BicaudalD Actively Regulates Microtubule Motor Activity in Lipid Droplet Transport

A great deal of sub-cellular organelle positioning, and essentially all minus-ended organelle transport, depends on cytoplasmic dynein, but how dynein's function is regulated is not well understood. BicD is established to play a critical role in mediating dynein function-loss of BicD results in improperly localized nuclei, mRNA particles, and a dispersed Golgi apparatus-however exactly what BicD's role is remains unknown. Nonetheless, it is widely believed that BicD may act to tether dynein to cargos. Here we use a combination of biophysical and biochemical studies to investigate BicD's role in lipid droplet transport during Drosophila embryogenesis.Functional loss of BicD impairs the embryo's ability to control the net direction of droplet transport; the developmentally controlled reversal in transport is eliminated. We find that minimal BicD expression (near-BicD(null)) decreases the average run length of both plus and minus end directed microtubule (MT) based transport. A point mutation affecting the BicD N-terminus has very similar effects on transport during cellularization (phase II), but in phase III (gastrulation) motion actually appears better than in the wild-type.In contrast to a simple static tethering model of BicD function, or a role only in initial dynein recruitment to the cargo, our data uncovers a new dynamic role for BicD in actively regulating transport. Lipid droplets move bi-directionally, and our investigations demonstrate that BicD plays a critical-and temporally changing-role in balancing the relative contributions of plus-end and minus-end motors to control the net direction of transport. Our results suggest that while BicD might contribute to recruitment of dynein to the cargo it is not absolutely required for such dynein localization, and it clearly contributes to regulation, helping activation/inactivation of the motors

Cytosolic 5'-triphosphate ended viral leader transcript of measles virus as activator of the RIG I-mediated interferon response.

International audienceBACKGROUND: Double stranded RNA (dsRNA) is widely accepted as an RNA motif recognized as a danger signal by the cellular sentries. However, the biology of non-segmented negative strand RNA viruses, or Mononegavirales, is hardly compatible with the production of such dsRNA. METHODOLOGY AND PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: During measles virus infection, the IFN-beta gene transcription was found to be paralleled by the virus transcription, but not by the virus replication. Since the expression of every individual viral mRNA failed to activate the IFN-beta gene, we postulated the involvement of the leader RNA, which is a small not capped and not polyadenylated RNA firstly transcribed by Mononegavirales. The measles virus leader RNA, synthesized both in vitro and in vivo, was efficient in inducing the IFN-beta expression, provided that it was delivered into the cytosol as a 5'-trisphosphate ended RNA. The use of a human cell line expressing a debilitated RIG-I molecule, together with overexpression studies of wild type RIG-I, showed that the IFN-beta induction by virus infection or by leader RNA required RIG-I to be functional. RIG-I binds to leader RNA independently from being 5-trisphosphate ended; while a point mutant, Q299A, predicted to establish contacts with the RNA, fails to bind to leader RNA. Since the 5'-triphosphate is required for optimal RIG-I activation but not for leader RNA binding, our data support that RIG-I is activated upon recognition of the 5'-triphosphate RNA end. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: RIG-I is proposed to recognize Mononegavirales transcription, which occurs in the cytosol, while scanning cytosolic RNAs, and to trigger an IFN response when encountering a free 5'-triphosphate RNA resulting from a mislocated transcription activity, which is therefore considered as the hallmark of a foreign invader

Non-Canonical NF-κB Activation and Abnormal B Cell Accumulation in Mice Expressing Ubiquitin Protein Ligase-Inactive c-IAP2

Loss of c-IAP2 ubiquitin ligase activity, which occurs in the lymphoma-causing c-IAP2/MALT1 fusion protein, activates non-canonical NF-κB signaling and results in B cell abnormalities characteristic of MALT lymphoma

Alcohol, tobacco and breast cancer – collaborative reanalysis of individual data from 53 epidemiological studies, including 58 515 women with breast cancer and 95 067 women without the disease

