<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet href="/rss.css" type="text/css"?>
<rdf:RDF xmlns="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/"
    xmlns:cc="http://web.resource.org/cc/"
    xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
    xmlns:extra="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"
    xmlns:prism="http://prismstandard.org/namespaces/1.2/basic/"
    xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#">
    <channel rdf:about="http://www.biology-direct.com/feeds/mostaccessed/journal?quantity=&amp;format=rss&amp;version=">
        <title>Biology Direct - Most accessed articles</title>
        <link>http://www.biology-direct.com</link>
        <description>The most accessed research articles published by Biology Direct</description>
        <dc:date>2012-04-19T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
        <items>
            <rdf:Seq>
                                <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.biology-direct.com/content/7/1/13" />
                                <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.biology-direct.com/content/7/1/12" />
                                <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.biology-direct.com/content/7/1/11" />
                                <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.biology-direct.com/content/4/1/34" />
                                <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.biology-direct.com/content/1/1/29" />
                                <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.biology-direct.com/content/5/1/7" />
                                <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.biology-direct.com/content/6/1/35" />
                                <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.biology-direct.com/content/6/1/64" />
                                <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.biology-direct.com/content/7/1/1" />
                                <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.biology-direct.com/content/7/1/10" />
                            </rdf:Seq>
        </items>
                 <cc:license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/" />
    </channel>
        <item rdf:about="http://www.biology-direct.com/content/7/1/13">
        <title>A novel virus genome discovered in an extreme environment suggests recombination between unrelated groups of RNA and DNA viruses</title>
        <description>Background:
Viruses are known to be the most abundant organisms on earth, yet little is known about their collective origin and evolutionary history. With exceptionally high rates of genetic mutation and mosaicism, it is not currently possible to resolve deep evolutionary histories of the known major virus groups. Metagenomics offers a potential means of establishing a more comprehensive view of viral evolution as vast amounts of new sequence data becomes available for comparative analysis.
Results:
Bioinformatic analysis of viral metagenomic sequences derived from a hot, acidic lake revealed a circular, putatively single-stranded DNA virus encoding a major capsid protein similar to those found only in single-stranded RNA viruses. The presence and circular configuration of the complete virus genome was confirmed by inverse PCR amplification from native DNA extracted from lake sediment. The virus genome appears to be the result of a RNA-DNA recombination event between two ostensibly unrelated virus groups. Environmental sequence databases were examined for homologous genes arranged in similar configurations and three similar putative virus genomes from marine environments were identified. This result indicates the existence of a widespread but previously undetected group of viruses.
Conclusions:
This unique viral genome carries implications for theories of virus emergence and evolution, as no mechanism for interviral RNA-DNA recombination has yet been identified, and only scant evidence exists that genetic exchange occurs between such distinct virus lineages.ReviewersThis article was reviewed by EK, MK (nominated by PF) and AM. For the full reviews, please go to the Reviewers&apos; comments section.</description>
        <link>http://www.biology-direct.com/content/7/1/13</link>
                <dc:creator>Geoffrey Diemer</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Kenneth Stedman</dc:creator>
                <dc:source>Biology Direct 2012, null:13</dc:source>
        <dc:date>2012-04-19T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
        <dc:identifier>doi:10.1186/1745-6150-7-13</dc:identifier>
                            <dc:title>Hybrid viral genome discovered in extreme environment</dc:title>
                            <dc:description>The discovery of a previously unknown viral genome, the apparent result of a recombination event between unrelated RNA and DNA viruses, has implications for theories of viral evolution.</dc:description>
                <prism:require>/content/figures/1745-6150-7-13-toc.gif</prism:require>
                <prism:publicationName>Biology Direct</prism:publicationName>
        <prism:issn>1745-6150</prism:issn>
        <prism:volume>${item.volume}</prism:volume>
        <prism:startingPage>13</prism:startingPage>
        <prism:publicationDate>2012-04-19T00:00:00Z</prism:publicationDate>
                <prism:versionidentifier>PDF</prism:versionidentifier>
                <cc:license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/" />
    </item>
        <item rdf:about="http://www.biology-direct.com/content/7/1/12">
        <title>Domain enhanced lookup time accelerated BLAST</title>
        <description>Background:
BLAST is a commonly-used software package for comparing a query sequence to a database of known sequences; in this study, we focus on protein sequences. Position-specific-iterated BLAST (PSI-BLAST) iteratively searches a protein sequence database, using the matches in round i to construct a position-specific score matrix (PSSM) for searching the database in round i + 1. Biegert and Soding developed Context-sensitive BLAST (CS-BLAST), which combines information from searching the sequence database with information derived from a library of short protein profiles to achieve better homology detection than PSI-BLAST, which builds its PSSMs from scratch.
