Journal: International Journal of Molecular Sciences

Article Title: The Procaine-Based ProcCluster ® Impedes the Second Envelopment Process of Herpes Simplex Virus Type 1

doi: 10.3390/ijms26157185

Figure Lengend Snippet: PC treatment increases the correlation and co-occurrence coefficients of Rab5 as well as Rab11, but not those of Rab7 or LAMP1, with HSV-1 glycoprotein gD. The blue channel (nuclei) was processed to receive regions of interest (ROIs) based on Voronoi diagrams in order to approximate cell shapes. Then, Pearson’s and Manders’ thresholded coefficients were determined per ROI. For Manders’, both thresholded coefficients, M1, the fraction of gD signal that co-occurs with protein of interest (POI) signal, and M2, the fraction of POI signal that co-occurs with gD signal, are shown. In total, three images per condition and experiment were analyzed and depicted as the mean (±SD). Statistical significance was analyzed by unpaired two-tailed t -test (* p < 0.05; ns, not significant).

Article Snippet: mAb Rab11 (1:125) , 5589 (Cell signaling Technology, Wetzlar, Germany).

Techniques: Two Tailed Test

Journal: Virology Journal

Article Title: Host cell virus entry mediated by Australian bat lyssavirus G envelope glycoprotein occurs through a clathrin-mediated endocytic pathway that requires actin and Rab5

doi: 10.1186/1743-422X-11-40

Figure Lengend Snippet: Effect of dominant negative Rab GTPases on ABLV G-mediated viral entry. HEK293T cells expressing dsRed-tagged WT and DN Rab5, Rab7, and Rab11were infected with maxGFP encoding rVSV that express ABLVp G, ABLVs G, or VSV G at a MOI = 3 for 8 hrs or with rVSV that expresses EboGP at a MOI = 15 for 20 hrs and then analyzed as described in Figure . Infection of all cells was assessed. Under these conditions, the chosen MOIs yielded 40-50% virus-infected cells in controls. Results are expressed as percent virus-infected cells relative to that of WT Rab controls and represent 3 independent experiments; error bars are SEM. (A) Rab5. (B) Rab7. (C) Rab11. **, p < 0.0001; *, p < 0.005.

Article Snippet: DsRed-tagged Rab7 wild-type (WT) (plasmid #12661) and DN (T22N; plasmid #12662), DsRed-tagged Rab11 WT (plasmid #12679) and DN (S25N; plasmid #12680) [ ], and mRFP-tagged Rab5 WT (plasmid #14437) [ ] were purchased from Addgene, Cambridge, MA.

Techniques: Dominant Negative Mutation, Expressing, Infection, Virus

Journal: Neuroscience Bulletin

Article Title: Myosin Va-dependent Transport of NMDA Receptors in Hippocampal Neurons

doi: 10.1007/s12264-023-01174-y

Figure Lengend Snippet: The interaction of MyoVa with FIP3 is required for NMDAR transport. A Schematic of MyoVa and its association with cargo proteins via Rab11 and FIPs. B Co-IP between FIP3 and associated proteins with antibodies to FIP3 in control or under PMA conditions. Non-immune IgG was used as control. C Statistical analysis of binding between FIP3 and associated proteins. Signals were divided by FIP3 signals and normalized to control. MyoVa: 1.33 ± 0.06, P <0.01; GluN1: 1.44 ± 0.06, P <0.01; GluN2A: 1.45 ± 0.05, P <0.01; Rab11: 1.38 ± 0.08, P <0.01; n = 9; unpaired Student’s t -test vs control. D PMA enhances the interaction of FIP3 and GluN1, revealed by co-IP between FIP3 and GluN1 with antibodies to GluN1 in control or under PMA conditions. Non-immune IgG was used as control. E Statistical analysis of binding between FIP3 and GluN1. FIP3 signals were divided by GluN1 signals and normalized to control. FIP3: 1.37 ± 0.12, P <0.05, n = 8; unpaired Student’s t -test vs control. F Representative images display increased colocalization of FIP3 and GluN1 in primary hippocampal neurons stained with GluN1 (green) and FIP3 (red) antibodies in control or under PMA conditions. Scale bar, 5 μm. G Quantification of the colocalization between GluN1 and FIP3 by Pearson’s coefficient. Control: n = 20 neurons, 0.62 ± 0.01; PMA: n = 26 neurons, 0.71 ± 0.01, P <0.01; data are from at least three independent cultures; unpaired Student’s t -test vs control. H Illustration of the locations used for unilateral viral injections into the hippocampal CA1 region. The virus expresses FIP3 KD or scrambled shRNA and is reported by EGFP (green). I–K FIP3 KD blocks the PMA-induced LTP of NMDA fEPSPs. The overlaid traces display changes in the average response selected at the times shown (marked by 1 and 2). J Cumulative probability of potentiation magnitude of NMDA fEPSPs. K Summary graphs of LTP magnitude from experiments shown in I . Control: n = 7, 1.69 ± 0.07; FIP3 KD: n = 8, 1.01 ± 0.01, P <0.01; scrambled: n = 7, 1.79 ± 0.09; P >0.05; one-way repeated-measures ANOVA vs control. Scale bars, 0.5 mV, 100 ms in I . L–N As in I–K , with the exception that LTP of NMDA fEPSPs was elicited by TBS. Control: n = 7, 1.69 ± 0.06; FIP3 KD: n = 7, 0.98 ± 0.02, P <0.01; scrambled: n = 7, 1.75 ± 0.08, P >0.05; one-way repeated-measures ANOVA vs control. Scale bars, 0.5 mV, 100 ms in L . The data are represented as the mean ± SEM, * P <0.05; ** P <0.01. ns, no significant difference.

