Central Effects of Beta-Blockers May Be Due to Nitric Oxide and Hydrogen Peroxide Release Independently of Their Ability to Cross the Blood-Brain Barrier

Propranolol is the first-line treatment for infants suffering from infantile hemangioma. Recently, some authors raised the question of potential neurologic side effects of propranolol due to its lipophilic nature and thus its ability to passively cross the blood-brain barrier (BBB) and accumulate into the brain. Hydrophilic beta-blockers, such as atenolol and nadolol, where therefore introduced in clinical practice. In addition to their classical mode of action in the brain, circulating factors may modulate the release of reactive oxygen/nitrogen species (ROS/RNS) from endothelial cells that compose the BBB without entering the brain. Due to their high capacity to diffuse across membranes, ROS/RNS can reach neurons and modify their activity. The aim of this study was to investigate other mechanisms of actions in which these molecules may display a central effect without actually crossing the BBB. We first performed an oral treatment in mice to measure the accumulation of propranolol, atenolol and nadolol in different brain regions in vivo. We then evaluated the ability of these molecules to induce the release of nitric oxide (NO) and hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) ex vivo in the hypothalamus. As expected, propranolol is able to cross the BBB and is found in brain tissue in higher amounts than atenolol and nadolol. However, all of these beta-blockers are able to induce the secretion of signaling molecules (i.e., NO and/or H2O2) in the hypothalamus, independently of their ability to cross the BBB, deciphering a new potential deleterious impact of hydrophilic beta-blockers in the brain

Revisiting the Role of Exercise Countermeasure on the Regulation of Energy Balance During Space Flight

A body mass loss has been consistently observed in astronauts. This loss is of medical concern since energy deficit can exacerbate some of the deleterious physiological changes observed during space flight including cardiovascular deconditioning, bone density, muscle mass and strength losses, impaired exercise capacity, and immune deficiency among others. These may jeopardize crew health and performance, a healthy return to Earth and mission’s overall success. In the context of planning for planetary exploration, achieving energy balance during long-term space flights becomes a research and operational priority. The regulation of energy balance and its components in current longer duration missions in space must be re-examined and fully understood. The purpose of this review is to summarize current understanding of how energy intake, energy expenditure, and hence energy balance are regulated in space compared to Earth. Data obtained in both actual and simulated microgravity thus far suggest that the obligatory exercise countermeasures program, rather than the microgravity per se, may be partly responsible for the chronic weight loss in space. Little is known of the energy intake, expenditure, and balance during the intense extravehicular activities which will become increasingly more frequent and difficult. The study of the impact of exercise on energy balance in space also provides further insights on lifestyle modalities such as intensity and frequency of exercise, metabolism, and the regulation of body weight on Earth, which is currently a topic of animated debate in the field of energy and obesity research. While not dismissing the significance of exercise as a countermeasure during space flight, data now challenge the current exercise countermeasure program promoted and adopted for many years by all the International Space Agencies. An alternative exercise approach that has a minimum impact on total energy expenditure in space, while preventing muscle mass loss and other physiological changes, is needed in order to better understand the in-flight regulation of energy balance and estimate daily energy requirements. A large body of data generated on Earth suggests that alternate approaches, such as high intensity interval training (HIIT), in combination or not with sessions of resistive exercise, might fulfill such needs

Effects of Physiological Doses of Resveratrol and Quercetin on Glucose Metabolism in Primary Myotubes

