control the interaction between mitochondrial outer and inner membranes and the characteristic organization of the inner membrane. A convergence of independent studies led to the identification of a large heterooligomeric protein complex of the mitochondrial inner membrane conserved from yeast to humans that plays crucial roles in the maintenance of crista junctions, inner membrane architecture, and formation of contact sites to the outer membrane (Fig. 1 A). Several names were used by different research groups to describe the complex, including mitochondrial contact site (MICOS) complex, mitochondrial inner membrane organizing system (MINOS), mitochondrial organizing structure (MitOS), Mitofilin complex, or Fcj1 (formation of crista junction protein 1) complex (Harner et al., 2011; Hoppins et al., 2011; von der Malsburg et al., 2011; Alkhaja et al., 2012). Mitofilin, also termed Fcj1, was the first component identified (Icho et al., 1994; Odgren et al., 1996; Gieffers et al., 1997; John et al., 2005) and was observed enriched at crista junctions (Rabl et al., 2009). Mutants of Mitofilin/Fcj1 as well as of other MICOS/MINOS/MitOS subunits show a strikingly altered inner membrane architecture. They lose crista junctions and contain large internal membrane stacks, the respiratory activity is reduced, and mitochondrial DNA nucleoids are altered (Fig. 1 B; John et al., 2005; Hess et al., 2009; Rabl et al., 2009; Mun et al., 2010; Harner et al., 2011; Head et al., 2011; Hoppins et al., 2011; von der Malsburg et al., 2011; Alkhaja et al., 2012; Itoh et al., 2013). It has been reported that the complex interacts with a variety of outer membrane proteins, such as channel proteins and components of the protein translocases and mitochondrial fusion machines, and defects impair the biogenesis of mitochondrial proteins (Xie et al., 2007; Darshi et al., 2011; Harner et al., 2011; Hoppins et al., 2011; von der Malsburg et al., 2011; Alkhaja et al., 2012; An et al., 2012; Bohnert et al., 2012; Körner et al., 2012; Ott et al., 2012; Zerbes et al., 2012; Jans et al., 2013; Weber et al., 2013). The MICOS/MINOS/MitOS/Mitofilin/Fcj1 complex thus plays crucial roles in mitochondrial architecture, dynamics, and biogenesis. However, communication of results in this rapidly developing field has been complicated by several different nomenclatures used for the complex as well as for its subunits (

Evolution and Function of the Plant Cell Wall Synthesis-Related Glycosyltransferase Family 8

