The MolBio Carnival is here!

The fifth issue of the MolBio carnival is here! We've got loads of great entries in this edition, all focusing on the mysterious world inside cells, so take some time out to take a look and comment on them. The inside of cells is such a fascinating place to explore - and many of these posts were written by the people whose job it is to explore them. I've used a fairly broad interpretation of molecular biology, so in this carnival you'll see everything from the atomic details of protein interactions, to the (comparatively) far bigger world of bacterial colonies in the gut.

All good explorations should start with a map - and you don't get much better than the truly gorgeous pictures spotlighted by E. Campbell of the HighMag Blog. This beautiful picture shows a cell with the actin-binding proteins stained purple in order to see how they interact with a mutant actin motor.

Once we head inside the cell, we can start to explore the many complex and fascinating interactions that help to control it. While the DNA might encode all the information needed to create cellular proteins, it isn't just the DNA that is responsible for cellular behaviour, as explained by Christopher Dieni in "How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Epigenetics" (which comes second place in the Lab Rat award for best post name). As well as proteins, DNA expression is also controlled by fragments of RNA, explained beautifully clearly by student blogger Khalil A. Cassimally who looks into whether miRNA might be used to control cocaine addiction. And while we're at the level of molecular interactions for cellular control, we can look at control mechanisms for protein folding as well, as the Computational Biology blog takes us through the consequences of entanglement during protein folding.

Picture from Robert Ezra showing protein (green) binding to DNA (gold)

But the cell does not consist solely of DNA and proteins - it also relies on metabolites such as sugars and fats. These metabolites pass through a complex series of reactions in order to convert them to energy, and research on how these reactions occur and are controlled has been going on for many years. Sigmabioblogs has a wonderful interview with the biolegend Dr. Donald Nicholson, who is now over 80 years old and has been working on metabolic pathways for pretty much his entire life! On the subject of nutrients, there is also a great bilingual post on Knedliky about how flavour-enhancers work at a molecular level.

These small and focused intramolecular reactions aren't just used to control the cell, but also to control far bigger systems, or cell-cell interactions and communication. Memoirs of a Defective Brain explains how the bacteria Strep pyogenes uses intramolecular interactions to prevent the immune system recognising an infection. His post "The SpyCEP who cleaved me" not only wins the Lab Rat award for best post name, but also features the BEST diagram I've ever seen for explaining the subtle and complex interactions between cells of the immune system:

While we're on the theme of bacteria (yay!) we'll head over to the stomach. James, of (currently...) Disease of the Week, has written a great two part series on those bacteria in our gut, focusing on the question of how they actually get into our gut, and what they do when they get there. Part 1 deals with babies, and Part 2 with adults. There's also a lovely post from Lucas Brouwers, of Thoughtomics, which looks at the evolution of cyanobacterial toxins - and why a bacteria that lived millions of years before humans were even thought of would need to produce such a powerful neurotoxin.

And lets not forget the plants! They rely on intracellular interactions as much as any other organism. There's an old (but very good) post from Denim and Tweed about how nitrogen fixing bacteria made the leap from being intracellular parasites to mutualistic helpers. We've also got a post from It Takes 30 - about how sex is specified in plants. Unlike humans, who rely on chromosomes, hormones, and a whole host of social norms and pressures to distinguish the sexes, plants might need no more than a single amino acid insertion.

Those are basically just brightly painted sexual organs on display

We'll finish the exploration on a slightly larger, but no less fascinating level, the reproductive systems of marsupials by the amazing piratey Captain Skellet. By labelling gene markers for the development of organs researchers have come to the (not unexpected) conclusion that marsupials are Just Weird, and no one is quite sure why...

The next edition of the MolBio carnival will be hosted at PHASED, so if you've missed out this time, go submit your posts here by the 3rd of January. Blog carnivals are a great way to share information and to get new readers, so it's highly recommended!

Resistance without genetics - persistance in bacterial populations

Most work on bacterial resistance to antibiotics tends to start with genetics. If a bacteria is able to survive a certain antibiotic, it is assumed that it has gained a gene from somewhere (and bacteria can get genes from almost anywhere) which allows it to survive. That makes sense after all...surely two bacteria with exactly the same genetic information should react identically to antibiotics?

No. Not all the time. There is an unfortunate habit of biochemists to get too wrapped up in the genetics to think about epigenetics (control of genetic expression by proteins), especially with 'simpler' organisms like bacteria. Persistence is the property of a totally identical population of bacteria to respond differently to antibiotics, despite having identical genomes they are phenotypically (phenotype = set of observable characteristics) different.

Persistent bacteria aren't only seen in response to antibiotic's either...they can be found for many types of stress, such as heat or starvation. They've been roughly split into two different types:

• Type I persisters: form in response to stress, usually at stationary phase (i.e after the initial burst of bacterial growth)
  
• Type II persisters: are seen forming throughout the bacterial lifecycle

Monitoring the growth rates of individual cells showed that even before treatment with antibiotics, many of the persister cells had reduced growth rates. The mechanism for this is not yet clear, a few genes that may be involved have been identified, but no reason for activating them (or repressing them in non-persisters), has yet been identified.