Results:
We describe a new method, called domain enhanced lookup time accelerated BLAST (DELTA-BLAST), which searches a database of pre-constructed PSSMs before searching a protein-sequence database, to yield better homology detection. For its PSSMs, DELTA-BLAST employs a subset of NCBI&apos;s Conserved Domain Database (CDD). On a test set derived from ASTRAL, with one round of searching, DELTA-BLAST achieves a ROC_5000 of 0.270 vs. 0.116 for CS-BLAST. The performance advantage diminishes in iterated searches, but DELTA-BLAST continues to achieve better ROC scores than CS-BLAST.
Conclusions:
DELTA-BLAST is a useful program for the detection of remote protein homologs. It is available under the &quot;Protein BLAST&quot; link at http://blast.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov.Reviewers: This article was reviewed by Arcady Mushegian, Nick V. Grishin, and Frank Eisenhaber.</description>
        <link>http://www.biology-direct.com/content/7/1/12</link>
                <dc:creator>Grzegorz Boratyn</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Alejandro Schaffer</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Richa Agarwala</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Stephen Altschul</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>David Lipman</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Thomas Madden</dc:creator>
                <dc:source>Biology Direct 2012, null:12</dc:source>
        <dc:date>2012-04-17T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
        <dc:identifier>doi:10.1186/1745-6150-7-12</dc:identifier>
                            <dc:title>Domain enhanced lookup time accelerated BLAST</dc:title>
                            <dc:description>DELTA-BLAST is a new BLAST alignment tool for sensitive protein searches that uses conserved domain models to construct a position specific scoring matrix.</dc:description>
                <prism:require>/content/figures/1745-6150-7-12-toc.gif</prism:require>
                <prism:publicationName>Biology Direct</prism:publicationName>
        <prism:issn>1745-6150</prism:issn>
        <prism:volume>${item.volume}</prism:volume>
        <prism:startingPage>12</prism:startingPage>
        <prism:publicationDate>2012-04-17T00:00:00Z</prism:publicationDate>
                <prism:versionidentifier>PDF</prism:versionidentifier>
                <cc:license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/" />
    </item>
        <item rdf:about="http://www.biology-direct.com/content/7/1/11">
        <title>Origin and evolution of spliceosomal introns</title>
        <description>Evolution of exon-intron structure of eukaryotic genes has been a matter of long-standing, intensive debate. The introns-early concept, later rebranded &apos;introns first&apos; held that protein-coding genes were interrupted by numerous introns even at the earliest stages of life&apos;s evolution and that introns played a major role in the origin of proteins by facilitating recombination of sequences coding for small protein/peptide modules. The introns-late concept held that introns emerged only in eukaryotes and new introns have been accumulating continuously throughout eukaryotic evolution. Analysis of orthologous genes from completely sequenced eukaryotic genomes revealed numerous shared intron positions in orthologous genes from animals and plants and even between animals, plants and protists, suggesting that many ancestral introns have persisted since the last eukaryotic common ancestor (LECA). Reconstructions of intron gain and loss using the growing collection of genomes of diverse eukaryotes and increasingly advanced probabilistic models convincingly show that the LECA and the ancestors of each eukaryotic supergroup had intron-rich genes, with intron densities comparable to those in the most intron-rich modern genomes such as those of vertebrates. The subsequent evolution in most lineages of eukaryotes involved primarily loss of introns, with only a few episodes of substantial intron gain that might have accompanied major evolutionary innovations such as the origin of metazoa. The original invasion of self-splicing Group