Discovery of an unconventional centromere in budding yeast redefines evolution of point centromeres

Centromeres are the chromosomal regions promoting kinetochore assembly for chromosome segregation. In many eukaryotes, the centromere consists of up to mega base pairs of DNA. On such "regional centromeres," kinetochore assembly is mainly defined by epigenetic regulation [1]. By contrast, a clade of budding yeasts (Saccharomycetaceae) has a "point centromere" of 120-200 base pairs of DNA, on which kinetochore assembly is defined by the consensus DNA sequence [2, 3]. During evolution, budding yeasts acquired point centromeres, which replaced ancestral, regional centromeres [4]. All known point centromeres among different yeast species share common consensus DNA elements (CDEs) [5, 6], implying that they evolved only once and stayed essentially unchanged throughout evolution. Here, we identify a yeast centromere that challenges this view: that of the budding yeast Naumovozyma castellii is the first unconventional point centromere with unique CDEs. The N. castellii centromere CDEs are essential for centromere function but have different DNA sequences from CDEs in other point centromeres. Gene order analyses around N. castellii centromeres indicate their unique, and separate, evolutionary origin. Nevertheless, they are still bound by the ortholog of the CBF3 complex, which recognizes CDEs in other point centromeres. The new type of point centromere originated prior to the divergence between N. castellii and its close relative Naumovozyma dairenensis and disseminated to all N. castellii chromosomes through extensive genome rearrangement. Thus, contrary to the conventional view, point centromeres can undergo rapid evolutionary changes. These findings give new insights into the evolution of point centromeres

University of Nebraska Five-Year Strategy, Revised August 12, 2020

The University of Nebraska Five-Year Strategy: Trust, Predictability, and Positive Outcomes for Nebraskans In February 2020, the newly named president of the University of Nebraska system, Ted Carter, gathered a diverse 28-member team of students, faculty, staff, and administrators to help chart the path forward for Nebraska’s public university. The team’s goal: At a time of great change in higher education, lay out a vision for what the future should look like for the University of Nebraska. Broad themes quickly emerged, including student access and success, excellence in teaching and research, diversity and inclusion, partnerships, and fiscal effectiveness. Then COVID-19 hit, forcing a pause in the team’s work. The ensuing months showed that the initial priorities identified by the team were not only still relevant, but more important than ever in defining the future of higher education. From that early work has emerged a five-year strategy for growth and success across the four-campus University of Nebraska system. In addition to the strategic planning team, Carter engaged alumni and donors, elected leaders, leaders in business and agriculture, the Board of Regents, NU senior leadership, and others in conversations about the University’s future. The resulting strategy is built around several key principles: The value of higher education is clear and growing. Nebraska’s success is tied to that of its University. Students come first. The University of Nebraska should be the best place in the country to be a student, providing high-quality, affordable, accessible education that prioritizes students’ mental and physical health and prepares them for post-graduation success. Our people are our greatest asset. We will invest accordingly. We have a responsibility to make the best use of every dollar Nebraskans entrust to us. Themes of equity and inclusion touch everything we do. We will be a University for everyone—successful only when all voices are heard. Finally, Nebraskans should know what to expect from their University. We must work every day to maintain the trust and confidence of the people of our state

Effects of brain tissue oxygen (PbtO2) guided management on patient outcomes following severe traumatic brain injury: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Monitoring and optimisation of brain tissue oxygen tension (PbtO2) has been associated with improved neurological outcome and survival in observational studies of severe traumatic brain injury (TBI). We carried out a systematic review of randomized controlled trials to determine if PbtO2-guided management is associated with differential neurological outcomes, survival, and adverse events. Searches were carried out to 10 February 2022 in Medline (OvidSP), 11 February in EMBASE (OvidSP) and 8 February in Cochrane library. Randomized controlled trials comparing PbtO2 and ICP-guided management to ICP-guided management alone were included. The primary outcome was survival with favourable neurological outcome at 6-months post injury. Data were extracted by two independent authors and GRADE certainty of evidence assessed. There was no difference in the proportion of patients with favourable neurological outcomes with PbtO2-guided management (relative risk [RR] 1.42, 95% CI 0.97 to 2.08; p = 0.07; I2 = 0%, very low certainty evidence) but PbtO2-guided management was associated with reduced mortality (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.93; p = 0.03; I2 = 42%; very low certainty evidence) and ICP (mean difference (MD) - 4.62, 95% CI - 8.27 to - 0.98; p = 0.01; I2 = 63%; very low certainty evidence). There was no significant difference in the risk of adverse respiratory or cardiovascular events. PbtO2-guided management in addition to ICP-based care was not significantly associated with increased favourable neurological outcomes, but was associated with increased survival and reduced ICP, with no difference in respiratory or cardiovascular adverse events. However, based on GRADE criteria, the certainty of evidence provided by this meta-analysis was consistently very low. MESH: Brain Ischemia; Intensive Care; Glasgow Outcome Scale; Randomized Controlled Trial; Craniocerebral Trauma

Beyond the black box: promoting mathematical collaborations for elucidating interactions in soil ecology

