ter

A kinesin adapter directly mediates dendritic mRNA localization during neural development in mice [Neurobiology]

Motor protein-based active transport is essential for mRNA localization and local translation in animal cells, yet how mRNA granules interact with motor proteins remains poorly understood. Using an unbiased yeast two–hybrid screen for interactions between murine RNA-binding proteins (RBPs) and motor proteins, here we identified protein interaction with APP tail-1 (PAT1) as a potential direct adapter between zipcode-binding protein 1 (ZBP1, a β-actin RBP) and the kinesin-I motor complex. The amino acid sequence of mouse PAT1 is similar to that of the kinesin light chain (KLC), and we found that PAT1 binds to KLC directly. Studying PAT1 in mouse primary hippocampal neuronal cultures from both sexes and using structured illumination microscopic imaging of these neurons, we observed that brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF) enhances co-localization of dendritic ZBP1 and PAT1 within granules that also contain kinesin-I. PAT1 is essential for BDNF-stimulated neuronal growth cone development and dendritic protrusion formation, and we noted that ZBP1 and PAT1 co-locate along with β-actin mRNA in actively transported granules in living neurons. Acute disruption of the PAT1–ZBP1 interaction in neurons with PAT1 siRNA or a dominant-negative ZBP1 construct diminished localization of β-actin mRNA but not of Ca2+/calmodulin-dependent protein kinase IIα (CaMKIIα) mRNA in dendrites. The aberrant β-actin mRNA localization resulted in abnormal dendritic protrusions and growth cone dynamics. These results suggest a critical role for PAT1 in BDNF-induced β-actin mRNA transport during postnatal development and reveal a new molecular mechanism for mRNA localization in vertebrates.




ter

Coronavirus: Public Health Emergency or Pandemic – Does Timing Matter?

1 May 2020

Dr Charles Clift

Senior Consulting Fellow, Global Health Programme
The World Health Organization (WHO) has been criticized for delaying its announcements of a public health emergency and a pandemic for COVID-19. But could earlier action have influenced the course of events?

2020-05-01-Tedros-WHO-COVID

WHO director-general Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus at the COVID-19 press briefing on March 11, 2020, the day the coronavirus outbreak was classed as a pandemic. Photo by FABRICE COFFRINI/AFP via Getty Images.

The World Health Organization (WHO) declared the spread of COVID-19 to be a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC) on January 30 this year and then characterized it as a pandemic on March 11.

Declaring a PHEIC is the highest level of alert that WHO is obliged to declare, and is meant to send a powerful signal to countries of the need for urgent action to combat the spread of the disease, mobilize resources to help low- and middle-income countries in this effort and fund research and development on needed treatments, vaccines and diagnostics. It also obligates countries to share information with WHO.

Once the PHEIC was declared, the virus continued to spread globally, and WHO began to be asked why it had not yet declared the disease a pandemic. But there is no widely accepted definition of a pandemic, generally it is just considered an epidemic which affects many countries globally.

Potentially more deadly

The term has hitherto been applied almost exclusively to new forms of flu, such as H1N1 in 2009 or Spanish flu in 1918, where the lack of population immunity and absence of a vaccine or effective treatments makes the outbreak potentially much more deadly than seasonal flu (which, although global, is not considered a pandemic).

For COVID-19, WHO seemed reluctant to declare a pandemic despite the evidence of global spread. Partly this was because of its influenza origins — WHO’s emergency programme executive director said on March 9 that ‘if this was influenza, we would have called a pandemic ages ago’.

He also expressed concern that the word traditionally meant moving — once there was widespread transmission — from trying to contain the disease by testing, isolating the sick and tracing and quarantining their contacts, to a mitigation approach, implying ‘the disease will spread uncontrolled’.

WHO’s worry was that the world’s reaction to the word pandemic might be there was now nothing to be done to stop its spread, and so countries would effectively give up trying. WHO wanted to send the message that, unlike flu, it could still be pushed back and the spread slowed down.

In announcing the pandemic two days later, WHO’s director-general Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus reemphasised this point: ‘We cannot say this loudly enough, or clearly enough, or often enough: all countries can still change the course of this pandemic’ and that WHO was deeply concerned ‘by the alarming levels of inaction’.

