Comment on “The phase relation between atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature” Humlum et al. [Glob. Planet. Change 100: 51–69.]: Isotopes ignored

A recent study relying purely on statistical analysis of relatively short time series suggested substantial re-thinking of the traditional view about causality explaining the detected rising trend of atmospheric CO2 (atmCO2) concentrations. If these results are well-justified then they should surely compel a fundamental scientific shift in paradigms regarding both atmospheric greenhouse warming mechanism and global carbon cycle. However, the presented work suffers from serious logical deficiencies such as, 1) what could be the sink for fossil fuel CO2 emissions, if neither the atmosphere nor the ocean – as suggested by the authors – plays a role? 2) What is the alternative explanation for ocean acidification if the ocean is a net source of CO2 to the atmosphere? Probably the most provocative point of the commented study is that anthropogenic emissions have little influence on atmCO2 concentrations. The authors have obviously ignored the reconstructed and directly measured carbon isotopic trends of atmCO2 (both δ13C, and radiocarbon dilution) and the declining O2/N2 ratio, although these parameters provide solid evidence that fossil fuel combustion is the major source of atmCO2 increase throughout the Industrial Era.

Characterization of the potential role for RNA-binding protein FUS in DNA damage response: A quantitative proteomic approach

FUS/TLS (fused in sarcoma/translocated in liposarcoma) is a ubiquitously expressed protein of the hnRNP family, that has been discovered as fused to transcription factors in several human sarcomas and found in protein aggregates in neurons of patients with an inherited form of Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis [Vance C. et al., 2009]. FUS is a 53 kDa nuclear protein that contains structural domains, such as a RNA Recognition Motif (RRM) and a zinc finger motif, that give to FUS the ability to bind to both RNA and DNA sequences. It has been implicated in a variety of cellular processes, such as pre-mRNA splicing, miRNA processing, gene expression control and transcriptional regulation [Fiesel FC. and Kahle PJ., 2011]. Moreover, some evidences link FUS to genome stability control and DNA damage response: mice lacking FUS are hypersensitive to ionizing radiation (IR) and show high levels of chromosome instability and, in response to double-strand breaks, FUS is phosphorylated by the protein kinase ATM [Kuroda M. et al., 2000; Hicks GG. et al., 2000; Gardiner M. et al., 2008]. Furthermore, preliminary results of mass spectrometric identification of FUS interacting proteins in HEK293 cells, expressing a recombinant flag-tagged FUS protein, highlighted the interactions with proteins involved in DNA damage response, such as DNA-PK, XRCC-5/-6, and ERCC-6, raising the possibilities that FUS is involved in this pathway, even though its role still needs to be clarified. This study aims to investigate the biological roles of FUS in human cells and in particular the putative role in DNA damage response through the characterization of the proteomic profile of the neuroblastoma cell line SH-SY5Y upon FUS inducible depletion, by a quantitative proteomic approach. The SH-SY5Y cell line that will be used in this study expresses, in presence of tetracycline, a shRNA that targets FUS mRNA, leading to FUS protein depletion (SH-SY5Y FUS iKD cells). To quantify changes in proteins expression levels a SILAC strategy (Stable Isotope Labeling by Amino acids in Cell culture) will be conducted on SH-SY5Y FUS iKD cells and a control SH-SY5Y cell line (that expresses a mock shRNA) and the relative changes in proteins levels will be evaluated after five and seven days upon FUS depletion, by nanoliquid chromatography coupled to tandem mass spectrometry (nLC-MS/MS) and bioinformatics analysis. Preliminary experiments demonstrated that the SH-SY5Y FUS iKD cells, when subjected to genotoxic stress (high dose of IR), upon inducible depletion of FUS, showed a increased phosphorylation of gH2AX with respect to control cells, suggesting an higher activation of the DNA damage response.

Proteomic characterization of the FUS/TLS interactome

FUS/TLS (fused in sarcoma/translocated in liposarcoma) is a ubiquitously expressed RNA-binding protein, that has been discovered as fused to transcription factors in several human sarcomas and found in protein aggregates in neurons of patients with an inherited form of Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis [1]. To date, FUS has been implicated in a variety of cellular processes such as gene expression control, transcriptional regulation, pre-mRNA splicing and miRNA processing [2]. In addition, some evidences link FUS to genome stability control and DNA damage response. In fact, mice lacking FUS are hypersensitive to ionizing radiation and show high levels of chromosome instability and in response to double-strand breaks, FUS gets phosphorylated by the protein kinase ATM [3, 4, 5]. Moreover, upon DNA damage stress, FUS mediates Ebp1 (ErbB3 receptor-binding protein) SUMOylation, a post-translational modification that is required for its onco-suppressive activity, by acting as SUMO E3 ligase [6]. The study aims to investigate the role of FUS in DNA damage response and SUMOylation, two cellular pathways tightly interconnected to each other. Moreover, we will exploit biochemical and mass spectrometry-based approaches in order to identify other potential substrates of the E3 SUMO ligase activity of FUS. Preliminary results of mass spectrometric identification of FUS interacting proteins, in HEK293 and SHSY5Y cells, highlighted the interaction of FUS with several proteins involved in DNA damage response and many of those have been described already as target of SUMOylation, such as XRCC5, DDX5, PARP1, Nucleophosmin, and others. These evidences strengthen the hypothesis that FUS might represent a link between these pathways, even thou its exact role still needs to be clearly addressed. [1] Vance C. et al. (2009) Science 323(5918): p. 1208-11 [2] Fiesel FC., Kahle PJ. (2011) FEBS J. 278(19): p. 3550-68 [3] Kuroda M. et al. (2000) Embo J. 19(3): p. 453-62 [4] Hicks GG. et al. (2000) Nat Genet. 24(2):p. 175-9 [5] Gardiner M. et al. (2008) Biochem J. 415(2): p. 297-307 [6] Oh SM. et al. (2010) Oncogene 29(7): p. 1017-30