henolic compounds have emerged in recent years as an option to face insulin resistance and diabetes. The central aim of this study was: (1) to demonstrate that physiological doses of resveratrol (RSV) or quercetin (Q) can influence glucose metabolism in human myotubes, (2) to establish whether AMP-activated protein kinase (AMPK) and protein kinase B –PKB- (Akt) pathways are involved in this effect. In addition, the effects of these polyphenols on mitochondrial biogenesis and fatty acid oxidation were analysed. Myotubes from healthy donors were cultured for 24 h with either 0.1 μM of RSV or with 10 μM of Q. Glucose metabolism, such as glycogen synthesis, glucose oxidation, and lactate production, were measured with D[U-14C]glucose. β-oxidation using [1–14C]palmitate as well as the expression of key metabolic genes and proteins by Real Time PCR and Western blot were also assessed. Although RSV and Q increased pgc1α expression, they did not significantly change either glucose oxidation or β-oxidation. Q increased AMPK, insulin receptor substrate 1 (IRS-1), and AS160 phosphorylation in basal conditions and glycogen synthase kinase 3 (GSK3β) in insulin-stimulated conditions. RSV tended to increase the phosphorylation rates of AMPK and GSK3β. Both of the polyphenols increased insulin-stimulated glycogen synthesis and reduced lactate production in human myotubes. Thus, physiological doses of RSV or Q may exhibit anti-diabetic actions in human myotubes.This research has been supported by Instituto de Salud Carlos III (CIBERObn) under Grant CB12/03/30007 (01/2013) and by the University of the Basque Country under Grant GIU18-173 (07/2018)

Clin Case Rep

The early onset of gait akinesia should not rule out the diagnosis of hereditary chorea. It would be helpful to proceed to a whole‐genome and long‐read sequencing in order to track a new pathogenic variant including noncoding repeat expansion

Comparing clinical performance of current implantable cardioverter-defibrillator implantation recommendations in arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy

AIMS: Arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy (ARVC) patients have an increased risk of ventricular arrhythmias (VA). Four implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) recommendation algorithms are available The International Task Force Consensus (‘ITFC’), an ITFC modification by Orgeron et al. (‘mITFC’), the AHA/HRS/ACC guideline for VA management (‘AHA’), and the HRS expert consensus statement (‘HRS’). This study aims to validate and compare the performance of these algorithms in ARVC. METHODS AND RESULTS: We classified 617 definite ARVC patients (38.5 ± 15.1 years, 52.4% male, 39.2% prior sustained VA) according to four algorithms. Clinical performance was evaluated by sensitivity, specificity, ROC-analysis, and decision curve analysis for any sustained VA and for fast VA (>250 b.p.m.). During 6.4 [2.8–11.5] years follow-up, 282 (45.7%) patients experienced any sustained VA, and 63 (10.2%) fast VA. For any sustained VA, ITFC and mITFC provide higher sensitivity than AHA and HRS (94.0–97.8% vs. 76.7–83.5%), but lower specificity (15.9–32.0% vs. 42.7%-60.1%). Similarly, for fast VA, ITFC and mITFC provide higher sensitivity than AHA and HRS (95.2–97.1% vs. 76.7–78.4%) but lower specificity (42.7–43.1 vs. 76.7–78.4%). Decision curve analysis showed ITFC and mITFC to be superior for a 5-year sustained VA risk ICD indication threshold between 5–25% or 2–9% for fast VA. CONCLUSION: The ITFC and mITFC provide the highest protection rates, whereas AHA and HRS decrease unnecessary ICD placements. ITFC or mITFC should be used if we consider the 5-year threshold for ICD indication to lie within 5–25% for sustained VA or 2–9% for fast VA. These data will inform decision-making for ICD placement in ARVC

What Stimulates Researchers to Make Their Research Usable? Towards an Openness Approach

