Fusarium: more than a node or a foot-shaped basal cell

Recent publications have argued that there are potentially serious consequences for researchers in recognising distinct genera in the terminal fusarioid clade of the family Nectriaceae. Thus, an alternate hypothesis, namely a very broad concept of the genus Fusarium was proposed. In doing so, however, a significant body of data that supports distinct genera in Nectriaceae based on morphology, biology, and phylogeny is disregarded. A DNA phylogeny based on 19 orthologous protein-coding genes was presented to support a very broad concept of Fusarium at the F1 node in Nectriaceae. Here, we demonstrate that re-analyses of this dataset show that all 19 genes support the F3 node that represents Fusarium sensu stricto as defined by F. sambucinum (sexual morph synonym Gibberella pulicaris). The backbone of the phylogeny is resolved by the concatenated alignment, but only six of the 19 genes fully support the F1 node, representing the broad circumscription of Fusarium. Furthermore, a re-analysis of the concatenated dataset revealed alternate topologies in different phylogenetic algorithms, highlighting the deep divergence and unresolved placement of various Nectriaceae lineages proposed as members of Fusarium. Species of Fusarium s. str. are characterised by Gibberella sexual morphs, asexual morphs with thin- or thick-walled macroconidia that have variously shaped apical and basal cells, and trichothecene mycotoxin production, which separates them from other fusarioid genera. Here we show that the Wollenweber concept of Fusarium presently accounts for 20 segregate genera with clear-cut synapomorphic traits, and that fusarioid macroconidia represent a character that has been gained or lost multiple times throughout Nectriaceae. Thus, the very broad circumscription of Fusarium is blurry and without apparent synapomorphies, and does not include all genera with fusarium-like macroconidia, which are spread throughout Nectriaceae (e.g., Cosmosporella, Macroconia, Microcera). In this study four new genera are introduced, along with 18 new species and 16 new combinations. These names convey information about relationships, morphology, and ecological preference that would otherwise be lost in a broader definition of Fusarium. To assist users to correctly identify fusarioid genera and species, we introduce a new online identification database, Fusarioid-ID, accessible at www.fusarium.org. The database comprises partial sequences from multiple genes commonly used to identify fusarioid taxa (act1, CaM, his3, rpb1, rpb2, tef1, tub2, ITS, and LSU). In this paper, we also present a nomenclator of names that have been introduced in Fusarium up to January 2021 as well as their current status, types, and diagnostic DNA barcode data. In this study, researchers from 46 countries, representing taxonomists, plant pathologists, medical mycologists, quarantine officials, regulatory agencies, and students, strongly support the application and use of a more precisely delimited Fusarium (= Gibberella) concept to accommodate taxa from the robust monophyletic node F3 on the basis of a well-defined and unique combination of morphological and biochemical features. This F3 node includes, among others, species of the F. fujikuroi, F. incarnatum-equiseti, F. oxysporum, and F. sambucinum species complexes, but not species of Bisifusarium [F. dimerum species complex (SC)], Cyanonectria (F. buxicola SC), Geejayessia (F. staphyleae SC), Neocosmospora (F. solani SC) or Rectifusarium (F. ventricosum SC). The present study represents the first step to generating a new online monograph of Fusarium and allied fusarioid genera (www.fusarium.org)

Clinical Development and Commercialization of Advanced Therapy Medicinal Products in the European Union : How Are the Product Pipeline and Regulatory Framework Evolving?

