A closed loop brain-machine interface for epilepsy control using dorsal column electrical stimulation

Although electrical neurostimulation has been proposed as an alternative treatment for drug-resistant cases of epilepsy, current procedures such as deep brain stimulation, vagus, and trigeminal nerve stimulation are effective only in a fraction of the patients. Here we demonstrate a closed loop brain-machine interface that delivers electrical stimulation to the dorsal column (DCS) of the spinal cord to suppress epileptic seizures. Rats were implanted with cortical recording microelectrodes and spinal cord stimulating electrodes, and then injected with pentylenetetrazole to induce seizures. Seizures were detected in real time from cortical local field potentials, after which DCS was applied. This method decreased seizure episode frequency by 44% and seizure duration by 38%. We argue that the therapeutic effect of DCS is related to modulation of cortical theta waves, and propose that this closed-loop interface has the potential to become an effective and semi-invasive treatment for refractory epilepsy and other neurological disorders.We are grateful for the assistance from Jim Meloy for the design and production of the multielectrode arrays as well as setup development and maintenance, Laura Oliveira, Terry Jones, and Susan Halkiotis for administrative assistance and preparation of the manuscript. This work was funded by a grant from The Hartwell Foundation.info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio

Proteases of haematophagous arthropod vectors are involved in blood-feeding, yolk formation and immunity : a review

Ticks, triatomines, mosquitoes and sand flies comprise a large number of haematophagous arthropods considered vectors of human infectious diseases. While consuming blood to obtain the nutrients necessary to carry on life functions, these insects can transmit pathogenic microorganisms to the vertebrate host. Among the molecules related to the blood-feeding habit, proteases play an essential role. In this review, we provide a panorama of proteases from arthropod vectors involved in haematophagy, in digestion, in egg development and in immunity. As these molecules act in central biological processes, proteases from haematophagous vectors of infectious diseases may influence vector competence to transmit pathogens to their prey, and thus could be valuable targets for vectorial control

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy (4th edition)1.

In 2008, we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, this topic has received increasing attention, and many scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Thus, it is important to formulate on a regular basis updated guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Despite numerous reviews, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to evaluate autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. Here, we present a set of guidelines for investigators to select and interpret methods to examine autophagy and related processes, and for reviewers to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of reports that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a dogmatic set of rules, because the appropriateness of any assay largely depends on the question being asked and the system being used. Moreover, no individual assay is perfect for every situation, calling for the use of multiple techniques to properly monitor autophagy in each experimental setting. Finally, several core components of the autophagy machinery have been implicated in distinct autophagic processes (canonical and noncanonical autophagy), implying that genetic approaches to block autophagy should rely on targeting two or more autophagy-related genes that ideally participate in distinct steps of the pathway. Along similar lines, because multiple proteins involved in autophagy also regulate other cellular pathways including apoptosis, not all of them can be used as a specific marker for bona fide autophagic responses. Here, we critically discuss current methods of assessing autophagy and the information they can, or cannot, provide. Our ultimate goal is to encourage intellectual and technical innovation in the field

Multi-objective optimization framework to obtain model-based guidelines for tuning biological synthetic devices: an adaptive network case

