Copying, transporting and creating proteins – what could possibly go wrong?

Proteins are the building blocks of our cells and have a variety of important roles within our bodies. The instructions for how to build our proteins sit within our DNA, our genetic code in the control centre of our cells (the nucleus). There are many steps to go through from reading that ‘raw’ instruction to ending up with a fully functioning protein.
However, the amount of information held within our genetic code is so huge that only small segments of it are read and transferred to the factory floor, as and when they are needed. These copies, known as messenger RNA, are small enough to be transported to the ‘factory floor’ of the cell to large machine-like entities called ribosomes where the copy is read, and used to create the resulting protein.
When I was doing my A levels and later at University (yes, that long ago!), we were taught that only 1% of the genetic code ever made it to the factory floor. This held true until a couple of years ago. However, as explained by Professor Bob Brown in his presentation at the ‘RNA and protein processing’ session this afternoon, such is the change in our knowledge in that area, we now know that 95% of our genetic code makes it through to the first step of making proteins.
This was a key piece of context in trying to understand the role that TDP43 plays in functioning cells – never mind specifically in motor neurones or in cases of the presence of damaged TDP43 in MND!
Professor Brown, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Boston, USA went on to give an enlightening review of what has been uncovered about this fascinating protein (TDP43) so far. Once the protein of TDP43 has been correctly made, its function is to go back and ensure that other proteins are correctly made too – the so called ‘reading helpers’ of the cells, or ‘editors of instructions’. Another new fact to me from this talk was that TDP43 is involved in editing or reading up to ONE THIRD of all proteins within the cell. That’s a city fat cat type of job! So how is it all related to it’s function in MND?
Some elegant experiments have shown that TDP43 regulates how many copies of it’s own protein are made. However, the regulation takes place in the control centre of the cell (see the top of this blog). If TDP43 gets stuck or waylaid on the factory floor, it can’t get back to press the stop button in time. So it’s thought that more and more protein is made, accumulating on the factory floor until that accumulation can be seen as the protein deposits so characteristic of what you see of motor neurones affected by MND down the microscope.
Part of the editing work that TDP43 does so well is known as ‘splicing’. In true ‘Blue Peter’ style, here is a description of that process that Kelly prepared before I flew out to Sydney:

Alternative protein
One gene can hold the instructions for a number of different versions or variants of a protein. These variants are created when different parts of the gene are used in alternative combinations. This is a normal process and it’s called ‘alternative splicing’. This complicates matters in terms of genetic research, as even though we have approximately 20,000 genes, we could potentially have a much higher number of functional proteins because of alternative spliced variants.

How does alternative splicing work?
The picture (below) depicts a simple version of how a gene can be alternatively spliced, given three ‘parts’. The example demonstrates that the first version of the protein is made up of parts 1, 2 and 3, whereas version two is made up of only parts 1 and 3. These resulting proteins would go on to function in our bodies in potentially different ways. It is therefore possible for a number of different proteins to be created given one set of original instructions in the genetic code.


 

 

Read our official day one symposium press release on our website.

Lifting an invisibility cloak -making MND research results more readily available

It goes without saying (but I’ll say it anyway!) that it is important for MND researchers to know what each other are up to – so they can build on results, develop fruitful collaborations and avoid duplication of effort. The MND Association joining the UK PubMed Central (UK PMC) Funders Group is a new way of encouraging researchers to share more results and allow them to move further and faster towards a world free of MND.

The database offers an opportunity for anyone to track what we are funding, who we are funding and which research results were generated as a direct result of our funding. You can also find out which other members of the Funders Group are also funding MND research. These opportunities are in addition to the searchable list of ‘research papers’ that is UK PMC’s key function.

One way that researchers share their results with each other is by the publication of ‘research papers’. These are detailed, technical reports of what experiments were done, how they did them, what the results were and what the authors feel the results mean for their area of research. They are written in quite a structured way, that their peers will be very familiar with.

Where once these research papers were circulated exclusively in hard copy journals and catalogued on library microfiches (remember them?!) increasingly research papers are published electronically and stored and catalogued in online databases. Many of these databases only offer a summary of the research report to the general public; and a library subscription or a login are required to get the full research paper.

UK PubMed Central aspires to make as many papers as possible available in full, increasing the ease of access for researchers and allowing anyone else to read them too. We will be working with our grantees to contribute to this ambition. It’s all part of our drive to ensure that the best possible environment exists for MND research to prosper!

More information on the Association joining UK PMC is available in our press release

Become our video star in our research workshop!

In between reading the plethora of abstracts that are mounting on our desks and being locked away in a quiet room to proof read them all, Kate and I have been working on a plan of action for the research workshop at MND Association’s Annual Conference to be held on 11 September in Nottingham.

The theme of our workshop will be: getting involved with research. One idea that we’ve been working on –sadly to no avail yet, is finding a video clip of somebody who has taken part in research explaining why they took part in research. Ideally, we’d like to find a clip that we can feature at the beginning of the workshop to show the ‘real’ reasons why people take part in MND research straight from the person.

