Structural brain changes related to bilingualism: does immersion make a difference?

Abstract Within the field of neuroscientific research on second language learning, considerable attention has been devoted to functional and recently also structural changes related to second language acquisition. The present literature review summarizes studies that investigated structural changes related to bilingualism. Furthermore, as recent evidence has suggested that native-like exposure to a second language (i.e., a naturalistic learning setting or immersion) considerably impacts second language learning, all findings are reflected with respect to the learning environment. Aggregating the existing evidence, we conclude that structural changes in left inferior frontal and inferior parietal regions have been observed in studies on cortical gray matter changes, while the anterior parts of the corpus callosum have been repeatedly found to reflect bilingualism in studies on white matter (WM) connectivity. Regarding the learning environment, no cortical alterations can be attributed specifically to naturalistic or classroom learning. With regard to WM changes, one might tentatively propose that changes in IFOF and SLF are possibly more prominently observed in studies investigating bilinguals with a naturalistic learning experience. However, future studies are needed to replicate and strengthen the existing evidence and to directly test the impact of naturalistic exposure on structural brain plasticity.

Trying to make sense in nonsense-mediated mRNA decay

Despite over 30 years of research, the molecular mechanisms of nonsense-mediated mRNA decay (NMD) are still not well understood. NMD appears to exist in most eukaryotes and is intensively studied in S. cerevisiae, C. elegans, D. melanogaster and in mammalian cells. Current evidence suggests that the core of NMD – involving UPF1, UPF2 and UPF3 – is evolutionarily conserved, but that different species may have evolved slightly different ways to identify target mRNAs for NMD and to degrade them. Our lab has shown that the exon junction complex (EJC) is not absolutely required for NMD in human cells (Bühler et al., NSMB 2006) and that it is neither restricted to CBP80-bound mRNAs as classical models claim (Rufener & Mühlemann, NSMB 2013). Together with the finding that long 3’ UTRs often are an NMD-inducing feature (Eberle et al, PLoS Biol 2008; Yepiskoposyan et al., RNA 2011), our data is consistent with much of the data from other species and hence has led to a “unified” working model for NMD (Stalder & Mühlemann, Trends Cell Biol 2008; Schweingruber et al., Biochim Biophys Acta 2013). Our recent iCLIP experiments with endogenous UPF1 indicate that UPF1 binds mRNAs indiscriminately with respect to being an NMD target or not before they engage with ribosomes (Zünd et al., NSMB 2013). After onset of translation, UPF1 is cleared from the coding region but remains bound to the 3’ UTR of mRNAs. Why this 3’ UTR-associated in some cases induces NMD and in others not is currently being investigated and not yet understood. Following assembly of a phospho-UPF1-containing NMD complex, decay adaptors (SMG5, SMG7, PNRC2) and/or the endonuclease SMG6 are recruited. While the latter cleaves the mRNA in the vicinity of the termination codon, the former proteins induce deadenylation, decapping and exonucleolytic degradation of the mRNA. In my talk, I will give an overview about the latest developments in NMD – with a focus on our own work – and try to integrate the bits and pieces into a somewhat coherent working model.

A Research Roadmap for Complementary and Alternative Medicine – What We Need to Know by 2020

