Filter
Associated Lab
- Aguilera Castrejon Lab (15) Apply Aguilera Castrejon Lab filter
- Ahrens Lab (57) Apply Ahrens Lab filter
- Aso Lab (39) Apply Aso Lab filter
- Baker Lab (38) Apply Baker Lab filter
- Betzig Lab (111) Apply Betzig Lab filter
- Beyene Lab (10) Apply Beyene Lab filter
- Bock Lab (17) Apply Bock Lab filter
- Branson Lab (48) Apply Branson Lab filter
- Card Lab (40) Apply Card Lab filter
- Cardona Lab (63) Apply Cardona Lab filter
- Chklovskii Lab (13) Apply Chklovskii Lab filter
- Clapham Lab (13) Apply Clapham Lab filter
- Cui Lab (19) Apply Cui Lab filter
- Darshan Lab (12) Apply Darshan Lab filter
- Dennis Lab (1) Apply Dennis Lab filter
- Dickson Lab (46) Apply Dickson Lab filter
- Druckmann Lab (25) Apply Druckmann Lab filter
- Dudman Lab (46) Apply Dudman Lab filter
- Eddy/Rivas Lab (30) Apply Eddy/Rivas Lab filter
- Egnor Lab (11) Apply Egnor Lab filter
- Espinosa Medina Lab (16) Apply Espinosa Medina Lab filter
- Feliciano Lab (6) Apply Feliciano Lab filter
- Fetter Lab (41) Apply Fetter Lab filter
- Fitzgerald Lab (28) Apply Fitzgerald Lab filter
- Freeman Lab (15) Apply Freeman Lab filter
- Funke Lab (35) Apply Funke Lab filter
- Gonen Lab (91) Apply Gonen Lab filter
- Grigorieff Lab (62) Apply Grigorieff Lab filter
- Harris Lab (58) Apply Harris Lab filter
- Heberlein Lab (94) Apply Heberlein Lab filter
- Hermundstad Lab (22) Apply Hermundstad Lab filter
- Hess Lab (72) Apply Hess Lab filter
- Ilanges Lab (1) Apply Ilanges Lab filter
- Jayaraman Lab (44) Apply Jayaraman Lab filter
- Ji Lab (33) Apply Ji Lab filter
- Johnson Lab (6) Apply Johnson Lab filter
- Kainmueller Lab (19) Apply Kainmueller Lab filter
- Karpova Lab (14) Apply Karpova Lab filter
- Keleman Lab (13) Apply Keleman Lab filter
- Keller Lab (75) Apply Keller Lab filter
- Koay Lab (17) Apply Koay Lab filter
- Lavis Lab (138) Apply Lavis Lab filter
- Lee (Albert) Lab (34) Apply Lee (Albert) Lab filter
- Leonardo Lab (23) Apply Leonardo Lab filter
- Li Lab (27) Apply Li Lab filter
- Lippincott-Schwartz Lab (161) Apply Lippincott-Schwartz Lab filter
- Liu (Yin) Lab (5) Apply Liu (Yin) Lab filter
- Liu (Zhe) Lab (61) Apply Liu (Zhe) Lab filter
- Looger Lab (137) Apply Looger Lab filter
- Magee Lab (49) Apply Magee Lab filter
- Menon Lab (18) Apply Menon Lab filter
- Murphy Lab (13) Apply Murphy Lab filter
- O'Shea Lab (6) Apply O'Shea Lab filter
- Otopalik Lab (13) Apply Otopalik Lab filter
- Pachitariu Lab (42) Apply Pachitariu Lab filter
- Pastalkova Lab (18) Apply Pastalkova Lab filter
- Pavlopoulos Lab (19) Apply Pavlopoulos Lab filter
- Pedram Lab (14) Apply Pedram Lab filter
- Podgorski Lab (16) Apply Podgorski Lab filter
- Reiser Lab (49) Apply Reiser Lab filter
- Riddiford Lab (44) Apply Riddiford Lab filter
- Romani Lab (41) Apply Romani Lab filter
- Rubin Lab (139) Apply Rubin Lab filter
- Saalfeld Lab (61) Apply Saalfeld Lab filter
- Satou Lab (16) Apply Satou Lab filter
- Scheffer Lab (36) Apply Scheffer Lab filter
- Schreiter Lab (62) Apply Schreiter Lab filter
- Sgro Lab (20) Apply Sgro Lab filter
- Shroff Lab (24) Apply Shroff Lab filter
- Simpson Lab (23) Apply Simpson Lab filter
- Singer Lab (80) Apply Singer Lab filter
- Spruston Lab (91) Apply Spruston Lab filter
- Stern Lab (152) Apply Stern Lab filter
- Sternson Lab (54) Apply Sternson Lab filter
- Stringer Lab (29) Apply Stringer Lab filter
- Svoboda Lab (135) Apply Svoboda Lab filter
- Tebo Lab (31) Apply Tebo Lab filter
- Tervo Lab (9) Apply Tervo Lab filter
- Tillberg Lab (17) Apply Tillberg Lab filter
- Tjian Lab (64) Apply Tjian Lab filter
- Truman Lab (88) Apply Truman Lab filter
- Turaga Lab (46) Apply Turaga Lab filter
- Turner Lab (35) Apply Turner Lab filter
- Vale Lab (6) Apply Vale Lab filter
- Voigts Lab (2) Apply Voigts Lab filter
- Wang (Meng) Lab (10) Apply Wang (Meng) Lab filter
- Wang (Shaohe) Lab (24) Apply Wang (Shaohe) Lab filter
- Wu Lab (9) Apply Wu Lab filter
