How is actin polymerization nucleated in vivo?

Actin polymerization in vivo is dependent on free barbed ends that act as nuclei. Free barbed ends can arise in vivo by nucleation from the Arp2/3 complex, uncapping of barbed ends on pre-existing filaments or severing of filaments by cofilin. There is evidence that each mechanism operates in cells. However, different cell types use different combinations of these processes to generate barbed ends during stimulated cell motility. Here, I describe recent attempts to define the relative contributions of these three mechanisms to actin nucleation in vivo. The rapid increase in the number of barbed ends during stimulation is not due to any single mechanism. Cooperation between capping proteins, cofilin and the Arp2/3 complex is necessary for the development of protrusive force at the leading edge of the cell: uncapping and cofilin severing contributing barbed ends, whereas activity of the Arp2/3 complex is necessary, but not sufficient, for lamellipod extension. These results highlight the need for new methods that enable the direct observation of actin nucleation and so define precisely the relative contributions of the three processes to stimulated cell motility.     

What initiates actin polymerization?

For those working on the actin cytoskeleton, a major theme of the 39th annual meeting of the American Society for Cell Biology [] (Washington DC, December 11-15, 1999) was the elucidation of how actin polymerization is initiated. The emphasis was on the regulation and localization of the Arp2/3 complex, which over the last two years has been shown to stimulate actin nucleation, and on the identification of additional proteins that interact with actin and Arp2/3 in a variety of organisms.     

How do oomycete effectors interfere with plant life?

Oomycete genomes have yielded a large number of predicted effector proteins that collectively interfere with plant life in order to create a favourable environment for pathogen infection. Oomycetes secrete effectors that can be active in the host's extracellular environment, for example inhibiting host defence enzymes, or inside host cells where they can interfere with plant processes, in particular suppression of defence. Two classes of effectors are known to be host-translocated: the RXLRs and Crinklers. Many effectors show defence-suppressive activity that is important for pathogen virulence. A striking example is AVR3a of Phytophthora infestans that targets an ubiquitin ligase, the stabilisation of which may prevent host cell death. The quest for other effector targets and mechanisms is in full swing.     

Modulating social behavior with oxytocin: How does it work? What does it mean?

Among its many roles in body and brain, oxytocin influences social behavior. Understanding the precise nature of this influence is crucial, both within the broader theoretical context of neurobiology, social neuroscience and brain evolution, but also within a clinical context of disorders such as anxiety, schizophrenia, and autism. Research exploring oxytocin's role in human social behavior is difficult owing to its release in both body and brain and its interactive effects with other hormones and neuromodulators. Additional difficulties are due to the intricacies of the blood-brain barrier and oxytocin's instability, which creates measurement issues. Questions concerning how to interpret behavioral results of human experiments manipulating oxytocin are thus made all the more pressing. The current paper discusses several such questions. We highlight unresolved fundamental issues about what exactly happens when oxytocin is administered intranasally, whether such oxytocin does in fact reach appropriate receptors in brain, and whether central or peripheral influences account for the observed behavioral effects. We also highlight the deeper conceptual issue of whether the human data should be narrowly interpreted as implicating a specific role for oxytocin in complex social cognition, such a generosity, trust, or mentalizing, or more broadly interpreted as implicating a lower-level general effect on general states and dispositions, such as anxiety and social motivation. Using several influential studies, we show how seemingly specific, higher-level social-cognitive effects can emerge via a process by which oxytocin's broad influence is channeled into a specific social behavior in a context of an appropriate social and research setting. This article is part of a Special Issue entitled Oxytocin, Vasopressin, and Social Behavior.     

How and why does β‐actin mRNA target?

beta-Actin mRNA is localized near the leading edge in several cell types where actin polymerization is actively promoting forward protrusion. The localization of the beta-actin mRNA near the leading edge is facilitated by a short sequence in the 3'UTR (untranslated region), the 'zipcode'. Localization of the mRNA at this region is important physiologically. Treatment of chicken embryo fibroblasts with antisense oligonucleotides complementary to the localization sequence (zipcode) in the 3'UTR leads to delocalization of beta-actin mRNA, alteration of cell phenotype and a decrease in cell motility. The dynamic image analysis system (DIAS) used to quantify movement of cells in the presence of sense and antisense oligonucleotides to the zipcode showed that net pathlength and average speed of antisense-treated cells were significantly lower than in sense-treated cells. This suggests that a decrease in persistence of direction of movement and not in velocity results from treatment of cells with zipcode-directed antisense oligonucleotides. We postulate that delocalization of beta-actin mRNA results in delocalization of nucleation sites and beta-actin protein from the leading edge followed by loss of cell polarity and directional movement. Hence the physiological consequences of beta-actin mRNA delocalization affect the stability of the cell phenotype.     

Subfunctionalization: How often does it occur? How long does it take?

The mechanisms responsible for the preservation of duplicate genes have been debated for more than 70 years. Recently, Lynch and Force have proposed a new explanation: subfunctionalization--after duplication the two gene copies specialize to perform complementary functions. We investigate the probability that subfunctionalization occurs, the amount of time after duplication that it takes for the outcome to be resolved, and the relationship of these quantities to the population size and mutation rates.     

How does Drosophila melanogaster overwinter?

In temperate regions low temperatures seem to be the most restrictive factor for survival of Drosophila natural populations, which depends on the capacity of one or more developmental stages to resist unfavourable winter conditions. In this study we have attempted to answer the question of how D. melanogaster overwinters under natural temperature conditions. Only adults overwintered and no diapause was observed in any developmental stage. Thus, developmental duration becomes a decisive component with respect to overwintering potential and, therefore, the preadult stages are unlikely to overwinter. Possible evolutionary steps in adaptation to cold regions are discussed.     

How does a virus bud?

How does a virus bud from the plasma membrane of its host? Here we investigate several possible rate-limiting processes, including thermal fluctuations of the plasma membrane, hydrodynamic interactions, and diffusion of the glycoprotein spikes. We find that for bending moduli greater than 3 x 10(-13) ergs, membrane thermal fluctuations are insufficient to wrap the viral capsid, and the mechanical force driving the budding process must arise from some other process. If budding is limited by the rate at which glycoprotein spikes can diffuse to the budding site, we compute that the budding time is 10-20 min, in accord with the experimentally determined upper limit of 20 min. In light of this, we suggest some alternative mechanisms for budding and provide a rationale for the observation that budding frequently occurs in regions of high membrane curvature.     

How does radiation kill cells?

Recent advances in the understanding of intracellular signaling after genotoxic injury have led to a better understanding of the pathways that influence radiation-induced cell death. Particular progress has been made in defining molecular controls of apoptosis and radiation-induced cell cycle arrest, as well as the possible role of telomerase activity in stabilizing DNA breaks.