Although these sound dangerous at first glance, the medical implications of persisters are relatively limited (probably the reason why the mechanism has not been more thoroughly studied). As they have a slower growth rate, and as there are so few of them within an overall susceptible population, they can usually be cleared relatively easily by the immune system. There are, therefore, only three main areas where they are clinically relevant: immunosuppressed patients, pathogens that have adapted to the immune system, and in niches in the body that are less available to the immune system (such as within a biofilm).

The main ecological and evolutionary implications of this are that a colony of identical bacteria can 'survive' antibiotic attack by having a few of its members able to withstand that attack. Although they will grow slower under normal conditions, their ability to withstand stressful conditions means that they can essentially recover the whole colony, without the need for a major genetic change. This is true especially of diseases such as tuberculosis, where very few bacteria are needed to re-start an infection.

One thing that would be really interesting would be to study the behaviour of persisters within biofilms. Along with swarming and quorum sensing, biofilms are an example of pseudo-multicellular bacterial behaviour, circumstances under which having a small population of cells that can regenerate the whole colony would be very useful.

---

Orit Gefen & Nathalie Q. Balaban (2009). The importance of being persistent: heterogeneity of bacterial populations under antibiotic stress FEMS Microbiology Reviews, 33 (4) : 10.1111/j.1574-6976.2008.00156.x

species specific mouse transcription and the start of term

Term is about to start! I still can't believe that the holiday is almost over :( On the other hand, this holiday does seem to have gone on a while, memories of exams and lectures and learning seem so far away.

I will have to step away from being a Lab Rat for a while, and go back to being a Student. Lectures, reading, more reading, desperately understanding and (a new one for this year) Seminars. Seminars are where some other lab rat stands at the front of the room and talks about their lab ratting for a bit and then everyone else has to try to think of clever things to say about it. It's all great fun and sometimes you get free wine or food.

So as it's the start of term and I'm full of Good Intentions I went over to my departmental webpage to see if any of the abstracts for the seminars were up. It turns out that the first one is up. Here it is:

"Homologous sets of transcription factors direct conserved tissue-specific gene expression, yet transcription factor binding events diverge rapidly between closely related species. We used hepatocytes from an aneuploid mouse strain carrying human chromosome 21 to determine on a chromosomal scale whether interspecies differences in transcriptional regulation are primarily directed by human genetic sequence or mouse nuclear environment. Virtually all transcription factor binding locations, landmarks of transcription initiation, and the resulting gene expression observed in human hepatocytes were recapitulated across the entire human chromosome 21 in the mouse hepatocyte nucleus. Thus, in homologous tissues, genetic sequence is largely responsible for directing transcriptional programs; interspecies differences in epigenetic machinery, cellular environment, and transcription factors themselves play secondary roles."

I actually almost fainted when I read that. A few deep breaths later and I decided to come back to it and understand it. (Why can't scientists write what they mean?)

Translation (if you want to skip my waffle and get straight to a quick translation skip to the italic bit)

I have to admit that I had a bit of a clue to help with the translation, they gave me the guys webpage. A quick look confirmed that he works for cancer research UK, which helps because there are actually a limited number of things people in cancer research tend to work with (well, at the very least it confirms that he's not working with bacteria...)

So...the first sentence. Transcription factors are proteins that bind to the DNA and control its expression. Probably a term most biochemists should really know (heh). Homologous just means 'pretty much the same'. So their problem is that they've got transcription factors in very similar species doing wildly different things.

Hepatocytes are liver cells. Aneuploidy means 'an abnormal number of chromosomes'. So they basically just stuck human chromosome 21 (the smallest one! and, incidentally, the one that leads to Down syndrome) into mouse liver cells to see what they did. The idea being to find out whether the differences were caused by the actual nuclear material or the 'epigenetic' surroundings (epigenetic = stuff that isn't DNA)

Epigenetics is a relatively new and exciting concept incidentally. It's the idea that the actual nuclear environment has a large part to play in what gets expressed rather than just the DNA as much. Also it's an idea that really pisses off James Watson and anything that pisses off James Watson is fine by me.

So what happened? Were the alien chromosome 21's expressed like mouse chromosomes (showing epigenetic control) or exactly as they would be in humans (showing DNA control). The answer is in the third sentence, the chromosome 21's were expressed exactly the same as they were in humans. No epigenetics here :(

*these aren't the epigenetic controls you're looking for*

For those who just want a simple translation here it is, to the best of my ability:

Similar sets of transcription factors are involved in controlling the expression of mouse DNA. However the way they work is very different, even in closely related species. We placed the human chromosome 21 into mouse liver cells to see if they were expressed like mouse chromosomes (showing control from factors other than the DNA) or like human chromosomes (showing that all control is from the DNA). The expression of the chromosome 21 in the mouse liver cell nucleus was almost identical to the way it is expressed in humans. Therefore, in similar tissues, it is the genetic sequence that determines how the DNA is expressed, all other factors are secondary.

Now I've got to try and think of clever questions to ask about that. I might have a try at getting hold of the paper, then at the very least I can ask poncy questions about the techniques.