So – we’d like to ask you for your help! If you, or somebody you know:

  • has taken part in any form of research whether it was a questionnaire, a biomarker study, a healthcare project, a questionnaire,  joining our patient register, or any other MND research project
  • are somebody living with MND, a carer or an unaffected ‘control’ that has taken part
  • are able to record a short clip (could even be done on a video recording phone) telling us why you participated in research, how you found out about the study and the best and worst bits (and anything else you’d like to share with people about taking part in research).

Then we’d like to hear from you! Please send your video clip (either by attaching it to an email or by sending us a link to where it is saved – ie YouTube) to research@mndassociation.org by 27 August 2010.

If we receive any appropriate clips, we’ll upload them onto this blog for others to see!

Thank you everybody in advance – we look forward to receiving your clips!

More on the Young Investigators’ meeting

Day 2 began early!

By 8.15am our stand was on display in the ‘breakout’ room, where the tea and lunch breaks were held and also in the same room as the poster session. This meant that there was lots of potential for delegates to browse! I was keen to raise awareness of all aspects of the Association’s work, so information on fundraising, becoming an Association visitor, Patrick’s incurable optimism campaign and of course the research strategy was available.

 The opening talk, given by Chris Ponting from Oxford University was excellent. Professor Ponting is not working in the field of MND, he was invited to give us an overview of where the fast moving and ever expanding field of genetics is currently at. I got most of what he was saying…

The next plenary talk was from Jan Veldink, from Utrecht. Jan is an MND researcher, so his overview was from a different perspective. I particularly liked his reference to John Ioannidis’ classification of researchers as ‘aggressive discoverers’ and ‘reflective replicators’ (the academic reference is JP Ioannidis, Epidemiology 2008, 19: 640-648 for anyone wishing to learn more.. ). He later put it into context by explaining that one of the genetic susceptibility factors linked to MND needed to be considered in more detail – saying that the ‘reflective replicator’ part had not been completed! As suggested by the title of his talk ‘The search for high hanging fruit’, there are many pitfalls to look out for in conducting genetic research and he had time to discuss a few of these in detail.

After listening to these and the excellent shorter presentations in this session, my brain was reaching it’s capacity to absorb new information! Following a re-charge with coffee, it was time to hear about the latest in pathology and some elegant talks on biomarkers. Martin Turner illustrated the potential of biomarkers for giving a prognosis of MND, monitoring in clinical studies and understanding the mechanisms that cause motor neurones to die. Vincent Meininger gave an exhaustive list of all of the markers that have been investigated in MND over the years – it was a salutary warning that finding effective biomarkers is not an easy task! Rigour and careful attention to detail is needed to ensure that any potential biomarkers are robust.

Day3: Suddenly the conference was drawing to close!

Before the talks began on the last morning there was a lot of discussion around the debate on riluzole the night before. The scientific evidence is that riluzole is effective for MND. However, there are side effects and neither a doctor (nor the patient) are able to tell whether the drug is working for a person with MND – it is not like taking a pill for a headache! This makes it a difficult dilemma for doctors and patients alike when discussing this medication. The discussion ranged from the undisputable statistical facts to how a person with MND might feel taking, or not taking riluzole. These were summed up by MND Association grantee Professor Lizzy Fisher chairing the first session of the day. “As a non-clinician I felt privileged to listen to the expose of what clinicians face on a day to day level”.

From one difficult topic to another – how we use animal models to understand more about MND was the area discussed in this session. I took away two main points from this session. Firstly, that we can obtain important information on many aspects of why motor neurones degenerate and the best way to treat them by careful attention to detail; and secondly, how important is the SOD1 model of MND when it is likely that TDP43 has a far greater importance for cracking what causes MND and how to stop it – shouldn’t we concentrate our efforts on a TDP43 model instead?

For me the most challenging session to understand was the very last one of the conference – that on ‘RNA biology and neurobiology’. Two new MND-linked mutations over the last couple of years – TDP43 and FUS – are known to play a role in how RNA processing works (see our website under ‘Editors on strike’ to read more about this). This is an area that has gone wrong in a range of other diseases. Dr Jean Marc Gallo based at King’s College London described a number of strategies and techniques he has used for other disease which we can now adopt for understanding this important new area of MND research.

Reflecting on the train on the way home

This conference was about young researchers, keen to share their data and begin to get to know people across the European MND community. The more established researchers presenting in the plenary slots gave either an overview of what is already known, or some guidance on what pitfalls to look out for and new things to try in the future. I feel that European MND research is in rude health to continue moving us towards a world free of MND.

Tweeting on MND Research

MND Research is now officially on Twitter!

So, not only are we blogging to take you behind the scenes of MND research but now we’re tweeting!

We’ll be tweeting bite sized news from the world of MND research, updates on our progress that may not be mentioned on our blog as well as highlighting key deadlines for MND researchers.

If you’re not into Twitter, our latest tweets can be seen on the left sidebar of the blog, so even if you don’t want to join, you can still follow our tweets.

If you are on Twitter, or want to sign up, please follow us @mndresearch.

Thanks!

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 127 other followers