Thin Polymer Brush Decouples Biomaterial's Micro-/Nano-Topology and Stem Cell Adhesion

Surface morphology and chemistry of polymers used as biomaterials, such as tissue engineering scaffolds, have a strong influence on the adhesion and behavior of human mesenchymal stem cells. Here we studied semicrystalline poly(ε-caprolactone) (PCL) substrate scaffolds, which exhibited a variation of surface morphologies and roughness originating from different spherulitic superstructures. Different substrates were obtained by varying the parameters of the thermal processing, i.e. crystallization conditions. The cells attached to these polymer substrates adopted different morphologies responding to variations in spherulite density and size. In order to decouple substrate topology effects on the cells, sub-100 nm bio-adhesive polymer brush coatings of oligo(ethylene glycol) methacrylates were grafted from PCL and functionalized with fibronectin. On surfaces featuring different surface textures, dense and sub-100 nm thick brush coatings determined the response of cells, irrespective to the underlying topology. Thus, polymer brushes decouple substrate micro-/nano-topology and the adhesion of stem cells

Role of Cajal Bodies and Nucleolus in the Maturation of the U1 snRNP in Arabidopsis

Background: The biogenesis of spliceosomal snRNPs takes place in both the cytoplasm where Sm core proteins are added and snRNAs are modified at the 59 and 39 termini and in the nucleus where snRNP-specific proteins associate. U1 snRNP consists of U1 snRNA, seven Sm proteins and three snRNP-specific proteins, U1-70K, U1A, and U1C. It has been shown previously that after import to the nucleus U2 and U4/U6 snRNP-specific proteins first appear in Cajal bodies (CB) and then in splicing speckles. In addition, in cells grown under normal conditions U2, U4, U5, and U6 snRNAs/snRNPs are abundant in CBs. Therefore, it has been proposed that the final assembly of these spliceosomal snRNPs takes place in this nuclear compartment. In contrast, U1 snRNA in both animal and plant cells has rarely been found in this nuclear compartment. Methodology/Principal Findings: Here, we analysed the subnuclear distribution of Arabidopsis U1 snRNP-specific proteins fused to GFP or mRFP in transiently transformed Arabidopsis protoplasts. Irrespective of the tag used, U1-70K was exclusively found in the nucleus, whereas U1A and U1C were equally distributed between the nucleus and the cytoplasm. In the nucleus all three proteins localised to CBs and nucleoli although to different extent. Interestingly, we also found that the appearance of the three proteins in nuclear speckles differ significantly. U1-70K was mostly found in speckles whereas U1A and U1C in,90 % of cells showed diffuse nucleoplasmic in combination with CBs and nucleolar localisation. Conclusions/Significance: Our data indicate that CBs and nucleolus are involved in the maturation of U1 snRNP. Difference

Role of Cajal Bodies and Nucleolus in the Maturation of the U1 snRNP in Arabidopsis

Background: The biogenesis of spliceosomal snRNPs takes place in both the cytoplasm where Sm core proteins are added and snRNAs are modified at the 59 and 39 termini and in the nucleus where snRNP-specific proteins associate. U1 snRNP consists of U1 snRNA, seven Sm proteins and three snRNP-specific proteins, U1-70K, U1A, and U1C. It has been shown previously that after import to the nucleus U2 and U4/U6 snRNP-specific proteins first appear in Cajal bodies (CB) and then in splicing speckles. In addition, in cells grown under normal conditions U2, U4, U5, and U6 snRNAs/snRNPs are abundant in CBs. Therefore, it has been proposed that the final assembly of these spliceosomal snRNPs takes place in this nuclear compartment. In contrast, U1 snRNA in both animal and plant cells has rarely been found in this nuclear compartment. Methodology/Principal Findings: Here, we analysed the subnuclear distribution of Arabidopsis U1 snRNP-specific proteins fused to GFP or mRFP in transiently transformed Arabidopsis protoplasts. Irrespective of the tag used, U1-70K was exclusively found in the nucleus, whereas U1A and U1C were equally distributed between the nucleus and the cytoplasm. In the nucleus all three proteins localised to CBs and nucleoli although to different extent. Interestingly, we also found that the appearance of the three proteins in nuclear speckles differ significantly. U1-70K was mostly found in speckles whereas U1A and U1C in,90 % of cells showed diffuse nucleoplasmic in combination with CBs and nucleolar localisation. Conclusions/Significance: Our data indicate that CBs and nucleolus are involved in the maturation of U1 snRNP. Difference

First language attrition: The methodology revised

This article presents a criticism of the methodology most frequently used by language attrition studies. In particular, the preoccupation of such research with ?errors? in the data from attriters is questioned. It is proposed that approaches which focus on overt deviance cannot come to a full understanding of the attritional process, and that a full investigation of lexical, morphological and syntactic complexity and richness of the data produced by attriters is necessary in order to achieve a truly balanced view. The limitations to the insights gained on the basis of an error-based approach to language attrition, and the potential of an analysis that takes into account all aspects of proficiency, are illustrated on the basis of an investigation of autobiographical narratives from German Jews

Quantitative analyses in a multivariate study of language attrition: the impact of extralinguistic factors

Most linguistic processes — acquisition, change, deterioration — take place in and are determined by a complex and multifactorial web of language internal and language external influences. This implies that the impact of each individual factor can only be determined on the basis of a careful consideration of its interplay with all other factors. The present study investigates to what degree a number of sociolinguistic and extralinguistic factors, which have been previously demonstrated or claimed to be relevant in the context of language attrition, can account for individual differences in first language (L1) proficiency. Data were collected from attriting populations with German as their L1: one in a Dutch language context ( n = 53) and one in a Canadian English setting ( n = 53). These groups were compared to a reference group of Germans in Germany ( n = 53). Overall, the proposed outcome measures (derived from both formal tasks and a free speech task) are argued to be stable and valid indicators of attrition effects. The predictor variables under investigation are shown to fall into several reliable factor groups, for example, identification and affiliation with L1, exposure to German language and attitude towards L1. These are the factor groups that have, so far, been considered the most important for the process of L1 attrition or maintenance. However, the predictive power exercised by these factor groups in the present study is shown to be relatively weak. </jats:p