ReportWire

Tag: Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München (Munich)

  • Subaquatic Molecular Exchange

    Subaquatic Molecular Exchange

    [ad_1]

    Newswise — Corals and anemones engage in symbiotic relationships with algae and swap nutrients with them. A new study shows how this partnership is regulated at cell level.

    “Eat or be eaten” is not always the way things are in nature. It can be beneficial for different species to team up and pool their capabilities. Cnidarians such as corals and anemones were already committing to this kind of biological joint venture with algae from the dinoflagellate group 250 million years ago. Thanks to these symbioses, both sides are able to flourish in nutrient-poor waters where, in isolation, neither would stand a chance of surviving. Corals can thus lay the structural foundation for the most biodiverse of all marine ecosystems. They protect their dinoflagellate symbionts from predators and supply them with inorganic nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorus. Conversely, the algae provide the coral with the products of their photosynthesis: carbohydrates, protein and fat.

    Yet this happy marriage can only work if the ‘barter’ arrangement is precisely regulated. And although a successful exchange of nutrients is critical to the health of the corals and, hence, to the whole of the coral reef ecosystem, the molecular mechanisms that regulate communication within this partnership are still largely unknown. A new study in Current Biology now shows that a signal path from way back in the evolutionary process plays a crucial role in the ‘trade’ that takes place between algae and coral.

    Eaten but not digested

    “Most types of coral have to absorb new dinoflagellate symbionts from their environment in each new generation,” explains LMU biologist Professor Annika Guse, lead author of the new study. The symbionts are initially absorbed like food into the coral’s digestive cavity and from there into the host’s cells. During this process, a kind of bubble known as the symbiosome forms around the algae. The symbiosome is chemically similar to a lysosome – another cell organelle that plays a pivotal role in digestion. “The difference to the lysosome is that, in the symbiosome, the dinoflagellates remain intact,” Guse notes. In effect, the host eats its symbionts without digesting them. “We do not yet know exactly how the algae survive this process.” Inside the symbiosome, the algae then continue to photosynthesize and produce nutrients that they share with their host. All nutrients and communication processes between the partners must therefore penetrate the shell of the symbiosome, which is made up of membranes from both host and symbiont.

    A ‘cell tax’ between symbiont and host

    To do all this, the symbiotic partners evidently use a signal path known as the mechanistic target of rapamycin (mTOR), which regulates cellular metabolism in all eukaryotes as a function of environmental factors such as the availability of nutrients. It has already been proven for other species that mTOR is also used for nutritional symbioses: “Various insect hosts use mTOR signal transmission for their bacterial endosymbionts,” Guse says. “Evidence of the same path has also been found for legumes and their fungal partners.” The researchers therefore suspected that mTOR could also be involved in the partnership between cnidarians and dinoflagellates. “We have been able to prove that endosymbiontic corals use the mTOR signal path to incorporate nutrients from the symbionts in the host metabolism.” All the vital components of mTOR exist in both anemones and corals. Annika Guse and her colleagues investigated the extent to which this signal path is activated by the presence of algae partners from the Symbiodiniaceae family at different developmental stages in anemones of the genus Aiptasia. They also tested how inhibiting mTOR signal transmission affected the symbiotic function. “Our findings show that mTOR signal transmission is activated by the symbiosis, and that disruptions to the signal path impair symbiosis at both the cellular and the organismic level,” Guse explains. “With the aid of a specific antibody, we were also able to show that mTOR is localized on the membranes of the symbiosome.”

    Repurposing an age-old signal path

    Studying their findings, the biologists conclude that mTOR is of tremendous importance to the incorporation of nutrients in the host’s metabolism and to the stability of the symbiosis. Given that much of the energy consumed by symbiotic cnidarians comes from their symbiotic partners, it is plausible that the highly conserved mTOR signal path has ultimately been used for efficient nutrient sensing within the framework of symbiosis. Accordingly, Guse and her team propose a model in which the nutrients released by the algae activate mTOR signal transmission in the symbiosome and in the host tissue – similar to the sensing of nutrients from external sources.