Background: Model based design plays a fundamental role in synthetic biology. Exploiting modularity, i.e. using biological parts and interconnecting them to build new and more complex biological circuits is one of the key issues. In this context, mathematical models have been used to generate predictions of the behavior of the designed device. Designers not only want the ability to predict the circuit behavior once all its components have been determined, but also to help on the design and selection of its biological parts, i.e. to provide guidelines for the experimental implementation. This is tantamount to obtaining proper values of the model parameters, for the circuit behavior results from the interplay between model structure and parameters tuning. However, determining crisp values for parameters of the involved parts is not a realistic approach. Uncertainty is ubiquitous to biology, and the characterization of biological parts is not exempt from it. Moreover, the desired dynamical behavior for the designed circuit usually results from a trade-off among several goals to be optimized. Results: We propose the use of a multi-objective optimization tuning framework to get a model-based set of guidelines for the selection of the kinetic parameters required to build a biological device with desired behavior. The design criteria are encoded in the formulation of the objectives and optimization problem itself. As a result, on the one hand the designer obtains qualitative regions/intervals of values of the circuit parameters giving rise to the predefined circuit behavior; on the other hand, he obtains useful information for its guidance in the implementation process. These parameters are chosen so that they can effectively be tuned at the wet-lab, i.e. they are effective biological tuning knobs. To show the proposed approach, the methodology is applied to the design of a well known biological circuit: a genetic incoherent feed-forward circuit showing adaptive behavior. Conclusion: The proposed multi-objective optimization design framework is able to provide effective guidelines to tune biological parameters so as to achieve a desired circuit behavior. Moreover, it is easy to analyze the impact of the context on the synthetic device to be designed. That is, one can analyze how the presence of a downstream load influences the performance of the designed circuit, and take it into account.Research in this area is partially supported by Spanish government and European Union (FEDER-CICYT DPI2011-28112-C04-01, and DPI2014-55276-C5-1-R). Yadira Boada thanks grant FPI/2013-3242 of Universitat Politecnica de Valencia; Gilberto Reynoso-Meza gratefully acknowledges the partial support provided by the postdoctoral fellowship BJT-304804/2014-2 from the National Council of Scientific and Technologic Development of Brazil (CNPq) for the development of this work. We are grateful to Alejandra Gonzalez-Bosca for her collaboration on this topic while doing her Bachelor thesis, and to Dr. Jose Luis Pitarch from Universidad de Valladolid for his advise in algorithmic implementations and for proof reading the manuscript.Boada Acosta, YF.; Reynoso Meza, G.; Picó Marco, JA.; Vignoni, A. (2016). Multi-objective optimization framework to obtain model-based guidelines for tuning biological synthetic devices: an adaptive network case. BMC Systems Biology. 10:1-19. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12918-016-0269-0S11910ERASynBio. Next steps for european synthetic biology: a strategic vision from erasynbio. Report, ERASynBio. 2014. https://www.erasynbio.eu/lw_resource/datapool/_items/item_58/erasynbiostrategicvision.pdf .Way J, Collins J, Keasling J, Silver P. Integrating biological redesign: Where synthetic biology came from and where it needs to go. Cell. 2014; 157(1):151–61.Canton B, Labno A, Endy D. Refinement and standardization of synthetic biological parts and devices. Nat Biotechnol. 2008; 26(7):787–93.De Lorenzo V, Danchin A. Synthetic biology: discovering new worlds and new words. EMBO Rep. 2008; 9(9):822–7.Church GM, Elowitz MB, Smolke CD, Voigt CA, Weiss R. Realizing the potential of synthetic biology. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol. 2014; 15(4):289–94.Takahashi CN, Miller AW, Ekness F, Dunham MJ, Klavins E. A low cost, customizable turbidostat for use in synthetic circuit characterization. ACS Synth Biol. 2015; 4(1):32–8. [doi: 10.1021/sb500165g ].Cooling MT, Rouilly V, Misirli G, Lawson J, Yu T, Hallinan J, Wipat A. Standard virtual biological parts: a repository of modular modeling components for synthetic biology. Bioinformatics. 2010; 26(7):925–31.Medema MH, van Raaphorst R, Takano E, Breitling R. Computational tools for the synthetic design of biochemical pathways. