Potencial da população de milho ESA23B para o melhoramento dos teores de proteína e óleo

Entre as características capazes de adicionar valor comercial ao milho (Zea mays L.), estão aquelas relacionadas à qualidade nutricional, com destaque para os teores de proteína e óleo. O objetivo deste trabalho foi verificar a variabilidade existente para teor de proteína e teor de óleo, além da produtividade, em um conjunto de testcrosses. Foram avaliadas 120 famílias S1 da população de milho ESA23B em cruzamento com dois testadores, sendo uma variedade de polinização aberta (BR108) e uma linhagem exótica (CML269). Os ensaios foram realizados em dois locais, em blocos casualizados com três repetições. Foram avaliados peso de espigas, peso de grãos, teor de proteína e teor de óleo. A interação tripla local x testador x progênie foi significativa, exceto para o teor de óleo. Houve diferença entre progênies para todos os caracteres. As médias dos testcrosses variaram de 8,40% a 11,82% para teor de proteína e de 3,77% a 5,10% para teor de óleo. Testcrosses com média semelhante ou superior à da melhor testemunha foram identificados para teor de proteína, peso de espigas e peso de grãos. As estimativas da variância aditiva interpopulacional foram de 0,553 a 1,124 para teor de proteína; 0,034 a 0,057 para teor de óleo (dados em percentual); 132,13 a 521,74 para peso de espigas e 116,33 a 381,73 para peso de grãos (dados em gramas por planta). A população ESA23B possui potencial para o melhoramento dos caracteres avaliados. As associações entre caracteres foram fracas, indicando a possibilidade de seleção simultânea para qualidade e rendimento.Among the traits that may add commercial value to maize (Zea mays L.), those related to nutritional quality, specially protein and oil content, are of great interest to the feed industry. The objective of this work was studying the variability of protein and oil content, as well as yield, in a group of maize testcrosses. One hundred and twenty S1 families of the ESA23B maize population were crossed with two testers, an open-pollinated population (BR108) and an exotic line (CML269). Testcrosses were evaluated at two locations under a completely randomized block design with three replications. Ear and grain yield, protein and oil content were evaluated. The three-way interaction location x tester x progeny was significant for all traits, except for oil content. Differences among progenies were detected for all traits. Testcross means varied from 8.40% to 11.82% for protein content and from 3.77% to 5.10% for oil content. Hybrids with similar or superior means to the best check were identified for protein content, ear yield, and grain yield. Estimates of the interpopulation additive variance ranged from 0.553 to 1.124 for protein content; 0.034 to 0.057 for oil content (percent data); 132.13 to 521.74 for ear yield and 116.33 to 381.73 for grain yield (data in grams per plant). The population ESA23B can potentially be improved for all the traits studied. Associations among traits were weak, thus concomitant selection of quality and yield can be feasible

The carboxy-terminal fragment of α1A calcium channel preferentially aggregates in the cytoplasm of human spinocerebellar ataxia type 6 Purkinje cells

Spinocerebellar ataxia type 6 (SCA6) is an autosomal dominant neurodegenerative disease caused by a small polyglutamine (polyQ) expansion (control: 4–20Q; SCA6: 20–33Q) in the carboxyl(C)-terminal cytoplasmic domain of the α1A voltage-dependent calcium channel (Cav2.1). Although a 75–85-kDa Cav2.1 C-terminal fragment (CTF) is toxic in cultured cells, its existence in human brains and its role in SCA6 pathogenesis remains unknown. Here, we investigated whether the small polyQ expansion alters the expression pattern and intracellular distribution of Cav2.1 in human SCA6 brains. New antibodies against the Cav2.1 C-terminus were used in immunoblotting and immunohistochemistry. In the cerebella of six control individuals, the CTF was detected in sucrose- and SDS-soluble cytosolic fractions; in the cerebella of two SCA6 patients, it was additionally detected in SDS-insoluble cytosolic and sucrose-soluble nuclear fractions. In contrast, however, the CTF was not detected either in the nuclear fraction or in the SDS-insoluble cytosolic fraction of SCA6 extracerebellar tissues, indicating that the CTF being insoluble in the cytoplasm or mislocalized to the nucleus only in the SCA6 cerebellum. Immunohistochemistry revealed abundant aggregates in cell bodies and dendrites of SCA6 Purkinje cells (seven patients) but not in controls (n = 6). Recombinant CTF with a small polyQ expansion (rCTF-Q28) aggregated in cultured PC12 cells, but neither rCTF-Q13 (normal-length polyQ) nor full-length Cav2.1 with Q28 did. We conclude that SCA6 pathogenesis may be associated with the CTF, normally found in the cytoplasm, being aggregated in the cytoplasm and additionally distributed in the nucleus