Carbohydrate-active enzyme glycosyltransferase family 8 (GT8) includes the plant galacturonosyltransferase1-related gene family of proven and putative α-galacturonosyltransferase (GAUT) and GAUT-like (GATL) genes. We computationally identified and investigated this family in 15 fully sequenced plant and green algal genomes and in the National Center for Biotechnology Information nonredundant protein database to determine the phylogenetic relatedness of the GAUTs and GATLs to other GT8 family members. The GT8 proteins fall into three well-delineated major classes. In addition to GAUTs and GATLs, known or predicted to be involved in plant cell wall biosynthesis, class I also includes a lower plant-specific GAUT and GATL-related (GATR) subfamily, two metazoan subfamilies, and proteins from other eukaryotes and cyanobacteria. Class II includes galactinol synthases and plant glycogenin-like starch initiation proteins that are not known to be directly involved in cell wall synthesis, as well as proteins from fungi, metazoans, viruses, and bacteria. Class III consists almost entirely of bacterial proteins that are lipooligo/polysaccharide α-galactosyltransferases and α-glucosyltransferases. Sequence motifs conserved across all GT8 subfamilies and those specific to plant cell wall-related GT8 subfamilies were identified and mapped onto a predicted GAUT1 protein structure. The tertiary structure prediction identified sequence motifs likely to represent key amino acids involved in catalysis, substrate binding, protein-protein interactions, and structural elements required for GAUT1 function. The results show that the GAUTs, GATLs, and GATRs have a different evolutionary origin than other plant GT8 genes, were likely acquired from an ancient cyanobacterium (Synechococcus) progenitor, and separate into unique subclades that may indicate functional specialization.Plant cell walls are composed of three principal types of polysaccharides: cellulose, hemicellulose, and pectin. Studying the biosynthesis and degradation of these biopolymers is important because cell walls have multiple roles in plants, including providing structural support to cells and defense against pathogens, serving as cell-specific developmental and differentiation markers, and mediating or facilitating cell-cell communication. In addition to their important roles within plants, cell walls also have many economic uses in human and animal nutrition and as sources of natural textile fibers, paper and wood products, and components of fine chemicals and medicinal products. The study of the biosynthesis and biodegradation of plant cell walls has become even more significant because cell walls are the major components of biomass (Mohnen et al., 2008), which is the most promising renewable source for the production of biofuels and biomaterials (Ragauskas et al., 2006; Pauly and Keegstra, 2008). Analyses of fully sequenced plant genomes have revealed that they encode hundreds or even thousands of carbohydrate-active enzymes (CAZy; Henrissat et al., 2001; Yokoyama and Nishitani, 2004; Geisler-Lee et al., 2006). Most of these CAZy enzymes (Cantarel et al., 2009) are glycosyltransferases (GTs) or glycoside hydrolases, which are key players in plant cell wall biosynthesis and modification (Cosgrove, 2005).The CAZy database is classified into 290 protein families (www.cazy.org; release of September 2008), of which 92 are GT families (Cantarel et al., 2009). A number of the GT families have been previously characterized to be involved in plant cell wall biosynthesis. For example, the GT2 family is known to include cellulose synthases and some hemicellulose backbone synthases (Lerouxel et al., 2006), such as mannan synthases (Dhugga et al., 2004; Liepman et al., 2005), putative xyloglucan synthases (Cocuron et al., 2007), and mixed linkage glucan synthases (Burton et al., 2006). With respect to the synthesis of xylan, a type of hemicellulose, four Arabidopsis (Arabidopsis thaliana) proteins from the GT43 family, irregular xylem 9 (IRX9), IRX14, IRX9-L, and IRX14-L, and two proteins from the GT47 family, IRX10 and IRX10-L, are candidates (York and O''Neill, 2008) for glucuronoxylan backbone synthases (Brown et al., 2007, 2009; Lee et al., 2007a; Peña et al., 2007; Wu et al., 2009). In addition, three proteins have been implicated in the synthesis of an oligosaccharide thought to act either as a primer or terminator in xylan synthesis (Peña et al., 2007): two from the GT8 family (IRX8/GAUT12 [Persson et al., 