@article{9540, abstract = {The hexameric AAA-ATPase Drg1 is a key factor in eukaryotic ribosome biogenesis and initiates cytoplasmic maturation of the large ribosomal subunit by releasing the shuttling maturation factor Rlp24. Drg1 monomers contain two AAA-domains (D1 and D2) that act in a concerted manner. Rlp24 release is inhibited by the drug diazaborine which blocks ATP hydrolysis in D2. The mode of inhibition was unknown. Here we show the first cryo-EM structure of Drg1 revealing the inhibitory mechanism. Diazaborine forms a covalent bond to the 2′-OH of the nucleotide in D2, explaining its specificity for this site. As a consequence, the D2 domain is locked in a rigid, inactive state, stalling the whole Drg1 hexamer. Resistance mechanisms identified include abolished drug binding and altered positioning of the nucleotide. Our results suggest nucleotide-modifying compounds as potential novel inhibitors for AAA-ATPases.}, author = {Prattes, Michael and Grishkovskaya, Irina and Hodirnau, Victor-Valentin and Rössler, Ingrid and Klein, Isabella and Hetzmannseder, Christina and Zisser, Gertrude and Gruber, Christian C. and Gruber, Karl and Haselbach, David and Bergler, Helmut}, issn = {2041-1723}, journal = {Nature Communications}, keywords = {General Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology, General Physics and Astronomy, General Chemistry}, number = {1}, publisher = {Springer Nature}, title = {{Structural basis for inhibition of the AAA-ATPase Drg1 by diazaborine}}, doi = {10.1038/s41467-021-23854-x}, volume = {12}, year = {2021}, } @article{9607, abstract = {While high risk of failure is an inherent part of developing innovative therapies, it can be reduced by adherence to evidence-based rigorous research practices. Numerous analyses conducted to date have clearly identified measures that need to be taken to improve research rigor. Supported through the European Union's Innovative Medicines Initiative, the EQIPD consortium has developed a novel preclinical research quality system that can be applied in both public and private sectors and is free for anyone to use. The EQIPD Quality System was designed to be suited to boost innovation by ensuring the generation of robust and reliable preclinical data while being lean, effective and not becoming a burden that could negatively impact the freedom to explore scientific questions. EQIPD defines research quality as the extent to which research data are fit for their intended use. Fitness, in this context, is defined by the stakeholders, who are the scientists directly involved in the research, but also their funders, sponsors, publishers, research tool manufacturers and collaboration partners such as peers in a multi-site research project. The essence of the EQIPD Quality System is the set of 18 core requirements that can be addressed flexibly, according to user-specific needs and following a user-defined trajectory. The EQIPD Quality System proposes guidance on expectations for quality-related measures, defines criteria for adequate processes (i.e., performance standards) and provides examples of how such measures can be developed and implemented. However, it does not prescribe any pre-determined solutions. EQIPD has also developed tools (for optional use) to support users in implementing the system and assessment services for those research units that successfully implement the quality system and seek formal accreditation. Building upon the feedback from users and continuous improvement, a sustainable EQIPD Quality System will ultimately serve the entire community of scientists conducting non-regulated preclinical research, by helping them generate reliable data that are fit for their intended use.}, author = {Bespalov, Anton and Bernard, René and Gilis, Anja and Gerlach, Björn and Guillén, Javier and Castagné, Vincent and Lefevre, Isabel A. and Ducrey, Fiona and Monk, Lee and Bongiovanni, Sandrine and Altevogt, Bruce and Arroyo-Araujo, María and Bikovski, Lior and De Bruin, Natasja and Castaños-Vélez, Esmeralda and Dityatev, Alexander and Emmerich, Christoph H. and Fares, Raafat and Ferland-Beckham, Chantelle and Froger-Colléaux, Christelle and Gailus-Durner, Valerie and Hölter, Sabine M. and Hofmann, Martine Cj and Kabitzke, Patricia and Kas, Martien Jh and Kurreck, Claudia and Moser, Paul and Pietraszek, Malgorzata and Popik, Piotr and Potschka, Heidrun and Prado Montes De Oca, Ernesto and Restivo, Leonardo and Riedel, Gernot and Ritskes-Hoitinga, Merel and Samardzic, Janko and Schunn, Michael and Stöger, Claudia and Voikar, Vootele and Vollert, Jan and Wever, Kimberley E. and Wuyts, Kathleen and Macleod, Malcolm R. and Dirnagl, Ulrich and Steckler, Thomas}, issn = {2050084X}, journal = {eLife}, publisher = {eLife Sciences Publications}, title = {{Introduction to the EQIPD quality system}}, doi = {10.7554/eLife.63294}, volume = {10}, year = {2021}, } @article{9603, abstract = {Mosaic analysis with double markers (MADM) offers one approach to visualize and concomitantly manipulate genetically defined cells in mice with single-cell resolution. MADM applications include the analysis of lineage, single-cell morphology and physiology, genomic imprinting phenotypes, and dissection of cell-autonomous gene functions in vivo in health and disease. Yet, MADM can only be applied to <25% of all mouse genes on select chromosomes to date. To overcome this limitation, we generate transgenic mice with knocked-in MADM cassettes near the centromeres of all 19 autosomes and validate their use across organs. With this resource, >96% of the entire mouse genome can now be subjected to single-cell genetic mosaic analysis. Beyond a proof of principle, we apply our MADM library to systematically trace sister chromatid segregation in distinct mitotic cell lineages. We find striking chromosome-specific biases in segregation patterns, reflecting a putative mechanism for the asymmetric segregation of genetic determinants in somatic stem cell division.}, author = {Contreras, Ximena and Amberg, Nicole and Davaatseren, Amarbayasgalan and Hansen, Andi H and Sonntag, Johanna and Andersen, Lill and Bernthaler, Tina and Streicher, Carmen and Heger, Anna-Magdalena and Johnson, Randy L. and Schwarz, Lindsay A. and Luo, Liqun and Rülicke, Thomas and Hippenmeyer, Simon}, issn = {22111247}, journal = {Cell Reports}, number = {12}, publisher = {Cell Press}, title = {{A genome-wide library of MADM mice for single-cell genetic mosaic analysis}}, doi = {10.1016/j.celrep.2021.109274}, volume = {35}, year = {2021}, } @article{9822, abstract = {Attachment of adhesive molecules on cell culture surfaces to restrict cell adhesion to defined areas and shapes has been vital for the progress of in vitro research. In currently existing patterning methods, a combination of pattern properties such as stability, precision, specificity, high-throughput outcome, and spatiotemporal control is highly desirable but challenging to achieve. Here, we introduce a versatile and high-throughput covalent photoimmobilization technique, comprising a light-dose-dependent patterning step and a subsequent functionalization of the pattern via click chemistry. This two-step process is feasible on arbitrary surfaces and allows for generation of sustainable patterns and gradients. The method is validated in different biological systems by patterning adhesive ligands on cell-repellent surfaces, thereby constraining the growth and migration of cells to the designated areas. We then implement a sequential photopatterning approach by adding a second switchable patterning step, allowing for spatiotemporal control over two distinct surface patterns. As a proof of concept, we reconstruct the dynamics of the tip/stalk cell switch during angiogenesis. Our results show that the spatiotemporal control provided by our “sequential photopatterning” system is essential for mimicking dynamic biological processes and that our innovative approach has great potential for further applications in cell science.}, author = {Zisis, Themistoklis and Schwarz, Jan and Balles, Miriam and Kretschmer, Maibritt and Nemethova, Maria and Chait, Remy P and Hauschild, Robert and Lange, Janina and Guet, Calin C and Sixt, Michael K and Zahler, Stefan}, issn = {19448252}, journal = {ACS Applied Materials and Interfaces}, number = {30}, pages = {35545–35560}, publisher = {American Chemical Society}, title = {{Sequential and switchable patterning for studying cellular processes under spatiotemporal control}}, doi = {10.1021/acsami.1c09850}, volume = {13}, year = {2021}, } @article{9911, abstract = {A modern day light microscope has evolved from a tool devoted to making primarily empirical observations to what is now a sophisticated , quantitative device that is an integral part of both physical and life science research. Nowadays, microscopes are found in nearly every experimental laboratory. However, despite their prevalent use in capturing and quantifying scientific phenomena, neither a thorough understanding of the principles underlying quantitative imaging techniques nor appropriate knowledge of how to calibrate, operate and maintain microscopes can be taken for granted. This is clearly demonstrated by the well-documented and widespread difficulties that are routinely encountered in evaluating acquired data and reproducing scientific experiments. Indeed, studies have shown that more than 70% of researchers have tried and failed to repeat another scientist's