Paperkast is a link-aggregator website for academic article discussion.
Please visit our about page for more information!
  1. 2

    Very interesting! Actually, as they also noted, there are some potential genes to be responsible for the paternal mtDNA degradation. I think, it is not difficult to check the nuclear DNA of these families to find mutations in these potential genes.

    1. 2

      This is really a good study to show Gut-BAT-Brain axis. Unfortunately, they couldn’t succeed weight loss in obes mice by secretin infusion, but they indicated BAT as an alternative target.

      What about CL (CL-316,243) in Figure 3G, or GLP1 analog in Figure S6? They seem highly promising for weight loss. Are they used in clinics?

      1. 2

        What do you think about publishing negative results? They offer to submit project design and protocols to a journal before doing experiments. If journal accept project after peer-review, results will be published even if they are negative, or not not as expected in first hypothesis.

        I think it is a good idea to prevent bias in results. Otherwise, researchers force experiments until getting “desired” results.

        1. 3

          It seems highly promising. Tracking maps are really interesting. Can we follow one track like a video? It would be great to follow some proteins in signaling pathways upon induction.

          Another question: Is it possible to track 2 proteins simultaneously by fusing with different fluorophores? It would be nice to reveal some protein-protein interactions via this technique.

          1. 3

            If the labels are sufficiently separated spectrally you can image 2 species quasi simultaneously by synchronizing laser outputs to camera frames. Switching at >1 kHz is possible; whether that’s fast enough depends on how fast things are moving and what resolution you need to answer your question. You would need multipass dichroic and emission filters.

            To do this in the same frame there’s a bunch of possible tricks that all would require modifying the microscope to some extent, but can be very compact as shown by the ONI nanoimager.

            If by “track like a video” you mean moving the microscope stage to follow an object that moves beyond the field of view, the hardware here is sufficient to do that but you’d need to add some software and it would only work for things moving fairly slowly that are do not photobleach quickly.

          1. 2

            A brief summary:

            In conventional cancer therapy, the main goal is to cure by killing as possible as tumor cells with maximum tolerable drug doses. In most cases, this approach causes a significant reduction in tumor size initially. However, after sometime, tumor become unresponsive to treatment and grow aggressively. This is because treatment killed the sensitive cells, and allow resistant ones (even if very few in numbers) to grow freely.

            Here, the authors claim that tumors can be kept under control by changing drug doses based on tumor size measuring. So, instead of killing all sensitive cells and give resistant ones a free place to grow, the main goal is to keep tumor size stable by allowing sensitive cells dominating small number of resistant cells. They generated a mathematical model using evolutionary kinetics to explain efficiency of this strategy, and also performed some elegant in vivo experiments to support their theory.

            1. 1

              Some questions:

              1. How is the kleisin–HAWK DNA-bound subcomplex and the hinge region is CTCF motif specific?
              2. Which force makes the kleisin–HAWK DNA-bound subcomplex go a direction by which the extrusion happens?
              3. Why cohesin SMC complexes have no such mechanism?
              1. 2

                For the 1st question:

                It was shown before that C-terminus of CTCF protein interacts with cohesin complexes (probably with condensin too). So, TAD-inward motifs leads to a CTCF-cohesin interaction, if CTCF is bound, of course.

                For the 2nd question:

                In this paper, they proposed that a unidirectional movement can be achieved if two heads (subcomplexes) have different DNA-binding affinities. The weaker one will move forward upon separation, and the other will follow. However, I couldn’t find any explanation for a possible reverse movement, i.e. in the case of loop dissociation.

                For the 3rd, I don’t have an answer too :)