Genome-wide association mapping of resistance to septoria nodorum leaf blotch in a nordic spring wheat collection

Parastagonospora nodorum is the causal agent of Septoria nodorum leaf blotch (SNB) in wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). It is the most important leaf blotch pathogen in Norwegian spring wheat. Several quantitative trait loci (QTL) for SNB susceptibility have been identified. Some of these QTL are the result of underlying gene-for-gene interactions involving necrotrophic effectors (NEs) and corresponding sensitivity (Snn) genes. A collection of diverse spring wheat lines was evaluated for SNB resistance and susceptibility over seven growing seasons in the field. In addition, wheat seedlings were inoculated and infiltrated with culture filtrates (CFs) from four single spore isolates and infiltrated with semipurified NEs (SnToxA, SnTox1, and SnTox3) under greenhouse conditions. In adult plants, the most stable SNB resistance QTL were located on chromosomes 2B, 2D, 4A, 4B, 5A, 6B, 7A, and 7B. The QTL on chromosome 2D was effective most years in the field. At the seedling stage, the most significant QTL after inoculation were located on chromosomes 1A, 1B, 3A, 4B, 5B, 6B, 7A, and 7B. The QTL on chromosomes 3A and 6B were significant both after inoculation and CF infiltration, indicating the presence of novel NE–Snn interactions. The QTL on chromosomes 4B and 7A were significant in both seedlings and adult plants. Correlations between SnToxA sensitivity and disease severity in the field were significant. To our knowledge, this is the first genome-wide association mapping study (GWAS) to investigate SNB resistance at the adult plant stage under field conditions

Diagnostically Challenging Epithelial Odontogenic Tumors: A Selective Review of 7 Jawbone Lesions

Considerable variation in the clinicopathologic presentation of epithelial odontogenic tumors can sometimes be confusing and increase the chance of misdiagnosis. Seven diagnostically challenging jawbone lesions are described. There were 2 cases of mistaken identity in our ameloblastoma file. One unicystic type, initially diagnosed and treated as a lateral periodontal cyst, showed destructive recurrence 6 years postoperatively. The other globulomaxillary lesion was managed under the erroneous diagnosis of adenomatoid odontogenic tumor and recurred 4 times over an 11-year period. This tumor was found in retrospect to be consistent with an adenoid ameloblastoma with dentinoid. The diagnosis of cystic squamous odontogenic tumor (SOT) occurring as a radicular lesion of an impacted lower third molar was one of exclusion. Of two unsuspected keratocystic odontogenic tumors, one depicted deceptive features of pericoronitis, while the other case has long been in our files with the diagnosis of globulomaxillary SOT. Two cases of primary intraosseous squamous cell carcinoma appeared benign clinically and exhibited unexpected findings; an impacted third molar began to erupt in association with the growth of carcinoma and another periradicular carcinoma showed dentinoid formation. Cases selectively reviewed in this article present challenging problems which require clinical and radiographic correlation to avoid potential diagnostic pitfalls

Comprehensive annotation of the Parastagonospora nodorum reference genome using next-generation genomics, transcriptomics and proteogenomics

Parastagonospora nodorum, the causal agent of Septoria nodorum blotch (SNB), is an economically important pathogen of wheat (Triticum spp.), and a model for the study of necrotrophic pathology and genome evolution. The reference P. nodorum strain SN15 was the first Dothideomycete with a published genome sequence, and has been used as the basis for comparison within and between species. Here we present an updated reference genome assembly with corrections of SNP and indel errors in the underlying genome assembly from deep resequencing data as well as extensive manual annotation of gene models using transcriptomic and proteomic sources of evidence (https://github.com/robsyme/Parastagonospora_nodorum_SN15). The updated assembly and annotation includes 8,366 genes with modified protein sequence and 866 new genes. This study shows the benefits of using a wide variety of experimental methods allied to expert curation to generate a reliable set of gene models

NIST interlaboratory study on glycosylation analysis of monoclonal antibodies : comparison of results from diverse analytical methods

