Delineating the GRIN1 phenotypic spectrum: a distinct genetic NMDA receptor encephalopathy

Objective:To determine the phenotypic spectrum caused by mutations in GRIN1 encoding the NMDA receptor subunit GluN1 and to investigate their underlying functional pathophysiology.Methods:We collected molecular and clinical data from several diagnostic and research cohorts. Functional consequences of GRIN1 mutations were investigated in Xenopus laevis oocytes.Results:We identified heterozygous de novo GRIN1 mutations in 14 individuals and reviewed the phenotypes of all 9 previously reported patients. These 23 individuals presented with a distinct phenotype of profound developmental delay, severe intellectual disability with absent speech, muscular hypotonia, hyperkinetic movement disorder, oculogyric crises, cortical blindness, generalized cerebral atrophy, and epilepsy. Mutations cluster within transmembrane segments and result in loss of channel function of varying severity with a dominant-negative effect. In addition, we describe 2 homozygous GRIN1 mutations (1 missense, 1 truncation), each segregating with severe neurodevelopmental phenotypes in consanguineous families.Conclusions:De novo GRIN1 mutations are associated with severe intellectual disability with cortical visual impairment as well as oculomotor and movement disorders being discriminating phenotypic features. Loss of NMDA receptor function appears to be the underlying disease mechanism. The identification of both heterozygous and homozygous mutations blurs the borders of dominant and recessive inheritance of GRIN1-associated disorders.Johannes R. Lemke (32EP30_136042/1) and Peter De Jonghe (G.A.136.11.N and FWO/ESF-ECRP) received financial support within the EuroEPINOMICS-RES network (www.euroepinomics.org) within the Eurocores framework of the European Science Foundation (ESF). Saskia Biskup and Henrike Heyne received financial support from the German Federal Ministry for Education and Research (BMBF IonNeurONet: 01 GM1105A and FKZ: 01EO1501). Katia Hardies is a PhD fellow of the Institute for Science and Technology (IWT) Flanders. Ingo Helbig was supported by intramural funds of the University of Kiel, by a grant from the German Research Foundation (HE5415/3-1) within the EuroEPINOMICS framework of the European Science Foundation, and additional grants of the German Research Foundation (DFG, HE5415/5-1, HE 5415/6-1), German Ministry for Education and Research (01DH12033, MAR 10/012), and grant by the German chapter of the International League against Epilepsy (DGfE). The project also received infrastructural support through the Institute of Clinical Molecular Biology in Kiel, supported in part by DFG Cluster of Excellence "Inflammation at Interfaces" and "Future Ocean." The project was also supported by the popgen 2.0 network (P2N) through a grant from the German Ministry for Education and Research (01EY1103) and by the International Coordination Action (ICA) grant G0E8614N. Christel Depienne, Caroline Nava, and Delphine Heron received financial support for exome analyses by the Centre National de Genotypage (CNG, Evry, France)

The MarR-type repressor MhqR confers quinone and antimicrobial resistance in <i>Staphylococcus aureus</i>.

Fritsch VN, Loi VV, Busche T, et al. The MarR-type repressor MhqR confers quinone and antimicrobial resistance in &lt;i&gt;Staphylococcus aureus&lt;/i&gt;. Antioxidants &amp; redox signaling. 2019;31(16):1235-1252.AIMS: Quinone compounds are electron carriers and have antimicrobial and toxic properties due to their mode-of-actions as electrophiles and oxidants. However, the regulatory mechanism of quinone resistance is less well understood in the pathogen Staphylococcus aureus.; RESULTS: Methylhydroquinone (MHQ) caused a thiol-specific oxidative and electrophile stress response in the S. aureus transcriptome as revealed by the induction of the PerR, QsrR, CstR, CtsR and HrcA regulons. The SACOL2531-29 operon was most strongly upregulated by MHQ and was renamed as mhqRED operon based on its homology to the Bacillus subtilis locus. Here, we characterized the MarR-type regulator MhqR (SACOL2531) as quinone-sensing repressor of the mhqRED operon, which confers quinone and antimicrobial resistance in S. aureus. The mhqRED operon responds specifically to MHQ and less pronounced to pyocyanin and ciprofloxacin, but not to ROS, HOCl or aldehydes. The MhqR repressor binds specifically to an 9-9 bp inverted repeat (MhqR operator) upstream of the mhqRED operon and is inactivated by MHQ in vitro, which does not involve a thiol-based mechanism. In phenotypic assays, the mhqR deletion mutant was resistant to MHQ and quinone-like antimicrobial compounds, including pyocyanin, ciprofloxacin, norfloxacin and rifampicin. In addition, the mhqR mutant was sensitive to sub-lethal ROS and 24 h post macrophage infections, but acquired an improved survival under lethal ROS stress and after long-term infections. Conclusion and Innovation: In conclusion, our studies provide a link between quinone and antimicrobial resistance via the MhqR regulon of S. aureus