Background: The CAMbrella coordination action was funded within the Framework Programme 7. Its aim is to provide a research roadmap for clinical and epidemiological research for complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) that is appropriate for the health needs of European citizens and acceptable to their national research institutes and healthcare providers in both public and private sectors. One major issue in the European research agenda is the demographic change and its impact on health care. Our vision for 2020 is that there is an evidence base that enables European citizens to make informed decisions about CAM, both positive and negative. This roadmap proposes a strategic research agenda for the field of CAM designed to address future European health care challenges. This roadmap is based on the results of CAMbrella’s several work packages, literature reviews and expert discussions including a consensus meeting. Methods: We first conducted a systematic literature review on key issues in clinical and epidemiological research in CAM to identify the general concepts, methods and the strengths and weaknesses of current CAM research. These findings were discussed in a workshop (Castellaro, Italy, September 7–9th 2011) with international CAM experts and strategic and methodological recommendations were defined in order to improve the rigor and relevance of CAM research. These recommendations provide the basis for the research roadmap, which was subsequently discussed in a consensus conference (Järna, Sweden, May 9–11th 2012) with all CAMbrella members and the CAMbrella advisory board. The roadmap was revised after this discussion in CAMbrella Work Package (WP) 7 and finally approved by CAMbrella’s scientific steering committee on September 26th 2012. Results: Our main findings show that CAM is very heterogenous in terms of definitions and legal regulations between the European countries. In addition, citizens’ needs and attitudes towards CAM as well as the use and provision of CAM differ significantly between countries. In terms of research methodology, there was consensus that CAM researchers should make use of all the commonly accepted scientific research methods and employ those with utmost diligence combined in a mixed methods framework. Conclusions: We propose 6 core areas of research that should be investigated to achieve a robust knowledge base and to allow stakeholders to make informed decisions. These are: Research into the prevalence of CAM in Europe: Reviews show that we do not know enough about the circumstances in which CAM is used by Europeans. To enable a common European strategic approach, a clear picture of current use is of the utmost importance. Research into differences regarding citizens’ attitudes and needs towards CAM: Citizens are the driver for CAM utilization. Their needs and views on CAM are a key priority, and their interests must be investigated and addressed in future CAM research. Research into safety of CAM: Safety is a key issue for European citizens. CAM is considered safe, but reliable data is scarce although urgently needed in order to assess the risk and cost-benefit ratio of CAM. Research into the comparative effectiveness of CAM: Everybody needs to know in what situation CAM is a reasonable choice. Therefore, we recommend a clear emphasis on concurrent evaluation of the overall effectiveness of CAM as an additional or alternative treatment strategy in real-world settings. Research into effects of context and meaning: The impact of effects of context and meaning on the outcome of CAM treatments must be investigated; it is likely that they are significant. Research into different models of CAM health care integration: There are different models of CAM being integrated into conventional medicine throughout Europe, each with their respective strengths and limitations. These models should be described and concurrently evaluated; innovative models of CAM provision in health care systems should be one focus for CAM research. We also propose a methodological framework for CAM research. We consider that a framework of mixed methodological approaches is likely to yield the most useful information. In this model, all available research strategies including comparative effectiveness research utilising quantitative and qualitative methods should be considered to enable us to secure the greatest density of knowledge possible. Stakeholders, such as citizens, patients and providers, should be involved in every stage of developing the specific and relevant research questions, study design and the assurance of real-world relevance for the research. Furthermore, structural and sufficient financial support for research into CAM is needed to strengthen CAM research capacity if we wish to understand why it remains so popular within the EU. In order to consider employing CAM as part of the solution to the health care, health creation and self-care challenges we face by 2020, it is vital to obtain a robust picture of CAM use and reliable information about its cost, safety and effectiveness in real-world settings. We need to consider the availability, accessibility and affordability of CAM. We need to engage in research excellence and utilise comparative effectiveness approaches and mixed methods to obtain this data. Our recommendations are both strategic and methodological. They are presented for the consideration of researchers and funders while being designed to answer the important and implicit questions posed by EU citizens currently using CAM in apparently increasing numbers. We propose that the EU actively supports an EUwide strategic approach that facilitates the development of CAM research. This could be achieved in the first instance through funding a European CAM coordinating research office dedicated to foster systematic communication between EU governments, public, charitable and industry funders as well as researchers, citizens and other stakeholders. The aim of this office would be to coordinate research strategy developments and research funding opportunities, as well as to document and disseminate international research activities in this field. With the aim to develop sustainability as second step, a European Centre for CAM should be established that takes over the monitoring and further development of a coordinated research strategy for CAM, as well as it should have funds that can be awarded to foster high quality and robust independent research with a focus on citizens health needs and pan-European collaboration. We wish to establish a solid funding for CAM research to adequately inform health care and health creation decision-making throughout the EU. This centre would ensure that our vision of a common, strategic and scientifically rigorous approach to CAM research becomes our legacy and Europe’s reality. We are confident that our recommendations will serve these essential goals for EU citizens.