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2012; 10(3):191–202.Marchisio MA, Stelling J. Automatic design of digital synthetic gene circuits. PLoS Comput Biol. 2011; 7(2):e1001083. [doi: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1001083 ].Rodrigo G, Carrera J, Landrain TE, Jaramillo A. Perspectives on the automatic design of regulatory systems for synthetic biology. FEBS Lett. 2012; 586(15):2037–42.Crook N, Alper HS. Model-based design of synthetic, biological systems. Chem Eng Sci. 2013; 103:2–11.Jayanthi S, Nilgiriwala K, Del Vecchio D. Retroactivity controls the temporal dynamics of gene transcription. ACS Synth Biol. 2013; 2(8):431–41.Mélykúti B, Hespanha JP, Khammash M. Equilibrium distributions of simple biochemical reaction systems for time-scale separation in stochastic reaction networks. J R Soc Interface. 2014; 11(97):20140054.Oyarzún DA, Lugagne JB, Stan GB. Noise propagation in synthetic gene circuits for metabolic control. ACS Synth Biol. 2015; 4(2):116–25. [doi: 10.1021/sb400126a ].Picó J, Vignoni A, Picó-Marco E, Boada Y. Modelado de sistemas bioquímicos: De la ley de acción de masas a la aproximación lineal del ruido. Revista Iberoamericana de Automática e Informática Industrial RIAI. 2015; 12(3):241–52.Feng X-j-J, Hooshangi S, Chen D, Li G, Weiss R, Rabitz H. Optimizing genetic circuits by global sensitivity analysis. Biophys J. 2004; 87(4):2195–202.Dasika MS, Maranas CD. Optcircuit: An optimization based method for computational design of genetic circuits. BMC Syst Biol. 2008; 2:24.Rodrigo G, Carrera J, Jaramillo A. Genetdes. Bioinformatics. 2007; 23(14):1857–8.Otero-Muras I, Banga JR. Multicriteria global optimization for biocircuit design. 2014. arXiv preprint arXiv:1402.7323.Banga JR. Optimization in computational systems biology. BMC Syst Biol. 2008; 2:47.Sendin J, Exler O, Banga JR. Multi-objective mixed integer strategy for the optimisation of biological networks. IET Syst Biol. 2010; 4(3):236–48.Miller M, Hafner M, Sontag E, Davidsohn N, Subramanian S, Purnick PE, Lauffenburger D, Weiss R. Modular design of artificial tissue homeostasis: robust control through synthetic cellular heterogeneity. PLoS Comput Biol. 2012; 8(7):1002579.Ellis T, Wang X, Collins JJ. Diversity-based, model-guided construction of synthetic gene networks with predicted functions. Nat Biotechnol. 2009; 27(5):465–71.Koeppl H, Hafner M, Lu J. Mapping behavioral specifications to model parameters in synthetic biology. BMC Bioinforma. 2013; 14(Suppl 10):9.Chiang AWT, Hwang M-JJ. A computational pipeline for identifying kinetic motifs to aid in the design and improvement of synthetic gene circuits. BMC Bioinforma. 2013; 14 Suppl 16:5.Ma W, Trusina A, El-Samad H, Lim WA, Tang C. Defining network topologies that can achieve biochemical adaptation. Cell. 2009; 138(4):760–73.Chiang AWT, Liu W-CC, Charusanti P, Hwang M-JJ. Understanding system dynamics of an adaptive enzyme network from globally profiled kinetic parameters. BMC Syst Biol. 2014; 8:4.Reynoso-Meza G, Blasco X, Sanchis J, Martínez M. Controller tuning using evolutionary multi-objective optimisation: current trends and applications. Control Eng Pract. 2014; 28:58–73.Alon U. An Introduction To Systems Biology. Design Principles of Biological Circuits. London: Chapman & Hall/ CRC Mathematical and computational Biology Series; 2006.Elowitz MB, Leibler S. A synthetic oscillatory network of transcriptional regulators. Nature. 2000; 403(6767):335–8.Hsiao V, de los Santos ELC, Whitaker WR, Dueber JE, Murray RM. Design and implementation of a biomolecular concentration tracker. ACS Synth Biol. 2015; 4(2):150–61. [doi: 10.1021/sb500024b ].Franco E, Giordano G, Forsberg P-O, Murray RM. Negative autoregulation matches production and demand in synthetic transcriptional networks. ACS Synth Biol. 2014; 3(8):589–99. [doi: 10.1021/sb400157z ].Strelkowa N, Barahona M. Switchable genetic oscillator operating in quasi-stable mode. J R Soc Interface. 2010; 7(48):1071–82.Basu S, Mehreja R, Thiberge S, Chen MT, Weiss R. Spatiotemporal control of gene expression with pulse-generating networks. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2004; 101(17):6355–60.Bleris L, Xie Z, Glass D, Adadey A, Sontag E, Benenson Y. Synthetic incoherent feedforward circuits show adaptation to the amount of their genetic template. Mol Syst Biol. 2011; 7(519):1–12. [doi: 10.1038/msb.2011.49 ].Hart Y, Antebi YE, Mayo AE, Friedman N, Alon U. Design principles of cell circuits with paradoxical components. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2012; 109(21):8346–51.Zhang Q, Bhattacharya S, Andersen ME. Ultrasensitive response motifs: basic amplifiers in molecular signalling networks. Open Biol. 2013; 3(4):130031.Weber M, Buceta J, Others. Dynamics of the quorum sensing switch: stochastic and non-stationary effects. BMC Syst Biol. 2013; 7(1):6.Womelsdorf T, Valiante TA, Sahin NT, Miller KJ, Tiesinga P. Dynamic circuit motifs underlying rhythmic gain control, gating and integration. Nat Neurosci. 2014; 17(8):1031–9.Arpino JAJ, Hancock EJ, Anderson J, Barahona M, Stan G-BVB, Papachristodoulou A, Polizzi K. Tuning the dials of synthetic biology. Microbiology. 