II introns, presumably originating from the mitochondrial endosymbiont, into the genome of the emerging eukaryote might have been a key factor of eukaryogenesis that in particular triggered the origin of endomembranes and the nucleus. Conversely, splicing errors gave rise to alternative splicing, a major contribution to the biological complexity of multicellular eukaryotes. There is no indication that any prokaryote has ever possessed a spliceosome or introns in protein-coding genes, other than relatively rare mobile self-splicing introns. Thus, the introns-first scenario is not supported by any evidence but exon-intron structure of protein-coding genes appears to have evolved concomitantly with the eukaryotic cell, and introns were a major factor of evolution throughout the history of eukaryotes. This article was reviewed by I. King Jordan, Manuel Irimia (nominated by Anthony Poole), Tobias Mourier (nominated by Anthony Poole), and Fyodor Kondrashov. For the complete reports, see the Reviewers&apos; Reports section.</description>
        <link>http://www.biology-direct.com/content/7/1/11</link>
                <dc:creator>Igor Rogozin</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Liran Carmel</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Miklos Csuros</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Eugene Koonin</dc:creator>
                <dc:source>Biology Direct 2012, null:11</dc:source>
        <dc:date>2012-04-16T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
        <dc:identifier>doi:10.1186/1745-6150-7-11</dc:identifier>
                                <prism:require>/content/figures/1745-6150-7-11-toc.gif</prism:require>
                <prism:publicationName>Biology Direct</prism:publicationName>
        <prism:issn>1745-6150</prism:issn>
        <prism:volume>${item.volume}</prism:volume>
        <prism:startingPage>11</prism:startingPage>
        <prism:publicationDate>2012-04-16T00:00:00Z</prism:publicationDate>
                <prism:versionidentifier>PDF</prism:versionidentifier>
                <cc:license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/" />
    </item>
        <item rdf:about="http://www.biology-direct.com/content/4/1/34">
        <title>Prokaryotic evolution and the tree of life are two different things</title>
        <description>Background:
The concept of a tree of life is prevalent in the evolutionary literature. It stems from attempting to obtain a grand unified natural system that reflects a recurrent process of species and lineage splittings for all forms of life. Traditionally, the discipline of systematics operates in a similar hierarchy of bifurcating (sometimes multifurcating) categories. The assumption of a universal tree of life hinges upon the process of evolution being tree-like throughout all forms of life and all of biological time. In multicellular eukaryotes, the molecular mechanisms and species-level population genetics of variation do indeed mainly cause a tree-like structure over time. In prokaryotes, they do not. Prokaryotic evolution and the tree of life are two different things, and we need to treat them as such, rather than extrapolating from macroscopic life to prokaryotes. In the following we will consider this circumstance from philosophical, scientific, and epistemological perspectives, surmising that phylogeny opted for a single model as a holdover from the Modern Synthesis of evolution.
Results:
It was far easier to envision and defend the concept of a universal tree of life before we had data from genomes. But the belief that prokaryotes are related by such a tree has now become stronger than the data to support it. The monistic concept of a single universal tree of life appears, in the face of genome data, increasingly obsolete. This traditional model to describe evolution is no longer the most scientifically productive position to hold, because of the plurality of evolutionary patterns and mechanisms involved. Forcing a single bifurcating scheme onto prokaryotic evolution disregards the non-tree-like nature of natural variation among prokaryotes and accounts for only a minority of observations from genomes.
