LIM domain-binding 1 maintains the terminally differentiated state of pancreatic β cells

The recognition of β cell dedifferentiation in type 2 diabetes raises the translational relevance of mechanisms that direct and maintain β cell identity. LIM domain-binding protein 1 (LDB1) nucleates multimeric transcriptional complexes and establishes promoter-enhancer looping, thereby directing fate assignment and maturation of progenitor populations. Many terminally differentiated endocrine cell types, however, remain enriched for LDB1, but its role is unknown. Here, we have demonstrated a requirement for LDB1 in maintaining the terminally differentiated status of pancreatic β cells. Inducible ablation of LDB1 in mature β cells impaired insulin secretion and glucose homeostasis. Transcriptomic analysis of LDB1-depleted β cells revealed the collapse of the terminally differentiated gene program, indicated by a loss of β cell identity genes and induction of the endocrine progenitor factor neurogenin 3 (NEUROG3). Lineage tracing confirmed that LDB1-depleted, insulin-negative β cells express NEUROG3 but do not adopt alternate endocrine cell fates. In primary mouse islets, LDB1 and its LIM homeodomain-binding partner islet 1 (ISL1) were coenriched at chromatin sites occupied by pancreatic and duodenal homeobox 1 (PDX1), NK6 homeobox 1 (NKX6.1), forkhead box A2 (FOXA2), and NK2 homeobox 2 (NKX2.2) - factors that co-occupy active enhancers in 3D chromatin domains in human islets. Indeed, LDB1 was enriched at active enhancers in human islets. Thus, LDB1 maintains the terminally differentiated state of β cells and is a component of active enhancers in both murine and human islets

Identificação diferencial de Rhodococcus equi e Dietzia maris em bubalinos Differential identification of Rhodococcus equi and Dietzia maris in buffaloes

Foram analisados 24 isolados bacterianos oriundos de leite e pele de búfalas (Bubalus bubalis), os quais foram previamente identificados como Rhodococcus equi com o auxílio de fenotipia concisa. Testes fenotípicos complementares e ferramentas moleculares foram utilizados com o objetivo de caracterizar esses isolados, bem como diferenciá-los de outros microrganismos intimamente relacionados. Observaram-se três fenótipos distintos, porém a identificação dos isolados foi inconclusiva. Apenas um dos isolados foi comprovado como sendo R. equi com a realização da PCR espécie-específica, sequenciamento e análise dos fragmentos de DNA. Os demais isolados só foram identificados pelo sequenciamento de fragmento do gene que codifica a região 16S do rRNA universal de bactérias, indicando tratar-se de Dietzia maris. O perfil de susceptibilidade aos antimicrobianos revelou maior resistência dos isolados de D. maris para oxacilina (96%) e rifampicina (87%). O isolado de R. equi apresentou resistência à amicacina, oxacilina, penicilina, rifampicina e tetraciclina. Alerta-se para o risco da incorreta identificação dos isolados baseados em testes fenotípicos concisos e para a necessidade de utilização de testes complementares para diferenciação entre R. equi e D. maris.<br>Twenty-four bacterial isolates from milk and skin of buffalo females (Bubalus bubalis), which previously had been identified as Rhodococcus equi by using a restricted number of phenotypical tests for bacterial characterization, were analyzed. The goal of this study was to perform the characterization of these isolates, as well as the differentiation of other microorganisms closely related by using additional phenotypical tests and molecular tools. Based on the phenotypical results, three different biotypes were obtained. However, the identification of the isolates was inconclusive. Only one of the isolates was confirmed as R. equi by the PCR specifically for this species, as well DNA sequencing and DNA fragment analysis. All the other isolates only could be precisely identified after the DNA sequencing, and they were characterized as Dietzia maris. The sensitivity profile to antimicrobials demonstrated the highest resistance of D. maris to oxacillin and rifampin, 96% and 87%, respectively. R. equi isolate, presented resistance to amikacin, oxacillin, penicillin, rifampin, and tetracycline. Thus, it is important to alert for the risk of the incorrect identification of the bacterial isolates by using diagnostic analysis based on phenotypical tests in order to differentiate R. equi and D. maris, besides the necessity to use complementary tests for differentiation of these microorganisms