Must analysis of meaning follow analysis of form? A time course analysis

Many models of word recognition assume that processing proceeds sequentially from analysis of form to analysis of meaning. In the context of morphological processing, this implies that morphemes are processed as units of form prior to any influence of their meanings. Some interpret the apparent absence of differences in recognition latencies to targets (SNEAK) in form and semantically similar (sneaky-SNEAK) and in form similar and semantically dissimilar (sneaker-SNEAK) prime contexts at a stimulus onset asynchrony (SOA) of 48 ms as consistent with this claim. To determine the time course over which degree of semantic similarity between morphologically structured primes and their targets influences recognition in the forward masked priming variant of the lexical decision paradigm, we compared facilitation for the same targets after semantically similar and dissimilar primes across a range of SOAs (34–100 ms). The effect of shared semantics on recognition latency increased linearly with SOA when long SOAs were intermixed (Experiments 1A and 1B) and latencies were significantly faster after semantically similar than dissimilar primes at homogeneous SOAs of 48 ms (Experiment 2) and 34 ms (Experiment 3). Results limit the scope of form-then-semantics models of recognition and demonstrate that semantics influences even the very early stages of recognition. Finally, once general performance across trials has been accounted for, we fail to provide evidence for individual differences in morphological processing that can be linked to measures of reading proficiency

Copy Number Variation Affecting the Photoperiod-B1 and Vernalization-A1 Genes Is Associated with Altered Flowering Time in Wheat (Triticum aestivum)

The timing of flowering during the year is an important adaptive character affecting reproductive success in plants and is critical to crop yield. Flowering time has been extensively manipulated in crops such as wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) during domestication, and this enables them to grow productively in a wide range of environments. Several major genes controlling flowering time have been identified in wheat with mutant alleles having sequence changes such as insertions, deletions or point mutations. We investigated genetic variants in commercial varieties of wheat that regulate flowering by altering photoperiod response (Ppd-B1 alleles) or vernalization requirement (Vrn-A1 alleles) and for which no candidate mutation was found within the gene sequence. Genetic and genomic approaches showed that in both cases alleles conferring altered flowering time had an increased copy number of the gene and altered gene expression. Alleles with an increased copy number of Ppd-B1 confer an early flowering day neutral phenotype and have arisen independently at least twice. Plants with an increased copy number of Vrn-A1 have an increased requirement for vernalization so that longer periods of cold are required to potentiate flowering. The results suggest that copy number variation (CNV) plays a significant role in wheat adaptation

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