Conclusion:
Prokaryotic evolution and the tree of life are two different things. Hence we will briefly set out alternative models to the tree of life to study their evolution. Ultimately, the plurality of evolutionary patterns and mechanisms involved, such as the discontinuity of the process of evolution across the prokaryote-eukaryote divide, summons forth a pluralistic approach to studying evolution.ReviewersThis article was reviewed by Ford Doolittle, John Logsdon and Nicolas Galtier.</description>
        <link>http://www.biology-direct.com/content/4/1/34</link>
                <dc:creator>Eric Bapteste</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Maureen O'Malley</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Robert Beiko</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Marc Ereshefsky</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>J. Peter Gogarten</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Laura Franklin-Hall</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Francois-Joseph Lapointe</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>John Dupre</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Tal Dagan</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Yan Boucher</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>William Martin</dc:creator>
                <dc:source>Biology Direct 2009, null:34</dc:source>
        <dc:date>2009-09-29T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
        <dc:identifier>doi:10.1186/1745-6150-4-34</dc:identifier>
                                    <dc:description>From philosophical, scientific and epistemological perspectives, we argue that the tree of life can not successfully account for prokaryotic evolution, and we briefly set out alternative models to study their evolution.</dc:description>
                <prism:require>/content/figures/1745-6150-4-34-toc.gif</prism:require>
                <prism:publicationName>Biology Direct</prism:publicationName>
        <prism:issn>1745-6150</prism:issn>
        <prism:volume>${item.volume}</prism:volume>
        <prism:startingPage>34</prism:startingPage>
        <prism:publicationDate>2009-09-29T00:00:00Z</prism:publicationDate>
                <prism:versionidentifier>XML</prism:versionidentifier>
                <cc:license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/" />
    </item>
        <item rdf:about="http://www.biology-direct.com/content/1/1/29">
        <title>The ancient Virus World and evolution of cells</title>
        <description>Background:
Recent advances in genomics of viruses and cellular life forms have greatly stimulated interest in the origins and evolution of viruses and, for the first time, offer an opportunity for a data-driven exploration of the deepest roots of viruses. Here we briefly review the current views of virus evolution and propose a new, coherent scenario that appears to be best compatible with comparative-genomic data and is naturally linked to models of cellular evolution that, from independent considerations, seem to be the most parsimonious among the existing ones.
Results:
Several genes coding for key proteins involved in viral replication and morphogenesis as well as the major capsid protein of icosahedral virions are shared by many groups of RNA and DNA viruses but are missing in cellular life forms. On the basis of this key observation and the data on extensive genetic exchange between diverse viruses, we propose the concept of the ancient virus world. The virus world is construed as a distinct contingent of viral genes that continuously retained its identity throughout the entire history of life. Under this concept, the principal lineages of viruses and related selfish agents emerged from the primordial pool of primitive genetic elements, the ancestors of both cellular and viral genes. Thus, notwithstanding the numerous gene exchanges and acquisitions attributed to later stages of evolution, most, if not all, modern viruses and other selfish agents are inferred to descend from elements that belonged to the primordial genetic pool. In this pool, RNA viruses would evolve first, followed by retroid elements, and DNA viruses. The Virus World concept is predicated on a model of early evolution whereby emergence of substantial genetic diversity antedates the advent of full-fledged cells, allowing for extensive gene mixing at this early stage of evolution. We outline a scenario of the origin of the main classes of viruses in conjunction with a specific model of precellular evolution under which the primordial gene pool dwelled in a network of inorganic compartments. Somewhat paradoxically, under this scenario, we surmise that selfish genetic elements ancestral to viruses evolved prior to typical cells, to become intracellular parasites once bacteria and archaea arrived at the scene. Selection against excessively aggressive parasites that would kill off the host ensembles of genetic elements would lead to early evolution of temperate virus-like agents and primitive defense mechanisms, possibly, based on the RNA interference principle. The emergence of the eukaryotic cell is construed as the second melting pot of virus evolution from which the major groups of eukaryotic viruses originated as a result of extensive recombination of genes from various bacteriophages, archaeal viruses, plasmids, and the evolving eukaryotic genomes. Again, this vision is predicated on a specific model of the emergence of eukaryotic cell under which archaeo-bacterial symbiosis was the starting point of eukaryogenesis, a scenario that appears to be best compatible with the data.