The research and development of advanced therapy medicinal products (ATMPs) has been active in Europe and worldwide during recent years. Yet, the number of licensed products remains low. The main expected legal change in the near future in the European Union (EU) concerns the regulation on clinical trials (536/2014), which will come into force in 2018. With this new framework, a more harmonized and swift process for approval of clinical trials is anticipated, which is expected to support the entry of new innovations into the EU market. A survey on ATMPs in clinical trials during 2010–2015 in the EU was conducted in order to study the trends of ATMP development since the earlier survey published in 2012. According to the results, the number of clinical trials using ATMPs is slowly increasing in the EU. Yet, the focus is still in early development, and the projects are mainly carried out by small and medium-sized enterprises, academia, and hospitals. Oncology is the main area of clinical development. Yet, the balance between cell-based products and gene therapy medicinal products in this area may be changing in the future due to the new T-cell technologies. Many limitations and challenges are identified for ATMP development, requiring proportionate regulatory requirements. On the other hand, for such a novel field, the developers should be active in considering possible constraints and actively engage with authorities to look for solutions. This article provides up to-date information on forthcoming regulatory improvements and discusses the main challenges hampering the commercialization of ATMPs in the EU

Fusarium: more than a node or a foot-shaped basal cell

Recent publications have argued that there are potentially serious consequences for researchers in recognising distinct genera in the terminal fusarioid clade of the family Nectriaceae. Thus, an alternate hypothesis, namely a very broad concept of the genus Fusarium was proposed. In doing so, however, a significant body of data that supports distinct genera in Nectriaceae based on morphology, biology, and phylogeny is disregarded. A DNA phylogeny based on 19 orthologous protein-coding genes was presented to support a very broad concept of Fusarium at the F1 node in Nectriaceae. Here, we demonstrate that re-analyses of this dataset show that all 19 genes support the F3 node that represents Fusarium sensu stricto as defined by F. sambucinum (sexual morph synonym Gibberella pulicaris). The backbone of the phylogeny is resolved by the concatenated alignment, but only six of the 19 genes fully support the F1 node, representing the broad circumscription of Fusarium. Furthermore, a re-analysis of the concatenated dataset revealed alternate topologies in different phylogenetic algorithms, highlighting the deep divergence and unresolved placement of various Nectriaceae lineages proposed as members of Fusarium. Species of Fusarium s. str. are characterised by Gibberella sexual morphs, asexual morphs with thin- or thick-walled macroconidia that have variously shaped apical and basal cells, and trichothecene mycotoxin production, which separates them from other fusarioid genera. Here we show that the Wollenweber concept of Fusarium presently accounts for 20 segregate genera with clear-cut synapomorphic traits, and that fusarioid macroconidia represent a character that has been gained or lost multiple times throughout Nectriaceae. Thus, the very broad circumscription of Fusarium is blurry and without apparent synapomorphies, and does not include all genera with fusarium-like macroconidia, which are spread throughout Nectriaceae (e.g., Cosmosporella, Macroconia, Microcera). In this study four new genera are introduced, along with 18 new species and 16 new combinations. These names convey information about relationships, morphology, and ecological preference that would otherwise be lost in a broader definition of Fusarium. To assist users to correctly identify fusarioid genera and species, we introduce a new online identification database, Fusarioid-ID, accessible at www.fusarium.org. The database comprises partial sequences from multiple genes commonly used to identify fusarioid taxa (act1, CaM, his3, rpb1, rpb2, tef1, tub2, ITS, and LSU). In this paper, we also present a nomenclator of names that have been introduced in Fusarium up to January 2021 as well as their current status, types, and diagnostic DNA barcode data. In this study, researchers from 46 countries, representing taxonomists, plant pathologists, medical mycologists, quarantine officials, regulatory agencies, and students, strongly support the application and use of a more precisely delimited Fusarium (= Gibberella) concept to accommodate taxa from the robust monophyletic node F3 on the basis of a well-defined and unique combination of morphological and biochemical features. This F3 node includes, among others, species of the F. fujikuroi, F. incarnatum-equiseti, F. oxysporum, and F. sambucinum species complexes, but not species of Bisifusarium [F. dimerum species complex (SC)], Cyanonectria (F. buxicola SC), Geejayessia (F. staphyleae SC), Neocosmospora (F. solani SC) or Rectifusarium (F. ventricosum SC). The present study represents the first step to generating a new online monograph of Fusarium and allied fusarioid generaUCR::Vicerrectoría de Investigación::Unidades de Investigación::Ciencias Básicas::Centro de Investigaciones en Productos Naturales (CIPRONA

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

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