Influencing the properties of dysprosium single-molecule magnets with phosphine, phosphide and phosphinidene ligands

Single-molecule magnets are a type of coordination compound that can retain magnetic information at low temperatures. Single-molecule magnets based on lanthanides have accounted for many important advances, including systems with very large energy barriers to reversal of the magnetization, and a di-terbium complex that displays magnetic hysteresis up to 14 K and shows strong coercivity. Ligand design is crucial for the development of new single-molecule magnets: organometallic chemistry presents possibilities for using unconventional ligands, particularly those with soft donor groups. Here we report dysprosium single-molecule magnets with neutral and anionic phosphorus donor ligands, and show that their properties change dramatically when varying the ligand from phosphine to phosphide to phosphinidene. A phosphide-ligated, trimetallic dysprosium single-molecule magnet relaxes via the second-excited Kramers’ doublet, and, when doped into a diamagnetic matrix at the single-ion level, produces a large energy barrier of 256 cm1 and magnetic hysteresis up to 4.4 K

Proteasome Activator Enhances Survival of Huntington's Disease Neuronal Model Cells

In patients with Huntington's disease (HD), the proteolytic activity of the ubiquitin proteasome system (UPS) is reduced in the brain and other tissues. The pathological hallmark of HD is the intraneuronal nuclear protein aggregates of mutant huntingtin. We determined how to enhance UPS function and influence catalytic protein degradation and cell survival in HD. Proteasome activators involved in either the ubiquitinated or the non-ubiquitinated proteolysis were overexpressed in HD patients' skin fibroblasts or mutant huntingtin-expressing striatal neurons. Following compromise of the UPS, overexpression of the proteasome activator subunit PA28γ, but not subunit S5a, recovered proteasome function in the HD cells. PA28γ also improved cell viability in mutant huntingtin-expressing striatal neurons exposed to pathological stressors, such as the excitotoxin quinolinic acid and the reversible proteasome inhibitor MG132. These results demonstrate the specific functional enhancements of the UPS that can provide neuroprotection in HD cells

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

Percutaneous CT-guided biopsy of the spine: results of 430 biopsies

Biopsies of lesions in the spine are often challenging procedures with significant risk of complications. CT-guided needle biopsies could lower these risks but uncertainties still exist about the diagnostic accuracy. Aim of this retrospective study was to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of CT-guided needle biopsies for bone lesions of the spine. We retrieved the results of 430 core needle biopsies carried out over the past fifteen years at the authors’ institute and examined the results obtained. Of the 430 biopsies performed, in 401 cases the right diagnosis was made with the first CT-guided needle biopsy (93.3% accuracy rate). Highest accuracy rates were obtained in primary and secondary malignant lesions. Most false negative results were found in cervical lesions and in benign, pseudotumoral, inflammatory, and systemic pathologies. There were only 9 complications (5 transient paresis, 4 haematomas that resolved spontaneously) that had no influence on the treatment strategy, nor on the patient’s outcome. In conclusion we can assert that this technique is reliable and safe and should be considered the gold standard in biopsies of the spine

Giant coercivity and high magnetic blocking temperatures for N2 3− radical-bridged dilanthanide complexes upon ligand dissociation

Single-molecule magnets typically only retain information in the presence of an applied magnetic field and at very low temperatures. Here, Demir, Long and co-workers design N2 3– radical-bridged dilanthanide complexes that exhibit giant coercivities and 100-s magnetic blocking temperatures of up to 20 K

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