Conclusion:
The existence of several genes that are central to virus replication and structure, are shared by a broad variety of viruses but are missing from cellular genomes (virus hallmark genes) suggests the model of an ancient virus world, a flow of virus-specific genes that went uninterrupted from the precellular stage of life&apos;s evolution to this day. This concept is tightly linked to two key conjectures on evolution of cells: existence of a complex, precellular, compartmentalized but extensively mixing and recombining pool of genes, and origin of the eukaryotic cell by archaeo-bacterial fusion. The virus world concept and these models of major transitions in the evolution of cells provide complementary pieces of an emerging coherent picture of life&apos;s history.ReviewersW. Ford Doolittle, J. Peter Gogarten, and Arcady Mushegian.</description>
        <link>http://www.biology-direct.com/content/1/1/29</link>
                <dc:creator>Eugene Koonin</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Tatiana Senkevich</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Valerian Dolja</dc:creator>
                <dc:source>Biology Direct 2006, null:29</dc:source>
        <dc:date>2006-09-19T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
        <dc:identifier>doi:10.1186/1745-6150-1-29</dc:identifier>
                                <prism:require>/content/figures/1745-6150-1-29-toc.gif</prism:require>
                <prism:publicationName>Biology Direct</prism:publicationName>
        <prism:issn>1745-6150</prism:issn>
        <prism:volume>${item.volume}</prism:volume>
        <prism:startingPage>29</prism:startingPage>
        <prism:publicationDate>2006-09-19T00:00:00Z</prism:publicationDate>
                <prism:versionidentifier>XML</prism:versionidentifier>
                <cc:license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/" />
    </item>
        <item rdf:about="http://www.biology-direct.com/content/5/1/7">
        <title>Origin of the cell nucleus, mitosis and sex: roles of intracellular coevolution </title>
        <description>Background:
The transition from prokaryotes to eukaryotes was the most radical change in cell organisation since life began, with the largest ever burst of gene duplication and novelty. According to the coevolutionary theory of eukaryote origins, the fundamental innovations were the concerted origins of the endomembrane system and cytoskeleton, subsequently recruited to form the cell nucleus and coevolving mitotic apparatus, with numerous genetic eukaryotic novelties inevitable consequences of this compartmentation and novel DNA segregation mechanism. Physical and mutational mechanisms of origin of the nucleus are seldom considered beyond the long-standing assumption that it involved wrapping pre-existing endomembranes around chromatin. Discussions on the origin of sex typically overlook its association with protozoan entry into dormant walled cysts and the likely simultaneous coevolutionary, not sequential, origin of mitosis and meiosis.
Results:
I elucidate nuclear and mitotic coevolution, explaining the origins of dicer and small centromeric RNAs for positionally controlling centromeric heterochromatin, and how 27 major features of the cell nucleus evolved in four logical stages, making both mechanisms and selective advantages explicit: two initial stages (origin of 30 nm chromatin fibres, enabling DNA compaction; and firmer attachment of endomembranes to heterochromatin) protected DNA and nascent RNA from shearing by novel molecular motors mediating vesicle transport, division, and cytoplasmic motility. Then octagonal nuclear pore complexes (NPCs) arguably evolved from COPII coated vesicle proteins trapped in clumps by Ran GTPase-mediated cisternal fusion that generated the fenestrated nuclear envelope, preventing lethal complete cisternal fusion, and allowing passive protein and RNA exchange. Finally, plugging NPC lumens by an FG-nucleoporin meshwork and adopting karyopherins for nucleocytoplasmic exchange conferred compartmentation advantages. These successive changes took place in naked growing cells, probably as indirect consequences of the origin of phagotrophy. The first eukaryote had 1-2 cilia and also walled resting cysts; I outline how encystation may have promoted the origin of meiotic sex. I also explain why many alternative ideas are inadequate.