- Zlatic Lab (28) Apply Zlatic Lab filter
- Zuker Lab (25) Apply Zuker Lab filter
Associated Project Team
- CellMap (6) Apply CellMap filter
- COSEM (3) Apply COSEM filter
- Fly Descending Interneuron (10) Apply Fly Descending Interneuron filter
- Fly Functional Connectome (14) Apply Fly Functional Connectome filter
- Fly Olympiad (5) Apply Fly Olympiad filter
- FlyEM (51) Apply FlyEM filter
- FlyLight (46) Apply FlyLight filter
- GENIE (40) Apply GENIE filter
- Integrative Imaging (1) Apply Integrative Imaging filter
- Larval Olympiad (2) Apply Larval Olympiad filter
- MouseLight (16) Apply MouseLight filter
- NeuroSeq (1) Apply NeuroSeq filter
- ThalamoSeq (1) Apply ThalamoSeq filter
- Tool Translation Team (T3) (24) Apply Tool Translation Team (T3) filter
- Transcription Imaging (49) Apply Transcription Imaging filter
Publication Date
- 2024 (170) Apply 2024 filter
- 2023 (171) Apply 2023 filter
- 2022 (192) Apply 2022 filter
- 2021 (193) Apply 2021 filter
- 2020 (196) Apply 2020 filter
- 2019 (202) Apply 2019 filter
- 2018 (232) Apply 2018 filter
- 2017 (217) Apply 2017 filter
- 2016 (209) Apply 2016 filter
- 2015 (252) Apply 2015 filter
- 2014 (236) Apply 2014 filter
- 2013 (194) Apply 2013 filter
- 2012 (190) Apply 2012 filter
- 2011 (190) Apply 2011 filter
- 2010 (161) Apply 2010 filter
- 2009 (158) Apply 2009 filter
- 2008 (140) Apply 2008 filter
- 2007 (106) Apply 2007 filter
- 2006 (92) Apply 2006 filter
- 2005 (67) Apply 2005 filter
- 2004 (57) Apply 2004 filter
- 2003 (58) Apply 2003 filter
- 2002 (39) Apply 2002 filter
- 2001 (28) Apply 2001 filter
- 2000 (29) Apply 2000 filter
- 1999 (14) Apply 1999 filter
- 1998 (18) Apply 1998 filter
- 1997 (16) Apply 1997 filter
- 1996 (10) Apply 1996 filter
- 1995 (18) Apply 1995 filter
- 1994 (12) Apply 1994 filter
- 1993 (10) Apply 1993 filter
- 1992 (6) Apply 1992 filter
- 1991 (11) Apply 1991 filter
- 1990 (11) Apply 1990 filter
- 1989 (6) Apply 1989 filter
- 1988 (1) Apply 1988 filter
- 1987 (7) Apply 1987 filter
- 1986 (4) Apply 1986 filter
- 1985 (5) Apply 1985 filter
- 1984 (2) Apply 1984 filter
- 1983 (2) Apply 1983 filter
- 1982 (3) Apply 1982 filter
- 1981 (3) Apply 1981 filter
- 1980 (1) Apply 1980 filter
- 1979 (1) Apply 1979 filter
- 1976 (2) Apply 1976 filter
- 1973 (1) Apply 1973 filter
- 1970 (1) Apply 1970 filter
- 1967 (1) Apply 1967 filter
Type of Publication
3945 Publications
Showing 2131-2140 of 3945 resultsRobust innate behaviours are attractive systems for genetically dissecting how environmental cues are perceived and integrated to generate complex behaviours. During courtship, Drosophila males engage in a series of innate, stereotyped behaviours that are coordinated by specific sensory cues. However, little is known about the specific neural substrates mediating this complex behavioural programme. Genetic, developmental and behavioural studies have shown that the fruitless (fru) gene encodes a set of male-specific transcription factors (FruM) that act to establish the potential for courtship in Drosophila. FruM proteins are expressed in approximately 2% of central nervous system neurons, at least one subset of which coordinates the component behaviours of courtship. Here we have inserted the yeast GAL4 gene into the fru locus by homologous recombination and show that (1) FruM is expressed in subsets of all peripheral sensory systems previously implicated in courtship, (2) inhibition of FruM function in olfactory system components reduces olfactory-dependent changes in courtship behaviour, (3) transient inactivation of all FruM-expressing neurons abolishes courtship behaviour, with no other gross changes in general behaviour, and (4) ’masculinization’ of FruM-expressing neurons in females is largely sufficient to confer male courtship behaviour. Together, these data demonstrate that FruM proteins specify the neural substrates of male courtship.
