Replication origins: why do we need so many?

During the G1 phase of the cell cycle, replication origins are prepared to fire, a process that is referred to as origin licensing. It was often pondered what a cell's fate would be if not all of its replication origins were licensed and subsequently activated during S phase. One obvious prediction was that S phase would simply be prolonged. As it turns out, however, the consequences are much more complex. A short G1 phase enforced by premature entry into S phase, or other events that negatively affect origin licensing, will ultimately compromise the cell's ability to complete DNA replication before entering mitosis. As a result, the cell becomes genomically unstable when it attempts to repair unreplicated DNA during anaphase. Thus, the density of active replication origins in the chromosomes of eukaryotic cells determines S phase dynamics and chromosome stability during mitosis.     

Introduction: why do we need a science of well-being?

Introduction: why do we need a science of well-being?     

Why don't we have a schistosomiasis vaccine?

Over the past 30 years there has been a concerted effort to understand host immune responses to schistosomes, with the ultimate aim of producing a vaccine for human use. In this issue, Bergquist and Colley, in summarizing recent meetings in Cairo, provide a detailed appraisal of progress towards that goal. It seems an appropriate time to ask why, with reference to Schistosoma mansoni, the development of a vaccine has proved so difficult. This question is explored here by Alan Wilson and Pat Coulson.     

What are lightness illusions and why do we see them?

Lightness illusions are fundamental to human perception, and yet why we see them is still the focus of much research. Here we address the question by modelling not human physiology or perception directly as is typically the case but our natural visual world and the need for robust behaviour. Artificial neural networks were trained to predict the reflectance of surfaces in a synthetic ecology consisting of 3-D “dead-leaves” scenes under non-uniform illumination. The networks learned to solve this task accurately and robustly given only ambiguous sense data. In addition—and as a direct consequence of their experience—the networks also made systematic “errors” in their behaviour commensurate with human illusions, which includes brightness contrast and assimilation—although assimilation (specifically White's illusion) only emerged when the virtual ecology included 3-D, as opposed to 2-D scenes. Subtle variations in these illusions, also found in human perception, were observed, such as the asymmetry of brightness contrast. These data suggest that “illusions” arise in humans because (i) natural stimuli are ambiguous, and (ii) this ambiguity is resolved empirically by encoding the statistical relationship between images and scenes in past visual experience. Since resolving stimulus ambiguity is a challenge faced by all visual systems, a corollary of these findings is that human illusions must be experienced by all visual animals regardless of their particular neural machinery. The data also provide a more formal definition of illusion: the condition in which the true source of a stimulus differs from what is its most likely (and thus perceived) source. As such, illusions are not fundamentally different from non-illusory percepts, all being direct manifestations of the statistical relationship between images and scenes.     

Why do we lack an effective vaccine against herpes simplex virus infections?

This review discusses the possible causes for the lack of an effective antiherpes vaccine. Future prospects of vaccines based on the current knowledge of immune responses to herpes viruses are discussed. It is argued that vaccines capable of expanding CD8 T-cell memory responses should be the focus of future anti-herpes simplex virus research.     

Do we need an intravenous fluoroquinolone?

Intravenous ciprofloxacin, the first parenteral fluoroquinolone available in this country, represents another class of antimicrobial agents from which physicians must choose when treating nosocomial infections. Fluoroquinolones are bactericidal antimicrobial agents that act by inhibiting DNA gyrase. They are active in vitro against most gram-negative bacteria and methicillin-susceptible staphylococci. Activity against anaerobic bacteria and streptococci is poor. The rapid development of bacterial resistance in centers with high quinolone usage is of great concern. Resistance develops most commonly in Pseudomonas aeruginosa and staphylococci. Resistance emerges most often when quinolones are used to treat chronic infections or in patients with poorly drained abscesses, necrotic tissue, or indwelling catheters. Clinical trials have shown ciprofloxacin to be as effective as ceftazidime in the treatment of infections caused by gram-negative bacteria. Although the overall frequency of side effects to fluoroquinolones is low, seizures and allergic reactions have been attributed to their use. Ciprofloxacin inhibits the metabolism of theophylline, and morbidity and death have been reported in patients taking the two drugs concomitantly. Parenteral fluoroquinolones should be reserved for the treatment of gram-negative bacterial infections in patients in whom standard agents cannot be used.     

Is there and do we need evidence on eHealth interventions?

The proliferation of information and communication technology (ICT) is transforming the healthcare, as an information-intensive sector, in a way that has never been witnessed before. The use of ICT in health or eHealth has the potential to improve the quality of health services, improve access to services and reduce cost. Huge investments in eHealth initiatives have been made by many countries based on this potential. A body of evidence is being developed to show the value of eHealth. Research and evaluation in eHealth should be comprehensive and not only limited to technology. There is a need for more research in this area using a multidisciplinary approach and teams.     