Ambiguity surrounding the effect of external engagement on academic research has raised questions about what motivates researchers to collaborate with third parties. We argue that what matters for society is research that can be absorbed by users. We define openness as a willingness by researchers to make research more usable by external partners by responding to external influences in their own research practices. We ask what kinds of characteristics define those researchers who are more open to creating usable knowledge. Our empirical study analyses a sample of 1583 researchers working at the Spanish Council for Scientific Research (CSIC). Results demonstrate that it is personal factors (academic identity and past experience) that determine which researchers have open behaviours. The paper concludes that policies to encourage external engagement should focus on experiences which legitimate and validate knowledge produced through user encounters, both at the academic formation career stage as well as through providing ongoing opportunities to engage with third parties.The data used for this study comes from the IMPACTO project funded by the Spanish Council for Scientific Research - CSIC (Ref. 200410E639). The work also benefited from a mobility grant awarded by Eu-Spri Forum to Julia Olmos Penuela & Paul Benneworth for her visiting research to the Center of Higher Education Policy Studies. Finally, Julia Olmos Penuela also benefited from a post-doctoral grant funded by the Generalitat Valenciana (APOSTD-2014-A-006).Olmos-Peñuela, J.; Benneworth, P.; Castro-Martínez, E. (2015). What Stimulates Researchers to Make Their Research Usable? Towards an Openness Approach. Minerva. 53(4):381-410. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11024-015-9283-4S381410534Abreu, Maria, Vadim Grinevich, Alan Hughes, and Michael Kitson. 2009. Knowledge exchange between academics and the business, public and third sectors. Cambridge: Centre for Business Research and UK-IRC.Aghion, Philippe, Mathias Dewatripont, and Jeremy C. Stein. 2008. Academic freedom, private-sector focus, and the process of innovation. RAND Journal of Economics 39: 617–635.Ajzen, Icek. 2001. Nature and operation of attitudes. Annual Review of Psychology 52(1): 27–58.Alrøe, Hugo Fjelsted, and Erik Steen Kristensen. 2002. Towards a systemic research methodology in agriculture: Rethinking the role of values in science. Agriculture and Human Values 19(1): 3–23.Audretsch, David B., Werner Bönte, and Stefan Krabel. 2010. Why do scientists in public research institutions cooperate with private firms. In DRUID Working Paper, 10–27.Baldini, Nicola, Rosa Grimaldi, and Maurizio Sobrero. 2007. To patent or not to patent? A survey of Italian inventors on motivations, incentives, and obstacles to university patenting. Scientometrics 70(2): 333–354.Bandura, Albert. 1977. Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Barnett, R. 2009. Knowing and becoming in the higher education curriculum. Studies in Higher Education 34(4): 429–440.Becher, Tony. 1994. The significance of disciplinary differences. Studies in Higher Education 19(2): 151–161.Becher, Tony, and Paul Trowler. 2001. Academic tribes and territories: Intellectual enquiry and the culture of disciplines. McGraw-Hill International.Bekkers, Rudi, and Isabel Maria Bodas Freitas. 2008. Analysing knowledge transfer channels between universities and industry: To what degree do sectors also matter? Research Policy 37(10): 1837–1853.Belderbos, René, Martin Carree, Bert Diederen, Boris Lokshin, and Reinhilde Veugelers. 2004. Heterogeneity in R&D cooperation strategies. International Journal of Industrial Organization 22(8): 1237–1263.Benner, Mats, and Ulf Sandström. 2000. Institutionalizing the triple helix: Research funding and norms in the academic system. Research Policy 29(2): 291–301.Bercovitz, Janet, and Maryann Feldman. 2008. Academic entrepreneurs: Organizational change at the individual level. Organization Science 19(1): 69–89.Berman, Elizabeth Popp. 2011. Creating the market university: How academic science became an economic engine. Princeton University Press.Bleiklie, Ivar, and Roar Høstaker. 