Glycosylation is a topic of intense current interest in the development of biopharmaceuticals since it is related to drug safety and efficacy. This work describes results of an interlaboratory study on the glycosylation of the Primary Sample (PS) of NISTmAb, a monoclonal antibody reference material. Seventy‑six laboratories from industry, university, research, government, and hospital sectors in Europe, North America, Asia, and Australia submitted a total of 103 reports on glycan distributions. The principal objective of this study was to report and compare results for the full range of analytical methods presently used in the glycosylation  analysis of mAbs. Therefore, participation was unrestricted, with laboratories choosing their own measurement techniques. Protein glycosylation was determined in various ways, including at the level of intact mAb, protein fragments, glycopeptides, or released glycans, using a wide variety of methods for derivatization, separation, identification, and quantification. Consequently, the diversity of results was enormous, with the number of glycan compositions identified by each laboratory ranging from 4 to 48. In total, one hundred sixteen glycan compositions were reported, of which 57 compositions could be assigned consensus abundance values. These consensus medians provide community-derived values for NISTmAb PS. Agreement with the consensus medians did not depend on the specific method or laboratory type.. The study provides a view of the current state-of-the-art for biologic glycosylation measurement and suggests a clear need for harmonization of glycosylation analysis methods

Generation and characterization of standardized forms of trehalose dihydrate and their associated solid-state behavior

Trehalose dihydrate is a nonreducing disaccharide which has generated great interest in the food and pharmaceutical industries. However, it is well recognized that considerable batch to batch variation exists for supposedly identical samples, particularly in terms of the thermal response. In this investigation, two standardized forms of trehalose dihydrate were generated using two distinct crystallization pathways. The two batches were characterized using scanning electron microscopy, X-ray powder diffraction, and FTIR. The thermal responses of the two forms were then studied using modulated temperature differential scanning calorimetry (MTDSC) and thermogravimetric analysis (TGA). In particular, we describe the technique of quasi-isothermal MTDSC as a means of studying the change in equilibrium heat capacity as a function of temperature. Finally, variable temperature FTIR was utilized to assess the change in bonding configuration as a function of temperature. SEM revealed significant differences in the continuity and grain structure of the two batches. The TGA, MTDSC, and quasi-isothermal MTDSC studies all indicated significant differences in the thermal response and water loss profile. This was confirmed using variable temperature FTIR which indicated differences in bond reconfiguration as a function of temperature. We ascribe these differences to variations in the route by which water may leave the structure, possibly associated with grain size. The study has therefore demonstrated that chemically identical dihydrate forms may show significant differences in thermal response. We believe that this may assist in interpreting and hence controlling interbatch variation for this material

NIST Interlaboratory Study on Glycosylation Analysis of Monoclonal Antibodies: Comparison of Results from Diverse Analytical Methods