2007] and PARVUS/GATL1 [Brown et al., 2007; Lee et al., 2007b]) and one from the GT47 family (FRA8/IRX7 [Zhong et al., 2005]).The GT families involved in the biosynthesis of pectins have been relatively less studied until recently. In 2006, a gene in CAZy family GT8 was shown to encode a functional homogalacturonan α-galacturonosyltransferase, GAUT1 (Sterling et al., 2006). GAUT1 belongs to a 25-member gene family in Arabidopsis, the GAUT1-related gene family, that includes two distinct but closely related families, the galacturonosyltransferase (GAUT) genes and the galacturonosyltransferase-like (GATL) genes (Sterling et al., 2006). Another GAUT gene, GAUT8/QUA1, has been suggested to be involved in pectin and/or xylan synthesis, based on the phenotypes of plant lines carrying mutations in this gene (Bouton et al., 2002; Orfila et al., 2005). It has further been suggested that multiple members of the GT8 family are galacturonosyltransferases involved in pectin and/or xylan biosynthesis (Mohnen, 2008; Caffall and Mohnen, 2009; Caffall et al., 2009).Aside from the 25 GAUT and GATL genes, Arabidopsis has 16 other family GT8 genes, according to the CAZy database, which do not seem to have the conserved sequence motifs found in GAUTs and GATLs: HxxGxxKPW and GLG (Sterling et al., 2006). Eight of these 16 genes are annotated as galactinol synthase (GolS) by The Arabidopsis Information Resource (TAIR; www.arabidopsis.org), and three of these AtGolS enzymes have been implicated in the synthesis of raffinose family oligosaccharides that are associated with stress tolerance (Taji et al., 2002). The other eight Arabidopsis GT8 genes are annotated as plant glycogenin-like starch initiation proteins (PGSIPs) in TAIR. PGSIPs have been proposed to be involved in the synthesis of primers necessary for starch biosynthesis (Chatterjee et al., 2005). Hence, the GT8 family is a protein family consisting of enzymes with very distinct proven and proposed functions. Indeed, a suggestion has been made to split the GT8 family into two groups (Sterling et al., 2006), namely, the cell wall biosynthesis-related genes (GAUTs and GATLs) and the non-cell wall synthesis-related genes (GolSs and PGSIPs).We are interested in further defining the functions of the GAUT and GATL proteins in plants, in particular their role(s) in plant cell wall synthesis. The apparent disparate functions of the GT8 family (i.e. the GAUTs and GATLs as proven and putative plant cell wall polysaccharide biosynthetic α-galacturonosyltransferases, the eukaryotic GolSs as α-galactosyltransferases that synthesize the first step in the synthesis of the oligosaccharides stachyose and raffinose, the putative PGSIPs, and the large bacterial GT8 family of diverse α-glucosyltransferases and α-galactosyltransferases involved in lipopolysaccharide and lipooligosaccharide synthesis) indicate that the GT8 family members are involved in several unique types of glycoconjugate and glycan biosynthetic processes (Yin et al., 2010). This observation led us to ask whether any of the GT8 family members are sufficiently closely related to GAUT and GATL genes to be informative regarding GAUT or GATL biosynthetic function(s) and/or mechanism(s).To investigate the relatedness of the members of the GT8 gene family, we carried out a detailed phylogenetic analysis of the entire GT8 family in 15 completely sequenced plant and green algal genomes (AbbreviationCladeSpeciesGenome PublishedDownloaded frommpcGreen algaeMicromonas pusilla CCMP1545Worden et al. (2009)JGI version 2.0mprGreen algaeMicromonas strain RCC299Worden et al. (2009)JGI version 2.0olGreen algaeOstreococcus lucimarinusPalenik et al. (2007)JGI version 1.0otGreen algaeOstreococcus tauriDerelle et al. (2006)JGI version 1.0crGreen algaeChlamydomonas reinhardtiiMerchant et al. (2007)JGI version 3.0vcGreen algaeVolvox carteri f. nagariensisNoJGI version 1.0ppMossPhyscomitrella patens ssp. patensRensing et al. (2008)JGI version 1.1smSpike mossSelaginella moellendorffiiNoJGI version 1.0ptDicotPopulus trichocarpaTuskan et al. (2006)JGI version 1.1atDicotArabidopsis thalianaArabidopsis Genome Initiative (2000)TAIR version 9.0vvDicotVitis viniferaJaillon et al. (2007)http://www.genoscope.cns.fr/gmDicotGlycine maxSchmutz et al. (2010)JGI version 1.0osMonocotOryza sativaGoff et al. (2002); Yu et al. (2002)TIGR version 6.1sbMonocotSorghum bicolorPaterson et al. (2009)JGI version 1.0bdMonocotBrachypodium distachyonVogel et al. (2010)JGI version 1.0Open in a separate window     