2004. Modernizing research training-education and science policy between profession, discipline and academic institution. Higher Education Policy 17(2): 221–236.Bozeman, Barry, Daniel Fay, and Catherine P. Slade. 2013. Research collaboration in universities and academic entrepreneurship: The-state-of-the-art. The Journal of Technology Transfer 38(1): 1–67.Collini, Stefan. 2009. Impact on humanities: Researchers must take a stand now or be judged and rewarded as salesmen. The Times Literary Supplement 5563: 18–19.D’Este, Pablo, and Markus Perkmann. 2011. Why do academics engage with industry? The entrepreneurial university and individual motivations. The Journal of Technology Transfer 36(3): 316–339.D’Este, Pablo, Oscar Llopis, and Alfredo Yegros. 2013. Conducting pro-social research: Cognitive diversity, research excellence and awareness about the social impact of research: INGENIO (CSIC-UPV) Working Paper Series.Deem, Rosemary, and Lisa Lucas. 2007. Research and teaching cultures in two contrasting UK policy contexts: Academic life in education departments in five English and Scottish universities. Higher Education 54(1): 115–133.DiMaggio, Paul J., and Walter W. Powell. 1983. The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review 48(2): 147–160.Downing, David B. 2005. The knowledge contract: Politics and paradigms in the academic workplace. Lincoln: Nebraska University of Nebraska Press.Donovan, Claire. 2007. The qualitative future of research evaluation. Science and Public Policy 34(8): 585–597.Durning, Bridget. 2004. Planning academics and planning practitioners: Two tribes or a community of practice? Planning Practice and Research 19(4): 435–446.Edquist, Charles. 1997. System of innovation approaches: Their emergence and characteristics. In Systems of innovation: Technologies, institutions and organizations, ed. C. Edquist, 1–35. London: Pinter.Etzkowitz, Henry, and Loet Leydesdorff. 2000. The dynamics of innovation: from National Systems and “Mode 2” to a Triple Helix of university–industry–government relations. Research Policy 29(2): 109–123.Fromhold-Eisebith, Martina, Claudia Werker, and Marcel Vojnic. 2014. Tracing the social dimension in innovation networks. In The social dynamics of innovation networks, eds. Roel Rutten, Paul Benneworth, Frans Boekema, and Dessy Irawati. London: Routledge (in press).Geuna, Aldo, and Alessandro Muscio. 2009. The governance of university knowledge transfer: A critical review of the literature. Minerva 47(1): 93–114.Gibbons, Michael, Camille Limoges, Helga Nowotny, Simon Schwartzman, Peter Scott, and Martin Trow. 1994. The new production of knowledge: The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. London: Sage.Gläser, Jochen. 2012. How does Governance change research content? On the possibility of a sociological middle-range theory linking science policy studies to the sociology of scientific knowledge. Technical University Berlin. Technology Studies Working Papers. http://www.ts.tu-berlin.de/fileadmin/fg226/TUTS/TUTS-WP-1-2012.pdf . Accessed 16 Feb 2015.Goethner, Maximilian, Martin Obschonka, Rainer K. Silbereisen, and Uwe Cantner. 2012. Scientists’ transition to academic entrepreneurship: Economic and psychological determinants. Journal of Economic Psychology 33(3): 628–641.Gulbrandsen, Magnus, and Jens-Christian Smeby. 2005. Industry funding and university professors’ research performance. Research Policy 34(6): 932–950.Haeussler, Carolin, and Jeannette Colyvas. 2011. Breaking the ivory tower: Academic entrepreneurship in the life sciences in UK and Germany. Research Policy 40(1): 41–54.Hessels, Laurens K., Harro van Lente, John Grin, and Ruud E.H.M. Smits. 2011. Changing struggles for relevance in eight fields of natural science. Industry and Higher Education 25(5): 347–357.Hessels, Laurens K., and Harro Van Lente. 2008. Re-thinking new knowledge production: A literature review and a research agenda. Research Policy 37(4): 740–760.Hoye, Kate, and Fred Pries. 2009. ‘Repeat commercializers’, the ‘habitual entrepreneurs’ of university–industry technology transfer. Technovation 29(10): 682–689.Jacobson, Nora, Dale Butterill, and Paula Goering. 