Integration of genetic, genomic and transcriptomic information identifies putative regulators of adventitious root formation in Populus

Clustering the difference in transcriptome response of PtQTL and PdQTL genotypes. Modulated Modularity Clustering of genes displaying a similar pattern of expression differences between genotypes from the PtQTL and PdQTL categories, at all time points. (DOCX 25 kb

The Predictive Nature of Pseudoneglect for Visual Neglect: Evidence from Parietal Theta Burst Stimulation.

Following parietal damage most patients with visual neglect bisect horizontal lines significantly away from the true centre. Neurologically intact individuals also misbisect lines; a phenomenon referred to as 'pseudoneglect'. In this study we examined the relationship between neglect and pseudoneglect by testing how patterns of pre-existing visuospatial asymmetry predict asymmetry caused by parietal interference. Twenty-four participants completed line bisection and Landmark tasks before receiving continuous theta burst stimulation to the left or right angular gyrus. Results showed that a pre-existing pattern of left pseudoneglect (i.e. right bias), but not right pseudoneglect, predicts left neglect-like behaviour during line bisection following right parietal cTBS. This correlation is consistent with the view that neglect and pseudoneglect arise via a common or linked neural mechanism

Critical time course of right frontoparietal involvement in mental number space

Neuropsychological, neurophysiological, and neuroimaging studies suggest that right frontoparietal circuits may be necessary for the processing of mental number space, also known as the mental number line (MNL). Here we sought to specify the critical time course of three nodes that have previously been related to MNL processing: right posterior parietal cortex (rPPC), right FEF (rFEF), and right inferior frontal gyrus (rIFG). The effects of single-pulse TMS delivered at 120% distance-adjusted individual motor threshold were investigated in 21 participants, within a window of 0-400 msec (sampling interval = 33 msec) from the onset of a central digit (1- 9, 5 excluded). Pulses were delivered in a random order and with equal probability at each time point, intermixed with noTMS trials. To analyze whether and when TMS interfered with MNL processing, we fitted bimodal Gaussian functions to the observed data and measured effects on changes in the Spatial-Numerical Association of Response Codes (SNARC) effect (i.e., an advantage for left- over right-key responses to small numbers and right-over left-key responses to large numbers) and in overall performance efficiency. We found that, during magnitude judgment with unimanual key-press responses, TMS reduced the SNARC effect in the earlier period of the fitted functions (similar to 25-60 msec) when delivered over rFEF (small and large numbers) and rIFG (small numbers); TMS further reduced the SNARC effect for small numbers in a later period when delivered to rFEF (similar to 200 msec). In contrast, TMS of rPPC did not interfere with the SNARC effect but generally reduced performance for small numbers and enhanced it for large numbers, thus producing a pattern reminiscent of "neglect" in mental number space. Our results confirm the causal role of an intact right frontoparietal network in the processing of mental number space. They also indicate that rPPC is specifically tied to explicit number magnitude processing and that rFEF and rIFG contribute to interfacing mental visuospatial codes with lateralized response codes. Overall, our findings suggest that both ventral and dorsal frontoparietal circuits are causally involved and functionally connected in the mapping of numbers to space

Schematic diagram of the experimental procedure.

<p>A single block consisted of task instructions for LB, a set of 50 LB trials, task instructions for LM, and a set of 50 LM trials. Each set of two blocks was separated by a rest period. A single trial consisted of a stimulus, a mask, and a blank screen, which was presented for a variable duration to ensure a fixed overall trial duration.</p

Stimulation sites in the right and left AG, in one participant.

<p>Stimulation sites in the right and left AG, in one participant.</p

LM scores assigned to responses.

<p>When the transect was in the centre of the horizontal line but judged by the participant to be right of centre, or when the transect was to the left but judged to be in the centre, a score of −1 was given, indicating a moderate right pseudoneglect/left bias. When the transect was to the left but judged to be to the right, a score of −2 was given, indicating a more severe right pseudoneglect/left bias. When the transect was in the centre but judged to be left of centre, or when the transect was to the right but judged to be in the centre, a score of 1 was given, indicated a moderate left pseudoneglect/right bias. When the transect was to the right but judged to be to the left, a score of 2 was given, indicating a more severe left pseudoneglect/right bias. Correct judgements were scored as zero.</p

Figure 4

<p>(a) Correlation between LB deviations at baseline and following sham cTBS. (b) Correlation between LM scores at baseline and following sham cTBS.</p

Figure 5

<p>(a) Effect of cTBS on LB deviations in left and right deviants. (b) Time course of the effect of rAG cTBS on LB in right deviants. (c). Effects of cTBS on LB latencies in left and right deviants. Latencies were separated into three time periods: dark grey = the time from the stimulus line onset to when the participant first moved the cursor; mid grey = the time from when the cursor was first moved to when the participant started to draw a bisection mark; light grey = the time from the start to the end of drawing the bisection mark. (d) Correlation in the LB task between eye position at baseline and following sham cTBS. Error bars = ±1 standard error.</p

Figure 7

<p>(a) Correlation between LB deviations and LM scores at baseline. (b) Effect of cTBS of rAG on sham-normalised LB and LM performance (i.e. rAG minus sham). (c) Effect of rAG cTBS on LB and LM performance in each ‘right deviant’ subject. Error bars = ±1 standard error.</p