Immunomodulation by Mesenchymal Stem Cells in Veterinary Species

Mesenchymal stem cells (MSC) are adult-derived multipotent stem cells that have been derived from almost every tissue. They are classically defined as spindle-shaped, plastic-adherent cells capable of adipogenic, chondrogenic, and osteogenic differentiation. This capacity for trilineage differentiation has been the foundation for research into the use of MSC to regenerate damaged tissues. Recent studies have shown that MSC interact with cells of the immune system and modulate their function. Although many of the details underlying the mechanisms by which MSC modulate the immune system have been defined for human and rodent (mouse and rat) MSC, much less is known about MSC from other veterinary species. This knowledge gap is particularly important because the clinical use of MSC in veterinary medicine is increasing and far exceeds the use of MSC in human medicine. It is crucial to determine how MSC modulate the immune system for each animal species as well as for MSC derived from any given tissue source. A comparative approach provides a unique translational opportunity to bring novel cell-based therapies to the veterinary market as well as enhance the utility of animal models for human disorders. The current review covers what is currently known about MSC and their immunomodulatory functions in veterinary species, excluding laboratory rodents.Abbreviations: AT, adipose tissue; BM, Bone marrow; CB, umbilical cord blood; CT, umbilical cord tissue; DC, dendritic cell; IDO, indoleamine 2;3-dioxygenase; MSC, mesenchymal stem cells; PGE₂, prostaglandin E2; VEGF, vascular endothelial growth factorMesenchymal stem cells (MSC, alternatively known as mesenchymal stromal cells) were first reported in the literature in 1968.³⁹ MSC are thought to be of pericyte origin (cells that line the vasculature)^21,22 and typically are isolated from highly vascular tissues. In humans and mice, MSC have been isolated from fat, placental tissues (placenta, Wharton jelly, umbilical cord, umbilical cord blood), hair follicles, tendon, synovial membrane, periodontal ligament, and every major organ (brain, spleen, liver, kidney, lung, bone marrow, muscle, thymus, pancreas, skin).^23,121 For most current clinical applications, MSC are isolated from adipose tissue (AT), bone marrow (BM), umbilical cord blood (CB), and umbilical cord tissue (CT; 11,87,99 Clinical trials in human medicine focus on the use of MSC both for their antiinflammatory properties (graft-versus-host disease, irritable bowel syndrome) and their ability to aid in tissue and bone regeneration in combination with growth factors and bone scaffolds (clinicaltrials.gov).¹³¹ For tissue regeneration, the abilities of MSC to differentiate and to secrete mediators and interact with cells of the immune system likely contribute to tissue healing (Figure 1). The current review will not address the specific use of MSC for orthopedic applications and tissue regeneration, although the topic is covered widely in current literature for both human and veterinary medicine.^57,62,90

Table 1.

Tissues from which MSC have been isolated

The Golgi and the centrosome: building a functional partnership

The mammalian Golgi apparatus is characterized by a ribbon-like organization adjacent to the centrosome during interphase and extensive fragmentation and dispersal away from the centrosome during mitosis. It is not clear whether this dynamic association between the Golgi and centrosome is of functional significance. We discuss recent findings indicating that the Golgi–centrosome relationship may be important for directional protein transport and centrosome positioning, which are both required for cell polarization. We also summarize our current knowledge of the link between Golgi organization and cell cycle progression.