The sense of taste provides animals with valuable information about the quality and nutritional value of food. Previously, we identified a large family of mammalian taste receptors involved in bitter taste perception (the T2Rs). We now report the characterization of mammalian sweet taste receptors. First, transgenic rescue experiments prove that the Sac locus encodes T1R3, a member of the T1R family of candidate taste receptors. Second, using a heterologous expression system, we demonstrate that T1R2 and T1R3 combine to function as a sweet receptor, recognizing sweet-tasting molecules as diverse as sucrose, saccharin, dulcin, and acesulfame-K. Finally, we present a detailed analysis of the patterns of expression of T1Rs and T2Rs, thus providing a view of the representation of sweet and bitter taste at the periphery.
Temporal patterning is a seminal method of expanding neuronal diversity. Here we unravel a mechanism decoding neural stem cell temporal gene expression and transforming it into discrete neuronal fates. This mechanism is characterized by hierarchical gene expression. First, neuroblasts express opposing temporal gradients of RNA-binding proteins, Imp and Syp. These proteins promote or inhibit translation, yielding a descending neuronal gradient. Together, first and second-layer temporal factors define a temporal expression window of BTB-zinc finger nuclear protein, Mamo. The precise temporal induction of Mamo is achieved via both transcriptional and post-transcriptional regulation. Finally, Mamo is essential for the temporally defined, terminal identity of α'/β' mushroom body neurons and identity maintenance. We describe a straightforward paradigm of temporal fate specification where diverse neuronal fates are defined via integrating multiple layers of gene regulation. The neurodevelopmental roles of orthologous/related mammalian genes suggest a fundamental conservation of this mechanism in brain development.
The eukaryotic genome is highly organized in the nucleus. Genes can be localized to specific nuclear compartments in a manner reflecting their activity. A plethora of recent reports has described multiple levels of chromosomal folding that can be related to gene-specific expression states. Here we discuss studies designed to probe the causal impact of genome organization on gene expression. The picture that emerges is that of a reciprocal relationship in which nuclear organization is not only shaped by gene expression states but also directly influences them.
BACKGROUND: The genetic analysis of behavior in Drosophila melanogaster has linked genes controlling neuronal connectivity and physiology to specific neuronal circuits underlying a variety of innate behaviors. We investigated the circuitry underlying the adult startle response, using photoexcitation of neurons that produce the abnormal chemosensory jump 6 (acj6) transcription factor. This transcription factor has previously been shown to play a role in neuronal pathfinding and neurotransmitter modality, but the role of acj6 neurons in the adult startle response was largely unknown. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: We show that the activity of these neurons is necessary for a wild-type startle response and that excitation is sufficient to generate a synthetic escape response. Further, we show that this synthetic response is still sensitive to the dose of acj6 suggesting that that acj6 mutation alters neuronal activity as well as connectivity and neurotransmitter production. RESULTS/SIGNIFICANCE: These results extend the understanding of the role of acj6 and of the adult startle response in general. They also demonstrate the usefulness of activity-dependent characterization of neuronal circuits underlying innate behaviors in Drosophila, and the utility of integrating genetic analysis into modern circuit analysis techniques.
