Modular assembly of transposable element arrays by microsatellite targeting in the guayule and rice genomes.

BACKGROUND: Guayule (Parthenium argentatum A. Gray) is a rubber-producing desert shrub native to Mexico and the United States. Guayule represents an alternative to Hevea brasiliensis as a source for commercial natural rubber. The efficient application of modern molecular/genetic tools to guayule improvement requires characterization of its genome. RESULTS: The 1.6 Gb guayule genome was sequenced, assembled and annotated. The final 1.5 Gb assembly, while fragmented (N50 = 22 kb), maps > 95% of the shotgun reads and is essentially complete. Approximately 40,000 transcribed, protein encoding genes were annotated on the assembly. Further characterization of this genome revealed 15 families of small, microsatellite-associated, transposable elements (TEs) with unexpected chromosomal distribution profiles. These SaTar (Satellite Targeted) elements, which are non-autonomous Mu-like elements (MULEs), were frequently observed in multimeric linear arrays of unrelated individual elements within which no individual element is interrupted by another. This uniformly non-nested TE multimer architecture has not been previously described in either eukaryotic or prokaryotic genomes. Five families of similarly distributed non-autonomous MULEs (microsatellite associated, modularly assembled) were characterized in the rice genome. Families of TEs with similar structures and distribution profiles were identified in sorghum and citrus. CONCLUSION: The sequencing and assembly of the guayule genome provides a foundation for application of current crop improvement technologies to this plant. In addition, characterization of this genome revealed SaTar elements with distribution profiles unique among TEs. Satar targeting appears based on an alternative MULE recombination mechanism with the potential to impact gene evolution.

Function-preserving reduction and fixation of unstable Jefferson fractures using a C1 posterior limited construct.

STUDY DESIGN: This is a retrospective, clinical, and radiologic study of posterior reduction and fusion of the C1 arch in the treatment of unstable Jefferson fractures. OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to describe a new motion-preserving surgical technique in the treatment of unstable Jefferson fracture. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The management of unstable Jefferson fractures remains controversial. The majority of C1 fractures can be effectively treated nonoperatively with external immobilization unless there is an injury to the transverse atlantal ligament (TAL). Conservative treatment usually involves immobilization for a long time in Halo vest, whereas surgical intervention generally involves C1-C2 fusion, eliminating the range of motion of the upper cervical spine. We propose a novel method for the treatment of unstable Jefferson fractures without restricting the range of motion. METHODS: A retrospective review of 12 patients with unstable C1 fractures between April 2008 and October 2011 was performed. They were treated by inserting bilateral posterior C1 pedicle screws or lateral mass screws interconnected by a transversal rod to achieve internal fixation. There were 8 men and 4 women, with an average age of 35.6 years (range, 20-60 y). Presenting symptoms included neck pain, stiffness, and decreased range of motion but none had neurological injury. Seven patients had bilateral posterior arch fractures associated with unilateral anterior arch fractures (posterior 3/4 Jefferson fracture, Landells type II), and 5 had unilateral anterior and posterior arch fractures (half-ring Jefferson fracture, Landells type II). Seven patients had intact TAL, and 5 patients had fractures and avulsion of the attachment of TAL (Dickman type II). RESULTS: A total of 24 screws were inserted. Five cases had screws placed in the lateral mass: 3 because of posterior arch breakage, and 2 because the height of the posterior arch at the entry point was <4 mm. The remaining 7 cases had pedicle screw fixation. One patient had venous plexus injury during exposure of lower margin of the posterior arch; however, successful hemostasis was achieved with Gelfoam. Postoperative x-ray and computed tomography scan showed partial breach of the transverse foramen caused by a screw in 1 case, and breach of the inner cortex of the pedicle caused by screw displacement in 1 case; however, no spinal cord injury or vertebral artery injury was found. The remaining screws were in good position. Patients were followed up for 6-40 months (average, 22 mo). All cases had recovery of range of motion of the cervical spine to the preinjury level by 3-6 months after surgery, with resolution of pain. At 6 months follow-up, plain radiographs and computed tomography scans revealed satisfactory cervical alignment, no implant failure, and satisfactory bony fusion of the fractures; no C1-C2 instability was observed on the flexion-extension radiographs. CONCLUSIONS: C1 posterior limited construct is a valid technique and a feasible method for treating unstable Jefferson fractures, which allows preservation of the function of the craniocervical junction, without significant morbidity.