Finishing the euchromatic sequence of the human genome

The sequence of the human genome encodes the genetic instructions for human physiology, as well as rich information about human evolution. In 2001, the International Human Genome Sequencing Consortium reported a draft sequence of the euchromatic portion of the human genome. Since then, the international collaboration has worked to convert this draft into a genome sequence with high accuracy and nearly complete coverage. Here, we report the result of this finishing process. The current genome sequence (Build 35) contains 2.85 billion nucleotides interrupted by only 341 gaps. It covers ∼99% of the euchromatic genome and is accurate to an error rate of ∼1 event per 100,000 bases. Many of the remaining euchromatic gaps are associated with segmental duplications and will require focused work with new methods. The near-complete sequence, the first for a vertebrate, greatly improves the precision of biological analyses of the human genome including studies of gene number, birth and death. Notably, the human enome seems to encode only 20,000-25,000 protein-coding genes. The genome sequence reported here should serve as a firm foundation for biomedical research in the decades ahead

31st Annual Meeting and Associated Programs of the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer (SITC 2016) : part two

Background The immunological escape of tumors represents one of the main ob- stacles to the treatment of malignancies. The blockade of PD-1 or CTLA-4 receptors represented a milestone in the history of immunotherapy. However, immune checkpoint inhibitors seem to be effective in specific cohorts of patients. It has been proposed that their efficacy relies on the presence of an immunological response. Thus, we hypothesized that disruption of the PD-L1/PD-1 axis would synergize with our oncolytic vaccine platform PeptiCRAd. Methods We used murine B16OVA in vivo tumor models and flow cytometry analysis to investigate the immunological background. Results First, we found that high-burden B16OVA tumors were refractory to combination immunotherapy. However, with a more aggressive schedule, tumors with a lower burden were more susceptible to the combination of PeptiCRAd and PD-L1 blockade. The therapy signifi- cantly increased the median survival of mice (Fig. 7). Interestingly, the reduced growth of contralaterally injected B16F10 cells sug- gested the presence of a long lasting immunological memory also against non-targeted antigens. Concerning the functional state of tumor infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs), we found that all the immune therapies would enhance the percentage of activated (PD-1pos TIM- 3neg) T lymphocytes and reduce the amount of exhausted (PD-1pos TIM-3pos) cells compared to placebo. As expected, we found that PeptiCRAd monotherapy could increase the number of antigen spe- cific CD8+ T cells compared to other treatments. However, only the combination with PD-L1 blockade could significantly increase the ra- tio between activated and exhausted pentamer positive cells (p= 0.0058), suggesting that by disrupting the PD-1/PD-L1 axis we could decrease the amount of dysfunctional antigen specific T cells. We ob- served that the anatomical location deeply influenced the state of CD4+ and CD8+ T lymphocytes. In fact, TIM-3 expression was in- creased by 2 fold on TILs compared to splenic and lymphoid T cells. In the CD8+ compartment, the expression of PD-1 on the surface seemed to be restricted to the tumor micro-environment, while CD4 + T cells had a high expression of PD-1 also in lymphoid organs. Interestingly, we found that the levels of PD-1 were significantly higher on CD8+ T cells than on CD4+ T cells into the tumor micro- environment (p < 0.0001). Conclusions In conclusion, we demonstrated that the efficacy of immune check- point inhibitors might be strongly enhanced by their combination with cancer vaccines. PeptiCRAd was able to increase the number of antigen-specific T cells and PD-L1 blockade prevented their exhaus- tion, resulting in long-lasting immunological memory and increased median survival

A missense mutation in Grm6 reduces but does not eliminate mGluR6 expression or rod depolarizing bipolar cell function.

GRM6 encodes the metabotropic glutamate receptor 6 (mGluR6) used by retinal depolarizing bipolar cells (DBCs). Mutations in GRM6 lead to DBC dysfunction and underlie the human condition autosomal recessive complete congenital stationary night blindness. Mouse mutants for Grm6 are important models for this condition. Here we report a new Grm6 mutant, identified in an electroretinogram (ERG) screen of mice maintained at The Jackson Laboratory. The Grm6(nob8) mouse has a reduced-amplitude b-wave component of the ERG, which reflects light-evoked DBC activity. Sequencing identified a missense mutation that converts a highly conserved methionine within the ligand binding domain to leucine (p.Met66Leu). Consistent with prior studies of Grm6 mutant mice, the laminar size and structure in the Grm6(nob8) retina were comparable to control. The Grm6(nob8) phenotype is distinguished from other Grm6 mutants that carry a null allele by a reduced but not absent ERG b-wave, decreased but present expression of mGluR6 at DBC dendritic tips, and mislocalization of mGluR6 to DBC somas. Consistent with a reduced but not absent b-wave, there were a subset of retinal ganglion cells whose responses to light onset have times to peak within the range of those in control retinas. These data indicate that the p.Met66Leu mutant mGluR6 is trafficked less than control. However, the mGluR6 that is localized to the DBC dendritic tips is able to initiate DBC signal transduction. The Grm6(nob8) mouse extends the Grm6 allelic series and will be useful for elucidating the role of mGluR6 in DBC signal transduction and in human disease.NEW & NOTEWORTHY This article describes a mouse model of the human disease complete congenital stationary night blindness in which the mutation reduces but does not eliminate GRM6 expression and bipolar cell function, a distinct phenotype from that seen in other Grm6 mouse models. J Neurophysiol 2017 Aug; 118(2):845-854