Conclusion:
Nuclear pore complexes are evolutionary chimaeras of endomembrane- and mitosis-related chromatin-associated proteins. The keys to understanding eukaryogenesis are a proper phylogenetic context and understanding organelle coevolution: how innovations in one cell component caused repercussions on others.ReviewersThis article was reviewed by Anthony Poole, G&#225;sp&#225;r J&#233;kely and Eugene Koonin.</description>
        <link>http://www.biology-direct.com/content/5/1/7</link>
                <dc:creator>Thomas Cavalier-Smith</dc:creator>
                <dc:source>Biology Direct 2010, null:7</dc:source>
        <dc:date>2010-02-04T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
        <dc:identifier>doi:10.1186/1745-6150-5-7</dc:identifier>
                                <prism:require>/content/figures/1745-6150-5-7-toc.gif</prism:require>
                <prism:publicationName>Biology Direct</prism:publicationName>
        <prism:issn>1745-6150</prism:issn>
        <prism:volume>${item.volume}</prism:volume>
        <prism:startingPage>7</prism:startingPage>
        <prism:publicationDate>2010-02-04T00:00:00Z</prism:publicationDate>
                <prism:versionidentifier>XML</prism:versionidentifier>
                <cc:license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/" />
    </item>
        <item rdf:about="http://www.biology-direct.com/content/6/1/35">
        <title>Energetics and genetics across the prokaryote-eukaryote divide</title>
        <description>Background:
All complex life on Earth is eukaryotic. All eukaryotic cells share a common ancestor that arose just once in four billion years of evolution. Prokaryotes show no tendency to evolve greater morphological complexity, despite their metabolic virtuosity. Here I argue that the eukaryotic cell originated in a unique prokaryotic endosymbiosis, a singular event that transformed the selection pressures acting on both host and endosymbiont.
Results:
The reductive evolution and specialisation of endosymbionts to mitochondria resulted in an extreme genomic asymmetry, in which the residual mitochondrial genomes enabled the expansion of bioenergetic membranes over several orders of magnitude, overcoming the energetic constraints on prokaryotic genome size, and permitting the host cell genome to expand (in principle) over 200,000-fold. This energetic transformation was permissive, not prescriptive; I suggest that the actual increase in early eukaryotic genome size was driven by a heavy early bombardment of genes and introns from the endosymbiont to the host cell, producing a high mutation rate. Unlike prokaryotes, with lower mutation rates and heavy selection pressure to lose genes, early eukaryotes without genome-size limitations could mask mutations by cell fusion and genome duplication, as in allopolyploidy, giving rise to a proto-sexual cell cycle. The side effect was that a large number of shared eukaryotic basal traits accumulated in the same population, a sexual eukaryotic common ancestor, radically different to any known prokaryote.
Conclusions:
The combination of massive bioenergetic expansion, release from genome-size constraints, and high mutation rate favoured a protosexual cell cycle and the accumulation of eukaryotic traits. These factors explain the unique origin of eukaryotes, the absence of true evolutionary intermediates, and the evolution of sex in eukaryotes but not prokaryotes.ReviewersThis article was reviewed by: Eugene Koonin, William Martin, Ford Doolittle and Mark van der Giezen. For complete reports see the Reviewers&apos; Comments section.</description>
        <link>http://www.biology-direct.com/content/6/1/35</link>
                <dc:creator>Nick Lane</dc:creator>
                <dc:source>Biology Direct 2011, null:35</dc:source>
        <dc:date>2011-06-30T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
        <dc:identifier>doi:10.1186/1745-6150-6-35</dc:identifier>
                                <prism:require>/content/figures/1745-6150-6-35-toc.gif</prism:require>
                <prism:publicationName>Biology Direct</prism:publicationName>
        <prism:issn>1745-6150</prism:issn>
        <prism:volume>${item.volume}</prism:volume>
        <prism:startingPage>35</prism:startingPage>
        <prism:publicationDate>2011-06-30T00:00:00Z</prism:publicationDate>
                <prism:versionidentifier>XML</prism:versionidentifier>
                <cc:license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/" />
    </item>
        <item rdf:about="http://www.biology-direct.com/content/6/1/64">
        <title>Accurate State Estimation from Uncertain Data and Models: An Application of Data Assimilation to Mathematical Models of Human Brain Tumors</title>
        <description>Background:
Data assimilation refers to methods for updating the state vector (initial condition) of a complex spatiotemporal model (such as a numerical weather model) by combining new observations with one or more prior forecasts. We consider the potential feasibility of this approach for making short-term (60-day) forecasts of the growth and spread of a malignant brain cancer (glioblastoma multiforme) in individual patient cases, where the observations are synthetic magnetic resonance images of a hypothetical tumor.