Introduction

The Golgi apparatus plays a central role in the secretory pathway. Newly synthesized proteins are transported from the ER to the Golgi, where they are posttranslationally modified. They are sorted into carriers for delivery to the plasma membrane or the endosomal–lysosomal system. The basic structural unit of the Golgi apparatus is a stack of flattened cisternae that is morphologically conserved among most species. In mammalian cells, individual Golgi stacks are connected laterally to form a continuous membranous system called the Golgi ribbon, which is located in close physical proximity to the centrosome (Fig. 1, left).Open in a separate windowFigure 1.The spatial relationship between the Golgi and the centrosome during the mammalian cell cycle. Golgi (red, stained with antibodies to GM130) and centrosome (green, stained with antibodies to centrin) staining of nonsynchronized bone cancer cells (U2-OS) shows the physical proximity between these two organelles during interphase (left) and its temporary loss during mitosis (right). Bar, 10 µm.The centrosome functions as the major microtubule-organizing center of the cell and plays an important role in cell polarization and ciliogenesis (Bettencourt-Dias and Glover, 2007). In a newly formed daughter cell, this nonmembrane-bound organelle is composed of a pair of centrioles that is surrounded by a cloud of electron-dense material called the pericentriolar matrix. γ-Tubulin ring complexes (γ-TuRCs) in the pericentriolar matrix allow the centrosome to nucleate the radial array of interphase microtubules whose minus ends are embedded in the centrosome and whose plus ends extend toward the cell periphery. After centrosome duplication in S phase, the two centrosomes move to opposite poles of the cell and become the spindle poles from which spindle microtubules grow. Centrosomes are generally located in the cell center close to the nucleus, although this central position is lost in response to a polarization stimulus, which prompts centrosomes to reorient toward the leading edge of the cell (Pouthas et al., 2008). In most cell types, centrosome reorientation is critical for the ability of cells to polarize and migrate (Yvon et al., 2002). The centrosome is also linked to ciliogenesis because one of its centrioles is converted into the basal body from which a primary cilium extends (D''Angelo and Franco, 2009).The spatial relationship between the Golgi apparatus and the centrosome is altered by changes in Golgi organization that occur during the cell cycle (Fig. 1). These two organelles are only adjacent in interphase when the Golgi apparatus is arranged as a ribbon in the pericentriolar region (Colanzi et al., 2003). In contrast, Golgi membranes are fragmented and dispersed throughout the cytoplasm during mitosis. Intriguingly, the pericentriolar localization of the Golgi is a feature typical of some eukaryotic cells, ranging from mammalian and amphibian cells (Thyberg and Moskalewski, 1999; Reilein et al., 2003) to amoeba (Rehberg et al., 2005). However, other eukaryotes, including plants and flies, have isolated Golgi stacks (Stanley et al., 1997; Nebenführ and Staehelin, 2001) or isolated cisternae in the case of Saccharomyces cerevisiae that are scattered throughout the cytoplasm without an obvious connection with the centrosome (Preuss et al., 1992).In this paper, we review recent findings indicating that the relationship between the Golgi and the centrosome in interphase is important for cell polarization. We also summarize the current understanding of how Golgi–centrosome interactions during mitosis affect cell division.

Are there functional interactions between the Golgi and the centrosome during interphase?

Golgi membranes are actively positioned in the pericentriolar position.

The localization of the mammalian Golgi ribbon next to the centrosome requires the microtubule and actin cytoskeleton (Brownhill et al., 2009). Microtubules have a dual role in organizing the pericentriolar Golgi ribbon. First, the subset of microtubules that is nucleated at the Golgi is necessary for the assembly of Golgi fragments into a connected ribbon in the cell periphery (Miller et al., 2009). Second, centrosomal microtubules provide the tracks along which Golgi membranes are transported to the cell center (Cole et al., 1996). Both steps depend on the minus end–directed motor complex dynein (Burkhardt et al., 1997; Miller et al., 2009). The actin cytoskeleton is also involved in localizing Golgi membranes. Actin fibers, which have been detected at the Golgi complex, are required for the maintenance of the pericentriolar position of this organelle by providing tracks for actin-based motors (Valderrama et al., 1998; Sahlender et al., 2005; Vicente-Manzanares et al., 2007). Actin fibers and microtubules are coordinated by proteins that associate with both cytoskeletal elements such as WHAMM, a Golgi-bound actin-nucleating factor, and MACF1, a microtubule–actin cross-linking protein (Lin et al., 2005; Campellone et al., 2008).Golgi organization and localization in the pericentriolar region also depend on Golgi-associated proteins (Ramirez and Lowe, 2009). Their depletion produces defects in Golgi organization ranging from a disconnected Golgi ribbon in the pericentriolar region (Puthenveedu et al., 2006) to dispersed ministacks in the cytoplasm (Diao et al., 2003; Yadav et al., 2009).

Table I.

