We generated a mutant cell line HDAC6 (ZnFm-W1116A) with a mutation in the corresponding mouse HDAC6 ZnF-UBP
In a previous work, scientists investigated whether ubiquitin chain binding affects HDAC6 activity. To generate a ubiquitin-chain binding deficient mutant of HDAC6, they mutated several residues in the BUZ finger that were predicted to make contacts with ubiquitin. It was found that W1182A point mutation markedly disrupted the ability of HDAC6 to bind free ubiquitin chains.
A point mutation W1182A in the human HDAC6 ZnF-UBP disrupts binding of free Ub chains
In a previous work, scientists investigated whether ubiquitin chain binding affects HDAC6 activity. To generate a ubiquitin-chain binding deficient mutant of HDAC6, they mutated several residues in the BUZ finger that were predicted to make contacts with ubiquitin. It was found that W1182A point mutation markedly disrupted the ability of HDAC6 to bind free ubiquitin chains.
While analyzing the role of HDAC8 and HDAC3 in endosome maturation and IAV penetration
In a previous work, the authors found the histone deacetylase 8 was required for centrosome cohesion and influenza A virus entry.
The first wasat the origin of the domestication process, and thesecond was more recent during breed formationover the past several hundred years
Previously, the DNA analysis of the genome of prehistoric wolves and dogs support the idea of a two-step domestication process. The first one was the evolution of wolves through a mutually beneficial relationship with humans, sharing food and space. The second one was the active breeding of dogs by humans in order to select dogs which were adapted to the current needs (hunting, tracking, pet).
Furthermore, there are two main hypotheses to explain the first domestication step (http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/pub/early-canid-domestication-the-farm-fox-experiment):
1) “Self-domestication” by the wolves: Some wolves lived in the vicinity of the camps of the nomadic hunter-gatherers to eat the garbage left by the prehistoric people. Those that were less anxious thrived and continued to follow the humans, generation after generation, and gradually the first dogs emerged from this group.
2) The prehistoric people actively selected wolf pups and let only the most docile ones reproduce. After several generations, the first dogs emerged. This hypothesis has been being tested in Novosibirsk since 1959, where foxes are being bred for “tamability.”
centers of dog origins fromgenetic data have been proposed, including theMiddle East and East Asia
In ref. 5, a genome-wide array of SNP between dogs and wolves suggest that dogs originate from Middle East.
However, ref. 6, the comparison between dog and wolf mitochondrial DNA suggests East Asia as the center of dog origin.
ere compared withcomplete mitochondrial genome sequences from49 wolves; 77 dogs, including divergent dog breedssuch as Basenji and Dingo; three recently publishedChinese indigenous dogs (7); and four coyotestotaling 148 mitochondrial genomes.
The authors collected the mtDNA sequences previously published by other teams in order to get more data to analyze and a larger diversity of samples.
DNA extracted from the earliest canids showingphenotypic evidence of domestication
Some of the phenotypic adaptation can be observed, such as: shorter fangs and claws alteration of some brain areas.
By comparing the DNA of phenotypically domesticated canids and actual dogs and identifying the genes which are responsible of the domesticate phenotype, it is possible to understand which genes have been altered by domestication and when they have been altered.
centers of dog origins fromgenetic data have been proposed, including theMiddle East and East Asia
In ref. 5, a genome-wide array of SNP between dogs and wolves suggest that dogs originate from Middle East.
However, ref. 6, the comparison between dog and wolf mitochondrial DNA suggests East Asia as the center of dog origin.