Do Postures of Distal Effectors Affect the Control of Actions of Other Distal Effectors? Evidence for a System of Interactions between Hand and Mouth

The present study aimed at determining whether, in healthy humans, postures assumed by distal effectors affect the control of the successive grasp executed with other distal effectors. In experiments 1 and 2, participants reached different objects with their head and grasped them with their mouth, after assuming different hand postures. The postures could be implicitly associated with interactions with large or small objects. The kinematics of lip shaping during grasp varied congruently with the hand posture, i.e. it was larger or smaller when it could be associated with the grasping of large or small objects, respectively. In experiments 3 and 4, participants reached and grasped different objects with their hand, after assuming the postures of mouth aperture or closure (experiment 3) and the postures of toe extension or flexion (experiment 4). The mouth postures affected the kinematics of finger shaping during grasp, that is larger finger shaping corresponded with opened mouth and smaller finger shaping with closed mouth. In contrast, the foot postures did not influence the hand grasp kinematics. Finally, in experiment 5 participants reached-grasped different objects with their hand while pronouncing opened and closed vowels, as verified by the analysis of their vocal spectra. Open and closed vowels induced larger and smaller finger shaping, respectively. In all experiments postures of the distal effectors induced no effect, or only unspecific effects on the kinematics of the reach proximal/axial component. The data from the present study support the hypothesis that there exists a system involved in establishing interactions between movements and postures of hand and mouth. This system might have been used to transfer a repertoire of hand gestures to mouth articulation postures during language evolution and, in modern humans, it may have evolved a system controlling the interactions existing between speech and gestures

Feedback within the Inter-Cellular Communication and Tumorigenesis in Carcinomas

The classical somatic mutation theory (SMT) of carcinogenesis and metastasis postulates that malignant transformation occurs in cells that accumulate a sufficient amount of mutations in the appropriate oncogenes and/or tumor suppressor genes. These mutations result in cell-autonomous activation of the mutated cell and a growth advantage relative to neighboring cells. However, the SMT cannot completely explain many characteristics of carcinomas. Contrary to the cell-centered view of the SMT with respect to carcinogenesis, recent research has revealed evidence that the tumor microenvironment plays a role in carcinogenesis as well. In this review, we present a new model that accommodates the role of the tumor microenvironment in carcinogenesis and complements the classical SMT. Our “feedback” model emphasizes the role of an altered spatiotemporal communication between epithelial and stromal cells during carcinogenesis: a dysfunctional intracellular signaling in tumorigenic epithelial cells leads to inappropriate cellular responses to stimuli from associated stromal or inflammatory cells. Thus, a positive feedback loop of the information flow between parenchymal and stromal cells results. This constant communication between the stromal cells and the tumor cells causes a perpetually activated state of tumor cells analogous to resonance disaster

Heat-shock proteins in infection-mediated inflammation-induced tumorigenesis

Inflammation is a necessary albeit insufficient component of tumorigenesis in some cancers. Infectious agents directly implicated in tumorigenesis have been shown to induce inflammation. This process involves both the innate and adaptive components of the immune system which contribute to tumor angiogenesis, tumor tolerance and metastatic properties of neoplasms. Recently, heat-shock proteins have been identified as mediators of this inflammatory process and thus may provide a link between infection-mediated inflammation and subsequent cancer development. In this review, the role of heat-shock proteins in infection-induced inflammation and carcinogenesis will be discussed

Transcriptional control in the prereplicative phase of T4 development

Control of transcription is crucial for correct gene expression and orderly development. For many years, bacteriophage T4 has provided a simple model system to investigate mechanisms that regulate this process. Development of T4 requires the transcription of early, middle and late RNAs. Because T4 does not encode its own RNA polymerase, it must redirect the polymerase of its host, E. coli, to the correct class of genes at the correct time. T4 accomplishes this through the action of phage-encoded factors. Here I review recent studies investigating the transcription of T4 prereplicative genes, which are expressed as early and middle transcripts. Early RNAs are generated immediately after infection from T4 promoters that contain excellent recognition sequences for host polymerase. Consequently, the early promoters compete extremely well with host promoters for the available polymerase. T4 early promoter activity is further enhanced by the action of the T4 Alt protein, a component of the phage head that is injected into E. coli along with the phage DNA. Alt modifies Arg265 on one of the two α subunits of RNA polymerase. Although work with host promoters predicts that this modification should decrease promoter activity, transcription from some T4 early promoters increases when RNA polymerase is modified by Alt. Transcription of T4 middle genes begins about 1 minute after infection and proceeds by two pathways: 1) extension of early transcripts into downstream middle genes and 2) activation of T4 middle promoters through a process called sigma appropriation. In this activation, the T4 co-activator AsiA binds to Region 4 of σ70, the specificity subunit of RNA polymerase. This binding dramatically remodels this portion of σ70, which then allows the T4 activator MotA to also interact with σ70. In addition, AsiA restructuring of σ70 prevents Region 4 from forming its normal contacts with the -35 region of promoter DNA, which in turn allows MotA to interact with its DNA binding site, a MotA box, centered at the -30 region of middle promoter DNA. T4 sigma appropriation reveals how a specific domain within RNA polymerase can be remolded and then exploited to alter promoter specificity