Response of the mouse lung transcriptome to welding fume: effects of stainless and mild steel fumes on lung gene expression in A/J and C57BL/6J mice

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Debate exists as to whether welding fume is carcinogenic, but epidemiological evidence suggests that welders are an at risk population for the development of lung cancer. Recently, we found that exposure to welding fume caused an acutely greater and prolonged lung inflammatory response in lung tumor susceptible A/J versus resistant C57BL/6J (B6) mice and a trend for increased tumor incidence after stainless steel (SS) fume exposure. Here, our objective was to examine potential strain-dependent differences in the regulation and resolution of the lung inflammatory response induced by carcinogenic (Cr and Ni abundant) or non-carcinogenic (iron abundant) metal-containing welding fumes at the transcriptome level.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Mice were exposed four times by pharyngeal aspiration to 5 mg/kg iron abundant gas metal arc-mild steel (GMA-MS), Cr and Ni abundant GMA-SS fume or vehicle and were euthanized 4 and 16 weeks after the last exposure. Whole lung microarray using Illumina Mouse Ref-8 expression beadchips was done.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Overall, we found that tumor susceptibility was associated with a more marked transcriptional response to both GMA-MS and -SS welding fumes. Also, Ingenuity Pathway Analysis revealed that gene regulation and expression in the top molecular networks differed between the strains at both time points post-exposure. Interestingly, a common finding between the strains was that GMA-MS fume exposure altered behavioral gene networks. In contrast, GMA-SS fume exposure chronically upregulated chemotactic and immunomodulatory genes such as <it>CCL3</it>, <it>CCL4</it>, <it>CXCL2</it>, and <it>MMP12 </it>in the A/J strain. In the GMA-SS-exposed B6 mouse, genes that initially downregulated cellular movement, hematological system development/function and immune response were involved at both time points post-exposure. However, at 16 weeks, a transcriptional switch to an upregulation for neutrophil chemotactic genes was found and included genes such as <it>S100A8</it>, <it>S100A9 </it>and <it>MMP9</it>.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Collectively, our results demonstrate that lung tumor susceptibility may predispose the A/J strain to a prolonged dysregulation of immunomodulatory genes, thereby delaying the recovery from welding fume-induced lung inflammation. Additionally, our results provide unique insight into strain- and welding fume-dependent genetic factors involved in the lung response to welding fume.</p

Quantifying Individual Variation in the Propensity to Attribute Incentive Salience to Reward Cues

If reward-associated cues acquire the properties of incentive stimuli they can come to powerfully control behavior, and potentially promote maladaptive behavior. Pavlovian incentive stimuli are defined as stimuli that have three fundamental properties: they are attractive, they are themselves desired, and they can spur instrumental actions. We have found, however, that there is considerable individual variation in the extent to which animals attribute Pavlovian incentive motivational properties (“incentive salience”) to reward cues. The purpose of this paper was to develop criteria for identifying and classifying individuals based on their propensity to attribute incentive salience to reward cues. To do this, we conducted a meta-analysis of a large sample of rats (N = 1,878) subjected to a classic Pavlovian conditioning procedure. We then used the propensity of animals to approach a cue predictive of reward (one index of the extent to which the cue was attributed with incentive salience), to characterize two behavioral phenotypes in this population: animals that approached the cue (“sign-trackers”) vs. others that approached the location of reward delivery (“goal-trackers”). This variation in Pavlovian approach behavior predicted other behavioral indices of the propensity to attribute incentive salience to reward cues. Thus, the procedures reported here should be useful for making comparisons across studies and for assessing individual variation in incentive salience attribution in small samples of the population, or even for classifying single animals

From Mendel’s discovery on pea to today’s plant genetics and breeding

In 2015, we celebrated the 150th anniversary of the presentation of the seminal work of Gregor Johann Mendel. While Darwin’s theory of evolution was based on differential survival and differential reproductive success, Mendel’s theory of heredity relies on equality and stability throughout all stages of the life cycle. Darwin’s concepts were continuous variation and “soft” heredity; Mendel espoused discontinuous variation and “hard” heredity. Thus, the combination of Mendelian genetics with Darwin’s theory of natural selection was the process that resulted in the modern synthesis of evolutionary biology. Although biology, genetics, and genomics have been revolutionized in recent years, modern genetics will forever rely on simple principles founded on pea breeding using seven single gene characters. Purposeful use of mutants to study gene function is one of the essential tools of modern genetics. Today, over 100 plant species genomes have been sequenced. Mapping populations and their use in segregation of molecular markers and marker–trait association to map and isolate genes, were developed on the basis of Mendel's work. Genome-wide or genomic selection is a recent approach for the development of improved breeding lines. The analysis of complex traits has been enhanced by high-throughput phenotyping and developments in statistical and modeling methods for the analysis of phenotypic data. Introgression of novel alleles from landraces and wild relatives widens genetic diversity and improves traits; transgenic methodologies allow for the introduction of novel genes from diverse sources, and gene editing approaches offer possibilities to manipulate gene in a precise manner