Hsp40 Couples with the CSPα Chaperone Complex upon Induction of the Heat Shock Response

In response to a conditioning stress, the expression of a set of molecular chaperones called heat shock proteins is increased. In neurons, stress-induced and constitutively expressed molecular chaperones protect against damage induced by ischemia and neurodegenerative diseases, however the molecular basis of this protection is not known. Here we have investigated the crosstalk between stress-induced chaperones and cysteine string protein (CSPα). CSPα is a constitutively expressed synaptic vesicle protein bearing a J domain and a cysteine rich “string” region that has been implicated in the long term functional integrity of synaptic transmission and the defense against neurodegeneration. We have shown previously that the CSPα chaperone complex increases isoproterenol-mediated signaling by stimulating GDP/GTP exchange of Gαs. In this report we demonstrate that in response to heat shock or treatment with the Hsp90 inhibitor geldanamycin, the J protein Hsp40 becomes a major component of the CSPα complex. Association of Hsp40 with CSPα decreases CSPα-CSPα dimerization and enhances the CSPα-induced increase in steady state GTP hydrolysis of Gαs. This newly identified CSPα-Hsp40 association reveals a previously undescribed coupling of J proteins. In view of the crucial importance of stress-induced chaperones in the protection against cell death, our data attribute a role for Hsp40 crosstalk with CSPα in neuroprotection

Identification of a Highly Conserved H1 Subtype-Specific Epitope with Diagnostic Potential in the Hemagglutinin Protein of Influenza A Virus

Subtype specificity of influenza A virus (IAV) is determined by its two surface glycoproteins, hemagglutinin (HA) and neuraminidase (NA). For HA, 16 distinct subtypes (H1–H16) exist, while nine exist for NA. The epidemic strains of H1N1 IAV change frequently and cause annual seasonal epidemics as well as occasional pandemics, such as the notorious 1918 influenza pandemic. The recent introduction of pandemic A/H1N1 IAV (H1N1pdm virus) into humans re-emphasizes the public health concern about H1N1 IAV. Several studies have identified conserved epitopes within specific HA subtypes that can be used for diagnostics. However, immune specific epitopes in H1N1 IAV have not been completely assessed. In this study, linear epitopes on the H1N1pdm viral HA protein were identified by peptide scanning using libraries of overlapping peptides against convalescent sera from H1N1pdm patients. One epitope, P5 (aa 58–72) was found to be immunodominant in patients and to evoke high titer antibodies in mice. Multiple sequence alignments and in silico coverage analysis showed that this epitope is highly conserved in influenza H1 HA [with a coverage of 91.6% (9,860/10,767)] and almost completely absent in other subtypes [with a coverage of 3.3% (792/23,895)]. This previously unidentified linear epitope is located outside the five well-recognized antigenic sites in HA. A peptide ELISA method based on this epitope was developed and showed high correlation (χ2 = 51.81, P<0.01, Pearson correlation coefficient R = 0.741) with a hemagglutination inhibition test. The highly conserved H1 subtype-specific immunodominant epitope may form the basis for developing novel assays for sero-diagnosis and active surveillance against H1N1 IAVs

Identification of a Highly Conserved H1 Subtype-Specific Epitope with Diagnostic Potential in the Hemagglutinin Protein of Influenza A Virus

Subtype specificity of influenza A virus (IAV) is determined by its two surface glycoproteins, hemagglutinin (HA) and neuraminidase (NA). For HA, 16 distinct subtypes (H1–H16) exist, while nine exist for NA. The epidemic strains of H1N1 IAV change frequently and cause annual seasonal epidemics as well as occasional pandemics, such as the notorious 1918 influenza pandemic. The recent introduction of pandemic A/H1N1 IAV (H1N1pdm virus) into humans re-emphasizes the public health concern about H1N1 IAV. Several studies have identified conserved epitopes within specific HA subtypes that can be used for diagnostics. However, immune specific epitopes in H1N1 IAV have not been completely assessed. In this study, linear epitopes on the H1N1pdm viral HA protein were identified by peptide scanning using libraries of overlapping peptides against convalescent sera from H1N1pdm patients. One epitope, P5 (aa 58–72) was found to be immunodominant in patients and to evoke high titer antibodies in mice. Multiple sequence alignments and in silico coverage analysis showed that this epitope is highly conserved in influenza H1 HA [with a coverage of 91.6% (9,860/10,767)] and almost completely absent in other subtypes [with a coverage of 3.3% (792/23,895)]. This previously unidentified linear epitope is located outside the five well-recognized antigenic sites in HA. A peptide ELISA method based on this epitope was developed and showed high correlation (χ2 = 51.81, P<0.01, Pearson correlation coefficient R = 0.741) with a hemagglutination inhibition test. The highly conserved H1 subtype-specific immunodominant epitope may form the basis for developing novel assays for sero-diagnosis and active surveillance against H1N1 IAVs

10 years of mindlines: a systematic review and commentary

Background: In 2004, Gabbay and le May showed that clinicians generally base their decisions on mindlines—internalised and collectively reinforced tacit guidelines—rather than consulting written clinical guidelines. We considered how the concept of mindlines has been taken forward since. Methods: We searched databases from 2004 to 2014 for the term ‘mindline(s)’ and tracked all sources citing Gabbay and le May’s 2004 article. We read and re-read papers to gain familiarity and developed an interpretive analysis and taxonomy by drawing on the principles of meta-narrative systematic review. Results: In our synthesis of 340 papers, distinguished between authors who used mindlines purely in name (‘nominal’ view) sometimes dismissing them as a harmful phenomenon, and authors who appeared to have understood the term’s philosophical foundations. The latter took an ‘in-practice’ view (studying how mindlines emerge and spread in real-world settings), a ‘theoretical and philosophical’ view (extending theory) or a ‘solution focused’ view (exploring how to promote and support mindline development). We found that it is not just clinicians who develop mindlines: so do patients, in face-to-face and (potentially) online communities. Theoretical publications on mindlines have continued to challenge the rationalist assumptions of evidence-based medicine (EBM). Conventional EBM assumes a single, knowable reality and seeks to strip away context to generate universal predictive rules. In contrast, mindlines are predicated on a more fluid, embodied and intersubjective view of knowledge; they accommodate context and acknowledge multiple realities. When considering how knowledge spreads, the concept of mindlines requires us to go beyond the constraining notions of ‘dissemination’ and ‘translation’ to study tacit knowledge and the interactive human processes by which such knowledge is created, enacted and shared. Solution-focused publications described mindline-promoting initiatives such as relationship-building, collaborative learning and thought leadership. Conclusions: The concept of mindlines challenges the naïve rationalist view of knowledge implicit in some EBM publications, but the term appears to have been misunderstood (and prematurely dismissed) by some authors. By further studying mindlines empirically and theoretically, there is potential to expand EBM’s conceptual toolkit to produce richer forms of ‘evidence-based’ knowledge. We outline a suggested research agenda for achieving this goal