Does it matter why we do restoration? Volunteers,offset markets and the need for full disclosure

Volunteers are behind much of the ecological restoration work done in Australia. Private landholders, environmental nongovernment organisations (ENGOs) and community groups all donate time and money to much‐needed restoration and revegetation efforts. Biodiversity offsetting has emerged as a potential source of financial support for such work. We consider the question: should it matter to practitioners of restoration, particularly landholders and volunteers, how it is financed? We argue it should, because when offsets fund restoration work, the net environmental outcome is usually intended to be neutral – not an environmental gain. This is often not clear, because only the localised environmental gain is seen by the restoration practitioner, not the associated loss. For mandated offsets, the restoration work is required to occur regardless of whether the volunteer contributes to it or not, so their contribution only replaces work that would otherwise be done by a commercial provider. We contend that informed involvement in offset provision requires full disclosure, particularly to volunteers and landholders. Unfortunately, however, such transparency does not always occur. We acknowledge that there are valid reasons why well‐informed practitioners might willingly subsidise offset provision, but they might equally choose not to. Furthermore, offsets are intended to cover the full cost of biodiversity damage, creating a disincentive for damage by developers. Yet, subsidies from offset providers work against sending market signals that reflect the true replacement cost of biodiversity. We recommend that all ENGOs, developers, offset funders and brokers commit to transparency, particularly to landholders, donors and volunteers, about the environmental impact that is to be offset and the fact that their involvement generates no additional environmental benefit, as the offset is a condition of approval for a permitted loss, much like the rehabilitation of a mine site. Providing restoration services in partnership with industry may be something that landholders, volunteers and ENGOs are happy to support. But this must be decided consciously, not through unnoticed incremental changes that contradict some volunteers’ values or donors’ understanding of an organisation's mission.     

Adaptive landscapes and emergent phenotypes: why do cancers have high glycolysis?

Investigating the causes of increased aerobic glycolysis in tumors (Warburg Effect) has gone in and out of fashion many times since it was first described almost a century ago. The field is currently in ascendance due to two factors. Over a million FDG-PET studies have unequivocally identified increased glucose uptake as a hallmark of metastatic cancer in humans. These observations, combined with new molecular insights with HIF-1α and c-myc, have rekindled an interest in this important phenotype. A preponderance of work has been focused on the molecular mechanisms underlying this effect, with the expectation that a mechanistic understanding may lead to novel therapeutic approaches. There is also an implicit assumption that a mechanistic understanding, although fundamentally reductionist, will nonetheless lead to a more profound teleological understanding of the need for altered metabolism in invasive cancers. In this communication, we describe an alternative approach that begins with teleology; i.e. adaptive landscapes and selection pressures that promote emergence of aerobic glycolysis during the somatic evolution of invasive cancer. Mathematical models and empirical observations are used to define the adaptive advantage of aerobic glycolysis that would explain its remarkable prevalence in human cancers. These studies have led to the hypothesis that increased consumption of glucose in metastatic lesions is not used for substantial energy production via Embden-Meyerhoff glycolysis, but rather for production of acid, which gives the cancer cells a competitive advantage for invasion. Alternative hypotheses, wherein the glucose is used for generation of reducing equivalents (NADPH) or anabolic precursors (ribose) are also discussed. Supported by NIH Grants R01 CA 077575 (RJG), and CA 093650 (RAG).     

What do we need to know about speciation?

Speciation has been a major focus of evolutionary biology research in recent years, with many important advances. However, some of the traditional organising principles of the subject area no longer provide a satisfactory framework, such as the classification of speciation mechanisms by geographical context into allopatric, parapatric and sympatry classes. Therefore, we have asked where speciation research should be directed in the coming years. Here, we present a distillation of questions about the mechanisms of speciation, the genetic basis of speciation and the relationship between speciation and diversity. Our list of topics is not exhaustive; rather we aim to promote discussion on research priorities and on the common themes that underlie disparate speciation processes.     

Why do we need autophagy? A cartoon depiction

In my role as an instructor I am constantly looking for ways to more effectively convey information to my audience, which is typically the students in my class. However, the same concerns apply to most of the people who attend a seminar. The approach you take to making the material easier to understand is likely to be influenced by the course you teach. That is, the same instructor may use different examples when teaching an upper division vs. a lower division course. I teach introductory biology, and my students may have little familiarity with cell biology, let alone autophagy. Accordingly, I have tried to consider how to illustrate the importance of autophagy in a way that can be comprehended by people who may not even be familiar with the term.     

Prophylaxis and treatment of bacterial infections: do we need new strategies?

Bacterial infections in patients with hematologic malignancies still represent a severe and life-treating problem. Several observational studies during the last decade have revealed that neutropenic patients with fever are a heterogeneous population with various differences regarding response to initial therapy, development of serious complications and mortality. The role of neutropenia as main risk factor for infections in hematologic patients and the definition of different level of risk related to neutrophils count and duration of neutropenia have been extensively studied and different categories of patients based on the risk of infection, mostly the condition of neutropenia, have been clearly defined. The strategies on antimicrobial therapy and supportive care in hematologic patients need to be continuously assessed, in fact new conditions favouring the occurrence of infectious complications in patients with hematologic malignancies have progressively emerged. The use of oral prophylactic antibiotics in neutropenic cancer patients is still a matter of debate. Before 2005, several trials showed how the prevention of infection can be extremely important in this setting of patients but none was conclusive. In 2005 two meta-analysis and two large randomized clinical trials gave new evidence that antibacterial prophylaxis can reduce in neutropenic patients several important outcomes including mortality. The use of the empiric antibacterial therapy represents the cornerstone of the antimicrobial strategies in the febrile neutropenic patients leading, over the span of 20 years, to a dramatic decrease of deaths: Actually beta-lactam monotherapy is commonly used for the empiric treatment of febrile neutropenia. Recently, large randomized clinical trials and meta-analysis showed that the addition of an aminoglycoside and/or a glycopeptides results in a more favourable outcome only in selected severe infections. The use of antibiotics should be prudent and safe also in neutropenic hematologic patients to prevent emergence of microbial resistance, to save costs, to reduce toxicity. For this reasons, according to the evidence, antibacterial prophylaxis should be restricted to high risk hematologic patients and empiric parenteral antibiotic monotherapy should be recommended in case of febrile neutropenia limiting the use of amynoglicosides and glycopeptides. In the next future, a major effort should be made to state in hematologic patients new risk factors which could more accurately define subgroups for targeted anti-infective strategies.