Bumble bee parasite strains vary in resistance to phytochemicals

Nectar and pollen contain diverse phytochemicals that can reduce disease in pollinators. However, prior studies showed variable effects of nectar chemicals on infection, which could reflect variable phytochemical resistance among parasite strains. Inter-strain variation in resistance could influence evolutionary interactions between plants, pollinators, and pollinator disease, but testing direct effects of phytochemicals on parasites requires elimination of variation between bees. Using cell cultures of the bumble bee parasite Crithidia bombi, we determined (1) growth-inhibiting effects of nine floral phytochemicals and (2) variation in phytochemical resistance among four parasite strains. C. bombi growth was unaffected by naturally occurring concentrations of the known antitrypanosomal phenolics gallic acid, caffeic acid, and chlorogenic acid. However, C. bombi growth was inhibited by anabasine, eugenol, and thymol. Strains varied >3-fold in phytochemical resistance, suggesting that selection for phytochemical resistance could drive parasite evolution. Inhibitory concentrations of thymol (4.53-22.2 ppm) were similar to concentrations in Thymus vulgaris nectar (mean 5.2 ppm). Exposure of C. bombi to naturally occurring levels of phytochemicals—either within bees or during parasite transmission via flowers—could influence infection in nature. Flowers that produce antiparasitic phytochemical, including thymol, could potentially reduce infection in Bombus populations, thereby counteracting a possible contributor to pollinator decline

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

carboxylase deficiency presenting as generalized pustular psoriasis in a Chinese boy”, J Inherit Metab

Narisawa K. “Molecular analysis of holocarboxylase synthetase deficiency: a missense mutation and a single base deletion are predominant in Japanese patients”, Biochim Biophys Acta. 1995 Dec 12