Article Snippet: The major primary antibodies were: MyoVa (Sigma, St. Louis, USA, HPA001356), GluN2A (Millipore, Burlington, USA, AB1555P), GluN1 (rabbit: Abclonal, Wuhan, China, A11699; mouse: Abcam, Cambridge, UK, ab134308), GluA1 (Millipore, MAB2263), GluN2B (Cell Signaling Technology, Boston, USA, 14544), Rab11 (Invitrogen, Carlsbad, USA, 71-5300), FIP3 (Rockland, Philadelphia, USA, 600-401-994), PSD95 (Millipore, MABN68), MyoVb (Sigma, HPA040902), CaMKII (Santa Cruz Biotechnology, Inc., Dallas, USA, sc-13141), GST (glutathione-S-transferase, Genscript, Nanjing, China, A00866-100).

Techniques: Co-Immunoprecipitation Assay, Control, Binding Assay, Staining, Virus, shRNA

Journal: Neuroscience Bulletin

Article Title: Myosin Va-dependent Transport of NMDA Receptors in Hippocampal Neurons

doi: 10.1007/s12264-023-01174-y

Figure Lengend Snippet: FIP3 KD impairs hippocampal memory. A Schematic showing the locations used for bilateral viral injections into the CA1 region of the hippocampus. B Representative images showing EGFP expression in the CA1 region of the dorsal hippocampus prepared from FIP3 KD rats. Scale bars, 250 μm and 75 μm (enlarged images). C, D FIP3 KD rats show deficits in contextual ( C ) and trace fear memory ( D ) tested at 24 h, whereas the scrambled animals showed freezing comparable to control rats. FD, fear conditioning. C : control, n = 14 rats, 62.46% ± 3.52%; FIP3 KD, n = 9 rats, 32.33% ± 5.13%, P <0.01; scrambled, n = 8 rats, 62.23% ± 5.56%; P >0.05; one-way repeated-measures ANOVA vs control. D : Control: n = 14 rats, tone, 58.82% ± 6.40%; trace 68.73% ± 6.40%; ITI, 56.60% ± 5.45%; FIP3 KD: n = 8 rats, tone, 32.76% ± 7.21%, P <0.05; trace, 38.96% ± 7.94%, P <0.05; ITI, 33.39% ± 7.72%, P <0.05; scrambled: n = 8 rats, tone, 59.90% ± 8.03%, P >0.05; trace, 71.62% ± 6.31%, P >0.05; ITI, 65.72% ± 6.51%, P >0.05; two-way repeated-measures ANOVA vs control. E Schematic of the novel object preference (NOR) task. F, G FIP3 KD rats show deficits in the NOR task. In the acquisition phase, the FIP3 KD, scrambled, and control rats spend similar amounts of time exploring the two objects. In the test phase tested at 24 h, control and scrambled rats prefer the novel objects, whereas the FIP3 KD rats exhibit a lower preference for the novel objects. Acquisition: control, n = 10 rats, 49.58% ± 1.43%; FIP3 KD, n = 12 rats, 49.34% ± 2.87%, P >0.05; scrambled, n = 10 rats, 51.09% ± 2.21%, P >0.05. Test: control, n = 10 rats, 65.62% ± 1.67%; FIP3 KD, n = 12 rats, 52.87% ± 3.92%, P <0.05; scrambled, n = 10 rats, 67.65% ± 3.70%, P >0.05; one-way repeated-measures ANOVA vs control. H Schematic of novel place preference test (NPP). I, J FIP3 KD rats show deficits in the NPP task. In the acquisition phase of the object location task, FIP3 KD, scrambled, and control rats spend similar time exploring the two objects. In the test phase at 24 h, control and scrambled rats prefer the relocated object, whereas the FIP3 KD rats have a lower preference for the relocated object. Acquisition: control, n = 13 rats, 50.66% ± 2.88%; FIP3 KD, n = 14 rats, 49.44% ± 2.48%, P >0.05; scrambled, n = 12 rats, 51.70% ± 2.90%, P >0.05. Test: control, n = 13 rats, 68.02% ± 3.12%; FIP3 KD, n = 14 rats, 50.74% ± 3.01%, P <0.01; scrambled, n = 12 rats, 64.38% ± 3.92%, P >0.05; one-way repeated-measures ANOVA vs control. K Schematic of the temporal order memory task. L FIP3 KD rats show deficits in the temporal order memory task. In the temporal order memory task, control and scrambled rats prefer the object explored at the early stage to that explored at the end, whereas the FIP3 KD rats have a comparable preference for the two objects. Control, n = 11 rats, 68.31% ± 3.20%; FIP3 KD, n = 15 rats, 52.14% ± 3.45%, P <0.01; scrambled, n = 11 rats, 68.07% ± 3.43%, P >0.05; one-way repeated-measures ANOVA vs control. The data are represented as the mean ± SEM, * P <0.05; ** P <0.01.

Article Snippet: The major primary antibodies were: MyoVa (Sigma, St. Louis, USA, HPA001356), GluN2A (Millipore, Burlington, USA, AB1555P), GluN1 (rabbit: Abclonal, Wuhan, China, A11699; mouse: Abcam, Cambridge, UK, ab134308), GluA1 (Millipore, MAB2263), GluN2B (Cell Signaling Technology, Boston, USA, 14544), Rab11 (Invitrogen, Carlsbad, USA, 71-5300), FIP3 (Rockland, Philadelphia, USA, 600-401-994), PSD95 (Millipore, MABN68), MyoVb (Sigma, HPA040902), CaMKII (Santa Cruz Biotechnology, Inc., Dallas, USA, sc-13141), GST (glutathione-S-transferase, Genscript, Nanjing, China, A00866-100).

Techniques: Expressing, Control