The evidence suggests that the correct message did in fact get through. On March 13, US president Donald Trump declared a national emergency, referring in passing to WHO’s announcement. On March 12, the UK launched its own strategy to combat the disease. And in the week following WHO’s announcements, at least 16 other countries announced lockdowns of varying rigour including Austria, Belgium, Canada, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Serbia, Spain and Switzerland. Italy and Greece had both already instituted lockdowns prior to the WHO pandemic announcement.

It is not possible to say for sure that WHO’s announcement precipitated these measures because, by then, the evidence of the rapid spread was all around for governments to see. It may be that Italy’s dramatic nationwide lockdown on March 9 reverberated around European capitals and elsewhere.

But it is difficult to believe the announcement did not have an effect in stimulating government actions, as was intended by Dr Tedros. Considering the speed with which the virus was spreading from late February, might an earlier pandemic announcement by WHO have stimulated earlier aggressive actions by governments?

Declaring a global health emergency — when appropriate — is a key part of WHO’s role in administering the International Health Regulations (IHR). Significantly, negotiations on revisions to the IHR, which had been ongoing in a desultory fashion in WHO since 1995, were accelerated by the experience of the first serious coronavirus outbreak — SARS — in 2002-2003, leading to their final agreement in 2005.

Under the IHR, WHO’s director-general decides whether to declare an emergency based on a set of criteria and on the advice of an emergency committee. IHR defines an emergency as an ‘extraordinary event that constitutes a public health risk through the international spread of disease and potentially requires a coordinated international response’.

In the case of COVID-19, the committee first met on January 22-23 but were unable to reach consensus on a declaration. Following the director-general’s trip to meet President Xi Jinping in Beijing, the committee reconvened on January 30 and this time advised declaring a PHEIC.

But admittedly, public recognition of what a PHEIC means is extremely low. Only six have ever been declared, with the first being the H1N1 flu outbreak which fizzled out quickly, despite possibly causing 280,000 deaths globally. During the H1N1 outbreak, WHO declared a PHEIC in April 2009 and then a pandemic in June, only to rescind both in August as the outbreak was judged to have transitioned to behave like a seasonal flu.

WHO was criticized afterwards for prematurely declaring a PHEIC and overreacting. This then may have impacted the delay in declaring the Ebola outbreak in West Africa as a PHEIC in 2014, long after it became a major crisis. WHO’s former legal counsel has suggested the PHEIC — and other aspects of the IHR framework — may not be effective in stimulating appropriate actions by governments and needs to be reconsidered.

When the time is right to evaluate lessons about the response, it might be appropriate to consider the relative effectiveness of the PHEIC and pandemic announcements and their optimal timing in stimulating appropriate action by governments. The effectiveness of lockdowns in reducing the overall death toll also needs investigation.




ter

Webinar: International Humanitarian Law Amid Coronavirus

Members Event Webinar

15 May 2020 - 1:00pm to 2:00pm
Add to Calendar

Emanuela-Chiara Gillard, Associate Fellow, International Law Programme, Chatham House

Chair: Chanu Peiris, Programme Manager, International Law Programme, Chatham House

Further speakers to be announced.

In April 2020, UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres called for a global ceasefire in order for communities and states to focus efforts on responding to the coronavirus outbreak. The consequences of armed conflict – including displacement, detention, lack of access to health services and disrupted social infrastructures – mean that those in conflict-ridden areas are amongst the most vulnerable to the virus. Observing international humanitarian law (IHL) could be one way of safeguarding against, at least, the provision of vital medical supplies and personnel for vulnerable groups. Against the backdrop of a growing health and economic emergency that is otherwise dominating government agendas, how do we emphasise the importance of humanitarian action and guarantee - or improve - compliance?

The panellists will discuss the remit and limitations of international humanitarian law and how the pandemic might complicate compliance. What is the framework for humanitarian action under international humanitarian law? What are the challenges to delivering relief? And how has COVID-19 impacted humanitarian action in conflict-ridden areas?

