Deubiquitinases in Neurodegeneration.

Ubiquitination refers to the conjugation of the ubiquitin protein (a small protein highly conserved among eukaryotes) to itself or to other proteins through differential use of ubiquitin's seven internal linkage sites or the amino-terminal amino group. By creating different chain lengths, an enormous proteomic diversity may be formed. This creates a signaling system that is central to controlling almost every conceivable protein function, from proteostasis to regulating enzyme function and everything in between. Protein ubiquitination is reversed through the activity of deubiquitinases (DUBs), enzymes that function to deconjugate ubiquitin from itself and protein substrates. DUBs are regulated through several mechanisms, from controlled subcellular localization within cells to developmental and tissue specific expression. Misregulation of DUBs has been implicated in several diseases including cancer and neurodegeneration. Here we present a brief overview of the role of DUBs in neurodegeneration, and as potential therapeutic targets.

Phase separation of a plant virus movement protein and cellular factors support virus-host interactions.

Both cellular and viral proteins can undergo phase separation and form membraneless compartments that concentrate biomolecules. The p26 movement protein from single-stranded, positive-sense Pea enation mosaic virus 2 (PEMV2) separates into a dense phase in nucleoli where p26 and related orthologues must interact with fibrillarin (Fib2) as a pre-requisite for systemic virus movement. Using in vitro assays, viral ribonucleoprotein complexes containing p26, Fib2, and PEMV2 genomic RNAs formed droplets that may provide the basis for self-assembly in planta. Mutating basic p26 residues (R/K-G) blocked droplet formation and partitioning into Fib2 droplets or the nucleolus and prevented systemic movement of a Tobacco mosaic virus (TMV) vector in Nicotiana benthamiana. Mutating acidic residues (D/E-G) reduced droplet formation in vitro, increased nucleolar retention 6.5-fold, and prevented systemic movement of TMV, thus demonstrating that p26 requires electrostatic interactions for droplet formation and charged residues are critical for nucleolar trafficking and virus movement. p26 readily partitioned into stress granules (SGs), which are membraneless compartments that assemble by clustering of the RNA binding protein G3BP following stress. G3BP is upregulated during PEMV2 infection and over-expression of G3BP restricted PEMV2 RNA accumulation >20-fold. Deletion of the NTF2 domain that is required for G3BP condensation restored PEMV2 RNA accumulation >4-fold, demonstrating that phase separation enhances G3BP antiviral activity. These results indicate that p26 partitions into membraneless compartments with either proviral (Fib2) or antiviral (G3BP) factors.

Beveled Incisions: What is the Evidence?

BACKGROUND: Although many aesthetic surgeons believe that beveling the angle of an incision improves the aesthetic outcome with regard to scaring, the literature remains scarce largely because few studies have been conducted. OBJECTIVE: This systematic review therefore aims to identify whether using a beveled incision adds an aesthetic benefit, to determine whether there is a specific angle that yields a superior outcome, and for the first time, to present a complete discussion of this subject for practicing surgeons. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was performed using the PubMed database to search for primary articles. The main inclusion criteria were primary journal articles investigating the use of a beveled angle via a controlled study. RESULTS: A total of fifty-four publications were reviewed, with only four publications including 124 patients suitable for use in this systematic review. All the studies concluded that the use of a beveled angle incision improved aesthetic outcomes, with the ideal angle ranging from 10° to 45°. CONCLUSIONS: The use of a beveled angle incision can improve scar aesthetics and encourages the regrowth of hair follicles and shafts through the scars via multiple mechanisms. Nevertheless, the paucity of literature available to the practitioner compels further research assessing this important topic. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE III: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .

Minimally Invasive Aortic Valve Replacement: Cost-Benefit Analysis of Ministernotomy Versus Minithoracotomy Approach.

BACKGROUND AND AIM OF THE STUDY: Minimally invasive aortic valve replacement via ministernotomy (ministernotomy-AVR) or minithoracotomy (minithoracotomy-AVR) is gaining popularity. To date, a direct comparison of ministernotomy-AVR versus minithoracotomy-AVR is lacking. The study aim was to compare these two procedures from a cost-benefit perspective. METHODS: Eight reports from the United States were selected from amongst 33,494 literature citations based on sample size and data completeness. Perioperative variables were collected for each surgical approach. Fixed and variable costs were estimated as cost per case in excess of full sternotomy AVR procedures. RESULTS: Ministernotomy-AVR patients were of a significantly lower mean age (59.8 years versus 67.9 years), ejection fraction (50.4-51.6% versus 56.1-57.8%), shorter cardiopulmonary bypass time (97.2 min versus 125.6 min) and cross-clamp time (69.9 min versus 87.9 min), a lower rate of blood transfusion (25.9% versus 64.4%), and a shorter length of hospital stay (5.7 versus 6.2 days). There were no significant inter-group differences in 30-day mortality, conversion to sternotomy, neurologic events, arrhythmia, wound infection, or postoperative bleeding. Assuming a volume of 50 cases per year, the added operative cost per case for a minithoracotomy-AVR was US$ 4,254 compared to US$ 290 for a ministernotomy-AVR. The added costs per case, assuming 200 cases per year, were US$ 4,209 and US$ 290, respectively. A minithoracotomy-AVR program performing 50 cases per year adds US$ 1,063,665 of operative costs over five years, compared to US$ 72,500 for a ministernotomy-AVR program. CONCLUSION: The present analysis suggested that the clinical benefits of ministernotomy-AVR are comparable or better than those of minithoracotomy-AVR, and at lower costs. Healthcare delivery organizations should consider the results of cost-benefit examinations when developing surgical valve replacement programs.