Plasma and cellular fibronectin: distinct and independent functions during tissue repair

Fibronectin (FN) is a ubiquitous extracellular matrix (ECM) glycoprotein that plays vital roles during tissue repair. The plasma form of FN circulates in the blood, and upon tissue injury, is incorporated into fibrin clots to exert effects on platelet function and to mediate hemostasis. Cellular FN is then synthesized and assembled by cells as they migrate into the clot to reconstitute damaged tissue. The assembly of FN into a complex three-dimensional matrix during physiological repair plays a key role not only as a structural scaffold, but also as a regulator of cell function during this stage of tissue repair. FN fibrillogenesis is a complex, stepwise process that is strictly regulated by a multitude of factors. During fibrosis, there is excessive deposition of ECM, of which FN is one of the major components. Aberrant FN-matrix assembly is a major contributing factor to the switch from normal tissue repair to misregulated fibrosis. Understanding the mechanisms involved in FN assembly and how these interplay with cellular, fibrotic and immune responses may reveal targets for the future development of therapies to regulate aberrant tissue-repair processes

Influences of semantic and syntactic incongruence on readiness potential in turn-end anticipation

Wesselmeier H, Jansen S, Müller HM. Influences of semantic and syntactic incongruence on readiness potential in turn-end anticipation. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience. 2014;8, 296:1-9.Knowing when it is convenient to take a turn in a conversation is an important task for dialog partners. As it appears that this decision is made before the transition point has been reached, it seems to involve anticipation. There are a variety of studies in the literature that provide possible explanations for turn-end anticipation. This study particularly focuses on how turn-end anticipation relies on syntactic and/or semantic information during utterance processing, as tested with syntactically and semantically violated sentences. With a combination reaction time and EEG experiment, we used the onset latencies of the readiness potential (RP) to uncover possible differences in response preparation. Although the mean anticipation timing accuracy (ATA) values of the behavioral test were all within a similar time range (control sentences: 108 ms, syntactically violated sentences: 93 ms and semantically violated sentences: 116 ms), we found evidence that response preparation is indeed different for syntactically and semantically violated sentences in comparison with control sentences. Our preconscious EEG data, in the form of RP results, indicated a response preparation onset to sentence end interval of 1452 ms in normal sentences, 937 ms in sentences with syntactic violations and 944 ms in sentences with semantic violations. Compared with control sentences, these intervals resulted in a significant RP interruption for both sentence types and indicate an interruption of preconscious response preparation. However, the behavioral response to sentence types occurred at comparable time points