    The activation of mTOR signal transmission was probably also an important step in the evolution of this symbiosis, allowing the algae to survive within the host cells. “The mTOR activity controls what is called autophagy, a very ancient immune reaction on the evolutionary scale that is triggered when pathogens penetrate the host and that leads to the destruction of the intruder,” the biologist explains. This, she believes, is the reason why some pathogens – and the bacterial endosymbionts of some insects, too – have developed mechanisms to bypass autophagic elimination. Early symbionts could have been ingested by a cnidarian and absorbed into its cells. Instead of being ejected or destroyed, however, they were retained as they supplied the host cell with nutrients, activating the mTOR signals and thereby stopping the process of autophagy. “We are only now beginning to understand how the complex interaction between host and algae works and was able to develop over a million years of co-evolution,” Guse says.

    https://www.lmu.de/en/newsroom/news-overview/news/underwater-molecular-barter.html

    [ad_2]

    Ludwig-Maximilians-Universitat Munchen (Munich)

    Source link

  • Subaquatic Molecular Exchange

    Subaquatic Molecular Exchange

    [ad_1]

    Newswise — “Eat or be eaten” is not always the way things are in nature. It can be beneficial for different species to team up and pool their capabilities. Cnidarians such as corals and anemones were already committing to this kind of biological joint venture with algae from the dinoflagellate group 250 million years ago. Thanks to these symbioses, both sides are able to flourish in nutrient-poor waters where, in isolation, neither would stand a chance of surviving. Corals can thus lay the structural foundation for the most biodiverse of all marine ecosystems. They protect their dinoflagellate symbionts from predators and supply them with inorganic nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorus. Conversely, the algae provide the coral with the products of their photosynthesis: carbohydrates, protein and fat.

    Yet this happy marriage can only work if the ‘barter’ arrangement is precisely regulated. And although a successful exchange of nutrients is critical to the health of the corals and, hence, to the whole of the coral reef ecosystem, the molecular mechanisms that regulate communication within this partnership are still largely unknown. A new study in Current Biology now shows that a signal path from way back in the evolutionary process plays a crucial role in the ‘trade’ that takes place between algae and coral.

    Eaten but not digested

    “Most types of coral have to absorb new dinoflagellate symbionts from their environment in each new generation,” explains LMU biologist Professor Annika Guse, lead author of the new study. The symbionts are initially absorbed like food into the coral’s digestive cavity and from there into the host’s cells. During this process, a kind of bubble known as the symbiosome forms around the algae. The symbiosome is chemically similar to a lysosome – another cell organelle that plays a pivotal role in digestion. “The difference to the lysosome is that, in the symbiosome, the dinoflagellates remain intact,” Guse notes. In effect, the host eats its symbionts without digesting them. “We do not yet know exactly how the algae survive this process.” Inside the symbiosome, the algae then continue to photosynthesize and produce nutrients that they share with their host. All nutrients and communication processes between the partners must therefore penetrate the shell of the symbiosome, which is made up of membranes from both host and symbiont.

    A ‘cell tax’ between symbiont and host

    To do all this, the symbiotic partners evidently use a signal path known as the mechanistic target of rapamycin (mTOR), which regulates cellular metabolism in all eukaryotes as a function of environmental factors such as the availability of nutrients. It has already been proven for other species that mTOR is also used for nutritional symbioses: “Various insect hosts use mTOR signal transmission for their bacterial endosymbionts,” Guse says. “Evidence of the same path has also been found for legumes and their fungal partners.” The researchers therefore suspected that mTOR could also be involved in the partnership between cnidarians and dinoflagellates. “We have been able to prove that endosymbiontic corals use the mTOR signal path to incorporate nutrients from the symbionts in the host metabolism.” All the vital components of mTOR exist in both anemones and corals. Annika Guse and her colleagues investigated the extent to which this signal path is activated by the presence of algae partners from the Symbiodiniaceae family at different developmental stages in anemones of the genus Aiptasia. They also tested how inhibiting mTOR signal transmission affected the symbiotic function. “Our findings show that mTOR signal transmission is activated by the symbiosis, and that disruptions to the signal path impair symbiosis at both the cellular and the organismic level,” Guse explains. “With the aid of a specific antibody, we were also able to show that mTOR is localized on the membranes of the symbiosome.”

    Repurposing an age-old signal path

    Studying their findings, the biologists conclude that mTOR is of tremendous importance to the incorporation of nutrients in the host’s metabolism and to the stability of the symbiosis. Given that much of the energy consumed by symbiotic cnidarians comes from their symbiotic partners, it is plausible that the highly conserved mTOR signal path has ultimately been used for efficient nutrient sensing within the framework of symbiosis. Accordingly, Guse and her team propose a model in which the nutrients released by the algae activate mTOR signal transmission in the symbiosome and in the host tissue – similar to the sensing of nutrients from external sources.

