抗原变异可使得多种致病微生物易于逃避宿主免疫应答。表达在感染红细胞表面的恶性疟原虫红细胞表面蛋白1（PfPMP1）与感染红细胞、内皮细胞、树突状细胞以及胎盘的单个或多个受体作用，在黏附及免疫逃避中起关键的作用。每个单倍体基因组var基因家族编码约60种成员，通过启动转录不同的var基因变异体为抗原变异提供了分子基础。

疟原虫var基因转换速率变化导致抗原变异[英]／Paul H, Robert P, Christodoulou Z, et al//Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A

Ju Mei,†,‡,∥ Nelson L. C. Leung,†,‡,∥ Ryan T. K. Kwok,†,‡ Jacky W. Y. Lam,†,‡ and Ben Zhong Tang*,†,‡,§ †HKUST-Shenzhen Research Institute, Hi-Tech Park, Nanshan, Shenzhen 518057, China ‡Department of Chemistry, HKUST Jockey Club Institute for Advanced Study, Institute of Molecular Functional Materials, Division of Biomedical Engineering, State Key Laboratory of Molecular Neuroscience, Division of Life Science, The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, Clear Water Bay, Kowloon, Hong Kong, China Guangdong Innovative Research Team, SCUT-HKUST Joint Research Laboratory, State Key Laboratory of Luminescent Materials and Devices, South China University of Technology, Guangzhou 510640, China

Aggregation-Induced Emission: Together We Shine, United We Soar!

Fluorescent calcium sensors are widely used to image neural activity. Using structure-based mutagenesis and neuron-based screening, we developed a family of ultrasensitive protein calcium sensors (GCaMP6) that outperformed other sensors in cultured neurons and in zebrafish, flies and mice in vivo. In layer 2/3 pyramidal neurons of the mouse visual cortex, GCaMP6 reliably detected single action potentials in neuronal somata and orientation-tuned synaptic calcium transients in individual dendritic spines. The orientation tuning of structurally persistent spines was largely stable over timescales of weeks. Orientation tuning averaged across spine populations predicted the tuning of their parent cell. Although the somata of GABAergic neurons showed little orientation tuning, their dendrites included highly tuned dendritic segments (5-40-µm long). GCaMP6 sensors thus provide new windows into the organization and dynamics of neural circuits over multiple spatial and temporal scales.

/pdf/ultrasensitive-fluorescent-proteins-for-imaging-neuronal-1f4lmx12cf.pdf

Ultrasensitive fluorescent proteins for imaging neuronal activity.

In 2008 we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, research on this topic has continued to accelerate, and many new scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Accordingly, it is important to update these guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Various reviews have described the range of assays that have been used for this purpose. Nevertheless, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to measure autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes.

For example, a key point that needs to be emphasized is that there is a difference between measurements that monitor the numbers or volume of autophagic elements (e.g., autophagosomes or autolysosomes) at any stage of the autophagic process versus those that measure flux through the autophagy pathway (i.e., the complete process including the amount and rate of cargo sequestered and degraded). In particular, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation must be differentiated from stimuli that increase autophagic activity, defined as increased autophagy induction coupled with increased delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (in most higher eukaryotes and some protists such as Dictyostelium) or the vacuole (in plants and fungi). In other words, it is especially important that investigators new to the field understand that the appearance of more autophagosomes does not necessarily equate with more autophagy. In fact, in many cases, autophagosomes accumulate because of a block in trafficking to lysosomes without a concomitant change in autophagosome biogenesis, whereas an increase in autolysosomes may reflect a reduction in degradative activity. It is worth emphasizing here that lysosomal digestion is a stage of autophagy and evaluating its competence is a crucial part of the evaluation of autophagic flux, or complete autophagy.

Here, we present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of methods for use by investigators who aim to examine macroautophagy and related processes, as well as for reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a formulaic set of rules, because the appropriate assays depend in part on the question being asked and the system being used. In addition, we emphasize that no individual assay is guaranteed to be the most appropriate one in every situation, and we strongly recommend the use of multiple assays to monitor autophagy. Along these lines, because of the potential for pleiotropic effects due to blocking autophagy through genetic manipulation, it is imperative to target by gene knockout or RNA interference more than one autophagy-related protein. In addition, some individual Atg proteins, or groups of proteins, are involved in other cellular pathways implying that not all Atg proteins can be used as a specific marker for an autophagic process. In these guidelines, we consider these various methods of assessing autophagy and what information can, or cannot, be obtained from them. Finally, by discussing the merits and limits of particular assays, we hope to encourage technical innovation in the field.

