Are ethnic disparities in HbA1c levels explained by mental wellbeing? Analysis of population-based data from the Health Survey for England

Aims: It is unclear how ethnic differences in HbA1c levels are affected by individual variations in mental wellbeing. Thus, the aim of this study was to assess the extent to which HbA1c disparities between Caucasian and South Asian adults are mediated by various aspects of positive psychological functioning. Methods: Data from the 2014 Health Survey for England was analysed using bootstrapping methods. A total of 3894 UK residents with HbA1c data were eligible to participate. Mental wellbeing was assessed using the Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-Being Scale. To reduce bias BMI, blood pressure, diabetes status, and other factors were treated as covariates. Results: Ethnicity directly predicted blood sugar control (unadjusted coefficient -2.15; 95% CI -3.64, -0.67), with Caucasians generating lower average HbA1c levels (37.68 mmol/mol (5.6%)) compared to South Asians (39.87 mmol/mol (5.8%)). This association was mediated by positive mental wellbeing, specifically concerning perceived vigour (unadjusted effect 0.30; 95% CI 0.13, 0.58): South Asians felt more energetic than Caucasians (unadjusted coefficient -0.32; 95% CI -0.49, -0.16), and greater perceived energy predicted lower HbA1c levels (unadjusted coefficient -0.92; 95% CI -1.29, -0.55). This mediator effect accounted for just over 14% of the HbA1c variance, and was negated after adjusting for BMI. Conclusions: Caucasian experience better HbA1c levels compared with their South Asian counterparts. However, this association is partly confounded by individual differences in perceived energy levels, which is implicated in better glycaemic control, and appears to serve a protective function in South Asians

Cell Size and the Initiation of DNA Replication in Bacteria

In eukaryotes, DNA replication is coupled to the cell cycle through the actions of cyclin-dependent kinases and associated factors. In bacteria, the prevailing view, based primarily from work in Escherichia coli, is that growth-dependent accumulation of the highly conserved initiator, DnaA, triggers initiation. However, the timing of initiation is unchanged in Bacillus subtilis mutants that are ∼30% smaller than wild-type cells, indicating that achievement of a particular cell size is not obligatory for initiation. Prompted by this finding, we re-examined the link between cell size and initiation in both E. coli and B. subtilis. Although changes in DNA replication have been shown to alter both E. coli and B. subtilis cell size, the converse (the effect of cell size on DNA replication) has not been explored. Here, we report that the mechanisms responsible for coordinating DNA replication with cell size vary between these two model organisms. In contrast to B. subtilis, small E. coli mutants delayed replication initiation until they achieved the size at which wild-type cells initiate. Modest increases in DnaA alleviated the delay, supporting the view that growth-dependent accumulation of DnaA is the trigger for replication initiation in E. coli. Significantly, although small E. coli and B. subtilis cells both maintained wild-type concentration of DnaA, only the E. coli mutants failed to initiate on time. Thus, rather than the concentration, the total amount of DnaA appears to be more important for initiation timing in E. coli. The difference in behavior of the two bacteria appears to lie in the mechanisms that control the activity of DnaA

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy (4th edition)1.

In 2008, we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, this topic has received increasing attention, and many scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Thus, it is important to formulate on a regular basis updated guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Despite numerous reviews, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to evaluate autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. Here, we present a set of guidelines for investigators to select and interpret methods to examine autophagy and related processes, and for reviewers to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of reports that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a dogmatic set of rules, because the appropriateness of any assay largely depends on the question being asked and the system being used. Moreover, no individual assay is perfect for every situation, calling for the use of multiple techniques to properly monitor autophagy in each experimental setting. Finally, several core components of the autophagy machinery have been implicated in distinct autophagic processes (canonical and noncanonical autophagy), implying that genetic approaches to block autophagy should rely on targeting two or more autophagy-related genes that ideally participate in distinct steps of the pathway. Along similar lines, because multiple proteins involved in autophagy also regulate other cellular pathways including apoptosis, not all of them can be used as a specific marker for bona fide autophagic responses. Here, we critically discuss current methods of assessing autophagy and the information they can, or cannot, provide. Our ultimate goal is to encourage intellectual and technical innovation in the field