Re-localization of Cellular Protein SRp20 during Poliovirus Infection: Bridging a Viral IRES to the Host Cell Translation Apparatus

Poliovirus IRES-mediated translation requires the functions of certain canonical as well as non-canonical factors for the recruitment of ribosomes to the viral RNA. The interaction of cellular proteins PCBP2 and SRp20 in extracts from poliovirus-infected cells has been previously described, and these two proteins were shown to function synergistically in viral translation. To further define the mechanism of ribosome recruitment for the initiation of poliovirus IRES-dependent translation, we focused on the role of the interaction between cellular proteins PCBP2 and SRp20. Work described here demonstrates that SRp20 dramatically re-localizes from the nucleus to the cytoplasm of poliovirus-infected neuroblastoma cells during the course of infection. Importantly, SRp20 partially co-localizes with PCBP2 in the cytoplasm of infected cells, corroborating our previous in vitro interaction data. In addition, the data presented implicate the presence of these two proteins in viral translation initiation complexes. We show that in extracts from poliovirus-infected cells, SRp20 is associated with PCBP2 bound to poliovirus RNA, indicating that this interaction occurs on the viral RNA. Finally, we generated a mutated version of SRp20 lacking the RNA recognition motif (SRp20ΔRRM) and found that this protein is localized similar to the full length SRp20, and also partially co-localizes with PCBP2 during poliovirus infection. Expression of this mutated version of SRp20 results in a ∼100 fold decrease in virus yield for poliovirus when compared to expression of wild type SRp20, possibly via a dominant negative effect. Taken together, these results are consistent with a model in which SRp20 interacts with PCBP2 bound to the viral RNA, and this interaction functions to recruit ribosomes to the viral RNA in a direct or indirect manner, with the participation of additional protein-protein or protein-RNA interactions

Phase II randomised trial of raltitrexed–oxaliplatin vs raltitrexed–irinotecan as first-line treatment in advanced colorectal cancer

The purpose of this phase II randomised trial was to determine which of two schemes, raltitrexed-irinotecan or raltitrexed-oxaliplatin, offered better activity and less toxicity in patients with advanced colorectal cancer (CRC). A total of 94 patients with previously untreated metastatic CRC were included and randomised to receive raltitrexed 3 mg m−2 followed by oxaliplatin 130 mg m−2 on day 1 (arm A), or CPT-11 350 mg m−2 followed by raltitrexed 3 mg m−2 (arm B). In both arms treatment was repeated every 3 weeks. Intent-to-treat (ITT) analysis showed an overall response rate of 46% (95% CI, 29.5–57.7%) for arm A, and 34% (95% CI, 19.8–48.4%) for arm B. Median time to progression was 8.2 months for arm A and 8.8 months for arm B. After a median follow-up of 14 months, 69% of patients included in arm A were still alive, compared to 59% of those included in arm B. Overall, 31 patients (65%) experienced some episode of toxicity in arm A and 32 patients (70%) in arm B, usually grade 1–2. The most common toxicity was hepatic, with 29 patients (60%) in arm A and 24 patients (62%) in arm B, and was grade 3–4 in four (8%) and four (9%) patients, respectively. In all, 14 patients (29%) from arm A and 24 patients (52%) from arm B had some grade of diarrhoea (P<0.03). Neurologic toxicity was observed in 31 patients (64%) in arm A, and was grade 3–4 in five patients (10%), while a cholinergic syndrome was detected in nine patients (19%) in arm B. There were no differences in haematologic toxicity. One toxic death (2%) occurred in arm A and three (6.5%) in arm B. In conclusion, both schemes have high efficacy as first-line treatment in metastatic CRC and their total toxicity levels are similar. Regimens with raltitrexed seem a reasonable alternative to fluoropyrimidines

XELOX (capecitabine plus oxaliplatin) as first-line treatment for elderly patients over 70 years of age with advanced colorectal cancer

The purpose of this phase II trial was to determine the efficacy and safety of the XELOX (capecitabine/oxaliplatin) regimen as first-line therapy in the elderly patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (MCRC). A total of 50 patients with MCRC aged ⩾70 years received oxaliplatin 130 mg m−2 on day 1 followed by oral capecitabine 1000 mg m−2 twice daily on days 1–14 every 3 weeks. Patients with creatinine clearance 30–50 ml min−1 received a reduced dose of capecitabine (750 mg m−2 twice daily). By intent-to-treat analysis, the overall response rate was 36% (95% CI, 28–49%), with three (6%) complete and 15 (30%) partial responses. In total, 18 patients (36%) had stable disease and 14 (28%) progressed. The median times to disease progression and overall survival were 5.8 months (95% CI, 3.9–7.8 months) and 13.2 months (95% CI, 7.6–16.9 months), respectively. Capecitabine was well tolerated: grade 3/4 adverse events were observed in 14 (28%) patients: 11 (22%) diarrhoea, eight (16%) asthenia, seven (14%) nausea/vomiting, three (6%) neutropenia, three (6%) thrombocytopenia, and two (4%) hand–foot syndrome. There was one treatment-related death from diarrhoea and sepsis. In conclusion, XELOX is well tolerated in elderly patients, with respectable efficacy and a meaningful clinical benefit response. Given its ease of administration compared with combinations of oxaliplatin with 5-FU/LV, it represents a good therapeutic option in the elderly

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy (4th edition)1.

In 2008, we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, this topic has received increasing attention, and many scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Thus, it is important to formulate on a regular basis updated guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Despite numerous reviews, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to evaluate autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. Here, we present a set of guidelines for investigators to select and interpret methods to examine autophagy and related processes, and for reviewers to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of reports that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a dogmatic set of rules, because the appropriateness of any assay largely depends on the question being asked and the system being used. Moreover, no individual assay is perfect for every situation, calling for the use of multiple techniques to properly monitor autophagy in each experimental setting. Finally, several core components of the autophagy machinery have been implicated in distinct autophagic processes (canonical and noncanonical autophagy), implying that genetic approaches to block autophagy should rely on targeting two or more autophagy-related genes that ideally participate in distinct steps of the pathway. Along similar lines, because multiple proteins involved in autophagy also regulate other cellular pathways including apoptosis, not all of them can be used as a specific marker for bona fide autophagic responses. Here, we critically discuss current methods of assessing autophagy and the information they can, or cannot, provide. Our ultimate goal is to encourage intellectual and technical innovation in the field

Antipredator behaviours of a spider mite in response to cues of dangerous and harmless predators

Prey are known to invest in costly antipredator behaviour when perceiving cues of dangerous, but not of relatively harmless predators. Whereas most studies investigate one type of antipredator behaviour, we studied several types (changes in oviposition, in escape and avoidance behaviour) in the spider mite Tetranychus evansi in response to cues from two predatory mites. The predator Phytoseiulus longipes is considered a dangerous predator for T. evansi, whereas Phytoseiulus macropilis has a low predation rate on this prey, thus is a much less dangerous predator. Spider mite females oviposited less on leaf disc halves with predator cues than on clean disc halves, independent of the predator species. On entire leaf discs, they laid fewer eggs in the presence of cues of the dangerous predator than on clean discs, but not in the presence of cues of the harmless predator. Furthermore, the spider mites escaped more often from discs with cues of the dangerous predator than from discs without predator cues, but they did not escape more from discs with cues of the harmless predator. The spider mites did not avoid plants with conspecifics and predators. We conclude that the spider mites displayed several different antipredator responses to the same predator species, and that some of these antipredator responses were stronger with cues of dangerous predators than with cues of harmless predators