Main body of text: 5983 words 2Epithelia and endothelia separate different tissue compartments and protect multicellular organisms form the outside world. This requires the formation of tight junctions, selective gates that control paracellular diffusion of ions and solutes. Tight junctions also form the border between the apical and basolateral plasma membrane domains and are linked to the machinery that controls apicobasal polarization. Additionally, signalling networks that guide diverse cell behaviours and functions are connected to tight junctions, transmitting information to and from the cytoskeleton, nucleus and different cell adhesion complexes. Here, we discuss recent advances in our understanding of the molecular architecture and cellular functions of tight junctions.Microscopists in the 19 th century described the paracellular space between neighbouring cells within an epithelial sheet to be sealed by a "terminal bar", a structure later resolved by electron microscopy into a composite of distinct cell-cell junctions that is now called the epithelial junctional complex and is formed by tight junctions, adherens junctions and desmosomes 1,2 . As the former two junctions are more tightly associated and often reside at the apical end of the lateral membrane, they are often referred to as the apical junctional complex (however, in endothelia, tight junctions and adherens junctions can be intercalated) (Fig. 1). Tight junctions are essential for barrier formation, and their primary physiological role is to function as paracellular gates that restrict diffusion on the basis of size and charge. Selective paracellular diffusion is an essential process for the maintenance of homoeostasis in organs and tissues. Tight junctions have long been the most enigmatic of all adhesion complexes and eluded a detailed molecular and functional analysis due to their complex architecture. Recent years have witnessed the identification of a large array of components associated with tight junctions implicating these junctions in an unexpected range of different functions, thereby challenging the traditional model, in which tight junctions are considered a simple diffusion barrier formed by a rigid molecular complex. In line with these various functions, mutations in genes encoding tight junction proteins have been linked to a range of inherited human diseases. Additionally, tight junction components are known to be targeted by a number of pathogenic bacteria and viruses, which hijack tight junction proteins to enter and infect cells, or target junctional signalling mechanisms to cross tissue barriers. Although tight junctions are a vertebrate junction, many of their components and functions are evolutionarily conserved (Box 1).The main purpose of this review is to examine the recent advances in the unravelling of the molecular architecture of tight junctions and understanding their functions. We will discuss recent exciting insights into how tight junctions function as signalling platforms that guide cell behaviour and differen...

Although somites develop from the mesoderm in the tail of the chick embryo, they do not form to the tip of the tail. Previous work has shown that this terminal mesoderm possesses many of the characteristics of the segmental plate mesoderm which gives rise to the somites in the trunk. This investigation is aimed therefore at understanding why the terminal mesoderm fails to form somites. Mitotic and pyknotic rates have been obtained for the tail region of chick embryos between stages 13 and 27. Embryos were treated with colchicine, so that the mitoses were blocked in metaphase, and counts were made on serial sections. The overall mitotic rates were highest between stages 15 and 18. Regions of high mitotic rate, which are an indication of cell synchrony, were found in the tail bud mesoderm though not in a consistent location, and only infrequently near the anterior end of the tail segmental plate. In the trunk however (Stern and Bellairs 1984) a single peak of cell synchrony was routinely found near the cranial end of the segmental plate. It is concluded that the cells of the tail mesoderm are less synchronised in preparation for somitogenesis than are the corresponding mesoderm cells in the trunk. A further conclusion is that the tail bud is not per se a region of high proliferation, though there are patches of high mitotic rate. The overall pyknotic rate reached a maximum at stage 25; peaks of pyknosis corresponded initially with the mitotic peaks and were associated with the ventral ectodermal ridge and the tail gut. By stage 25 however, the high levels of cell death were restricted mainly to the tip of the tail.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

No abstract

A multiplex lateral flow immunoassay (LFA) has been developed to detect the primary marine biotoxin groups: amnesic shellfish poisoning toxins, paralytic shellfish poisoning toxins, and diarrhetic shellfish poisoning toxins. The performance characteristics of the multiplex LFA were evaluated for its suitability as a screening method for the detection of toxins in shellfish. The marine toxin-specific antibodies were class-specific, and there was no cross-reactivity between the three toxin groups. The test is capable of detecting all three marine toxin groups, with working ranges of 0.2–1.5, 2.5–65.0, and 8.2–140.3 ng/mL for okadaic acid, saxitoxin, and domoic acid, respectively. This allows the multiplex LFA to detect all three toxin groups at the EU regulatory limits, with a single sample extraction method and dilution volume. No matrix effects were observed on the performance of the LFA with mussel samples spiked with toxins. The developed LFA uses a simple and pocket-sized, portable Cube Reader to provide an accurate result. We also evaluated the use of this Cube Reader with commercially available monoplex lateral flow assays for marine toxins.

In the chick embryo the paraxial mesoderm forms about 50-53 pairs of somites, the precise number depending on the extent to which segmentation proceeds along the tail. However, the terminal mesoderm of the tail fails to segment despite the fact that it appears to contain a reservoir of potential somites. Why does this mesoderm not segment? Some clues can be obtained by comparing this non-segmenting region with the segmental plate in the trunk. We and others have shown that in the trunk region of the chick, cell adhesion plays a major role in somitogenesis and that this increased cell adhesion is associated with compaction of segments of mesoderm immediately prior to segmentation. This compaction can be brought about prematurely by fibronectin and by the specific adhesion peptide GRGDS. The terminal mesoderm in the tail resembles the segmental plate mesoderm in the trunk in undergoing compaction in response to fibronectin and GRGDS. The tail mesoderm differs from the segmental plate mesoderm in that it can also respond to peptides closely related to GRGDS. The response suggests that, whereas the integrin receptors for fibronectin and GRGDS appear to be specific in the presomitic trunk mesoderm, responding only to the specific adhesion-peptide GRGDS, the tail mesoderm may contain more heterogeneous sets of receptors within the integrin/VLA family that respond to a wider variety of ligands. Coincident with these differences is the phenomenon of regional cell death in the tail bud mesoderm. All of these factors are thought to play a role in the extent of segmentation in the paraxial mesoderm of the embryonic chick.

Inflammation and fibrosis are important components of diseases that contribute to the malfunction of epithelia and endothelia. The Rho guanine nucleotide exchange factor (GEF) GEF-H1/ARHGEF-2 is induced in disease and stimulates inflammatory and fibrotic processes, cell migration, and metastasis. Here, we have generated peptide inhibitors to block the function of GEF-H1. Inhibitors were designed using a structural in silico approach or by isolating an inhibitory sequence from the autoregulatory C-terminal domain. Candidate inhibitors were tested for their ability to block RhoA/GEF-H1 binding in vitro, and their potency and specificity in cell-based assays. Successful inhibitors were then evaluated in models of TGFβ-induced fibrosis, LPS-stimulated endothelial cell-cell junction disruption, and cell migration. Finally, the most potent inhibitor was successfully tested in an experimental retinal disease mouse model, in which it inhibited blood vessel leakage and ameliorated retinal inflammation when treatment was initiated after disease diagnosis. Thus, an antagonist that blocks GEF-H1 signaling effectively inhibits disease features in in vitro and in vivo disease models, demonstrating that GEF-H1 is an effective therapeutic target and establishing a new therapeutic approach.

No abstract

No abstract