Diversity of the bacterial community in the surface soil of a pear orchard based on 16S rRNA gene analysis

A cultivation-independent approach based on polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-amplified partial small subunit rRNA genes was used to characterize bacterial populations in the surface soil of a commercial pear orchard consisting of different pear cultivars during two consecutive growing seasons. Pyrus communis L. cvs Blanquilla, Conference, and Williams are among the most widely cultivated cultivars in Europe and account for the majority of pear production in Northeastern Spain. To assess the heterogeneity of the community structure in response to environmental variables and tree phenology, bacterial populations were examined using PCR-denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis (DGGE) followed by cluster analysis of the 16S ribosomal DNA profiles by means of the unweighted pair group method with arithmetic means. Similarity analysis of the band patterns failed to identify characteristic fingerprints associated with the pear cultivars. Both environmentally and biologically based principal-component analyses showed that the microbial communities changed significantly throughout the year depending on temperature and, to a lesser extent, on tree phenology and rainfall. Prominent DGGE bands were excised and sequenced to gain insight into the identities of the predominant bacterial populations. Most DGGE band sequences were related to bacterial phyla, such as Bacteroidetes, Cyanobacteria, Acidobacteria, Proteobacteria, Nitrospirae, and Gemmatimonadetes, previously associated with typical agronomic crop environments

Gene finding in the chicken genome

Background: Despite the continuous production of genome sequence for a number of organisms,reliable, comprehensive, and cost effective gene prediction remains problematic. This is particularlytrue for genomes for which there is not a large collection of known gene sequences, such as therecently published chicken genome. We used the chicken sequence to test comparative andhomology-based gene-finding methods followed by experimental validation as an effective genomeannotation method.Results: We performed experimental evaluation by RT-PCR of three different computational genefinders, Ensembl, SGP2 and TWINSCAN, applied to the chicken genome. A Venn diagram wascomputed and each component of it was evaluated. The results showed that de novo comparativemethods can identify up to about 700 chicken genes with no previous evidence of expression, andcan correctly extend about 40% of homology-based predictions at the 5' end.Conclusions: De novo comparative gene prediction followed by experimental verification iseffective at enhancing the annotation of the newly sequenced genomes provided by standardhomology-based methods.

Hog1 bypasses stress-mediated down-regulation of transcription by RNA polymerase II redistribution and chromatin remodeling

Cells are subjected to dramatic changes of gene expression upon environmental changes. Stresscauses a general down-regulation of gene expression together with the induction of a set of stress-responsivegenes. The p38-related stress-activated protein kinase Hog1 is an important regulator of transcription uponosmostress in yeast. Genome-wide localization studies of RNA polymerase II (RNA Pol II) and Hog1 showed that stress induced major changes in RNA Pol II localization, with a shift toward stress-responsive genes relative to housekeeping genes. RNA Pol II relocalization required Hog1, which was also localized to stress-responsive loci. In addition to RNA Pol II-bound genes, Hog1 also localized to RNA polymerase III-bound genes, pointing to a wider role for Hog1 in transcriptional control than initially expected. Interestingly, an increasing association of Hog1 with stressresponsive genes was strongly correlated with chromatin remodeling and increased gene expression. Remarkably, MNase-Seq analysis showed that although chromatin structure was not significantly altered at a genome-wide level in response to stress, there was pronounced chromatin remodeling for those genes that displayed Hog1 association. Hog1 serves to bypass the general down-regulation of gene expression that occurs in response to osmostress, and does so both by targeting RNA Pol II machinery and by inducing chromatin remodeling at stressresponsive loci.

O6-Methylguanine-DNA methyltransferase protein expression by immunohistochemistry in brain and non-brain systemic tumours: systematic review and meta-analysis of correlation with methylation-specific polymerase chain reaction

Background: The DNA repair protein O6-Methylguanine-DNA methyltransferase (MGMT) confers resistance to alkylating agents. Several methods have been applied to its analysis, with methylation-specific polymerase chain reaction (MSP) the most commonly used for promoter methylation study, while immunohistochemistry (IHC) has become the most frequently used for the detection of MGMT protein expression. Agreement on the best and most reliable technique for evaluating MGMT status remains unsettled. The aim of this study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of the correlation between IHC and MSP. Methods A computer-aided search of MEDLINE (1950-October 2009), EBSCO (1966-October 2009) and EMBASE (1974-October 2009) was performed for relevant publications. Studies meeting inclusion criteria were those comparing MGMT protein expression by IHC with MGMT promoter methylation by MSP in the same cohort of patients. Methodological quality was assessed by using the QUADAS and STARD instruments. Previously published guidelines were followed for meta-analysis performance. Results Of 254 studies identified as eligible for full-text review, 52 (20.5%) met the inclusion criteria. The review showed that results of MGMT protein expression by IHC are not in close agreement with those obtained with MSP. Moreover, type of tumour (primary brain tumour vs others) was an independent covariate of accuracy estimates in the meta-regression analysis beyond the cut-off value. Conclusions Protein expression assessed by IHC alone fails to reflect the promoter methylation status of MGMT. Thus, in attempts at clinical diagnosis the two methods seem to select different groups of patients and should not be used interchangeably.