Neuroscience: what you see and hear is what you get

The brain receives signals from a variety of sources; for example, visual and auditory signals can both indicate the direction of a stimulus, but with differing precision. A recent study has shed light on the way that the brain combines these signals to achieve the best estimate possible.     

Multisensory integration: what you see is where you hear

Recent studies of multisensory integration compel a redefinition of fundamental sensory processes, including, but not limited to, how visual inputs influence the localization of sounds and suppression of their echoes.     

Disability payments continue to climb: "Tell us what you see,not what you think," CPP tells MDs

Growing concern about the sustainability of the Canada Pension Plan has led to a closer look at the disability benefits it provides. The federal auditor general reported recently that the number of recipients has almost doubled in the past 10 years, and disability payments have more than tripled, to $3 billion annually. This article looks at the role physicians play in determining whether an applicant is disabled.     

What you feel is what you see: inverse dynamics estimation underlies the resistive sensation of a delayed cursor

How our central nervous system (CNS) learns and exploits relationships between force and motion is a fundamental issue in computational neuroscience. While several lines of evidence have suggested that the CNS predicts motion states and signals from motor commands for control and perception (forward dynamics), it remains controversial whether it also performs the ‘inverse’ computation, i.e. the estimation of force from motion (inverse dynamics). Here, we show that the resistive sensation we experience while moving a delayed cursor, perceived purely from the change in visual motion, provides evidence of the inverse computation. To clearly specify the computational process underlying the sensation, we systematically varied the visual feedback and examined its effect on the strength of the sensation. In contrast to the prevailing theory that sensory prediction errors modulate our perception, the sensation did not correlate with errors in cursor motion due to the delay. Instead, it correlated with the amount of exposure to the forward acceleration of the cursor. This indicates that the delayed cursor is interpreted as a mechanical load, and the sensation represents its visually implied reaction force. Namely, the CNS automatically computes inverse dynamics, using visually detected motions, to monitor the dynamic forces involved in our actions.     

Give what you can and keep what you need!

