Intrinsic Capability of Budding Yeast Cofilin to Promote Turnover of Tropomyosin-Bound Actin Filaments

The ability of actin filaments to function in cell morphogenesis and motility is closely coupled to their dynamic properties. Yeast cells contain two prominent actin structures, cables and patches, both of which are rapidly assembled and disassembled. Although genetic studies have shown that rapid actin turnover in patches and cables depends on cofilin, how cofilin might control cable disassembly remains unclear, because tropomyosin, a component of actin cables, is thought to protect actin filaments against the depolymerizing activity of ADF/cofilin. We have identified cofilin as a yeast tropomyosin (Tpm1) binding protein through Tpm1 affinity column and mass spectrometry. Using a variety of assays, we show that yeast cofilin can efficiently depolymerize and sever yeast actin filaments decorated with either Tpm1 or mouse tropomyosins TM1 and TM4. Our results suggest that yeast cofilin has the intrinsic ability to promote actin cable turnover, and that the severing activity may rely on its ability to bind Tpm1

BarA-UvrY Two-Component System Regulates Virulence of Uropathogenic E. coli CFT073

Uropathogenic Escherichia coli (UPEC), a member of extraintestinal pathogenic E. coli, cause ∼80% of community-acquired urinary tract infections (UTI) in humans. UPEC initiates its colonization in epithelial cells lining the urinary tract with a complicated life cycle, replicating and persisting in intracellular and extracellular niches. Consequently, UPEC causes cystitis and more severe form of pyelonephritis. To further understand the virulence characteristics of UPEC, we investigated the roles of BarA-UvrY two-component system (TCS) in regulating UPEC virulence. Our results showed that mutation of BarA-UvrY TCS significantly decreased the virulence of UPEC CFT073, as assessed by mouse urinary tract infection, chicken embryo killing assay, and cytotoxicity assay on human kidney and uroepithelial cell lines. Furthermore, mutation of either barA or uvrY gene reduced the production of hemolysin, lipopolysaccharide (LPS), proinflammatory cytokines (TNF-α and IL-6) and chemokine (IL-8). The virulence phenotype was restored similar to that of wild-type by complementation of either barA or uvrY gene in trans. In addition, we discussed a possible link between the BarA-UvrY TCS and CsrA in positively and negatively controlling virulence in UPEC. Overall, this study provides the evidences for BarA-UvrY TCS regulates the virulence of UPEC CFT073 and may point to mechanisms by which virulence regulations are observed in different ways may control the long-term survival of UPEC in the urinary tract

Understanding the retinal basis of vision across species

The vertebrate retina first evolved some 500 million years ago in ancestral marine chordates. Since then, the eyes of different species have been tuned to best support their unique visuoecological lifestyles. Visual specializations in eye designs, large-scale inhomogeneities across the retinal surface and local circuit motifs mean that all species' retinas are unique. Computational theories, such as the efficient coding hypothesis, have come a long way towards an explanation of the basic features of retinal organization and function; however, they cannot explain the full extent of retinal diversity within and across species. To build a truly general understanding of vertebrate vision and the retina's computational purpose, it is therefore important to more quantitatively relate different species' retinal functions to their specific natural environments and behavioural requirements. Ultimately, the goal of such efforts should be to build up to a more general theory of vision

Evidence-based Kernels: Fundamental Units of Behavioral Influence

This paper describes evidence-based kernels, fundamental units of behavioral influence that appear to underlie effective prevention and treatment for children, adults, and families. A kernel is a behavior–influence procedure shown through experimental analysis to affect a specific behavior and that is indivisible in the sense that removing any of its components would render it inert. Existing evidence shows that a variety of kernels can influence behavior in context, and some evidence suggests that frequent use or sufficient use of some kernels may produce longer lasting behavioral shifts. The analysis of kernels could contribute to an empirically based theory of behavioral influence, augment existing prevention or treatment efforts, facilitate the dissemination of effective prevention and treatment practices, clarify the active ingredients in existing interventions, and contribute to efficiently developing interventions that are more effective. Kernels involve one or more of the following mechanisms of behavior influence: reinforcement, altering antecedents, changing verbal relational responding, or changing physiological states directly. The paper describes 52 of these kernels, and details practical, theoretical, and research implications, including calling for a national database of kernels that influence human behavior

Is “conductive argument” a single argument?

Focusing on a particular kind of so-called “conductive argument”, i.e. a “pro/con” argument intended to support a practical conclusion, I argue that “conductive argument” is a category mistake. There is no such thing as a “conductive argument”, if the term is meant to designate a single argument, with one conclusion. What (confusingly) appears to be a “conductive argument”, as structure, is one of two main possible outcomes of deliberative activity, understood as the critical testing of alternative proposals for action. More precisely, it is a recapitulation or summary of a process of critical questioning that has unfolded in time, where a practical conclusion has withstood criticism, in the sense that no decisive objections have emerged against it, though there are counter-considerations to it, as well as reasons in favour. To say that there are no decisive objections is to say that the opposite (negative) conclusion is not supported: it does not follow conclusively that the course of action being proposed is not reasonable. The positive conclusion, together with all the reasons that have been cited in favour and all the reasons that have been cited against (the counter-considerations), will be virtually indistinguishable from a so-called “conductive argument”. Whenever the positive conclusion does not survive criticism, the potential “conductive argument” will disintegrate, collapsing into a deductive argument in favour of the negative conclusion