2004. Organizational factors that influence university-based researchers’ engagement in knowledge transfer activities. Science Communication 25(3): 246–259.Jain, Sanjay, Gerard George, and Mark Maltarich. 2009. Academics or entrepreneurs? Investigating role identity modification of university scientists involved in commercialization activity. Research Policy 38(6): 922–935.Jasanoff, Sheila, and Sang-Hyun Kim. 2013. Sociotechnical imaginaries and national energy policies. Science as Culture 22(2): 189–196.Jensen, Pablo. 2011. A statistical picture of popularization activities and their evolutions in France. Public Understanding of Science 20(1): 26–36.Kitcher, Philip. 2001. Science, truth, and democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Knorr-Cetina, Karin. 1981. The manufacture of knowledge: An essay on the constructivist and contextual nature of science. Oxford: Pergamon Press.Kronenberg, Kristin, and Marjolein Caniëls. 2014. Professional proximity in research collaborations. In The social dynamics of innovation networks, eds. Roel Rutten, Paul Benneworth, Frans Boekema, and Dessy Irawati. London: Routledge (in press).Krueger, Rob, and David Gibbs. 2010. Competitive global city regions and sustainable development’: An interpretive institutionalist account in the South East of England. Environment and planning A 42: 821–837.Lam, Alice. 2011. What motivates academic scientists to engage in research commercialization: ‘Gold’, ‘ribbon’ or ‘puzzle’? Research Policy 40(10): 1354–1368.Landry, Réjean, Malek Saïhi, Nabil Amara, and Mathieu Ouimet. 2010. Evidence on how academics manage their portfolio of knowledge transfer activities. Research Policy 39(10): 1387–1403.Lee, Alison, and David Boud. 2003. Writing groups, change and academic identity: Research development as local practice. Studies in Higher Education 28(2): 187–200.Lee, Yong S. 1996. ‘Technology transfer’ and the research university: A search for the boundaries of university–industry collaboration. Research Policy 25(6): 843–863.Lee, Yong S. 2000. The sustainability of university–industry research collaboration: An empirical assessment. The Journal of Technology Transfer 25(2): 111–133.Leisyte, Liudvika, Jürgen Enders, and Harry De Boer. 2008. The freedom to set research agendas—illusion and reality of the research units in the Dutch Universities. Higher Education Policy 21(3): 377–391.Louis, Karen Seashore, David Blumenthal, Michael E. Gluck, and Michael A. Stoto. 1989. Entrepreneurs in academe: An exploration of behaviors among life scientists. Administrative Science Quarterly 34(1): 110–131.Lowe, Philip, Jeremy Phillipson, and Katy Wilkinson. 2013. Why social scientists should engage with natural scientists. Contemporary Social Science 8(3): 207–222.Martín-Sempere, María José, Belén Garzón-García, and Jesús Rey-Rocha. 2008. Scientists’ motivation to communicate science and technology to the public: Surveying participants at the Madrid Science Fair. Public Understanding of Science 17(3): 349–367.Martin, Ben. 2003. The changing social contract for science and the evolution of the university. In Science and innovation: Rethinking the rationales for funding and governance, eds. A. Geuna, A.J. Salter, and W.E. Steinmueller, 7–29. Cheltenhan: Edward Elgar.Merton, Robert K. 1973. The sociology of science: Theoretical and empirical investigations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Miller, Thaddeus R., and Mark W. Neff. 2013. De-facto science policy in the making: how scientists shape science policy and why it matters (or, why STS and STP scholars should socialize). Minerva 51(3): 295–315.Muthén, Bengt O. 1998–2004. Mplus Technical Appendices. Muthén & Muthén. Los Angeles, CA.: Muthén & Muthén.Nedeva, Maria. 2013. Between the global and the national: Organising European science. Research Policy 42(1): 220–230.Neff, Mark William. 2014. Research prioritization and the potential pitfall of path dependencies in coral reef science. Minerva 52(2): 213–235.Nelson, Richard R. 2001. Observations on the post-Bayh-Dole rise of patenting at American universities. The Journal of Technology Transfer 26(1): 13–19.Nowotny, Helga, Peter Scott, and Michael Gibbons. 