SNUPN deficiency causes a recessive muscular dystrophy due to RNA mis-splicing and ECM dysregulation

SNURPORTIN-1, encoded by SNUPN, plays a central role in the nuclear import of spliceosomal small nuclear ribonucleoproteins. However, its physiological function remains unexplored. In this study, we investigate 18 children from 15 unrelated families who present with atypical muscular dystrophy and neurological defects. Nine hypomorphic SNUPN biallelic variants, predominantly clustered in the last coding exon, are ascertained to segregate with the disease. We demonstrate that mutant SPN1 failed to oligomerize leading to cytoplasmic aggregation in patients' primary fibroblasts and CRISPR/Cas9-mediated mutant cell lines. Additionally, mutant nuclei exhibit defective spliceosomal maturation and breakdown of Cajal bodies. Transcriptome analyses reveal splicing and mRNA expression dysregulation, particularly in sarcolemmal components, causing disruption of cytoskeletal organization in mutant cells and patient muscle tissues. Our findings establish SNUPN deficiency as the genetic etiology of a previously unrecognized subtype of muscular dystrophy and provide robust evidence of the role of SPN1 for muscle homeostasis

“Astonishing successes” and “bitter disappointment”: The specific heat of hydrogen in quantum theory

The specific heat of hydrogen gas at low temperatures was first measured in 1912 by Arnold Eucken in Walther Nernst’s laboratory in Berlin, and provided one of the earliest experimental supports for the new quantum theory. Even earlier, Nernst had developed a quantum theory of rotating diatomic gas molecules that figured in the discussions at the first Solvay conference in late 1911. Between 1913 and 1925, Albert Einstein, Paul Ehrenfest, Max Planck, Fritz Reiche, and Erwin Schrödinger, among many others, attempted theoretical descriptions of the rotational specific heat of hydrogen, with only limited success. Quantum theory also was central to the study of molecular spectra, where initially it was more successful. Moreover, the two problems interacted in sometimes surprising ways. Not until 1927, following Werner Heisenberg’s discovery of the behavior of indistinguishable particles in modern quantum mechanics, did American theorist David Dennison find a successful theory of the specific heat of hydrogen

Functional Outcome of Intravenous Thrombolysis in Patients With Lacunar Infarcts in the WAKE-UP Trial

Importance: The rationale for intravenous thrombolysis in patients with lacunar infarcts is debated, since it is hypothesized that the microvascular occlusion underlying lacunar infarcts might not be susceptible to pharmacological reperfusion treatment. Objective: To study the efficacy and safety of intravenous thrombolysis among patients with lacunar infarcts. Design, Setting, and Participants: This exploratory secondary post hoc analysis of the WAKE-UP trial included patients who were screened and enrolled between September 2012 and June 2017 (with final follow-up in September 2017). The WAKE-UP trial was a multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized clinical trial to study the efficacy and safety of intravenous thrombolysis with alteplase in patients with an acute stroke of unknown onset time, guided by magnetic resonance imaging. All 503 patients randomized in the WAKE-UP trial were reviewed for lacunar infarcts. Diagnosis of lacunar infarcts was based on magnetic resonance imaging and made by consensus of 2 independent investigators blinded to clinical information. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary efficacy variable was favorable outcome defined by a score of 0 to 1 on the modified Rankin Scale at 90 days after stroke, adjusted for age and severity of symptoms. Results: Of the 503 patients randomized in the WAKE-UP trial, 108 patients (including 74 men [68.5%]) had imaging-defined lacunar infarcts, whereas 395 patients (including 251 men [63.5%]) had nonlacunar infarcts. Patients with lacunar infarcts were younger than patients with nonlacunar infarcts (mean age [SD], 63 [12] years vs 66 [12] years; P = .003). Of patients with lacunar infarcts, 55 (50.9%) were assigned to treatment with alteplase and 53 (49.1%) to receive placebo. Treatment with alteplase was associated with higher odds of favorable outcome, with no heterogeneity of treatment outcome between lacunar and nonlacunar stroke subtypes. In patients with lacunar strokes, a favorable outcome was observed in 31 of 53 patients (59%) in the alteplase group compared with 24 of 52 patients (46%) in the placebo group (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.67 [95% CI, 0.77-3.64]). There was 1 death and 1 symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage according to Safe Implementation of Thrombolysis in Stroke-Monitoring Study criteria in the alteplase group, while no death and no symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage occurred in the placebo group. The distribution of the modified Rankin Scale scores 90 days after stroke also showed a nonsignificant shift toward better outcomes in patients with lacunar infarcts treated with alteplase, with an adjusted common odds ratio of 1.94 (95% CI, 0.95-3.93). Conclusions and Relevance: While the WAKE-UP trial was not powered to demonstrate the efficacy of treatment in subgroups of patients, the results indicate that the association of intravenous alteplase with functional outcome does not differ in patients with imaging-defined lacunar infarcts compared with those experiencing other stroke subtypes.status: publishe