Glycosylation is a topic of intense current interest in the development of biopharmaceuticals because it is related to drug safety and efficacy. This work describes results of an interlaboratory study on the glycosylation of the Primary Sample (PS) of NISTmAb, a monoclonal antibody reference material. Seventy-six laboratories from industry, university, research, government, and hospital sectors in Europe, North America, Asia, and Australia submit- Avenue, Silver Spring, Maryland 20993; 22Glycoscience Research Laboratory, Genos, Borongajska cesta 83h, 10 000 Zagreb, Croatia; 23Faculty of Pharmacy and Biochemistry, University of Zagreb, A. Kovacˇ ic´ a 1, 10 000 Zagreb, Croatia; 24Department of Chemistry, Georgia State University, 100 Piedmont Avenue, Atlanta, Georgia 30303; 25glyXera GmbH, Brenneckestrasse 20 * ZENIT / 39120 Magdeburg, Germany; 26Health Products and Foods Branch, Health Canada, AL 2201E, 251 Sir Frederick Banting Driveway, Ottawa, Ontario, K1A 0K9 Canada; 27Graduate School of Advanced Sciences of Matter, Hiroshima University, 1-3-1 Kagamiyama Higashi-Hiroshima 739–8530 Japan; 28ImmunoGen, 830 Winter Street, Waltham, Massachusetts 02451; 29Department of Medical Physiology, Jagiellonian University Medical College, ul. Michalowskiego 12, 31–126 Krakow, Poland; 30Department of Pathology, Johns Hopkins University, 400 N. Broadway Street Baltimore, Maryland 21287; 31Mass Spec Core Facility, KBI Biopharma, 1101 Hamlin Road Durham, North Carolina 27704; 32Division of Mass Spectrometry, Korea Basic Science Institute, 162 YeonGuDanji-Ro, Ochang-eup, Cheongwon-gu, Cheongju Chungbuk, 363–883 Korea (South); 33Advanced Therapy Products Research Division, Korea National Institute of Food and Drug Safety, 187 Osongsaengmyeong 2-ro Osong-eup, Heungdeok-gu, Cheongju-si, Chungcheongbuk-do, 363–700, Korea (South); 34Center for Proteomics and Metabolomics, Leiden University Medical Center, P.O. Box 9600, 2300 RC Leiden, The Netherlands; 35Ludger Limited, Culham Science Centre, Abingdon, Oxfordshire, OX14 3EB, United Kingdom; 36Biomolecular Discovery and Design Research Centre and ARC Centre of Excellence for Nanoscale BioPhotonics (CNBP), Macquarie University, North Ryde, Australia; 37Proteomics, Central European Institute for Technology, Masaryk University, Kamenice 5, A26, 625 00 BRNO, Czech Republic; 38Max Planck Institute for Dynamics of Complex Technical Systems, Sandtorstrasse 1, 39106 Magdeburg, Germany; 39Department of Biomolecular Sciences, Max Planck Institute of Colloids and Interfaces, 14424 Potsdam, Germany; 40AstraZeneca, Granta Park, Cambridgeshire, CB21 6GH United Kingdom; 41Merck, 2015 Galloping Hill Rd, Kenilworth, New Jersey 07033; 42Analytical R&D, MilliporeSigma, 2909 Laclede Ave. St. Louis, Missouri 63103; 43MS Bioworks, LLC, 3950 Varsity Drive Ann Arbor, Michigan 48108; 44MSD, Molenstraat 110, 5342 CC Oss, The Netherlands; 45Exploratory Research Center on Life and Living Systems (ExCELLS), National Institutes of Natural Sciences, 5–1 Higashiyama, Myodaiji, Okazaki 444–8787 Japan; 46Graduate School of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Nagoya City University, 3–1 Tanabe-dori, Mizuhoku, Nagoya 467–8603 Japan; 47Medical & Biological Laboratories Co., Ltd, 2-22-8 Chikusa, Chikusa-ku, Nagoya 464–0858 Japan; 48National Institute for Biological Standards and Control, Blanche Lane, South Mimms, Potters Bar, Hertfordshire EN6 3QG United Kingdom; 49Division of Biological Chemistry & Biologicals, National Institute of Health Sciences, 1-18-1 Kamiyoga, Setagaya-ku, Tokyo 158–8501 Japan; 50New England Biolabs, Inc., 240 County Road, Ipswich, Massachusetts 01938; 51New York University, 100 Washington Square East New York City, New York 10003; 52Target Discovery Institute, Nuffield Department of Medicine, University of Oxford, Roosevelt Drive, Oxford, OX3 7FZ, United Kingdom; 53GlycoScience Group, The National Institute for Bioprocessing Research and Training, Fosters Avenue, Mount Merrion, Blackrock, Co. Dublin, Ireland; 54Department of Chemistry, North Carolina State University, 2620 Yarborough Drive Raleigh, North Carolina 27695; 55Pantheon, 201 College Road East Princeton, New Jersey 08540; 56Pfizer Inc., 1 Burtt Road Andover, Massachusetts 01810; 57Proteodynamics, ZI La Varenne 20–22 rue Henri et Gilberte Goudier 63200 RIOM, France; 58ProZyme, Inc., 3832 Bay Center Place Hayward, California 94545; 59Koichi Tanaka Mass Spectrometry Research Laboratory, Shimadzu Corporation, 1 Nishinokyo Kuwabara-cho Nakagyo-ku, Kyoto, 604 8511 Japan; 60Children’s GMP LLC, St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital, 262 Danny