2001. Re-thinking science: Knowledge and the public in an age of uncertainty. Cambridge: Polity Press.Olmos-Peñuela, Julia, Paul Benneworth, and Elena Castro-Martínez. 2014a. Are ‘STEM from Mars and SSH from Venus’? Challenging disciplinary stereotypes of research’s social value. Science and Public Policy 41: 384–400.Olmos-Peñuela, Julia, Elena Castro-Martínez, and Manuel Fernández-Esquinas. 2014b. Diferencias entre áreas científicas en las prácticas de divulgación de la investigación: un estudio empírico en el CSIC. Revista Española de Documentación Científica. doi: 10.3989/redc.2014.2.1096 .Ouimet, Mathieu, Nabil Amara, Réjean Landry, and John Lavis. 2007. Direct interactions medical school faculty members have with professionals and managers working in public and private sector organizations: A cross-sectional study. Scientometrics 72(2): 307–323.Perkmann, Markus, Valentina Tartari, Maureen McKelvey, Erkko Autio, Anders Brostrom, Pablo D’Este, Riccardo Fini, et al. 2013. Academic engagement and commercialisation: A review of the literature on university-industry relations. Research Policy 42(2): 423–442.Philpott, Kevin, Lawrence Dooley, Caroline O’Reilly, and Gary Lupton. 2011. The entrepreneurial university: Examining the underlying academic tensions. Technovation 31(4): 161–170.Rutten, Roel, and Frans Boekema. 2012. From learning region to learning in a socio-spatial context. Regional Studies 46(8): 981–992.Sarewitz, Daniel, and Roger A. Pielke. 2007. The neglected heart of science policy: reconciling supply of and demand for science. Environmental Science & Policy 10(1): 5–16.Sauermann, Henry, and Paula Stephan. 2013. Conflicting logics? A multidimensional view of industrial and academic science. Organization Science 24(3): 889–909.Schein, Edgar H. 1985. Organizational culture and leadership: A dynamic view. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Shane, Scott. 2000. Prior knowledge and the discovery of entrepreneurial opportunities. Organization Science 11(4): 448–469.Spaapen, Jack, and Leonie van Drooge. 2011. Introducing ‘productive interactions’ in social impact assessment. Research Evaluation 20(3): 211–218.Stokes, Donald E. 1997. Pasteur’s quadrant: Basic science and technological innovation. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.Tartari, Valentina, and Stefano Breschi. 2012. Set them free: scientists’ evaluations of the benefits and costs of university–industry research collaboration. Industrial and Corporate Change 21(5): 1117–1147.Tinker, Tony, and Rob Gray. 2003. Beyond a critique of pure reason: From policy to politics to praxis in environmental and social research. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal 16(5): 727–761.van Rijnsoever, Frank J., Laurens K. Hessels, and Rens L.J. Vandeberg. 2008. A resource-based view on the interactions of university researchers. Research Policy 37(8): 1255–1266.Venkataraman, Sankaran. 1997. The distinctive domain of entrepreneurship research: An editor’s perspective. Advances in Entrepreneurship, Firm Emergence, and Growth 3: 119–138.Verspagen, Bart. 2006. University research, intellectual property rights and European innovation systems. Journal of Economic Surveys 20(4): 607–632.Villanueva-Felez, Africa, Jordi Molas-Gallart, and Alejandro Escribá-Esteve. 2013. Measuring personal networks and their relationship with scientific production. Minerva 51(4): 465–483.Watermeyer, Richard. 2015. Lost in the ‘third space’: the impact of public engagement in higher education on academic identity, research practice and career progression. European Journal of Higher Education (online first, doi: 10.1080/21568235.2015.1044546 ).Weingart, Peter. 2009. Editorial for Issue 47/3. Minerva 47(3): 237–239.Ziman, John. 1996. ‘Postacademic science’: Constructing knowledge with networks and norms. Science Studies 1: 67–80.Zomer, Arend H., Ben W.A. Jongbloed, and Jürgen Enders. 2010. Do spin-offs make the academics’ heads spin? The impacts of spin-off companies on their parent research organisation. Minerva 48(3): 331–353