This event is for Chatham House members only. Not a member? Find out more.




ter

Let's talk about the interregnum: Gramsci and the crisis of the liberal world order

7 May 2020 , Volume 96, Number 3

Milan Babic

The liberal international order (LIO) is in crisis. Numerous publications, debates and events have time and again made it clear that we are in the midst of a grand transformation of world order. While most contributions focus on either what is slowly dying (the LIO) or what might come next (China, multipolarity, chaos?), there is less analytical engagement with what lies in between those two phases of world order. Under the assumption that this period could last years or even decades, a set of analytical tools to understand this interregnum is urgently needed. This article proposes an analytical framework that builds on Gramscian concepts of crisis that will help us understand the current crisis of the LIO in a more systematic way. It addresses a gap in the literature on changing world order by elaborating three Gramsci-inspired crisis characteristics—processuality, organicity and morbidity—that sketch the current crisis landscape in a systematic way. Building on this framework, the article suggests different empirical entry points to the study of the crisis of the LIO and calls for a research agenda that takes this crisis seriously as a distinct period of changing world orders.




ter

Undercurrents: Episode 3 – Duterte’s War on Drugs, and European Security




ter

Growth in a Multilateral World: The Role of Inclusive Trade and Quality Investment




ter

Undercurrents: Episode 5 - Chokepoints in Global Food Trade, and How the Internet is Changing Language




ter

Undercurrents: Episode 6 - Tribes of Europe, and the International Women's Rights Agenda at the UN




ter

Computer Hacking: How Big is the Security Threat?




ter

The Western Balkans Before the Berlin Process Summit




ter

Undercurrents: Episode 10 - Artificial Intelligence in International Affairs, and Women Drivers in Saudi Arabia




ter

Undercurrents: Bonus Episode - How Can Political Elites Reconnect With Voters?




ter

The European Union Before, During and After Brexit




ter

Trump’s America: Domestic and International Public Opinion




ter

Can Multilateralism Survive?




ter

The Kremlin Letters: Wartime Exchanges of the Big Three




ter

Assessing the Midterm Elections and the Impact on the Trump Presidency




ter

Undercurrents: Episode 21 - EU-US Relations after the Midterms, and Tackling the Illegal Wildlife Trade in Africa




ter

International Security Institutions: A Closer Look




ter

Can Europe Save the Liberal International Order?




ter

Online Counterterrorism: The Role of the Public and Private Sectors




ter

International Law Podcast: Starvation in Armed Conflict




ter

China and the Future of the International Order - The Belt and Road Initiative




ter

The Great Delusion: Liberal Dreams vs International Realities




ter

China and the Future of the International Order – Peace and Security




ter

Chatham House Primer: ‘Leaving on WTO Terms’




ter

The Militarization of the Black Sea After the Annexation of Crimea




ter

Cybersecurity Series: Exploring Methods of Internet Censorship and Control




ter

UK–EU Defence and Security Cooperation after Brexit




ter

Serbia-Kosovo Dialogue: The Future of Peace and Security in the Western Balkans




ter

Negotiating With Terrorists




ter

The Kremlin Spectrum: Western Approaches Towards Russia




ter

Undercurrents: Bonus Episode - How Technology is Changing International Affairs




ter

Our Shared Humanity: Welcome and Panel One - The Arc of Intervention




ter

Africa’s Economic Outlook in a Challenging External Environment




ter

Disrupting the Humanitarian Enterprise




ter

Zimbabwe’s International Engagement




ter

Jihad and Terrorism in Pakistan: The Case of Lashkar-e-Taiba




ter

US Foreign Policy After Trump




ter

Legal Determinants of Health




ter

Podcast: International Law, Security and Prosperity in the Asia-Pacific




ter

Who Runs the Internet: Internet Consolidation and Control




ter

Investigating Violations of International Humanitarian Law




ter

Security Challenges in the Mediterranean Region




ter

Correction: Diversity in the Protein N-Glycosylation Pathways Within the Campylobacter Genus. [Additions and Corrections]




ter

The Secretome Profiling of a Pediatric Airway Epithelium Infected with hRSV Identified Aberrant Apical/Basolateral Trafficking and Novel Immune Modulating (CXCL6, CXCL16, CSF3) and Antiviral (CEACAM1) Proteins [Research]