/pdf/guidelines-for-the-use-and-interpretation-of-assays-for-ijf2t30pbq.pdf

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy (3rd edition)

In 2008 we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, research on this topic has continued to accelerate, and many new scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Accordingly, it is important to update these guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Various reviews have described the range of assays that have been used for this purpose. Nevertheless, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to measure autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. A key point that needs to be emphasized is that there is a difference between measurements that monitor the numbers or volume of autophagic elements (e.g., autophagosomes or autolysosomes) at any stage of the autophagic process vs. those that measure flux through the autophagy pathway (i.e., the complete process); thus, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation needs to be differentiated from stimuli that result in increased autophagic activity, defined as increased autophagy induction coupled with increased delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (in most higher eukaryotes and some protists such as Dictyostelium) or the vacuole (in plants and fungi). In other words, it is especially important that investigators new to the field understand that the appearance of more autophagosomes does not necessarily equate with more autophagy. In fact, in many cases, autophagosomes accumulate because of a block in trafficking to lysosomes without a concomitant change in autophagosome biogenesis, whereas an increase in autolysosomes may reflect a reduction in degradative activity. Here, we present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of methods for use by investigators who aim to examine macroautophagy and related processes, as well as for reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a formulaic set of rules, because the appropriate assays depend in part on the question being asked and the system being used. In addition, we emphasize that no individual assay is guaranteed to be the most appropriate one in every situation, and we strongly recommend the use of multiple assays to monitor autophagy. In these guidelines, we consider these various methods of assessing autophagy and what information can, or cannot, be obtained from them. Finally, by discussing the merits and limits of particular autophagy assays, we hope to encourage technical innovation in the field.

/pdf/guidelines-for-the-use-and-interpretation-of-assays-for-28d1pi1jvo.pdf

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy

Fluorescent proteins are genetically encoded, easily imaged reporters crucial in biology and biotechnology. When a protein is tagged by fusion to a fluorescent protein, interactions between fluorescent proteins can undesirably disturb targeting or function. Unfortunately, all wild-type yellow-to-red fluorescent proteins reported so far are obligately tetrameric and often toxic or disruptive. The first true monomer was mRFP1, derived from the Discosoma sp. fluorescent protein "DsRed" by directed evolution first to increase the speed of maturation, then to break each subunit interface while restoring fluorescence, which cumulatively required 33 substitutions. Although mRFP1 has already proven widely useful, several properties could bear improvement and more colors would be welcome. We report the next generation of monomers. The latest red version matures more completely, is more tolerant of N-terminal fusions and is over tenfold more photostable than mRFP1. Three monomers with distinguishable hues from yellow-orange to red-orange have higher quantum efficiencies.

/pdf/improved-monomeric-red-orange-and-yellow-fluorescent-3xexx3emc3.pdf

Improved monomeric red, orange and yellow fluorescent proteins derived from Discosoma sp. red fluorescent protein.

Advances in molecular biology, organic chemistry, and materials science have recently created several new classes of fluorescent probes for imaging in cell biology. Here we review the characteristic benefits and limitations of fluorescent probes to study proteins. The focus is on protein detection in live versus fixed cells: determination of protein expression, localization, activity state, and the possibility for combination of fluorescent light microscopy with electron microscopy. Small organic fluorescent dyes, nanocrystals ("quantum dots"), autofluorescent proteins, small genetic encoded tags that can be complexed with fluorochromes, and combinations of these probes are highlighted.

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/sci/312/5771/217.full.pdf

The fluorescent toolbox for assessing protein location and function

Lysophosphatidic acid (LPA) is a lipid mediator with a wide variety of biological actions, particularly as an inducer of cell proliferation, migration and survival. LPA binds to specific G-protein-coupled receptors and thereby activates multiple signal transduction pathways, including those initiated by the small GTPases Ras, Rho, and Rac. LPA signaling has been implicated in such diverse processes as wound healing, brain development, vascular remodeling and tumor progression. Knowledge of precisely how and where LPA is produced has long proved elusive. Excitingly, it has recently been discovered that LPA is generated from precursors by 'autotaxin', a once enigmatic exo-phosphodiesterase implicated in tumor cell motility. Exogenous phospholipases D can also produce LPA, which may contribute to their toxicity. Here we review recent progress in our understanding of LPA bioactivity, signaling and synthesis.

The ins and outs of lysophosphatidic acid signaling

The gap junction protein connexin43 interacts with the second PDZ domain of the zona occludens-1 protein

Gap junctions form channels between adjacent cells. The core proteins of these channels are the connexins. Regulation of gap junction communication (GJC) can be modulated by connexin-associating proteins, such as regulatory protein phosphatases and protein kinases, of which c-Src is the best-studied. Structural proteins, notably zona occludens-1 (ZO-1) and microtubules, have been found recently at gap junctions. Along with the expansion of the list of connexin-associating proteins, reports have appeared that suggest that connexins might have additional roles in addition to their channel function, such as transcriptional and cytoskeletal regulation. Here, gap junction interacting proteins are reviewed and their function is addressed. The striking similarity of proteins present at the cytoplasmic face of tight junctions, adherens junctions and gap junctions and their possible role in gene transcription and cytoskeletal anchorage is highlighted.

/pdf/gap-junctions-and-connexin-interacting-proteins-2hujkvc76u.pdf

Ben N G Giepmans

Papers

Improved monomeric red, orange and yellow fluorescent proteins derived from Discosoma sp. red fluorescent protein.

The fluorescent toolbox for assessing protein location and function

The ins and outs of lysophosphatidic acid signaling

The gap junction protein connexin43 interacts with the second PDZ domain of the zona occludens-1 protein

Gap junctions and connexin-interacting proteins