Ten-year assessment of the 100 priority questions for global biodiversity conservation

In 2008, a group of conservation scientists compiled a list of 100 priority questions for the conservation of the world's biodiversity ?Sutherland et al. (2009) Conservation Biology, 23, 557?567?. However, now almost a decade later, no one has yet published a study gauging how much progress has been made in addressing these 100 high?priority questions in the peer?reviewed literature. Here we take a first step toward re?examining the 100 questions and identify key knowledge gaps that still remain. Through a combination of a questionnaire and a literature review, we evaluated each of the 100 questions on the basis of two criteria: relevance and effort. We defined highly?relevant questions as those which ? if answered ? would have the greatest impact on global biodiversity conservation, while effort was quantified based on the number of review publications addressing a particular question, which we used as a proxy for research effort. Using this approach we identified a set of questions that, despite being perceived as highly relevant, have been the focus of relatively few review publications over the past ten years. These questions covered a broad range of topics but predominantly tackled three major themes: the conservation and management of freshwater ecosystems, the role of societal structures in shaping interactions between people and the environment, and the impacts of conservation interventions. We see these questions as important knowledge gaps that have so far received insufficient attention and may need to be prioritised in future research

Structural and functional annotation of the porcine immunome

Background: The domestic pig is known as an excellent model for human immunology and the two species share many pathogens. Susceptibility to infectious disease is one of the major constraints on swine performance, yet the structure and function of genes comprising the pig immunome are not well-characterized. The completion of the pig genome provides the opportunity to annotate the pig immunome, and compare and contrast pig and human immune systems.[br/] Results: The Immune Response Annotation Group (IRAG) used computational curation and manual annotation of the swine genome assembly 10.2 (Sscrofa10.2) to refine the currently available automated annotation of 1,369 immunity-related genes through sequence-based comparison to genes in other species. Within these genes, we annotated 3,472 transcripts. Annotation provided evidence for gene expansions in several immune response families, and identified artiodactyl-specific expansions in the cathelicidin and type 1 Interferon families. We found gene duplications for 18 genes, including 13 immune response genes and five non-immune response genes discovered in the annotation process. Manual annotation provided evidence for many new alternative splice variants and 8 gene duplications. Over 1,100 transcripts without porcine sequence evidence were detected using cross-species annotation. We used a functional approach to discover and accurately annotate porcine immune response genes. A co-expression clustering analysis of transcriptomic data from selected experimental infections or immune stimulations of blood, macrophages or lymph nodes identified a large cluster of genes that exhibited a correlated positive response upon infection across multiple pathogens or immune stimuli. Interestingly, this gene cluster (cluster 4) is enriched for known general human immune response genes, yet contains many un-annotated porcine genes. A phylogenetic analysis of the encoded proteins of cluster 4 genes showed that 15% exhibited an accelerated evolution as compared to 4.1% across the entire genome.[br/] Conclusions: This extensive annotation dramatically extends the genome-based knowledge of the molecular genetics and structure of a major portion of the porcine immunome. Our complementary functional approach using co-expression during immune response has provided new putative immune response annotation for over 500 porcine genes. Our phylogenetic analysis of this core immunome cluster confirms rapid evolutionary change in this set of genes, and that, as in other species, such genes are important components of the pig’s adaptation to pathogen challenge over evolutionary time. These comprehensive and integrated analyses increase the value of the porcine genome sequence and provide important tools for global analyses and data-mining of the porcine immune response

Integrative Annotation of 21,037 Human Genes Validated by Full-Length cDNA Clones

The human genome sequence defines our inherent biological potential; the realization of the biology encoded therein requires knowledge of the function of each gene. Currently, our knowledge in this area is still limited. Several lines of investigation have been used to elucidate the structure and function of the genes in the human genome. Even so, gene prediction remains a difficult task, as the varieties of transcripts of a gene may vary to a great extent. We thus performed an exhaustive integrative characterization of 41,118 full-length cDNAs that capture the gene transcripts as complete functional cassettes, providing an unequivocal report of structural and functional diversity at the gene level. Our international collaboration has validated 21,037 human gene candidates by analysis of high-quality full-length cDNA clones through curation using unified criteria. This led to the identification of 5,155 new gene candidates. It also manifested the most reliable way to control the quality of the cDNA clones. We have developed a human gene database, called the H-Invitational Database (H-InvDB; http://www.h-invitational.jp/). It provides the following: integrative annotation of human genes, description of gene structures, details of novel alternative splicing isoforms, non-protein-coding RNAs, functional domains, subcellular localizations, metabolic pathways, predictions of protein three-dimensional structure, mapping of known single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs), identification of polymorphic microsatellite repeats within human genes, and comparative results with mouse full-length cDNAs. The H-InvDB analysis has shown that up to 4% of the human genome sequence (National Center for Biotechnology Information build 34 assembly) may contain misassembled or missing regions. We found that 6.5% of the human gene candidates (1,377 loci) did not have a good protein-coding open reading frame, of which 296 loci are strong candidates for non-protein-coding RNA genes. In addition, among 72,027 uniquely mapped SNPs and insertions/deletions localized within human genes, 13,215 nonsynonymous SNPs, 315 nonsense SNPs, and 452 indels occurred in coding regions. Together with 25 polymorphic microsatellite repeats present in coding regions, they may alter protein structure, causing phenotypic effects or resulting in disease. The H-InvDB platform represents a substantial contribution to resources needed for the exploration of human biology and pathology