Alcohol and tobacco consumption are closely correlated and published results on their association with breast cancer have not always allowed adequately for confounding between these exposures. Over 80% of the relevant information worldwide on alcohol and tobacco consumption and breast cancer were collated, checked and analysed centrally. Analyses included 58 515 women with invasive breast cancer and 95 067 controls from 53 studies. Relative risks of breast cancer were estimated, after stratifying by study, age, parity and, where appropriate, women's age when their first child was born and consumption of alcohol and tobacco. The average consumption of alcohol reported by controls from developed countries was 6.0 g per day, i.e. about half a unit/drink of alcohol per day, and was greater in ever-smokers than never-smokers, (8.4 g per day and 5.0 g per day, respectively). Compared with women who reported drinking no alcohol, the relative risk of breast cancer was 1.32 (1.19–1.45, P<0.00001) for an intake of 35–44 g per day alcohol, and 1.46 (1.33–1.61, P<0.00001) for ⩾45 g per day alcohol. The relative risk of breast cancer increased by 7.1% (95% CI 5.5–8.7%; P<0.00001) for each additional 10 g per day intake of alcohol, i.e. for each extra unit or drink of alcohol consumed on a daily basis. This increase was the same in ever-smokers and never-smokers (7.1% per 10 g per day, P<0.00001, in each group). By contrast, the relationship between smoking and breast cancer was substantially confounded by the effect of alcohol. When analyses were restricted to 22 255 women with breast cancer and 40 832 controls who reported drinking no alcohol, smoking was not associated with breast cancer (compared to never-smokers, relative risk for ever-smokers=1.03, 95% CI 0.98–1.07, and for current smokers=0.99, 0.92–1.05). The results for alcohol and for tobacco did not vary substantially across studies, study designs, or according to 15 personal characteristics of the women; nor were the findings materially confounded by any of these factors. If the observed relationship for alcohol is causal, these results suggest that about 4% of the breast cancers in developed countries are attributable to alcohol. In developing countries, where alcohol consumption among controls averaged only 0.4 g per day, alcohol would have a negligible effect on the incidence of breast cancer. In conclusion, smoking has little or no independent effect on the risk of developing breast cancer; the effect of alcohol on breast cancer needs to be interpreted in the context of its beneficial effects, in moderation, on cardiovascular disease and its harmful effects on cirrhosis and cancers of the mouth, larynx, oesophagus and liver

Alcohol, tobacco and breast cancer--collaborative reanalysis of individual data from 53 epidemiological studies, including 58,515 women with breast cancer and 95,067 women without the disease.

Alcohol and tobacco consumption are closely correlated and published results on their association with breast cancer have not always allowed adequately for confounding between these exposures. Over 80% of the relevant information worldwide on alcohol and tobacco consumption and breast cancer were collated, checked and analysed centrally. Analyses included 58,515 women with invasive breast cancer and 95,067 controls from 53 studies. Relative risks of breast cancer were estimated, after stratifying by study, age, parity and, where appropriate, women's age when their first child was born and consumption of alcohol and tobacco. The average consumption of alcohol reported by controls from developed countries was 6.0 g per day, i.e. about half a unit/drink of alcohol per day, and was greater in ever-smokers than never-smokers, (8.4 g per day and 5.0 g per day, respectively). Compared with women who reported drinking no alcohol, the relative risk of breast cancer was 1.32 (1.19-1.45, P/=45 g per day alcohol. The relative risk of breast cancer increased by 7.1% (95% CI 5.5-8.7%; P<0.00001) for each additional 10 g per day intake of alcohol, i.e. for each extra unit or drink of alcohol consumed on a daily basis. This increase was the same in ever-smokers and never-smokers (7.1% per 10 g per day, P<0.00001, in each group). By contrast, the relationship between smoking and breast cancer was substantially confounded by the effect of alcohol. When analyses were restricted to 22 255 women with breast cancer and 40 832 controls who reported drinking no alcohol, smoking was not associated with breast cancer (compared to never-smokers, relative risk for ever-smokers=1.03, 95% CI 0.98-1.07, and for current smokers=0.99, 0.92-1.05). The results for alcohol and for tobacco did not vary substantially across studies, study designs, or according to 15 personal characteristics of the women; nor were the findings materially confounded by any of these factors. If the observed relationship for alcohol is causal, these results suggest that about 4% of the breast cancers in developed countries are attributable to alcohol. In developing countries, where alcohol consumption among controls averaged only 0.4 g per day, alcohol would have a negligible effect on the incidence of breast cancer. In conclusion, smoking has little or no independent effect on the risk of developing breast cancer; the effect of alcohol on breast cancer needs to be interpreted in the context of its beneficial effects, in moderation, on cardiovascular disease and its harmful effects on cirrhosis and cancers of the mouth, larynx, oesophagus and liver