Traditional approaches for increasing the affinity of a protein for its ligand focus on constructing improved surface complementarity in the complex by altering the protein binding site to better fit the ligand. Here we present a novel strategy that leaves the binding site intact, while residues that allosterically affect binding are mutated. This method takes advantage of conformationally distinct states, each with different ligand-binding affinities, and manipulates the equilibria between these conformations. We demonstrate this approach in the Escherichia coli maltose binding protein by introducing mutations, located at some distance from the ligand binding pocket, that sterically affect the equilibrium between an open, apo-state and a closed, ligand-bound state. A family of 20 variants was generated with affinities ranging from an approximately 100-fold improvement (7.4 nM) to an approximately two-fold weakening (1.8 mM) relative to the wild type protein (800 nM).
Hundreds of millions of structured proteins sustain life through chemical interactions and catalytic reactions1. Though dynamic, these proteins are assumed to be built upon fixed scaffolds of secondary structure, α-helices and β-sheets. Experimentally determined structures of over >58,000 non-redundant proteins support this assumption, though it has recently been challenged by ∼100 fold-switching proteins2. These “metamorphic3” proteins, though ostensibly rare, raise the question of how many uncharacterized proteins have shapeshifting–rather than fixed–secondary structures. To address this question, we developed a comparative sequence-based approach that predicts fold-switching proteins from differences in secondary structure propensity. We applied this approach to the universally conserved NusG transcription factor family of ∼15,000 proteins, one of which has a 50-residue regulatory subunit experimentally shown to switch between α-helical and β-sheet folds4. Our approach predicted that 25% of the sequences in this family undergo similar α-helix ⇌ β-sheet transitions, a frequency two orders of magnitude larger than previously observed. Our predictions evade state-of-the-art computational methods but were confirmed experimentally by circular dichroism and nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy for all 10 assiduously chosen dissimilar variants. These results suggest that fold switching is a pervasive mechanism of transcriptional regulation in all kingdoms of life and imply that numerous uncharacterized proteins may also switch folds.
The protein folding paradigm asserts that the three-dimensional structure of a protein is determined by its amino acid sequence. Here we show that a substantial population of proteins from the NusG superfamily of transcription factors do not adhere to this paradigm. Previous work demonstrated that one member of this superfamily has a regulatory domain that completely switches between α-helical and β-sheet folds, but the pervasiveness of this fold-switching mechanism is uncertain. To address this question, we developed a sequence-based predictor, which revealed that thousands of proteins from this superfamily switch folds. Circular dichroism and nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopies of 10 sequence-diverse variants confirmed our predictions. By contrast, state-of-the-art methods based on the protein folding paradigm assume that related sequences adopt the same fold and thus predicted that the regulatory domains of all variants adopt only the β-sheet fold. Removal of this bias revealed that residue-residue contacts from both α-helical and β-sheet folds are conserved in a large subpopulation of fold-switching domains, poising them to assume disparate conformations. Our results suggest that fold switching is a pervasive mechanism of transcriptional regulation in all kingdoms of life and indicate that expanding the protein folding paradigm may reveal the involvement of fold-switching proteins in diverse biological processes.
We have developed and characterized a method, based on reflection interference contrast microscopy, to simultaneously determine the three-dimensional positions of multiple particles in a colloidal monolayer. To evaluate this method, the interaction of 6.8 microm (+/-5%) diameter lipid-derivatized silica microspheres with an underlying planar borosilicate substrate is studied. Measured colloidal height distributions are consistent with expectations for an electrostatically levitated colloidal monolayer. The precision of the method is analyzed using experimental techniques in addition to computational bootstrapping algorithms. In its present implementation, this technique achieves 16 nm lateral and 1 nm vertical precision.
The hindbrain of larval zebrafish contains a relatively simple ground plan in which the neurons throughout it are arranged into stripes that represent broad neuronal classes that differ in transmitter identity, morphology, and transcription factor expression. Within the stripes, neurons are stacked continuously according to age as well as structural and functional properties, such as axonal extent, input resistance, and the speed at which they are recruited during movements. Here we address the question of how particular networks among the many different sensory-motor networks in hindbrain arise from such an orderly plan. We use a combination of transgenic lines and pairwise patch recording to identify excitatory and inhibitory interneurons in the hindbrain network for escape behaviors initiated by the Mauthner cell. We map this network onto the ground plan to show that an individual hindbrain network is built by drawing components in predictable ways from the underlying broad patterning of cell types stacked within stripes according to their age and structural and functional properties. Many different specialized hindbrain networks may arise similarly from a simple early patterning.