The C-Terminus of Toxoplasma RON2 Provides the Crucial Link between AMA1 and the Host-Associated Invasion Complex

Host cell invasion by apicomplexan parasites requires formation of the moving junction (MJ), a ring-like apposition between the parasite and host plasma membranes that the parasite migrates through during entry. The Toxoplasma MJ is a secreted complex including TgAMA1, a transmembrane protein on the parasite surface, and a complex of rhoptry neck proteins (TgRON2/4/5/8) described as host cell-associated. How these proteins connect the parasite and host cell has not previously been described. Here we show that TgRON2 localizes to the MJ and that two short segments flanking a hydrophobic stretch near its C-terminus (D3 and D4) independently associate with the ectodomain of TgAMA1. Pre-incubation of parasites with D3 (fused to glutathione S-transferase) dramatically reduces invasion but does not prevent injection of rhoptry bulb proteins. Hence, the entire C-terminal region of TgRON2 forms the crucial bridge between TgAMA1 and the rest of the MJ complex but this association is not required for rhoptry protein injection

When research seems like clinical care: a qualitative study of the communication of individual cancer genetic research results

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Research ethicists have recently declared a new ethical imperative: that researchers should communicate the results of research to participants. For some analysts, the obligation is restricted to the communication of the general findings or conclusions of the study. However, other analysts extend the obligation to the disclosure of individual research results, especially where these results are perceived to have clinical relevance. Several scholars have advanced cogent critiques of the putative obligation to disclose individual research results. They question whether ethical goals are served by disclosure or violated by non-disclosure, and whether the communication of research results respects ethically salient differences between research practices and clinical care. Empirical data on these questions are limited. Available evidence suggests, on the one hand, growing support for disclosure, and on the other, the potential for significant harm.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>This paper explores the implications of the disclosure of individual research results for the relationship between research and clinical care through analysis of research-based cancer genetic testing in Ontario, Canada in the late 1990s. We analyze a set of 30 interviews with key informants involved with research-based cancer genetic testing before the publicly funded clinical service became available in 2000.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>We advance three insights: First, the communication of individual research results makes research practices <it>seem </it>like clinical services for our respondents. Second, while valuing the way in which research enables a form of clinical access, our respondents experience these quasi-clinical services as inadequate. Finally, our respondents recognize the ways in which their experience with these quasi-clinical services is influenced by research imperatives, but understand and interpret the significance and appropriateness of these influences in different ways.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Our findings suggest that the hybrid state created through the disclosure of research results about individuals that are perceived to be clinically relevant may produce neither sufficiently adequate clinical care nor sufficiently ethical research practices. These findings raise questions about the extent to which research can, and <it>should</it>, be made to serve clinical purposes, and suggest the need for further deliberation regarding any ethical obligation to communicate individual research results.</p

