4,184 research outputs found
Differential expression and functional characterization of luteinizing hormone receptor splice variants in human luteal cells : Implications for luteolysis
No full textThe human LH receptor (LHR) plays a key role in luteal function and the establishment of pregnancy through its interaction with the gonadotropins LH and human chorionic gonadotropin. We previously identified four splice variants of the LHR in human luteinized granulosa cells (LGCs) and corpora lutea (CL). Real-time quantitative PCR revealed that expression of the full-length LHR (LHRa) and the most truncated form (LHRd) changed significantly in CL harvested at different stages of the ovarian cycle (P < 0.01, ANOVA). LHRa expression was reduced in the late luteal CL (P<0.05). Conversely, an increase in LHRd expression was observed in the late luteal CL (P<0.01). Chronic manipulation of human chorionic gonadotropin in LGC primary cultures supported the in vivo findings. LHRd encodes a protein lacking the transmembrane and carboxyl terminal domains. COS-7 cells expressing LHRd were unable to produce cAMP in response to LH stimulation. COS-7 cells coexpressing LHRd and LHRa also failed to generate cAMP in response to LH, suggesting that this truncated form has a negative effect on the signaling of LHRa. Immunofluorescence staining ofLGC and COS-7 cells implied that there is a reduction in cell surface expression ofLHRa when LHRd is present. Overall, these results imply expression of LHR splice variants is regulated in the human CL. Furthermore, during functional luteolysis a truncated variant could modulate the cell surface expression and activity of full-length LHR.Peer reviewe
METHICILLIN-RESISTANT STAPHYLOCOCCUS AUREUS BACTEREMIA IN NEONATAL INTENSIVE CARE UNITS: GENOTYPING ANALYSIS AND CASE-CONTROL STUDY
No full textProline-rich tyrosine kinase 2 mediates gonadotropin-releasing hormone signaling to a specific extracellularly regulated kinase-sensitive transcriptional locus in the luteinizing hormone beta-subunit gene
Full text linkG protein-coupled receptor regulation of gene transcription primarily occurs through the phosphorylation of transcription factors by MAPKs. This requires transduction of an activating signal via scaffold proteins that can ultimately determine the outcome by binding signaling kinases and adapter proteins with effects on the target transcription factor and locus of activation. By investigating these mechanisms, we have elucidated how pituitary gonadotrope cells decode an input GnRH signal into coherent transcriptional output from the LH beta-subunit gene promoter. We show that GnRH activates c-Src and multiple members of the MAPK family, c-Jun NH2-terminal kinase 1/2, p38MAPK, and ERK1/2. Using dominant-negative point mutations and chemical inhibitors, we identified that calcium-dependent proline-rich tyrosine kinase 2 specifically acts as a scaffold for a focal adhesion/cytoskeleton-dependent complex comprised of c-Src, Grb2, and mSos that translocates an ERK-activating signal to the nucleus. The locus of action of ERK was specifically mapped to early growth response-1 (Egr-1) DNA binding sites within the LH beta-subunit gene proximal promoter, which was also activated by p38MAPK, but not c-Jun NH2-terminal kinase 1/2. Egr-1 was confirmed as the transcription factor target of ERK and p38MAPK by blockade of protein expression, transcriptional activity, and DNA binding. We have identified a novel GnRH-activated proline-rich tyrosine kinase 2-dependent ERK-mediated signal transduction pathway that specifically regulates Egr-1 activation of the LH beta-subunit proximal gene promoter, and thus provide insight into the molecular mechanisms required for differential regulation of gonadotropin gene expression
Writing a History of Women's Writing from 700 to 1500
No full textHow can a history of British women’s writing be written? Such a project must necessarily be collaborative if it is to attempt to be comprehensive, but even then any claim to comprehensiveness has to be qualified: paradoxically the more expansive the history, the more partial it will be. The challenges of writing such a history are perhaps even greater for scholars working in the early periods because we are forced to confront and to rethink many deeply ingrained assumptions about women’s writing. This introductory essay focuses on a period of literary history that is often marginalized in accounts of women’s writing in English: the Middle Ages. It is a widely accepted view that there are only two women writers in English in the period before 1500, and therefore there is little to be said for an age (or ages) when women writers were so much an exception. Furthermore, the two medieval English women writers whose names are widely known, Julian of Norwich (1342/3-after 1416) and Margery Kempe (c.1373-after 1439), did not think of themselves as writers or authors. Nor were they responsible for literature as it is thought of today—they did not compose poetry, or romances, or fiction of any sort. Even these two ‘named’ women writers do not comfortably fit established evolutionary models of women’s literary history over the longue durée, with their emphases on the spread of literacy, the bias towards print culture, and the emergence of the woman poet, and ultimately of the professional author of drama or fiction. Yet the difficulty of locating how the medieval period fits in to literary history is not unique to women’s writing: medieval understandings of authorship, literature, and national identity, and the contexts and processes of writing and textual circulation were quite distinct from later periods and therefore deemed problematic more generally. This essay explores some of these issues and reflects on the difficulties we face writing a history of early women's writing
Up-regulation of interleukin-6 in human ovarian cancer cell via a Gi/PI3K-Akt/NF-{kappa}B pathway by lysophosphatidic acid, an ovarian cancer-activating factor.