Golgi-associated proteins that control the pericentriolar position of the Golgi apparatus

Arabidopsis LON2 Is Necessary for Peroxisomal Function and Sustained Matrix Protein Import

Relatively little is known about the small subset of peroxisomal proteins with predicted protease activity. Here, we report that the peroxisomal LON2 (At5g47040) protease facilitates matrix protein import into Arabidopsis (Arabidopsis thaliana) peroxisomes. We identified T-DNA insertion alleles disrupted in five of the nine confirmed or predicted peroxisomal proteases and found only two—lon2 and deg15, a mutant defective in the previously described PTS2-processing protease (DEG15/At1g28320)—with phenotypes suggestive of peroxisome metabolism defects. Both lon2 and deg15 mutants were mildly resistant to the inhibitory effects of indole-3-butyric acid (IBA) on root elongation, but only lon2 mutants were resistant to the stimulatory effects of IBA on lateral root production or displayed Suc dependence during seedling growth. lon2 mutants displayed defects in removing the type 2 peroxisome targeting signal (PTS2) from peroxisomal malate dehydrogenase and reduced accumulation of 3-ketoacyl-CoA thiolase, another PTS2-containing protein; both defects were not apparent upon germination but appeared in 5- to 8-d-old seedlings. In lon2 cotyledon cells, matrix proteins were localized to peroxisomes in 4-d-old seedlings but mislocalized to the cytosol in 8-d-old seedlings. Moreover, a PTS2-GFP reporter sorted to peroxisomes in lon2 root tip cells but was largely cytosolic in more mature root cells. Our results indicate that LON2 is needed for sustained matrix protein import into peroxisomes. The delayed onset of matrix protein sorting defects may account for the relatively weak Suc dependence following germination, moderate IBA-resistant primary root elongation, and severe defects in IBA-induced lateral root formation observed in lon2 mutants.Peroxisomes are single-membrane-bound organelles found in most eukaryotes. Peroxin (PEX) proteins are necessary for various aspects of peroxisome biogenesis, including matrix protein import (for review, see Distel et al., 1996; Schrader and Fahimi, 2008). Most matrix proteins are imported into peroxisomes from the cytosol using one of two targeting signals, a C-terminal type 1 peroxisome-targeting signal (PTS1) or a cleavable N-terminal type 2 peroxisome-targeting signal (PTS2) (Reumann, 2004). PTS1- and PTS2-containing proteins are bound in the cytosol by soluble matrix protein receptors, escorted to the peroxisome membrane docking complex, and translocated into the peroxisome matrix (for review, see Platta and Erdmann, 2007). Once in the peroxisome, many matrix proteins participate in metabolic pathways, such as β-oxidation, hydrogen peroxide decomposition, and photorespiration (for review, see Gabaldon et al., 2006; Poirier et al., 2006).In addition to metabolic enzymes, several proteases are found in the peroxisome matrix. Only one protease, DEG15/Tysnd1, has a well-defined role in peroxisome biology. The rat Tysnd1 protease removes the targeting signal after PTS2-containing proteins enter the peroxisome and also processes certain PTS1-containing β-oxidation enzymes (Kurochkin et al., 2007). Similarly, the Arabidopsis (Arabidopsis thaliana) Tysnd1 homolog DEG15 (At1g28320) is a peroxisomal Ser protease that removes PTS2 targeting signals (Helm et al., 2007; Schuhmann et al., 2008).In contrast with DEG15, little is known about the other eight Arabidopsis proteins that are annotated as proteases in the AraPerox database of putative peroxisomal proteins (Reumann et al., 2004; Carter et al., 2004; Shimaoka et al., 2004), which, in combination with the minor PTS found in both of these predicted proteases (Reumann, 2004), suggests that these enzymes may not be peroxisomal. Along with DEG15, only two of the predicted peroxisomal proteases, an M16 metalloprotease (At2g41790), which we have named PXM16 for peroxisomal M16 protease, and a Lon-related protease (At5g47040/LON2; Ostersetzer et al., 2007), are found in the proteome of peroxisomes purified from Arabidopsis suspension cells (Eubel et al., 2008). DEG15 and LON2 also have been validated as peroxisomally targeted using GFP fusions (Ostersetzer et al., 2007; Schuhmann et al., 2008).

Table I.

Putative Arabidopsis proteases predicted or demonstrated to be peroxisomal

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