SPOP promotes CREB5 ubiquitination to inhibit MET signaling in liver cancer.

Liver cancer is ranked as the sixth most prevalent from of malignancy globally and stands as the third primary contributor to cancer-related mortality. Metastasis is the main reason for liver cancer treatment failure and patient deaths. Speckle-type POZ protein (SPOP) serves as a crucial substrate junction protein within the cullin-RING E3 ligase complex, acting as a significant tumor suppressor in liver cancer. Nevertheless, the precise molecular mechanism underlying the role of SPOP in liver cancer metastasis remain elusive. In the current study, we identified cAMP response element binding 5 (CREB5) as a novel SPOP substrate in liver cancer. SPOP facilitates non-degradative K63-polyubiquitination of CREB5 on K432 site, consequently hindering its capacity to activate receptor tyrosine kinase MET. Moreover, liver cancer-associated SPOP mutant S119N disrupts the SPOP-CREB5 interactions and impairs the ubiquitination of CREB5.This disruption ultimately leads to the activation of the MET signaling pathway and enhances metastatic properties of hepatoma cells both in vitro and in vivo. In conclusion, our findings highlight the functional significance of the SPOP-CREB5-MET axis in liver cancer metastasis.

Wing and body motion and aerodynamic and leg forces during take-off in droneflies.

Here, we present a detailed analysis of the take-off mechanics in droneflies performing voluntary take-offs. Wing and body kinematics of the insects during take-off were measured using high-speed video techniques. Based on the measured data, the inertia force acting on the insect was computed and the aerodynamic force of the wings was calculated by the method of computational fluid dynamics. Subtracting the aerodynamic force and the weight from the inertia force gave the leg force. In take-off, a dronefly increases its stroke amplitude gradually in the first 10-14 wingbeats and becomes airborne at about the 12th wingbeat. The aerodynamic force increases monotonously from zero to a value a little larger than its weight, and the leg force decreases monotonously from a value equal to its weight to zero, showing that the droneflies do not jump and only use aerodynamic force of flapping wings to lift themselves into the air. Compared with take-offs in insects in previous studies, in which a very large force (5-10 times of the weight) generated either by jumping legs (locusts, milkweed bugs and fruit flies) or by the 'fling' mechanism of the wing pair (butterflies) is used in a short time, the take-off in the droneflies is relatively slow but smoother.

Control for small-speed lateral flight in a model insect.

Controls required for small-speed lateral flight of a model insect were studied using techniques based on the linear theories of stability and control (the stability and control derivatives were computed by the method of computational fluid dynamics). The main results are as follows. (1) Two steady-state lateral motions can exist: one is a horizontal side translation with the body rolling to the same side of the translation by a small angle, and the other is a constant-rate yaw rotation (rotation about the vertical axis). (2) The side translation requires an anti-symmetrical change in the stroke amplitudes of the contralateral wings, and/or an anti-symmetrical change in the angles of attack of the contralateral wings, with the down- and upstroke angles of attack of a wing having equal change. The constant-rate yaw rotation requires an anti-symmetrical change in the angles of attack of the contralateral wings, with the down- and upstroke angles of attack of a wing having differential change. (3) For the control of the horizontal side translation, control input required for the steady-state motion has an opposite sign to that needed for initiating the motion. For example, to have a steady-state left side-translation, the insect needs to increase the stroke amplitude of the left wing and decrease that of the right wing to maintain the steady-state flight, but it needs an opposite change in stroke amplitude (decreasing the stroke amplitude of the left wing and increasing that of the right wing) to enter the flight.

Hovering of model insects: simulation by coupling equations of motion with Navier-Stokes equations.

When an insect hovers, the centre of mass of its body oscillates around a point in the air and its body angle oscillates around a mean value, because of the periodically varying aerodynamic and inertial forces of the flapping wings. In the present paper, hover flight including body oscillations is simulated by coupling the equations of motion with the Navier-Stokes equations. The equations are solved numerically; periodical solutions representing the hover flight are obtained by the shooting method. Two model insects are considered, a dronefly and a hawkmoth; the former has relatively high wingbeat frequency (n) and small wing mass to body mass ratio, whilst the latter has relatively low wingbeat frequency and large wing mass to body mass ratio. The main results are as follows. (i) The body mainly has a horizontal oscillation; oscillation in the vertical direction is about 1/6 of that in the horizontal direction and oscillation in pitch angle is relatively small. (ii) For the hawkmoth, the peak-to-peak values of the horizontal velocity, displacement and pitch angle are 0.11 U (U is the mean velocity at the radius of gyration of the wing), 0.22 c=4 mm (c is the mean chord length) and 4 deg., respectively. For the dronefly, the corresponding values are 0.02 U, 0.05 c=0.15 mm and 0.3 deg., much smaller than those of the hawkmoth. (iii) The horizontal motion of the body decreases the relative velocity of the wings by a small amount. As a result, a larger angle of attack of the wing, and hence a larger drag to lift ratio or larger aerodynamic power, is required for hovering, compared with the case of neglecting body oscillations. For the hawkmoth, the angle of attack is about 3.5 deg. larger and the specific power about 9% larger than that in the case of neglecting the body oscillations; for the dronefly, the corresponding values are 0.7 deg. and 2%. (iv) The horizontal oscillation of the body consists of two parts; one (due to wing aerodynamic force) is proportional to 1/cn2 and the other (due to wing inertial force) is proportional to wing mass to body mass ratio. For many insects, the values of 1/cn2 and wing mass to body mass ratio are much smaller than those of the hawkmoth, and the effects of body oscillation would be rather small; thus it is reasonable to neglect the body oscillations in studying their aerodynamics.