The respiratory epithelium comprises polarized cells at the interface between the environment and airway tissues. Polarized apical and basolateral protein secretions are a feature of airway epithelium homeostasis. Human respiratory syncytial virus (hRSV) is a major human pathogen that primarily targets the respiratory epithelium. However, the consequences of hRSV infection on epithelium secretome polarity and content remain poorly understood. To investigate the hRSV-associated apical and basolateral secretomes, a proteomics approach was combined with an ex vivo pediatric human airway epithelial (HAE) model of hRSV infection (data are available via ProteomeXchange and can be accessed at https://www.ebi.ac.uk/pride/ with identifier PXD013661). Following infection, a skewing of apical/basolateral abundance ratios was identified for several individual proteins. Novel modulators of neutrophil and lymphocyte activation (CXCL6, CSF3, SECTM1 or CXCL16), and antiviral proteins (BST2 or CEACAM1) were detected in infected, but not in uninfected cultures. Importantly, CXCL6, CXCL16, CSF3 were also detected in nasopharyngeal aspirates (NPA) from hRSV-infected infants but not healthy controls. Furthermore, the antiviral activity of CEACAM1 against RSV was confirmed in vitro using BEAS-2B cells. hRSV infection disrupted the polarity of the pediatric respiratory epithelial secretome and was associated with immune modulating proteins (CXCL6, CXCL16, CSF3) never linked with this virus before. In addition, the antiviral activity of CEACAM1 against hRSV had also never been previously characterized. This study, therefore, provides novel insights into RSV pathogenesis and endogenous antiviral responses in pediatric airway epithelium.




ter

X-ray structures of catalytic intermediates of cytochrome c oxidase provide insights into its O2 activation and unidirectional proton-pump mechanisms [Molecular Biophysics]

Cytochrome c oxidase (CcO) reduces O2 to water, coupled with a proton-pumping process. The structure of the O2-reduction site of CcO contains two reducing equivalents, Fea32+ and CuB1+, and suggests that a peroxide-bound state (Fea33+–O−–O−–CuB2+) rather than an O2-bound state (Fea32+–O2) is the initial catalytic intermediate. Unexpectedly, however, resonance Raman spectroscopy results have shown that the initial intermediate is Fea32+–O2, whereas Fea33+–O−–O−–CuB2+ is undetectable. Based on X-ray structures of static noncatalytic CcO forms and mutation analyses for bovine CcO, a proton-pumping mechanism has been proposed. It involves a proton-conducting pathway (the H-pathway) comprising a tandem hydrogen-bond network and a water channel located between the N- and P-side surfaces. However, a system for unidirectional proton-transport has not been experimentally identified. Here, an essentially identical X-ray structure for the two catalytic intermediates (P and F) of bovine CcO was determined at 1.8 Å resolution. A 1.70 Å Fe–O distance of the ferryl center could best be described as Fea34+ = O2−, not as Fea34+–OH−. The distance suggests an ∼800-cm−1 Raman stretching band. We found an interstitial water molecule that could trigger a rapid proton-coupled electron transfer from tyrosine-OH to the slowly forming Fea33+–O−–O−–CuB2+ state, preventing its detection, consistent with the unexpected Raman results. The H-pathway structures of both intermediates indicated that during proton-pumping from the hydrogen-bond network to the P-side, a transmembrane helix closes the water channel connecting the N-side with the hydrogen-bond network, facilitating unidirectional proton-pumping during the P-to-F transition.




ter

Structural basis of cell-surface signaling by a conserved sigma regulator in Gram-negative bacteria [Molecular Biophysics]