Thomas Place Memphis, Tennessee 38105; 61Sumitomo Bakelite Co., Ltd., 1–5 Muromati 1-Chome, Nishiku, Kobe, 651–2241 Japan; 62Synthon Biopharmaceuticals, Microweg 22 P.O. Box 7071, 6503 GN Nijmegen, The Netherlands; 63Takeda Pharmaceuticals International Co., 40 Landsdowne Street Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139; 64Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, Texas Tech University, 2500 Broadway, Lubbock, Texas 79409; 65Thermo Fisher Scientific, 1214 Oakmead Parkway Sunnyvale, California 94085; 66United States Pharmacopeia India Pvt. Ltd. IKP Knowledge Park, Genome Valley, Shamirpet, Turkapally Village, Medchal District, Hyderabad 500 101 Telangana, India; 67Alberta Glycomics Centre, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta T6G 2G2 Canada; 68Department of Chemistry, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta T6G 2G2 Canada; 69Department of Chemistry, University of California, One Shields Ave, Davis, California 95616; 70Horva´ th Csaba Memorial Laboratory for Bioseparation Sciences, Research Center for Molecular Medicine, Doctoral School of Molecular Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Debrecen, Debrecen, Egyetem ter 1, Hungary; 71Translational Glycomics Research Group, Research Institute of Biomolecular and Chemical Engineering, University of Pannonia, Veszprem, Egyetem ut 10, Hungary; 72Delaware Biotechnology Institute, University of Delaware, 15 Innovation Way Newark, Delaware 19711; 73Proteomics Core Facility, University of Gothenburg, Medicinaregatan 1G SE 41390 Gothenburg, Sweden; 74Department of Medical Biochemistry and Cell Biology, University of Gothenburg, Institute of Biomedicine, Sahlgrenska Academy, Medicinaregatan 9A, Box 440, 405 30, Gothenburg, Sweden; 75Department of Clinical Chemistry and Transfusion Medicine, Sahlgrenska Academy at the University of Gothenburg, Bruna Straket 16, 41345 Gothenburg, Sweden; 76Department of Chemistry, University of Hamburg, Martin Luther King Pl. 6 20146 Hamburg, Germany; 77Department of Chemistry, University of Manitoba, 144 Dysart Road, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada R3T 2N2; 78Laboratory of Mass Spectrometry of Interactions and Systems, University of Strasbourg, UMR Unistra-CNRS 7140, France; 79Natural and Medical Sciences Institute, University of Tu¨ bingen, Markwiesenstrae 55, 72770 Reutlingen, Germany; 80Bijvoet Center for Biomolecular Research and Utrecht Institute for Pharmaceutical Sciences, Utrecht University, Padualaan 8, 3584 CH Utrecht, The Netherlands; 81Division of Bioanalytical Chemistry, Amsterdam Institute for Molecules, Medicines and Systems, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, de Boelelaan 1085, 1081 HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands; 82Department of Chemistry, Waters Corporation, 34 Maple Street Milford, Massachusetts 01757; 83Zoetis, 333 Portage St. Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 Author’s Choice—Final version open access under the terms of the Creative Commons CC-BY license. Received July 24, 2019, and in revised form, August 26, 2019 Published, MCP Papers in Press, October 7, 2019, DOI 10.1074/mcp.RA119.001677 ER: NISTmAb Glycosylation Interlaboratory Study 12 Molecular & Cellular Proteomics 19.1 Downloaded from https://www.mcponline.org by guest on January 20, 2020 ted a total of 103 reports on glycan distributions. The principal objective of this study was to report and compare results for the full range of analytical methods presently used in the glycosylation analysis of mAbs. Therefore, participation was unrestricted, with laboratories choosing their own measurement techniques. Protein glycosylation was determined in various ways, including at the level of intact mAb, protein fragments, glycopeptides, or released glycans, using a wide variety of methods for derivatization, separation, identification, and quantification. Consequently, the diversity of results was enormous, with the number of glycan compositions identified by each laboratory ranging from 4 to 48. In total, one hundred sixteen glycan compositions were reported, of which 57 compositions could be assigned consensus abundance values. These consensus medians provide communityderived values for NISTmAb PS. Agreement with the consensus medians did not depend on the specific method or laboratory type. The study provides a view of the current state-of-the-art for biologic glycosylation measurement and suggests a clear need for harmonization of glycosylation analysis methods. Molecular & Cellular Proteomics 19: 11–30, 2020. DOI: 10.1074/mcp.RA119.001677.L