No full textWriting a History of Women's Writing from 700 to 1500
No full textHow can a history of British women’s writing be written? Such a project must necessarily be collaborative if it is to attempt to be comprehensive, but even then any claim to comprehensiveness has to be qualified: paradoxically the more expansive the history, the more partial it will be. The challenges of writing such a history are perhaps even greater for scholars working in the early periods because we are forced to confront and to rethink many deeply ingrained assumptions about women’s writing. This introductory essay focuses on a period of literary history that is often marginalized in accounts of women’s writing in English: the Middle Ages. It is a widely accepted view that there are only two women writers in English in the period before 1500, and therefore there is little to be said for an age (or ages) when women writers were so much an exception. Furthermore, the two medieval English women writers whose names are widely known, Julian of Norwich (1342/3-after 1416) and Margery Kempe (c.1373-after 1439), did not think of themselves as writers or authors. Nor were they responsible for literature as it is thought of today—they did not compose poetry, or romances, or fiction of any sort. Even these two ‘named’ women writers do not comfortably fit established evolutionary models of women’s literary history over the longue durée, with their emphases on the spread of literacy, the bias towards print culture, and the emergence of the woman poet, and ultimately of the professional author of drama or fiction. Yet the difficulty of locating how the medieval period fits in to literary history is not unique to women’s writing: medieval understandings of authorship, literature, and national identity, and the contexts and processes of writing and textual circulation were quite distinct from later periods and therefore deemed problematic more generally. This essay explores some of these issues and reflects on the difficulties we face writing a history of early women's writing
Less is more: the battle of Moore's law against Bremermann's limit on the field of systems biology
Full text linkBackground
I run my bioinformatics tasks on two machines. The first one is a Tru64 DS20 AlphaServer, bought in 1999. This has two processors running at 512 MHz with 2 Gb of memory. The second is a custom-built Linux box, purchased in early 2005, which has 8 processors running at 2.7 GHz and 12 Gb of memory. Although performance speed does not quite scale linearly against processor speed, this represents just over a 5-fold increase in computing power over a period of 6 years.
This kind of thing has been happening since the 1960s, when Intel-founder Gordon Moore observed that available processing power doubles every 2 years or so. Indeed, my "fast" Linux box is already quite pedestrian compared to the 3.8 GHz processors that are now routinely available. Under these circumstances, it is easy to become complacent about handling awkward jobs. Large, viral-genome-scale ClustalW jobs that used to run for several days on my DS20 are now finished overnight. Within the horizon of a typical 3-year scientific project, I could conceivably be able to buy a machine that shortens the time to a couple of hours or so.
But just because bioinformatics tasks are now becoming increasingly trivial in terms of computer time, does that mean we can expect similar gains in systems biology problems? There is a whole industry of popular science books which attempt to persuade us that "Moore's Law" will be the basis of a future world in which anything is computable almost instantly, and we will, even within our lifetimes, know "everything". How seriously should we take such claims and what relevance do they have to research in the here-and-now
- …