    The activation of mTOR signal transmission was probably also an important step in the evolution of this symbiosis, allowing the algae to survive within the host cells. “The mTOR activity controls what is called autophagy, a very ancient immune reaction on the evolutionary scale that is triggered when pathogens penetrate the host and that leads to the destruction of the intruder,” the biologist explains. This, she believes, is the reason why some pathogens – and the bacterial endosymbionts of some insects, too – have developed mechanisms to bypass autophagic elimination. Early symbionts could have been ingested by a cnidarian and absorbed into its cells. Instead of being ejected or destroyed, however, they were retained as they supplied the host cell with nutrients, activating the mTOR signals and thereby stopping the process of autophagy. “We are only now beginning to understand how the complex interaction between host and algae works and was able to develop over a million years of co-evolution,” Guse says.

    [ad_2]

    Ludwig-Maximilians-Universitat Munchen (Munich)

    Source link

  • Cancer: Balancing certainty and probability

    Cancer: Balancing certainty and probability

    [ad_1]

    Newswise — An LMU study reveals: Whether patients are able to correctly assess risks depends partly on how physicians convey statistical information to them.

    Medical results are not always easy to understand – and the risk statements that come with them perhaps even less so. Communicating statistical information to patients is no easy task.

    A team of scientists from the domains of medicine, medical education, and mathematics education at LMU has published a study in the journal PLOS ONE investigating how communication between doctors and patients about actual risks can be made more effective.

    After all, it is not always easy to grasp what certain numbers really mean. “Even doctors sometimes have difficulties in determining the right predictive value. And if the data is difficult for the doctor to interpret, it’s even harder to communicate the information accurately to patients in a way they will understand,” says mathematics educationalist Karin Binder one of the authors of the study.

    The following case will serve as an example: A patient has just received a conspicuous sonographic finding of his thyroid. Does this mean he has thyroid cancer? Not necessarily, because there is a certain probability that the result of the examination will be positive even though the patient does not have thyroid cancer.

    To explain to patients what the statistical picture looks like after such a positive test result, there are two approaches. One of them requires some lateral thinking, while the other is much easier to interpret from the patient’s perspective, as the researchers were able to demonstrate.

    Bayesian vs. diagnostic information

    The commonly used Bayesian approach proceeds from the number of patients who actually have the disease. First of all, the doctor explains how frequently the disease occurs overall – for example: “out of 1,000 patients, 50 have thyroid cancer.” Then the doctor lays out: a) for how many of these patients with thyroid cancer, the test result is positive (20 out of 50) and b) how many people who do not have thyroid cancer nonetheless have a positive test result (110 out of the remaining 950).

    This is generally the information the doctor either knows or can easily research. Positive tests as a proportion of people with the disease is also known as sensitivity – a term we may be familiar with from the Covid-19 pandemic, when it was used, for example, as a quality criterion for rapid tests. Unfortunately, however, positive tests as a proportion of people with the disease is often confused with people with the disease as a proportion of positive tests! And these two percentages can greatly differ depending on the situation.

    So what do the numbers quoted above mean in relation to a person with a positive test result? How many people who test positive actually have the disease? If for you the answer is not immediately apparent, you are not alone: Without further information, only 10% of participants were able to calculate how many people with positive results actually had the disease.

    “Diagnostic” communication of information proceeds very differently: First of all, the doctor explains how many patients have positive test results, irrespective of whether they actually have the disease or not. In our example, this would be 130 people with a conspicuous thyroid ultrasound (out of 1,000 people examined). Next, the doctor explains how many of these people with positive tests actually have the disease (20 out of 130) and how many of the people with negative test results have the disease (30 out of 870).

    The relevant information is contained here directly and without the need for mental arithmetic: If my result is positive, then the probability is a 20 out of 130 that I actually have thyroid cancer. When communicated in this form, 72% of study participants were capable of arriving at this conclusion, compared to 10% with the Bayesian approach.

    What is the best way of communicating statistical information?

    “With Bayesian communication, moreover, participants were considerably slower in reaching the correct result, if they got there at all,” says Karin Binder. “And in busy doctor’s offices and hospitals, this time is often not available.” The team of authors therefore calls on doctors to use diagnostic information communication more readily in future. This would go some way to avoiding confusion, misinterpretation, and wrong decisions.

    It would be even better, however, to take the time to give patients a full picture of the situation, containing both diagnostic and Bayesian information. Only this can explain the surprising phenomenon whereby even a medical test with outstanding quality criteria can have very limited predictive power under certain circumstances (e.g., routine screenings).

    [ad_2]

    Ludwig-Maximilians-Universitat Munchen (Munich)

    Source link