Cell-surface signaling (CSS) in Gram-negative bacteria involves highly conserved regulatory pathways that optimize gene expression by transducing extracellular environmental signals to the cytoplasm via inner-membrane sigma regulators. The molecular details of ferric siderophore-mediated activation of the iron import machinery through a sigma regulator are unclear. Here, we present the 1.56 Å resolution structure of the periplasmic complex of the C-terminal CSS domain (CCSSD) of PupR, the sigma regulator in the Pseudomonas capeferrum pseudobactin BN7/8 transport system, and the N-terminal signaling domain (NTSD) of PupB, an outer-membrane TonB-dependent transducer. The structure revealed that the CCSSD consists of two subdomains: a juxta-membrane subdomain, which has a novel all-β-fold, followed by a secretin/TonB, short N-terminal subdomain at the C terminus of the CCSSD, a previously unobserved topological arrangement of this domain. Using affinity pulldown assays, isothermal titration calorimetry, and thermal denaturation CD spectroscopy, we show that both subdomains are required for binding the NTSD with micromolar affinity and that NTSD binding improves CCSSD stability. Our findings prompt us to present a revised model of CSS wherein the CCSSD:NTSD complex forms prior to ferric-siderophore binding. Upon siderophore binding, conformational changes in the CCSSD enable regulated intramembrane proteolysis of the sigma regulator, ultimately resulting in transcriptional regulation.




ter

Biophysical characterization of SARAH domain-mediated multimerization of Hippo pathway complexes in Drosophila [Signal Transduction]

Hippo pathway signaling limits cell growth and proliferation and maintains the stem-cell niche. These cellular events result from the coordinated activity of a core kinase cassette that is regulated, in part, by interactions involving Hippo, Salvador, and dRassF. These interactions are mediated by a conserved coiled-coil domain, termed SARAH, in each of these proteins. SARAH domain–mediated homodimerization of Hippo kinase leads to autophosphorylation and activation. Paradoxically, SARAH domain–mediated heterodimerization between Hippo and Salvador enhances Hippo kinase activity in cells, whereas complex formation with dRassF inhibits it. To better understand the mechanism by which each complex distinctly modulates Hippo kinase and pathway activity, here we biophysically characterized the entire suite of SARAH domain–mediated complexes. We purified the three SARAH domains from Drosophila melanogaster and performed an unbiased pulldown assay to identify all possible interactions, revealing that isolated SARAH domains are sufficient to recapitulate the cellular assemblies and that Hippo is a universal binding partner. Additionally, we found that the Salvador SARAH domain homodimerizes and demonstrate that this interaction is conserved in Salvador's mammalian homolog. Using native MS, we show that each of these complexes is dimeric in solution. We also measured the stability of each SARAH domain complex, finding that despite similarities at both the sequence and structural levels, SARAH domain complexes differ in stability. The identity, stoichiometry, and stability of these interactions characterized here comprehensively reveal the nature of SARAH domain–mediated complex formation and provide mechanistic insights into how SARAH domain–mediated interactions influence Hippo pathway activity.




ter

Atomic force microscopy-based characterization of the interaction of PriA helicase with stalled DNA replication forks [DNA and Chromosomes]

In bacteria, the restart of stalled DNA replication forks requires the DNA helicase PriA. PriA can recognize and remodel abandoned DNA replication forks, unwind DNA in the 3'-to-5' direction, and facilitate the loading of the helicase DnaB onto the DNA to restart replication. Single-stranded DNA–binding protein (SSB) is typically present at the abandoned forks, but it is unclear how SSB and PriA interact, although it has been shown that the two proteins interact both physically and functionally. Here, we used atomic force microscopy to visualize the interaction of PriA with DNA substrates with or without SSB. These experiments were done in the absence of ATP to delineate the substrate recognition pattern of PriA before its ATP-catalyzed DNA-unwinding reaction. These analyses revealed that in the absence of SSB, PriA binds preferentially to a fork substrate with a gap in the leading strand. Such a preference has not been observed for 5'- and 3'-tailed duplexes, suggesting that it is the fork structure that plays an essential role in PriA's selection of DNA substrates. Furthermore, we found that in the absence of SSB, PriA binds exclusively to the fork regions of the DNA substrates. In contrast, fork-bound SSB loads PriA onto the duplex DNA arms of forks, suggesting a remodeling of PriA by SSB. We also demonstrate that the remodeling of PriA requires a functional C-terminal domain of SSB. In summary, our atomic force microscopy analyses reveal key details in the interactions between PriA and stalled DNA replication forks with or without SSB.