Interlaboratory Reproducibility in Growth and Reporter Expression in the Cyanobacterium Synechocystis sp. PCC 6803

In recent years, a plethora of new synthetic biology tools for use in cyanobacteria have been published; however, their reported characterizations often cannot be reproduced, greatly limiting the comparability of results and hindering their applicability. In this interlaboratory study, the reproducibility of a standard microbiological experiment for the cyanobacterial model organism Synechocystis sp. PCC 6803 was assessed. Participants from eight different laboratories quantified the fluorescence intensity of mVENUS as a proxy for the transcription activity of the three promoters PJ23100, PrhaBAD, and PpetE over time. In addition, growth rates were measured to compare growth conditions between laboratories. By establishing strict and standardized laboratory protocols, reflecting frequently reported methods, we aimed to identify issues with state-of-the-art procedures and assess their effect on reproducibility. Significant differences in spectrophotometer measurements across laboratories from identical samples were found, suggesting that commonly used reporting practices of optical density values need to be supplemented by cell count or biomass measurements. Further, despite standardized light intensity in the incubators, significantly different growth rates between incubators used in this study were observed, highlighting the need for additional reporting requirements of growth conditions for phototrophic organisms beyond the light intensity and CO2 supply. Despite the use of a regulatory system orthogonal to Synechocystis sp. PCC 6803, PrhaBAD, and a high level of protocol standardization, ∼32% variation in promoter activity under induced conditions was found across laboratories, suggesting that the reproducibility of other data in the field of cyanobacteria might be affected similarlyGerman Research Foundation 390713860, 239748522European Union 760994Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación PID2020-112645GB-I00UK Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC) BB/S020128/

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy in higher eukaryotes

Research in autophagy continues to accelerate,1 and as a result many new scientists are entering the field. Accordingly, it is important to establish a standard set of criteria for monitoring macroautophagy in different organisms. Recent reviews have described the range of assays that have been used for this purpose.2,3 There are many useful and convenient methods that can be used to monitor macroautophagy in yeast, but relatively few in other model systems, and there is much confusion regarding acceptable methods to measure macroautophagy in higher eukaryotes. A key point that needs to be emphasized is that there is a difference between measurements that monitor the numbers of autophagosomes versus those that measure flux through the autophagy pathway; thus, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation needs to be differentiated from fully functional autophagy that includes delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (in most higher eukaryotes) or the vacuole (in plants and fungi). Here, we present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of the methods that can be used by investigators who are attempting to examine macroautophagy and related processes, as well as by reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that investigate these processes. This set of guidelines is 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 verify an autophagic response. ©2008 Landes Bioscience

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy in higher eukaryotes.

Research in autophagy continues to accelerate,(1) and as a result many new scientists are entering the field. Accordingly, it is important to establish a standard set of criteria for monitoring macroautophagy in different organisms. Recent reviews have described the range of assays that have been used for this purpose.(2,3) There are many useful and convenient methods that can be used to monitor macroautophagy in yeast, but relatively few in other model systems, and there is much confusion regarding acceptable methods to measure macroautophagy in higher eukaryotes. A key point that needs to be emphasized is that there is a difference between measurements that monitor the numbers of autophagosomes versus those that measure flux through the autophagy pathway; thus, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation needs to be differentiated from fully functional autophagy that includes delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (in most higher eukaryotes) or the vacuole (in plants and fungi). Here, we present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of the methods that can be used by investigators who are attempting to examine macroautophagy and related processes, as well as by reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that investigate these processes. This set of guidelines is 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 verify an autophagic response