Mind-the-Gap (MTG) is required for neuronal induction of Drosophila neuromuscular junction (NMJ) postsynaptic domains, including glutamate receptor (GluR) localization. We have previously hypothesized that MTG is secreted from the presynaptic terminal to reside in the synaptic cleft, where it binds glycans to organize the heavily-glycosylated, extracellular synaptomatrix required for trans-synaptic signaling between neuron and muscle. In this study, we test this hypothesis with MTG structure-function analyses of predicted signal peptide (SP) and carbohydrate-binding domain (CBD), by introducing deletion and point-mutant transgenic constructs into mtg null mutants. We show that the SP is required for MTG secretion and localization to synapses in vivo. We further show that the CBD is required to restrict MTG diffusion in the extracellular synaptomatrix and for postembryonic viability. However, CBD mutation results in elevation of postsynaptic GluR localization during synaptogenesis, not the mtg null mutant phenotype of reduced GluRs as predicted by our hypothesis, suggesting that proper synaptic localization of MTG limits GluR recruitment. In further testing CBD requirements, we show that MTG binds N-acetylglucosamine (GlcNAc) in a Ca2+-dependent manner, and thereby binds HRP-epitope glycans, but that these carbohydrate interactions do not require the CBD. We conclude that the MTG lectin has both positive and negative binding interactions with glycans in the extracellular synaptic domain, which both facilitate and limit GluR localization during NMJ embryonic synaptogenesis.

There is growing interest in using mobile technology for teaching and learning in the clinical curriculum. Following the identified best practices may assist schools with the integration of the technology into the curriculum and better prepare medical students to handle the increasing use of technology.

diagnosis were reviewed. The results were analyzed using the Fisher exact test and independent-sample t test.RESULTS: A total of 182 patients were identified, 95 underwent laparotomy and 87 underwent robotic surgery. All patients had thromboprophylaxis using mechanical devices during and after surgery. Hundred patients received thromboprophylaxis with pharmacological agents postoperatively; 65 patients in laparotomy and 36 in the robotics group. Total incidence of thromboembolism was 4.4% (8/182) during the first six weeks postoperatively. The incidence rate in the laparotomy group was 5.3% (5/95) and in the robotic group was 3.45% (3/87). (P5.72). No statistical significant difference were noted with age (P5.17), BMI (P5.6), race (P5.06), smoking (P5.8), comorbidities (P5.12), stage of cancer (P5.73), or histology (P5.16). Statistical significance was found between two groups respect to mean surgical time (laparotomy: 241 minutes vs robotic: 312 minutes) (P,.001) and blood loss (laparotomy: 477 cc vs Robotic: 101 cc) (P,.001). CONCLUSION: The incidence of thromboembolism was not different between robotic surgery and laparotomy. Operative time was longer in robotic group and blood loss was more for laparotomy.