The Nucleolar Net1/Cfi1-related Protein Dnt1 Antagonizes the Septation Initiation Network in Fission Yeast

The septation initiation network (SIN) and mitotic exit network (MEN) signaling pathways regulate cytokinesis and mitotic exit in the yeasts Schizosaccharomyces pombe, and Saccharomyces cerevisiae, respectively. One function of these pathways is to keep the Cdc14-family phosphatase, called Clp1 in S. pombe, from being sequestered and inhibited in the nucleolus. In S. pombe, the SIN and Clp1 act as part of a cytokinesis checkpoint that allows cells to cope with cytokinesis defects. The SIN promotes checkpoint function by 1) keeping Clp1 out of the nucleolus, 2) maintaining the cytokinetic apparatus, and 3) halting the cell cycle until cytokinesis is completed. In a screen for suppressors of the SIN mutant cytokinesis checkpoint defect, we identified a novel nucleolar protein called Dnt1 and other nucleolar proteins, including Rrn5 and Nuc1, which are known to be required for rDNA transcription. Dnt1 shows sequence homology to Net1/Cfi1, which encodes the nucleolar inhibitor of Cdc14 in budding yeast. Like Net1/Cfi1, Dnt1 is required for rDNA silencing and minichromosome maintenance, and both Dnt1 and Net1/Cfi1 negatively regulate the homologous SIN and MEN pathways. Unlike Net1/Cfi1, which regulates the MEN through the Cdc14 phosphatase, Dnt1 can inhibit SIN signaling independently of Clp1, suggesting a novel connection between the nucleolus and the SIN pathway

Configuration sensitivity of residual p-n interactions

An empirical method to extract the p-n interaction of the last proton and neutron in nearly any nucleus is used to discuss global features of the p-n systematics and evidence for configuration sensitivity in special regions. 11 refs., 2 figs

Empirical estimates of the proton-neutron interaction and diabolical points

The use of constant-N contours in the ({omega},{lambda}) plane is demonstrated both for establishing diabolical points and for studying regularities and fluctuations in the spectrum of single-particle states. Likewise the average properties and fluctuations of empirical proton-neutron interactions, obtained from double differentials of the total energy with respect to N and Z, are discussed for the ground states of all even-even nuclei with N > 40 and as a function of the rotational frequency for the lowest even-spin, positive-parity decay sequence of deformed rare earth nuclei. 25 refs., 3 figs

FB1, an E2A fusion partner in childhood leukemia, interacts with U19/EAF2 and inhibits its transcriptional activity

Background: U19/EAF2 is a potential tumor suppressor exhibiting frequent down-regulation and allelic loss in advanced human prostate cancer specimens. U 19/EAF2 has also been identified as ELL-associated factor 2 (EAF2) based on its binding to ELL, a fusion partner of MLL in acute myeloid leukemia. U19/EAF2 is a putative transcription factor with a transactivation domain and capability of sequence-specific DNA binding. Methods: Yeast-two-hybrid-screening was used to identify U19/EAF2-binding partners. Co-immunoprecipitation and mammalian 1-hybrid assay were used to characterize a U19/EAF2-binding partner. Results: FB1, an E2A fusion partner in childhood leukemia, was identified as a binding-partner of U19/EAF2. FB1 also binds to EAF1, the only homologue of U19/EAF2. FB1 also interacts and co-localizes with ELL in the nucleus. Interestingly, FB1 inhibited the transcriptional activity of U19/EAF2 but not EAF1. Conclusions: FB1 is an important binding partner and a functional regulator of U19/EAF2, EAF1, and/or ELL. (c) 2007 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.Background: U19/EAF2 is a potential tumor suppressor exhibiting frequent down-regulation and allelic loss in advanced human prostate cancer specimens. U 19/EAF2 has also been identified as ELL-associated factor 2 (EAF2) based on its binding to ELL, a fusion partner of MLL in acute myeloid leukemia. U19/EAF2 is a putative transcription factor with a transactivation domain and capability of sequence-specific DNA binding

Second IVIg course in Guillain-Barré syndrome with poor prognosis. The non-randomised ISID study

Objective To compare disease course in patients with Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) with a poor prognosis who were treated with one or with two intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg) courses. Methods From the International GBS Outcome Study, we selected patients whose modified Erasmus GBS Outcome Score at week 1 predicted a poor prognosis. We compared those treated with one IVIg course to those treated with two IVIg courses. The primary endpoint, the GBS disability scale at 4 weeks, was assessed with multivariable ordinal regression. Results Of 237 eligible patients, 199 patients received a single IVIg course. Twenty patients received an α early' second IVIg course (1-2 weeks after start of the first IVIg course) and 18 patients a α late' second IVIg course (2-4 weeks after start of IVIg). At baseline and 1 week, those receiving two IVIg courses were more disabled than those receiving one course. Compared with the one course group, the adjusted OR for a better GBS disability score at 4 weeks was 0.70 (95%CI 0.16 to 3.04) for the early group and 0.66 (95%CI 0.18 to 2.50) for the late group. The secondary endpoints were not in favour of a second IVIg course. Conclusions This observational study did not show better outcomes after a second IVIg course in GBS with poor prognosis. The study was limited by small numbers and baseline imbalances. Lack of improvement was likely an incentive to start a second IVIg course. A prospective randomised trial is needed to evaluate whether a second IVIg course improves outcome in GBS

Intravenous immunoglobulin treatment for mild Guillain-Barré syndrome. An international observational study

Objective: To compare the disease course in patients with mild Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) who were treated with intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg) or supportive care only. Methods: We selected patients from the prospective observational International GBS Outcome Study (IGOS) who were able to walk independently at study entry (mild GBS), treated with one IVIg course or supportive care. The primary endpoint was the GBS disability score four weeks after study entry, assessed by multivariable ordinal regression analysis. Results: Of 188 eligible patients, 148 (79%) were treated with IVIg and 40 (21%) with supportive care. The IVIg group was more disabled at baseline. IVIg treatment was not associated with lower GBS disability scores at 4 weeks (adjusted OR (aOR) 1.62, 95% CI 0.63 to 4.13). Nearly all secondary endpoints showed no benefit from IVIg, although the time to regain full muscle strength was shorter (28 vs 56 days, p=0.03) and reported pain at 26 weeks was lower (n=26/121, 22% vs n=12/30, 40%, p=0.04) in the IVIg treated patients. In the subanalysis with persistent mild GBS in the first 2 weeks, the aOR for a lower GBS disability score at 4 weeks was 2.32 (95% CI 0.76 to 7.13). At 1 year, 40% of all patients had residual symptoms. Conclusion: In patients with mild GBS, one course of IVIg did not improve the overall disease course. The certainty of this conclusion is limited by confounding factors, selection bias and wide confidence limits. Residual symptoms were often present after one year, indicating the need for better treatments in mild GBS