2013; 159(Pt 7):1236–53.Zagaris A, Kaper HGG, Kaper TJJ. Analysis of the computational singular perturbation reduction method for chemical kinetics. J Nonlinear Sci. 2004; 14(1):59–91.Anderson J, Chang Y-C-C, Papachristodoulou A. Model decomposition and reduction tools for large-scale networks in systems biology. Automatica. 2011; 47(6):1165–74.Prescott TP, Papachristodoulou A. Layered decomposition for the model order reduction of timescale separated biochemical reaction networks. J Theor Biol. 2014; 356:113–22.Hancock EJ, Stan GB, Arpino JAJ, Papachristodoulou A. Simplified mechanistic models of gene regulation for analysis and design. J R Soc Interface. 2015; 12(108).Miettinen K, Vol. 12. Nonlinear Multiobjective Optimization. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers; 1999.Miettinen K, Ruiz F, Wierzbicki AP. Introduction to multiobjective optimization: interactive approaches. In: Multiobjective Optimization. Berlin: Springer: 2008. p. 27–57.Deb K, Bandaru S, Greiner D, Gaspar-Cunha A, Tutum CC. An integrated approach to automated innovization for discovering useful design principles: Case studies from engineering. Appl Soft Comput. 2014; 15(0):42–56.Ang J, Ingalls B, McMillen D. Probing the input-output behavior of biochemical and genetic systems: System identification methods from control theory In: Johnson ML, Brand L, editors. Methods in Enzymology. Academic Press: 2011. p. 279–317, doi: 10.1016/B978-0-12-381270-4.00010-X .Mattson CA, Messac A. Pareto frontier based concept selection under uncertainty, with visualization. Optim Eng. 2005; 6(1):85–115.Reynoso-Meza G, Sanchis J, Blasco X, Martínez M. Design of continuous controllers using a multiobjective differential evolution algorithm with spherical pruning. Appl Evol Comput. 2010;532–541.Reynoso-Meza G, García-Nieto S, Sanchis J, Blasco X. Controller tuning using multiobjective optimization algorithms: a global tuning framework. IEEE Trans Control Syst Technol. 2013; 21(2):445–58.Reynoso-Meza G, Sanchis J, Blasco X, Herrero JM. Multiobjective evolutionary algortihms for multivariable PI controller tuning. Expert Syst Appl. 2012; 39:7895–907.Anderson C. Anderson promoter collection [online]. 2006. http://parts.igem.org/Promoters/Catalog/Anderson . Accesed 20 Feb 2015.Salis HM, Mirsky EA, Voigt CA. Automated design of synthetic ribosome binding sites to control protein expression. Nat Biotechnol. 2009; 27(10):946–50.Egbert RG, Klavins E. Fine-tuning gene networks using simple sequence repeats. PNAS. 2012; 109(42):16817–22. [doi: 10.1073/pnas.1205693109 ].Hair JF, Suárez MG. Análisis Multivariante vol. 491. Madrid: Prentice Hall; 1999.Blasco X, Herrero JM, Sanchis J, Martínez M. A new graphical visualization of n-dimensional pareto front for decision-making in multiobjective optimization. Inf Sci. 2008; 178(20):3908–24. [doi: 10.1016/j.ins.2008.06.010 ].Reynoso-Meza G, Blasco X, Sanchis J, Herrero JM. Comparison of design concepts in multi-criteria decision-making using level diagrams. Inform Sci. 2013; 221:124–41.Goentoro L, Shoval O, Kirschner MW, Alon U. The incoherent feedforward loop can provide fold-change detection in gene regulation. Mol Cell. 2009; 36(5):894–9.Rodrigo G, Elena SF. Structural discrimination of robustness in transcriptional feedforward loops for pattern formation. PloS ONE. 2011; 6(2):16904.Kim J, Khetarpal I, Sen S, Murray RM. Synthetic circuit for exact adaptation and fold-change detection. Nucleic Acids Res. 2014; 42(2):6078–89. [doi: 10.1093/nar/gku233 ].Chelliah V, Juty N, Ajmera I, Ali R, Dumousseau M, Glont M, Hucka M, Jalowicki G, Keating S, Knight-Schrijver V, et al. Biomodels: ten-year anniversary. Nucleic Acids Res. 2015; 43(D1):542–8.Ang J, Bagh S, Ingalls BP, McMillen DR. Considerations for using integral feedback control to construct a perfectly adapting synthetic gene network. J Theor Biol. 2010; 266(4):723–38.Biobrick Foundation. 2006. Part Registry [online]. http://partsregistry.org/ . Accessed 20 Feb 2015.BIOSS. 2006. BIOSS Toolbox [online]. http://www.bioss.uni-freiburg.de/cms/toolbox-home.html . Accessed 20 Feb 2015.BioFab. 2006. International Open Facility Advancing Biotechnology [online]. http://www.biofab.org/ . Accessed 20 Feb 2015.Vallerio M, Hufkens J, Van Impe J, Logist F. An interactive decision-support system for multi-objective optimization of nonlinear dynamic processes with uncertainty. Expert Syst Appl. 2015; 42(21):7710–31.Frangopol DM, Maute K. Life-cycle reliability-based optimization of civil and aerospace structures. Comput Struct. 2003; 81(7):397–410.Lozano M, Molina D, Herrera F. Editorial scalability of evolutionary algorithms and other metaheuristics for large-scale continuous optimization problems. Soft Comput. 2011; 15(11):2085–7.Santana-Quintero LV, Montano AA, Coello CAC. A review of techniques for handling expensive functions in evolutionary multi-objective optimization. In: Computational Intelligence in Expensive Optimization Problems. Berlin: Springer: 2010. p. 29–59