experiments, while more than half have even failed to reproduce their own experiments. One factor behind the reproducibility crisis of experiments published in scientific journals is the frequent underreporting of imaging methods caused by a lack of awareness and/or a lack of knowledge of the applied technique. Whereas quality control procedures for some methods used in biomedical research, such as genomics (e.g. DNA sequencing, RNA-seq) or cytometry, have been introduced (e.g. ENCODE), this issue has not been tackled for optical microscopy instrumentation and images. Although many calibration standards and protocols have been published, there is a lack of awareness and agreement on common standards and guidelines for quality assessment and reproducibility. In April 2020, the QUality Assessment and REProducibility for instruments and images in Light Microscopy (QUAREP-LiMi) initiative was formed. This initiative comprises imaging scientists from academia and industry who share a common interest in achieving a better understanding of the performance and limitations of microscopes and improved quality control (QC) in light microscopy. The ultimate goal of the QUAREP-LiMi initiative is to establish a set of common QC standards, guidelines, metadata models and tools, including detailed protocols, with the ultimate aim of improving reproducible advances in scientific research. This White Paper (1) summarizes the major obstacles identified in the field that motivated the launch of the QUAREP-LiMi initiative; (2) identifies the urgent need to address these obstacles in a grassroots manner, through a community of stakeholders including, researchers, imaging scientists, bioimage analysts, bioimage informatics developers, corporate partners, funding agencies, standards organizations, scientific publishers and observers of such; (3) outlines the current actions of the QUAREP-LiMi initiative and (4) proposes future steps that can be taken to improve the dissemination and acceptance of the proposed guidelines to manage QC. To summarize, the principal goal of the QUAREP-LiMi initiative is to improve the overall quality and reproducibility of light microscope image data by introducing broadly accepted standard practices and accurately captured image data metrics.}, author = {Nelson, Glyn and Boehm, Ulrike and Bagley, Steve and Bajcsy, Peter and Bischof, Johanna and Brown, Claire M. and Dauphin, Aurélien and Dobbie, Ian M. and Eriksson, John E. and Faklaris, Orestis and Fernandez-Rodriguez, Julia and Ferrand, Alexia and Gelman, Laurent and Gheisari, Ali and Hartmann, Hella and Kukat, Christian and Laude, Alex and Mitkovski, Miso and Munck, Sebastian and North, Alison J. and Rasse, Tobias M. and Resch-Genger, Ute and Schuetz, Lucas C. and Seitz, Arne and Strambio-De-Castillia, Caterina and Swedlow, Jason R. and Alexopoulos, Ioannis and Aumayr, Karin and Avilov, Sergiy and Bakker, Gert Jan and Bammann, Rodrigo R. and Bassi, Andrea and Beckert, Hannes and Beer, Sebastian and Belyaev, Yury and Bierwagen, Jakob and Birngruber, Konstantin A. and Bosch, Manel and Breitlow, Juergen and Cameron, Lisa A. and Chalfoun, Joe and Chambers, James J. and Chen, Chieh Li and Conde-Sousa, Eduardo and Corbett, Alexander D. and Cordelieres, Fabrice P. and Nery, Elaine Del and Dietzel, Ralf and Eismann, Frank and Fazeli, Elnaz and Felscher, Andreas and Fried, Hans and Gaudreault, Nathalie and Goh, Wah Ing and Guilbert, Thomas and Hadleigh, Roland and Hemmerich, Peter and Holst, Gerhard A. and Itano, Michelle S. and Jaffe, Claudia B. and Jambor, Helena K. and Jarvis, Stuart C. and Keppler, Antje and Kirchenbuechler, David and Kirchner, Marcel and Kobayashi, Norio and Krens, Gabriel and Kunis, Susanne and Lacoste, Judith and Marcello, Marco and Martins, Gabriel G. and Metcalf, Daniel J. and Mitchell, Claire A. and Moore, Joshua and Mueller, Tobias and Nelson, Michael S. and Ogg, Stephen and Onami, Shuichi and Palmer, Alexandra L. and Paul-Gilloteaux, Perrine and Pimentel, Jaime A. and Plantard, Laure and Podder, Santosh and Rexhepaj, Elton and Royon, Arnaud and Saari, Markku A. and Schapman, Damien and Schoonderwoert, Vincent and Schroth-Diez, Britta and Schwartz, Stanley and Shaw, Michael and Spitaler, Martin and Stoeckl, Martin T. and Sudar, Damir and Teillon, Jeremie and Terjung, Stefan and Thuenauer, Roland and Wilms, Christian D. and Wright, Graham D. and Nitschke, Roland}, issn = {1365-2818}, journal = {Journal of Microscopy}, number = {1}, pages = {56--73}, publisher = {Wiley}, title = {{QUAREP-LiMi: A community-driven initiative to establish guidelines for quality assessment and reproducibility for instruments and images in light microscopy}}, doi = {10.1111/jmi.13041}, volume = {284}, year = {2021}, }