A global reference for human genetic variation

The 1000 Genomes Project set out to provide a comprehensive description of common human genetic variation by applying whole-genome sequencing to a diverse set of individuals from multiple populations. Here we report completion of the project, having reconstructed the genomes of 2,504 individuals from 26 populations using a combination of low-coverage whole-genome sequencing, deep exome sequencing, and dense microarray genotyping. We characterized a broad spectrum of genetic variation, in total over 88 million variants (84.7 million single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs), 3.6 million short insertions/deletions (indels), and 60,000 structural variants), all phased onto high-quality haplotypes. This resource includes >99% of SNP variants with a frequency of >1% for a variety of ancestries. We describe the distribution of genetic variation across the global sample, and discuss the implications for common disease studies.We thank the many people who were generous with contributing their samples to the project: the African Caribbean in Barbados; Bengali in Bangladesh; British in England and Scotland; Chinese Dai in Xishuangbanna, China; Colombians in Medellin, Colombia; Esan in Nigeria; Finnish in Finland; Gambian in Western Division – Mandinka; Gujarati Indians in Houston, Texas, USA; Han Chinese in Beijing, China; Iberian populations in Spain; Indian Telugu in the UK; Japanese in Tokyo, Japan; Kinh in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam; Luhya in Webuye, Kenya; Mende in Sierra Leone; people with African ancestry in the southwest USA; people with Mexican ancestry in Los Angeles, California, USA; Peruvians in Lima, Peru; Puerto Ricans in Puerto Rico; Punjabi in Lahore, Pakistan; southern Han Chinese; Sri Lankan Tamil in the UK; Toscani in Italia; Utah residents (CEPH) with northern and western European ancestry; and Yoruba in Ibadan, Nigeria. Many thanks to the people who contributed to this project: P. Maul, T. Maul, and C. Foster; Z. Chong, X. Fan, W. Zhou, and T. Chen; N. Sengamalay, S. Ott, L. Sadzewicz, J. Liu, and L. Tallon; L. Merson; O. Folarin, D. Asogun, O. Ikpwonmosa, E. Philomena, G. Akpede, S. Okhobgenin, and O. Omoniwa; the staff of the Institute of Lassa Fever Research and Control (ILFRC), Irrua Specialist Teaching Hospital, Irrua, Edo State, Nigeria; A. Schlattl and T. Zichner; S. Lewis, E. Appelbaum, and L. Fulton; A. Yurovsky and I. Padioleau; N. Kaelin and F. Laplace; E. Drury and H. Arbery; A. Naranjo, M. Victoria Parra, and C. Duque; S. Däkel, B. Lenz, and S. Schrinner; S. Bumpstead; and C. Fletcher-Hoppe. Funding for this work was from the Wellcome Trust Core Award 090532/Z/09/Z and Senior Investigator Award 095552/Z/11/Z (P.D.), and grants WT098051 (R.D.), WT095908 and WT109497 (P.F.), WT086084/Z/08/Z and WT100956/Z/13/Z (G.M.), WT097307 (W.K.), WT0855322/Z/08/Z (R.L.), WT090770/Z/09/Z (D.K.), the Wellcome Trust Major Overseas program in Vietnam grant 089276/Z.09/Z (S.D.), the Medical Research Council UK grant G0801823 (J.L.M.), the UK Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council grants BB/I02593X/1 (G.M.) and BB/I021213/1 (A.R.L.), the British Heart Foundation (C.A.A.), the Monument Trust (J.H.), the European Molecular Biology Laboratory (P.F.), the European Research Council grant 617306 (J.L.M.), the Chinese 863 Program 2012AA02A201, the National Basic Research program of China 973 program no. 2011CB809201, 2011CB809202 and 2011CB809203, Natural Science Foundation of China 31161130357, the Shenzhen Municipal Government of China grant ZYC201105170397A (J.W.), the Canadian Institutes of Health Research Operating grant 136855 and Canada Research Chair (S.G.), Banting Postdoctoral Fellowship from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (M.K.D.), a Le Fonds de Recherche duQuébec-Santé (FRQS) research fellowship (A.H.), Genome Quebec (P.A.), the Ontario Ministry of Research and Innovation – Ontario Institute for Cancer Research Investigator Award (P.A., J.S.), the Quebec Ministry of Economic Development, Innovation, and Exports grant PSR-SIIRI-195 (P.A.), the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) grants 0315428A and 01GS08201 (R.H.), the Max Planck Society (H.L., G.M., R.S.), BMBF-EPITREAT grant 0316190A (R.H., M.L.), the German Research Foundation (Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft) Emmy Noether Grant KO4037/1-1 (J.O.K.), the Beatriu de Pinos Program grants 2006 BP-A 10144 and 2009 BP-B 00274 (M.V.), the Spanish National Institute for Health Research grant PRB2 IPT13/0001-ISCIII-SGEFI/FEDER (A.O.), Ewha Womans University (C.L.), the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science Fellowship number PE13075 (N.P.), the Louis Jeantet Foundation (E.T.D.), the Marie Curie Actions Career Integration grant 303772 (C.A.), the Swiss National Science Foundation 31003A_130342 and NCCR “Frontiers in Genetics” (E.T.D.), the University of Geneva (E.T.D., T.L., G.M.), the US National Institutes of Health National Center for Biotechnology Information (S.S.) and grants U54HG3067 (E.S.L.), U54HG3273 and U01HG5211 (R.A.G.), U54HG3079 (R.K.W., E.R.M.), R01HG2898 (S.E.D.), R01HG2385 (E.E.E.), RC2HG5552 and U01HG6513 (G.T.M., G.R.A.), U01HG5214 (A.C.), U01HG5715 (C.D.B.), U01HG5718 (M.G.), U01HG5728 (Y.X.F.), U41HG7635 (R.K.W., E.E.E., P.H.S.), U41HG7497 (C.L., M.A.B., K.C., L.D., E.E.E., M.G., J.O.K., G.T.M., S.A.M., R.E.M., J.L.S., K.Y.), R01HG4960 and R01HG5701 (B.L.B.), R01HG5214 (G.A.), R01HG6855 (S.M.), R01HG7068 (R.E.M.), R01HG7644 (R.D.H.), DP2OD6514 (P.S.), DP5OD9154 (J.K.), R01CA166661 (S.E.D.), R01CA172652 (K.C.), P01GM99568 (S.R.B.), R01GM59290 (L.B.J., M.A.B.), R01GM104390 (L.B.J., M.Y.Y.), T32GM7790 (C.D.B., A.R.M.), P01GM99568 (S.R.B.), R01HL87699 and R01HL104608 (K.C.B.), T32HL94284 (J.L.R.F.), and contracts HHSN268201100040C (A.M.R.) and HHSN272201000025C (P.S.), Harvard Medical School Eleanor and Miles Shore Fellowship (K.L.), Lundbeck Foundation Grant R170-2014-1039 (K.L.), NIJ Grant 2014-DN-BX-K089 (Y.E.), the Mary Beryl Patch Turnbull Scholar Program (K.C.B.), NSF Graduate Research Fellowship DGE-1147470 (G.D.P.), the Simons Foundation SFARI award SF51 (M.W.), and a Sloan Foundation Fellowship (R.D.H.). E.E.E. is an investigator of the Howard Hughes Medical Institute