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy

In 2008 we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, research on this topic has continued to accelerate, and many new scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Accordingly, it is important to update these guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Various reviews have described the range of assays that have been used for this purpose. Nevertheless, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to measure autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. A key point that needs to be emphasized is that there is a difference between measurements that monitor the numbers or volume of autophagic elements (e.g., autophagosomes or autolysosomes) at any stage of the autophagic process vs. those that measure flux through the autophagy pathway (i.e., the complete process); thus, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation needs to be differentiated from stimuli that result in increased autophagic activity, defined as increased autophagy induction coupled with increased delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (in most higher eukaryotes and some protists such as Dictyostelium) or the vacuole (in plants and fungi). In other words, it is especially important that investigators new to the field understand that the appearance of more autophagosomes does not necessarily equate with more autophagy. In fact, in many cases, autophagosomes accumulate because of a block in trafficking to lysosomes without a concomitant change in autophagosome biogenesis, whereas an increase in autolysosomes may reflect a reduction in degradative activity. Here, we present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of methods for use by investigators who aim to examine macroautophagy and related processes, as well as for reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are 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 monitor autophagy. In these guidelines, we consider these various methods of assessing autophagy and what information can, or cannot, be obtained from them. Finally, by discussing the merits and limits of particular autophagy assays, we hope to encourage technical innovation in the field

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy

In 2008 we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, research on this topic has continued to accelerate, and many new scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Accordingly, it is important to update these guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Various reviews have described the range of assays that have been used for this purpose. Nevertheless, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to measure autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. A key point that needs to be emphasized is that there is a difference between measurements that monitor the numbers or volume of autophagic elements (e.g., autophagosomes or autolysosomes) at any stage of the autophagic process vs. those that measure flux through the autophagy pathway (i.e., the complete process); thus, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation needs to be differentiated from stimuli that result in increased autophagic activity, defined as increased autophagy induction coupled with increased delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (in most higher eukaryotes and some protists such as Dictyostelium) or the vacuole (in plants and fungi). In other words, it is especially important that investigators new to the field understand that the appearance of more autophagosomes does not necessarily equate with more autophagy. In fact, in many cases, autophagosomes accumulate because of a block in trafficking to lysosomes without a concomitant change in autophagosome biogenesis, whereas an increase in autolysosomes may reflect a reduction in degradative activity. Here, we present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of methods for use by investigators who aim to examine macroautophagy and related processes, as well as for reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are 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 monitor autophagy. In these guidelines, we consider these various methods of assessing autophagy and what information can, or cannot, be obtained from them. Finally, by discussing the merits and limits of particular autophagy assays, we hope to encourage technical innovation in the field

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy

In 2008 we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, research on this topic has continued to accelerate, and many new scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Accordingly, it is important to update these guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Various reviews have described the range of assays that have been used for this purpose. Nevertheless, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to measure autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. A key point that needs to be emphasized is that there is a difference between measurements that monitor the numbers or volume of autophagic elements (e.g., autophagosomes or autolysosomes) at any stage of the autophagic process vs. those that measure flux through the autophagy pathway (i.e., the complete process); thus, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation needs to be differentiated from stimuli that result in increased autophagic activity, defined as increased autophagy induction coupled with increased delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (in most higher eukaryotes and some protists such as Dictyostelium) or the vacuole (in plants and fungi). In other words, it is especially important that investigators new to the field understand that the appearance of more autophagosomes does not necessarily equate with more autophagy. In fact, in many cases, autophagosomes accumulate because of a block in trafficking to lysosomes without a concomitant change in autophagosome biogenesis, whereas an increase in autolysosomes may reflect a reduction in degradative activity. Here, we present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of methods for use by investigators who aim to examine macroautophagy and related processes, as well as for reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are 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 monitor autophagy. In these guidelines, we consider these various methods of assessing autophagy and what information can, or cannot, be obtained from them. Finally, by discussing the merits and limits of particular autophagy assays, we hope to encourage technical innovation in the field

Outcomes in Newly Diagnosed Atrial Fibrillation and History of Acute Coronary Syndromes: Insights from GARFIELD-AF

BACKGROUND: Many patients with atrial fibrillation have concomitant coronary artery disease with or without acute coronary syndromes and are in need of additional antithrombotic therapy. There are few data on the long-term clinical outcome of atrial fibrillation patients with a history of acute coronary syndrome. This is a 2-year study of atrial fibrillation patients with or without a history of acute coronary syndromes