Results:
We apply a modern state estimation algorithm (the Local Ensemble Transform Kalman Filter), previously developed for numerical weather prediction, to two different mathematical models of glioblastoma, taking into account likely errors in model parameters and measurement uncertainties in magnetic resonance imaging. The filter can accurately shadow the growth of a representative synthetic tumor for 360 days (six 60-day forecast/update cycles) in the presence of a moderate degree of systematic model error and measurement noise.
Conclusions:
The mathematical methodology described here may prove useful for other modeling efforts in biology and oncology. An accurate forecast system for glioblastoma may prove useful in clinical settings for treatment planning and patient counseling.ReviewersThis article was reviewed by Anthony Almudevar, Tomas Radivoyevitch, and Kristin Swanson (nominated by Georg Luebeck).</description>
        <link>http://www.biology-direct.com/content/6/1/64</link>
                <dc:creator>Eric Kostelich</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Yang Kuang</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Joshua McDaniel</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Nina Moore</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Nikolay Martirosyan</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Mark Preul</dc:creator>
                <dc:source>Biology Direct 2011, null:64</dc:source>
        <dc:date>2011-12-21T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
        <dc:identifier>doi:10.1186/1745-6150-6-64</dc:identifier>
                            <dc:title>Predicting human brain tumors</dc:title>
                            <dc:description>State estimation schemes, employed operationally for weather forecasting, can be applied in principle to make useful short-term predictions of the growth and spread of malignant tumors in individual patient cases.</dc:description>
                <prism:require>/content/figures/1745-6150-6-64-toc.gif</prism:require>
                <prism:publicationName>Biology Direct</prism:publicationName>
        <prism:issn>1745-6150</prism:issn>
        <prism:volume>${item.volume}</prism:volume>
        <prism:startingPage>64</prism:startingPage>
        <prism:publicationDate>2011-12-21T00:00:00Z</prism:publicationDate>
                <prism:versionidentifier>XML</prism:versionidentifier>
                <cc:license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/" />
    </item>
        <item rdf:about="http://www.biology-direct.com/content/7/1/1">
        <title>Evolution before genes</title>
        <description>Background:
Our current understanding of evolution is so tightly linked to template-dependent replication of DNA and RNA molecules that the old idea from Oparin of a self-reproducing &apos;garbage bag&apos; (&apos;coacervate&apos;) of chemicals that predated fully-fledged cell-like entities seems to be farfetched to most scientists today. However, this is exactly the kind of scheme we propose for how Darwinian evolution could have occurred prior to template replication.
Results:
We cannot confirm previous claims that autocatalytic sets of organic polymer molecules could undergo evolution in any interesting sense by themselves. While we and others have previously imagined inhibition would result in selectability, we found that it produced multiple attractors in an autocatalytic set that cannot be selected for. Instead, we discovered that if general conditions are satisfied, the accumulation of adaptations in chemical reaction networks can occur. These conditions are the existence of rare reactions producing viable cores (analogous to a genotype), that sustains a molecular periphery (analogous to a phenotype).