IRB perspectives on the return of individual results from genomic research

PURPOSE: Return of individual research results from genomic studies is a hotly debated ethical issue in genomic research. However, the perspective of key stakeholders—Institutional Review Board (IRB) reviewers—has been missing from this dialogue. This study explores the positions and experiences of IRB members and staff regarding this issue. METHODS: In depth interviews with 31 IRB professionals at six sites across the United States. RESULTS: IRB professionals agreed that research results should be returned to research participants when results are medically actionable but only if the participants wanted to know the result. Many respondents expected researchers to address the issue of return of results (ROR) in the IRB application and informed-consent document. Many respondents were not comfortable with their expertise in genomics research, and only a few described actual experiences in addressing ROR. Although participants agreed that guidelines would be helpful, most were reticent to develop them in isolation. Even where IRB guidance exists (e.g., CLIA lab certification required for return), in practice, the guidance has been overruled to allow return (e.g., no CLIA lab performs the assay). CONCLUSION: An IRB-researcher partnership is needed to help inform responsible and feasible institutional approaches to returning research results

The politics of suspects’ geo-genetic origin in France: The conditions, expression, and effects of problematisation

International audienceRecently, genetics has given rise to changes in how people’s origin is conceived. Forensics has started using some of these changes in the shape of new DNA-based tests aimed at determining suspects’ geographic origin. This article analyses how recent practices in this field have been ‘problematised’ in France, in Foucault’s sense of the term, and gives substantial weight to the country’s historical and republican legacy. First, the launch of these genetic tests is examined, looking at the work of actors who helped create the preconditions for this problematisation but at the same time tried to deconstruct it. The paper goes on to focus on how this problematisation is expressed, questioning the arguments used particularly by its opponents who ground their stance in history, law, and science, while also invoking ethical and political concerns regarding data use. Finally, current state regulations on the matter are outlined, showing how ‘points of problematisation’ have been construed in terms of prohibition. The article concludes by underlining the internal tensions (the ‘knot’) of the problematisation process, showing how it highlights changes in contemporary notions of origin and the types of subjects it produces. More generally, the implications of this study for social science research on origin and on the life sciences are also discussed