Sam68 RNA Binding Protein Is an In Vivo Substrate for Protein Arginine N-Methyltransferase 1

RNA binding proteins often contain multiple arginine glycine repeats, a sequence that is frequently methylated by protein arginine methyltransferases. The role of this posttranslational modification in the life cycle of RNA binding proteins is not well understood. Herein, we report that Sam68, a heteronuclear ribonucleoprotein K homology domain containing RNA binding protein, associates with and is methylated in vivo by the protein arginine N-methyltransferase 1 (PRMT1). Sam68 contains asymmetrical dimethylarginines near its proline motif P3 as assessed by using a novel asymmetrical dimethylarginine-specific antibody and mass spectrometry. Deletion of the methylation sites and the use of methylase inhibitors resulted in Sam68 accumulation in the cytoplasm. Sam68 was also detected in the cytoplasm of PRMT1-deficient embryonic stem cells. Although the cellular function of Sam68 is unknown, it has been shown to export unspliced human immunodeficiency virus RNAs. Cells treated with methylase inhibitors prevented the ability of Sam68 to export unspliced human immunodeficiency virus RNAs. Other K homology domain RNA binding proteins, including SLM-1, SLM-2, QKI-5, GRP33, and heteronuclear ribonucleoprotein K were also methylated in vivo. These findings demonstrate that RNA binding proteins are in vivo substrates for PRMT1, and their methylation is essential for their proper localization and function

A multi-country test of brief reappraisal interventions on emotions during the COVID-19 pandemic

Abstract: The COVID-19 pandemic has increased negative emotions and decreased positive emotions globally. Left unchecked, these emotional changes might have a wide array of adverse impacts. To reduce negative emotions and increase positive emotions, we tested the effectiveness of reappraisal, an emotion-regulation strategy that modifies how one thinks about a situation. Participants from 87 countries and regions (n = 21,644) were randomly assigned to one of two brief reappraisal interventions (reconstrual or repurposing) or one of two control conditions (active or passive). Results revealed that both reappraisal interventions (vesus both control conditions) consistently reduced negative emotions and increased positive emotions across different measures. Reconstrual and repurposing interventions had similar effects. Importantly, planned exploratory analyses indicated that reappraisal interventions did not reduce intentions to practice preventive health behaviours. The findings demonstrate the viability of creating scalable, low-cost interventions for use around the world. Protocol registration: The stage 1 protocol for this Registered Report was accepted in principle on 12 May 2020. The protocol, as accepted by the journal, can be found at https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.c.4878591.v1 © 2021, The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Limited

Author Correction: A multi-country test of brief reappraisal interventions on emotions during the COVID-19 pandemic

Correction to: Nature Human Behaviour https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-021-01173-x, published online 2 August 2021. In the version of this article initially published, the following authors were omitted from the author list and the Author contributions section for “investigation” and “writing and editing”: Nandor Hajdu (Institute of Psychology, ELTE Eötvös Loránd University, Budapest, Hungary), Jordane Boudesseul (Facultad de Psicología, Instituto de Investigación Científica, Universidad de Lima, Lima, Perú), Rafał Muda (Faculty of Economics, Maria Curie-Sklodowska University, Lublin, Poland) and Sandersan Onie (Black Dog Institute, UNSW Sydney, Sydney, Australia & Emotional Health for All Foundation, Jakarta, Indonesia). In addition, Saeideh FatahModares’ name was originally misspelled as Saiedeh FatahModarres in the author list. Further, affiliations have been corrected for Maria Terskova (National Research University Higher School of Economics, Moscow, Russia), Susana Ruiz Fernandez (FOM University of Applied Sciences, Essen; Leibniz-Institut für Wissensmedien, Tübingen, and LEAD Research Network, Eberhard Karls University, Tübingen, Germany), Hendrik Godbersen (FOM University of Applied Sciences, Essen, Germany), Gulnaz Anjum (Department of Psychology, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, Canada, and Department of Economics & Social Sciences, Institute of Business Administration, Karachi, Pakistan). The changes have been made to the HTML and PDF versions of the article

In COVID-19 health messaging, loss framing increases anxiety with Little-to-No concomitant benefits: Experimental evidence from 84 countries

The COVID-19 pandemic (and its aftermath) highlights a critical need to communicate health information effectively to the global public. Given that subtle differences in information framing can have meaningful effects on behavior, behavioral science research highlights a pressing question: Is it more effective to frame COVID-19 health messages in terms of potential losses (e.g., “If you do not practice these steps, you can endanger yourself and others”) or potential gains (e.g., “If you practice these steps, you can protect yourself and others”)? Collecting data in 48 languages from 15,929 participants in 84 countries, we experimentally tested the effects of message framing on COVID-19-related judgments, intentions, and feelings. Loss- (vs. gain-) framed messages increased self-reported anxiety among participants cross-nationally with little-to-no impact on policy attitudes, behavioral intentions, or information seeking relevant to pandemic risks. These results were consistent across 84 countries, three variations of the message framing wording, and 560 data processing and analytic choices. Thus, results provide an empirical answer to a global communication question and highlight the emotional toll of loss-framed messages. Critically, this work demonstrates the importance of considering unintended affective consequences when evaluating nudge-style interventions