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy

In 2008 we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, research on this topic has continued to accelerate, and many new scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Accordingly, it is important to update these guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Various reviews have described the range of assays that have been used for this purpose. Nevertheless, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to measure autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. A key point that needs to be emphasized is that there is a difference between measurements that monitor the numbers or volume of autophagic elements (e.g., autophagosomes or autolysosomes) at any stage of the autophagic process vs. those that measure flux through the autophagy pathway (i.e., the complete process); thus, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation needs to be differentiated from stimuli that result in increased autophagic activity, defined as increased autophagy induction coupled with increased delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (in most higher eukaryotes and some protists such as Dictyostelium) or the vacuole (in plants and fungi). In other words, it is especially important that investigators new to the field understand that the appearance of more autophagosomes does not necessarily equate with more autophagy. In fact, in many cases, autophagosomes accumulate because of a block in trafficking to lysosomes without a concomitant change in autophagosome biogenesis, whereas an increase in autolysosomes may reflect a reduction in degradative activity. Here, we present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of methods for use by investigators who aim to examine macroautophagy and related processes, as well as for reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a formulaic set of rules, because the appropriate assays depend in part on the question being asked and the system being used. In addition, we emphasize that no individual assay is guaranteed to be the most appropriate one in every situation, and we strongly recommend the use of multiple assays to monitor autophagy. In these guidelines, we consider these various methods of assessing autophagy and what information can, or cannot, be obtained from them. Finally, by discussing the merits and limits of particular autophagy assays, we hope to encourage technical innovation in the field

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy

In 2008 we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, research on this topic has continued to accelerate, and many new scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Accordingly, it is important to update these guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Various reviews have described the range of assays that have been used for this purpose. Nevertheless, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to measure autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. A key point that needs to be emphasized is that there is a difference between measurements that monitor the numbers or volume of autophagic elements (e.g., autophagosomes or autolysosomes) at any stage of the autophagic process vs. those that measure flux through the autophagy pathway (i.e., the complete process); thus, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation needs to be differentiated from stimuli that result in increased autophagic activity, defined as increased autophagy induction coupled with increased delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (in most higher eukaryotes and some protists such as Dictyostelium) or the vacuole (in plants and fungi). In other words, it is especially important that investigators new to the field understand that the appearance of more autophagosomes does not necessarily equate with more autophagy. In fact, in many cases, autophagosomes accumulate because of a block in trafficking to lysosomes without a concomitant change in autophagosome biogenesis, whereas an increase in autolysosomes may reflect a reduction in degradative activity. Here, we present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of methods for use by investigators who aim to examine macroautophagy and related processes, as well as for reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a formulaic set of rules, because the appropriate assays depend in part on the question being asked and the system being used. In addition, we emphasize that no individual assay is guaranteed to be the most appropriate one in every situation, and we strongly recommend the use of multiple assays to monitor autophagy. In these guidelines, we consider these various methods of assessing autophagy and what information can, or cannot, be obtained from them. Finally, by discussing the merits and limits of particular autophagy assays, we hope to encourage technical innovation in the field