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.Understanding soil systems is critical because they form the structural and nutritional foundation for plants and thus every terrestrial habitat and agricultural system. In this paper, we encourage increased use of mathematical models to drive forward understanding of interactions in soil ecological systems. We discuss several distinctive features of soil ecosystems and empirical studies of them. We explore some perceptions that have previously deterred more extensive use of models in soil ecology and some advances that have already been made using models to elucidate soil ecological interactions. We provide examples where mathematical models have been used to test the plausibility of hypothesized mechanisms, to explore systems where experimental manipulations are currently impossible, or to determine the most important variables to measure in experimental and natural systems. To aid in the development of theory in this field, we present a table describing major soil ecology topics, the theory previously used, and providing key terms for theoretical approaches that could potentially address them. We then provide examples from the table that may either contribute to important incremental developments in soil science or potentially revolutionize our understanding of plant–soil systems. We challenge scientists and mathematicians to push theoretical explorations in soil systems further and highlight three major areas for the development of mathematical models in soil ecology: theory spanning scales and ecological hierarchies, processes, and evolution

Beyond the black box: Promoting mathematical collaborations for elucidating interactions in soil ecology

© 2019 The Authors. Understanding soil systems is critical because they form the structural and nutritional foundation for plants and thus every terrestrial habitat and agricultural system. In this paper, we encourage increased use of mathematical models to drive forward understanding of interactions in soil ecological systems. We discuss several distinctive features of soil ecosystems and empirical studies of them. We explore some perceptions that have previously deterred more extensive use of models in soil ecology and some advances that have already been made using models to elucidate soil ecological interactions. We provide examples where mathematical models have been used to test the plausibility of hypothesized mechanisms, to explore systems where experimental manipulations are currently impossible, or to determine the most important variables to measure in experimental and natural systems. To aid in the development of theory in this field, we present a table describing major soil ecology topics, the theory previously used, and providing key terms for theoretical approaches that could potentially address them. We then provide examples from the table that may either contribute to important incremental developments in soil science or potentially revolutionize our understanding of plant-soil systems. We challenge scientists and mathematicians to push theoretical explorations in soil systems further and highlight three major areas for the development of mathematical models in soil ecology: Theory spanning scales and ecological hierarchies, processes, and evolution

Introducing BASE: the Biomes of Australian Soil Environments soil microbial diversity database

Background: Microbial inhabitants of soils are important to ecosystem and planetary functions, yet there are large gaps in our knowledge of their diversity and ecology. The 'Biomes of Australian Soil Environments' (BASE) project has generated a database of microbial diversity with associated metadata across extensive environmental gradients at continental scale. As the characterisation of microbes rapidly expands, the BASE database provides an evolving platform for interrogating and integrating microbial diversity and function. Findings: BASE currently provides amplicon sequences and associated contextual data for over 900 sites encompassing all Australian states and territories, a wide variety of bioregions, vegetation and land-use types. Amplicons target bacteria, archaea and general and fungal-specific eukaryotes. The growing database will soon include metagenomics data. Data are provided in both raw sequence (FASTQ) and analysed OTU table formats and are accessed via the project's data portal, which provides a user-friendly search tool to quickly identify samples of interest. Processed data can be visually interrogated and intersected with other Australian diversity and environmental data using tools developed by the 'Atlas of Living Australia'. Conclusions: Developed within an open data framework, the BASE project is the first Australian soil microbial diversity database. The database will grow and link to other global efforts to explore microbial, plant, animal, and marine biodiversity. Its design and open access nature ensures that BASE will evolve as a valuable tool for documenting an often overlooked component of biodiversity and the many microbe-driven processes that are essential to sustain soil function and ecosystem services

Introducing BASE: the Biomes of Australian Soil Environments soil microbial diversity database

Microbial inhabitants of soils are important to ecosystem and planetary functions, yet there are large gaps in our knowledge of their diversity and ecology. The ‘Biomes of Australian Soil Environments’ (BASE) project has generated a database of microbial diversity with associated metadata across extensive environmental gradients at continental scale. As the characterisation of microbes rapidly expands, the BASE database provides an evolving platform for interrogating and integrating microbial diversity and function

Decentralized clinical trials in the trial innovation network: Value, strategies, and lessons learned

New technologies and disruptions related to Coronavirus disease-2019 have led to expansion of decentralized approaches to clinical trials. Remote tools and methods hold promise for increasing trial efficiency and reducing burdens and barriers by facilitating participation outside of traditional clinical settings and taking studies directly to participants. The Trial Innovation Network, established in 2016 by the National Center for Advancing Clinical and Translational Science to address critical roadblocks in clinical research and accelerate the translational research process, has consulted on over 400 research study proposals to date. Its recommendations for decentralized approaches have included eConsent, participant-informed study design, remote intervention, study task reminders, social media recruitment, and return of results for participants. Some clinical trial elements have worked well when decentralized, while others, including remote recruitment and patient monitoring, need further refinement and assessment to determine their value. Partially decentralized, or “hybrid” trials, offer a first step to optimizing remote methods. Decentralized processes demonstrate potential to improve urban-rural diversity, but their impact on inclusion of racially and ethnically marginalized populations requires further study. To optimize inclusive participation in decentralized clinical trials, efforts must be made to build trust among marginalized communities, and to ensure access to remote technology