Mathematical modeling of microRNA-mediated mechanisms of translation repression

MicroRNAs can affect the protein translation using nine mechanistically different mechanisms, including repression of initiation and degradation of the transcript. There is a hot debate in the current literature about which mechanism and in which situations has a dominant role in living cells. The worst, same experimental systems dealing with the same pairs of mRNA and miRNA can provide ambiguous evidences about which is the actual mechanism of translation repression observed in the experiment. We start with reviewing the current knowledge of various mechanisms of miRNA action and suggest that mathematical modeling can help resolving some of the controversial interpretations. We describe three simple mathematical models of miRNA translation that can be used as tools in interpreting the experimental data on the dynamics of protein synthesis. The most complex model developed by us includes all known mechanisms of miRNA action. It allowed us to study possible dynamical patterns corresponding to different miRNA-mediated mechanisms of translation repression and to suggest concrete recipes on determining the dominant mechanism of miRNA action in the form of kinetic signatures. Using computational experiments and systematizing existing evidences from the literature, we justify a hypothesis about co-existence of distinct miRNA-mediated mechanisms of translation repression. The actually observed mechanism will be that acting on or changing the limiting "place" of the translation process. The limiting place can vary from one experimental setting to another. This model explains the majority of existing controversies reported.Comment: 40 pages, 9 figures, 4 tables, 91 cited reference. The analysis of kinetic signatures is updated according to the new model of coupled transcription, translation and degradation, and of miRNA-based regulation of this process published recently (arXiv:1204.5941). arXiv admin note: text overlap with arXiv:0911.179

Surveillance biopsies in children post-kidney transplant

Surveillance biopsies are increasingly used in the post-transplant monitoring of pediatric renal allograft recipients. The main justification for this procedure is to diagnose early and presumably modifiable acute and chronic renal allograft injury. Pediatric recipients are theoretically at increased risk for subclinical renal allograft injury due to their relatively large adult-sized kidneys and their higher degree of immunological responsiveness. The safety profile of this procedure has been well investigated. Patient morbidity is low, with macroscopic hematuria being the most common adverse event. No patient deaths have been attributed to this procedure. Longitudinal surveillance biopsy studies have revealed a substantial burden of subclinical immunological and non-immunological injury, including acute cellular rejection, interstitial fibrosis and tubular atrophy, microvascular lesions and transplant glomerulopathy. The main impediment to the implementation of surveillance biopsies as the standard of care is the lack of demonstrable benefit of early histological detection on long-term outcome. The considerable debate surrounding this issue highlights the need for multicenter, prospective, and randomized studies

Faster synthesis and slower degradation of liver protein during developmental growth.

A study is presented of the liver protein gain during the early stages of postnatal development. Fractional rates of protein synthesis and degradation were determined in vivo in livers of 4-day-old mice. At this age, liver protein accumulated at a rate of 18% per day. Synthesis was measured after the injection of massive amounts of radioactive leucine. Degradation was extimated as the balance between synthesis and accumulation of stable liver proteins, or from the disappearance of radioactivity from liver protein previously labelled by the administration of NaH14CO3. We found that the neonatal livers: (1) synthesize 139% as much protein per unit time and unit mass as adult tissue, which is accounted for by a higher ribosome concentration (synthesis per mg of RNA was the same); (2) retain 39% of the newly synthesized protein as stable liver components (compared with 48% in adult mice); (3) degrade protein at 56% of the rate in the adult liver. This lower rate of degradation is quantitatively the most significant difference between the growing and non-growing liver