Nicotine in the Endoplasmic Reticulum

Nicotine activates plasma membrane (PM) nicotinic receptors (nAChRs), but also permeates into the endoplasmic reticulum (ER) and cis-Golgi, and there binds to nascent nAChRs. Other psychiatric and abused drugs may also enter the ER and bind their classical targets. Further progress requires direct proof, quantification, and time resolution of these processes in live cells and in the brain of animals. Therefore, we are developing genetically encoded fluorescent biosensors to study the subcellular pharmacokinetics of neural drugs

Nicotine in the Endoplasmic Reticulum

Nicotine activates plasma membrane (PM) nicotinic receptors (nAChRs), but also permeates into the endoplasmic reticulum (ER) and cis-Golgi, and there binds to nascent nAChRs. Other psychiatric and abused drugs may also enter the ER and bind their classical targets. Further progress requires direct proof, quantification, and time resolution of these processes in live cells and in the brain of animals. Therefore, we are developing genetically encoded fluorescent biosensors to study the subcellular pharmacokinetics of neural drugs

Débat avec les responsables scientifiques de l’axe 3

Valérie Carayol : Vous avez dit que « dans la mêlée du direct, nous participons plutôt que nous symbolisons » et que « l’induction se vit au présent ». Hier, avec Wolfgang Settekorn qui nous a parlé de métaphorisations mutuelles avec des exemples visuels et avec Philippe Breton qui nous a parlé d’amalgame, on avait déjà esquissé un rapprochement entre l’induction et les dynamiques spatiales, pas obligatoirement une dynamique temporelle. Est-ce que vous pourriez préciser cette idée du direct, ..

Updated guidance on the management of COVID-19:from an American Thoracic Society/European Respiratory Society coordinated International Task Force (29 July 2020)

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a disease caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2. Consensus suggestions can standardise care, thereby improving outcomes and facilitating future research. METHODS: An International Task Force was composed and agreement regarding courses of action was measured using the Convergence of Opinion on Recommendations and Evidence (CORE) process. 70% agreement was necessary to make a consensus suggestion. RESULTS: The Task Force made consensus suggestions to treat patients with acute COVID-19 pneumonia with remdesivir and dexamethasone but suggested against hydroxychloroquine except in the context of a clinical trial; these are revisions of prior suggestions resulting from the interim publication of several randomised trials. It also suggested that COVID-19 patients with a venous thromboembolic event be treated with therapeutic anticoagulant therapy for 3 months. The Task Force was unable to reach sufficient agreement to yield consensus suggestions for the post-hospital care of COVID-19 survivors. The Task Force fell one vote shy of suggesting routine screening for depression, anxiety and post-traumatic stress disorder. CONCLUSIONS: The Task Force addressed questions related to pharmacotherapy in patients with COVID-19 and the post-hospital care of survivors, yielding several consensus suggestions. Management options for which there is insufficient agreement to formulate a suggestion represent research priorities.status: Published onlin

Biosensors Show the Pharmacokinetics of S-Ketamine in the Endoplasmic Reticulum.

The target for the "rapid" (<24 h) antidepressant effects of S-ketamine is unknown, vitiating programs to rationally develop more effective rapid antidepressants. To describe a drug's target, one must first understand the compartments entered by the drug, at all levels-the organ, the cell, and the organelle. We have, therefore, developed molecular tools to measure the subcellular, organellar pharmacokinetics of S-ketamine. The tools are genetically encoded intensity-based S-ketamine-sensing fluorescent reporters, iSKetSnFR1 and iSKetSnFR2. In solution, these biosensors respond to S-ketamine with a sensitivity, S-slope = delta(F/F0)/(delta[S-ketamine]) of 0.23 and 1.9/μM, respectively. The iSKetSnFR2 construct allows measurements at <0.3 μM S-ketamine. The iSKetSnFR1 and iSKetSnFR2 biosensors display >100-fold selectivity over other ligands tested, including R-ketamine. We targeted each of the sensors to either the plasma membrane (PM) or the endoplasmic reticulum (ER). Measurements on these biosensors expressed in Neuro2a cells and in human dopaminergic neurons differentiated from induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs) show that S-ketamine enters the ER within a few seconds after appearing in the external solution near the PM, then leaves as rapidly after S-ketamine is removed from the extracellular solution. In cells, S-slopes for the ER and PM-targeted sensors differ by <2-fold, indicating that the ER [S-ketamine] is less than 2-fold different from the extracellular [S-ketamine]. Organelles represent potential compartments for the engagement of S-ketamine with its antidepressant target, and potential S-ketamine targets include organellar ion channels, receptors, and transporters

Permanent genetic resources added to Molecular Ecology Resources Database 1 August 2011-30 September 2011

This article documents the addition of 299 microsatellite marker loci and nine pairs of single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) EPIC primers to the Molecular Ecology Resources (MER) Database. Loci were developed for the following species: Alosa pseudoharengus, Alosa aestivalis, Aphis spiraecola, Argopecten purpuratus, Coreoleuciscus splendidus, Garra gotyla, Hippodamia convergens, Linnaea borealis, Menippe mercenaria, Menippe adina, Parus major, Pinus densiflora, Portunus trituberculatus, Procontarinia mangiferae, Rhynchophorus ferrugineus, Schizothorax richardsonii, Scophthalmus rhombus, Tetraponera aethiops, Thaumetopoea pityocampa, Tuta absoluta and Ugni molinae. These loci were cross-tested on the following species: Barilius bendelisis, Chiromantes haematocheir, Eriocheir sinensis, Eucalyptus camaldulensis, Eucalyptus cladocalix, Eucalyptus globulus, Garra litaninsis vishwanath, Garra para lissorhynchus, Guindilla trinervis, Hemigrapsus sanguineus, Luma chequen. Guayaba, Myrceugenia colchaguensis, Myrceugenia correifolia, Myrceugenia exsucca, Parasesarma plicatum, Parus major, Portunus pelagicus, Psidium guayaba, Schizothorax richardsonii, Scophthalmus maximus, Tetraponera latifrons, Thaumetopoea bonjeani, Thaumetopoea ispartensis, Thaumetopoea libanotica, Thaumetopoea pinivora, Thaumetopoea pityocampa ena clade, Thaumetopoea solitaria, Thaumetopoea wilkinsoni and Tor putitora. This article also documents the addition of nine EPIC primer pairs for Euphaea decorata, Euphaea formosa, Euphaea ornata and Euphaea yayeyamana

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