Conclusions:
We conclude that only when a chemical reaction network consists of many such viable cores, can it be evolvable. When many cores are enclosed in a compartment there is competition between cores within the same compartment, and when there are many compartments, there is between-compartment competition due to the phenotypic effects of cores and their periphery at the compartment level. Acquisition of cores by rare chemical events, and loss of cores at division, allows macromutation, limited heredity and selectability, thus explaining how a poor man&apos;s natural selection could have operated prior to genetic templates. This is the only demonstration to date of a mechanism by which pre-template accumulation of adaptation could occur.ReviewersThis article was reviewed by William Martin and Eugene Koonin.</description>
        <link>http://www.biology-direct.com/content/7/1/1</link>
                <dc:creator>Vera Vasas</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Chrisantha Fernando</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Mauro Santos</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Stuart Kauffman</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Eors Szathmary</dc:creator>
                <dc:source>Biology Direct 2012, null:1</dc:source>
        <dc:date>2012-01-05T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
        <dc:identifier>doi:10.1186/1745-6150-7-1</dc:identifier>
                                <prism:require>/content/figures/1745-6150-7-1-toc.gif</prism:require>
                <prism:publicationName>Biology Direct</prism:publicationName>
        <prism:issn>1745-6150</prism:issn>
        <prism:volume>${item.volume}</prism:volume>
        <prism:startingPage>1</prism:startingPage>
        <prism:publicationDate>2012-01-05T00:00:00Z</prism:publicationDate>
                <prism:versionidentifier>XML</prism:versionidentifier>
                <cc:license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/" />
    </item>
        <item rdf:about="http://www.biology-direct.com/content/7/1/10">
        <title>Archaeal origin of tubulin</title>
        <description>Tubulins are a family of GTPases that are key components of the cytoskeleton in all eukaryotes and are distantly related to the FtsZ GTPase that is involved in cell division in most bacteria and many archaea. Among prokaryotes, bona fide tubulins have been identified only in bacteria of the genus Prosthecobacter. These bacterial tubulin genes appear to have been horizontally transferred from eukaryotes. Here we describe tubulins encoded in the genomes of thaumarchaeota of the genus Nitrosoarchaeum that we denote artubulins Phylogenetic analysis results are compatible with the origin of eukaryotic tubulins from artubulins. These findings expand the emerging picture of the origin of key components of eukaryotic functional systems from ancestral forms that are scattered among the extant archaea.ReviewersThis article was reviewed by G&#225;sp&#225;r J&#233;kely and J. Peter Gogarten.</description>
        <link>http://www.biology-direct.com/content/7/1/10</link>
                <dc:creator>Natalya Yutin</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Eugene Koonin</dc:creator>
                <dc:source>Biology Direct 2012, null:10</dc:source>
        <dc:date>2012-03-29T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
        <dc:identifier>doi:10.1186/1745-6150-7-10</dc:identifier>
                                    <dc:description>Probable ancestors of eukaryotic tubulins, denoted artubulins, were discovered in two genomes of thaumarchaeota of the genus Nitrosoarchaeum.</dc:description>
                <prism:require>/content/figures/1745-6150-7-10-toc.gif</prism:require>
                <prism:publicationName>Biology Direct</prism:publicationName>
        <prism:issn>1745-6150</prism:issn>
        <prism:volume>${item.volume}</prism:volume>
        <prism:startingPage>10</prism:startingPage>
        <prism:publicationDate>2012-03-29T00:00:00Z</prism:publicationDate>
                <prism:versionidentifier>XML</prism:versionidentifier>
                <cc:license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/" />
    </item>
        <cc:License rdf:about="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/">
        <cc:permits rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/ns#Reproduction" />
        <cc:permits rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/ns#Distribution" />
        <cc:permits rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/ns#DerivativeWorks" />
    </cc:License>
</rdf:RDF>