EMBO J 32 18, 2439–2453 doi:10.1038/emboj.2013.170; published online July302013During cell division, peroxisomes are inherited to daughter cells but some are retained in the mother cells. Our knowledge on how peroxisome inheritance and retention is balanced and how this is regulated for each individual organelle remains incompletely understood. The new findings by Knoblach et al (2013) published in this issue of The EMBO Journal demonstrate that Inp1p functions as a bridging protein to connect ER-resident Pex3p and peroxisomal Pex3p, which anchors peroxisomes to the cortical ER for organelle retention in the mother cell. Asymmetric peroxisome division generates peroxisomes, which lack Inp1p but contain Inp2p instead, and only these peroxisomes are primed for myosin-driven transport to daughter cells.Peroxisomes are single membrane-bound organelles found in almost all eukaryotic cells. They harbour a wide spectrum of metabolic activities that vary among different species, developmental stages and cell types (Schlüter et al, 2010). Eukaryotic cells have evolved elaborate mechanisms to ensure the maintenance of peroxisomes. New peroxisomes can form either de novo by budding from the ER or by growth and division of pre-existing organelles (Lazarow and Fujiki, 1985; Hoepfner et al, 2005). Despite the fact that peroxisomes can form de novo, yeast favours to multiply peroxisomes by growth and division (Motley and Hettema, 2007). It therefore has to be ensured that both mother and daughter cells get their share of peroxisomes during cell division. Thus, some peroxisomes need to be retained in the mother cell, while other peroxisomes are directed for transport and inheritance to daughter cells. Both processes have to be balanced to ensure a successful distribution of the organelles between the mother cell and the newly formed bud.The molecular details of how an even peroxisome distribution of dividing cells are maintained have now been disclosed by Knoblach et al (2013), advancing an exciting scientific journey. This journey originally started by the finding that the partitioning of peroxisomes between mother cell and bud is dependent on actin filaments and the myosin motor protein Myo2p (Hoepfner et al, 2001). Inp1p and Inp2p were identified by the Rachubinski group and Inp2p turned out to function as the peroxisomal tether, which interacts with Myo2p and hooks the organelle onto the actin-track on the road to the bud (Fagarasanu et al, 2006). Inp1p was shown to be a peripheral peroxisomal membrane protein, which acts as a peroxisome-retention factor, tethering peroxisomes to putative anchoring structures within the mother cell and bud (Fagarasanu et al, 2005). Later on, Pex3p, a multi-functional protein of the peroxisomal life cycle, was identified as peroxisomal membrane anchor of Inp1p (Munck et al, 2009). Until now, it was therefore known that peroxisomes hook onto Inp1p by Pex3p and Inp1p connects peroxisomes to cortical structures of unknown nature. Thus, it was an open question how peroxisomes are trapped in the mother cell and which additional factors are required for this process.The work of Knoblach et al (2013) published in this issue of The EMBO Journal now unravelled this mystery, allowing for a more complete picture of the whole process of peroxisome retention and inheritance (Figure 1A). The authors show that peroxisomes are recruited to mitochondria that artificially expose Inp1p on their surface, clearly demonstrating that Inp1p acts as a peroxisome tether. Most importantly, they identified the mechanism of how peroxisomes are directed and anchored to the cell cortex: the ER acts as a membrane anchor for the retention of peroxisomes during cell division. In vitro binding assays revealed that Inp1p contains two independent binding sites for Pex3p, located at the C- and the N-terminal region of the protein, respectively. Since Pex3p exhibits a dual localization at the peroxisomal membrane and at the ER, Inp1p seems to bind to Pex3p of both compartments in vivo and thus link Pex3p molecules across two membranes. Indeed, it turned out that ER-located Pex3p recruits Inp1p to discrete foci in close proximity to the cortical ER. Using the split-GFP assay, the authors confirmed that Inp1p interacts not only with ER-bound Pex3p but also with Pex3p in the peroxisomal membrane. Thus, the core of the ER-peroxisome tether is generated by the Inp1p-mediated linkage of ER-bound Pex3p with peroxisomal Pex3p. The functional relevance of this ER-peroxisome tether is disclosed by the phenotype of peroxisome inheritance mutants. Accordingly, the Pex3p–V81E mutant, affected in the recruitment of Inp1p to the ER, is characterized by a defect of ER retention of peroxisomes, which drives all peroxisomes into the bud and leaves no peroxisomes in the mother cell (Figure 1B).Open in a separate windowFigure 1Peroxisome retention and inheritance (A) free peroxisomes in the mother cell (stage I) are anchored to cortical ER by a tethering complex consisting of two molecules Pex3p, one located at the ER and the other associated with the peroxisomal membrane and Inp1p, which connects the ER-bound and peroxisome-bound Pex3p (stage II). Accordingly, Inp1p contains two Pex3p-binding domains, allowing the protein to function as a bridge between the two Pex3p-containing organelles. Peroxisomes elongate and divide, and Inp2p is loaded onto peroxisomes with an asymmetric distribution (stage III). The peroxisomal population that lacks Inp2p is anchored to the cortical ER, whereas the population of cytosolic peroxisomes containing Inp2p is destined for the transport to the bud (stage IV). To this end, Inp2p interacts with Myo2p and thus triggers the movement of the peroxisome along actin cables to the bud. The process is completed when the peroxisome is released from Myo2p in the bud (stage I). In wild-type cells, the described retention and inheritance process leads to an equal distribution of peroxisomes between mother cell. The described molecular mechanism results in a regulated balance of retention and inheritance of peroxisomes, ensuring that both the mother cell and the newly formed bud gain their share of peroxisomes. (B) However, when the endogenous Pex3p is replaced by a Pex3p-mutant (Pex3p–V81E), which lost its strong binding capacity to Inp1p, peroxisomes are not anchored to the cortical ER anymore, with the consequence that during cells'' division the entire organelle population is transported to the bud and peroxisomes are not retained in the mother cell.To piece together the puzzle, a final gap had to be filled. How is the peroxisomal fraction remaining in the mother cell discriminated from those ferried to the bud during cell division? In budding wild-type cells, Inp1p exhibits a striking asymmetry along the cell division axis. Knoblach et al (2013) show that most peroxisomes of the mother cell contain Inp1p, while peroxisomes that are ferried towards the bud contain little or no Inp1p. Live-cell video microscopy of individual peroxisome revealed that Inp1p-containing peroxisomes were mostly immobile and retained in the mother cell, while highly mobile peroxisomes contained Inp2p and were predominantly found in the bud. The question remains of how peroxisomes lacking Inp1p but containing Inp2p are formed? To tackle this question, the authors took advantage of the fact that cells defective in peroxisome division contain single enlarged peroxisomes and project a tubular extension into the bud upon cell division (Kuravi et al, 2006). Remarkably, Knoblach et al (2013) show that Inp1p and Inp2p localized to opposite ends of the giant peroxisome. Inp1p was confined to the part of the peroxisome that was retained in the mother cell, while Inp2p enriched at the tubule that protruded into the bud.In summary, Knoblach et al (2013) discovered the ER as the site for peroxisome binding to the cell cortex that is responsible for the retention of peroxisomes in the mother cells during cell division and identified Inp1p as a molecular hinge connecting Pex3p of peroxisomal and ER membranes. Furthermore, peroxisome division is shown to result in an asymmetric distribution of inheritance factors with Inp1p-containing organelles remaining tethered to the ER in the mother cell, while Inp2p-containing peroxisomes hook onto myosin motor proteins for movement to the bud. These remarkable discoveries disclose the molecular mechanism of peroxisome retention and inheritance during cell division. Moreover, this study adds to other known functions of Pex3p, which besides its newly discovered role as ER-tether for peroxisomes is also known as an initiator of de novo formation of peroxisomes, a docking factor for the transport of peroxisomal membrane proteins and a tether for the regulated degradation of peroxisomes. This study adds more complexity to the network of regulated processes in peroxisome biogenesis that all merge at Pex3p, and will certainly provide the ground for further exploration.     

Salmonella: Now you see it,now you don't

Diseases caused by Salmonella species are characterized by bacterial invasion of host cells. Salmonella invasion requires a genetic locus (inv) with homology to bacterial systems involved in specific protein export and organelle assembly. Until recently, the actual Salmonella invasion factors exported or assembled by the inv system remained unidentified. It now appears that Salmonella produces novel appendages upon contact with host cells. These appendages are transient, appearing and disappearing rapidly from the bacterial surface. Appendages are altered in strains unable to invade due to mutations within the inv/spa locus. Therefore, a role for the invasion locus has been identified, providing another example of bacterial pathogens responding to signals provided by the host cell surface.     

Estimating number of events from the Kaplan-Meier curve for incorporation in a literature-based meta-analysis: what you don't see you can't get!

In literature-based meta-analyses of time-to-event data, the number of events in the treated and control groups together with the total number of patients randomized to the two treatment arms are often used as summary statistics. If interest is in mortality at a specified moment in time, the number of events can, in most cases, only be obtained from the Kaplan-Meier curve. The estimated number of events, however, is typically larger than the true number of events. The effect of this overestimation on the Mantel-Haenszel test and the odds ratio is studied in this paper. From these results, it can be concluded that the number of events should not be estimated from the Kaplan-Meier curves for meta-analytic purposes unless virtually no patients are lost to follow-up or censored and there are still many patients at risk in the two groups at the time at which the number of events is to be determined.