The interference effects of non-rotated versus counter-rotated trials in visuomotor adaptation

An isometric torque-production task was used to investigate interference and retention in adaptation to multiple visuomotor environments. Subjects produced isometric flexion-extension and pronation-supination elbow torques to move a cursor to acquire targets as quickly as possible. Adaptation to a 30 degrees counter-clockwise (CCW) rotation (task A), was followed by a period of rest (control), trials with no rotation (task B0), or trials with a 60 degrees clockwise (CW) rotation (task B60). For all groups, retention of task A was assessed 5 h later. With initial training, all groups reduced the angular deviation of cursor paths early in the movements, indicating feedforward adaptation. For the control group, performance at commencement of the retest was significantly better than that at the beginning of the initial learning. For the B0 group, performance in the retest of task A was not dissimilar to that at the start of the initial learning, while for the B60 group retest performance in task A was markedly worse than initially observed. Our results indicate that close juxtaposition of two visuomotor environments precludes improved retest performance in the initial environment. Data for the B60 group, specifically larger angular errors upon retest compared with initial exposures, are consistent with the presence of anterograde interference. Furthermore, full interference occurred even when the visuomotor environment encountered in the second task was not rotated (B0). This latter novel result differs from those obtained for force field learning, where interference does not occur when task B does not impose perturbing forces, i.e., when B consists of a null field (Brashers-Krug et al., Nature 382:252-255, 1996). The results are consistent with recent proposals suggesting different interference mechanisms for visuomotor (kinematic) compared to force field (dynamic) adaptations, and have implications for the use of washout trials when studying interference between multiple visuomotor environments.

Dual-task interference: Attentional and neurophysiological influences

Performing two tasks simultaneously often degrades performance of one or both tasks. While this dual-task interference is classically interpreted in terms of shared attentional resources, where two motor tasks are performed simultaneously interactions within primary motor cortex (i.e., activity-dependent coupling) may also be a contributing factor. In the present study TMS (transcranial magnetic stimulation) was used to examine the contribution of activity-dependent coupling to dual-task interference during concurrent performance of a bimanual coordination task and a discrete probe reaction time (RT) task involving the foot. Experiments 1 and 2 revealed that activity-dependent coupling within the leg corticomotor pathway was greater during dual-task performance than single-task performance, and this was associated with interference on the probe RT task (i.e., increased RT). Experiment 3 revealed that dual-task interference occurred regardless of whether the dual-task involved two motor tasks or a motor and cognitive task, however activity-dependent coupling was present only when a dual motor task was performed. This suggests that activity-dependent coupling is less detrimental to performance than attentional processes operating upstream of the corticomotor system. Finally, while prioritising the RT task reduced, but did not eliminate, dual-task interference the contribution of activity-dependent coupling to dual-task interference was not affected by task prioritisation. This suggests that although activity-dependent coupling may contribute to dual motor-task interference, attentional processes appear to be more important. It also suggests that activity-dependent coupling may not be subject to modulation by attentional processes. (C) 2009 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

FACT facilitates chromatin transcription by RNA polymerases I and III

Efficient transcription elongation from a chromatin template requires RNA polymerases (Pols) to negotiate nucleosomes. Our biochemical analyses demonstrate that RNA Pol I can transcribe through nucleosome templates and that this requires structural rearrangement of the nucleosomal core particle. The subunits of the histone chaperone FACT (facilitates chromatin transcription), SSRP1 and Spt16, co-purify and co-immunoprecipitate with mammalian Pol I complexes. In cells, SSRP1 is detectable at the rRNA gene repeats. Crucially, siRNA-mediated repression of FACT subunit expression in cells results in a significant reduction in 47S pre-rRNA levels, whereas synthesis of the first 40 nt of the rRNA is not affected, implying that FACT is important for Pol I transcription elongation through chromatin. FACT also associates with RNA Pol III complexes, is present at the chromatin of genes transcribed by Pol III and facilitates their transcription in cells. Our findings indicate that, beyond the established role in Pol II transcription, FACT has physiological functions in chromatin transcription by all three nuclear RNA Pols. Our data also imply that local chromatin dynamics influence transcription of the active rRNA genes by Pol I and of Pol III-transcribed genes.

Regulation of cyclin D1 RNA stability by SNIP1

Cyclin D1 expression represents one of the key mitogen-regulated events during the G1 phase of the cell cycle, whereas Cyclin D1 overexpression is frequently associated with human malignancy. Here, we describe a novel mechanism regulating Cyclin D1 levels. We find that SNIP1, previously identified as a regulator of Cyclin D1 expression, does not, as previously thought, primarily function as a transcriptional coactivator for this gene. Rather, SNIP1 plays a critical role in cotranscriptional or posttranscriptional Cyclin D1 mRNA stability. Moreover, we show that the majority of nucleoplasmic SNIP1 is present within a previously undescribed complex containing SkIP, THRAP3, BCLAF1, and Pinin, all proteins with reported roles in RNA processing and transcriptional regulation. We find that this complex, which we have termed the SNIP1/SkIP–associated RNA-processing complex, is coordinately recruited to both the 3' end of the Cyclin D1 gene and Cyclin D1 RNA. Significantly, SNIP1 is required for the further recruitment of the RNA processing factor U2AF65 to both the Cyclin D1 gene and RNA. This study shows a novel mechanism regulating Cyclin D1 expression and offers new insight into the role of SNIP1 and associated proteins as regulators of proliferation and cancer.