The oxidative demethylase ALKBH3 marks hyperactive gene promoters in human cancer cells

BACKGROUND: The oxidative DNA demethylase ALKBH3 targets single-stranded DNA (ssDNA) in order to perform DNA alkylation damage repair. ALKBH3 becomes upregulated during tumorigenesis and is necessary for proliferation. However, the underlying molecular mechanism remains to be understood. METHODS: To further elucidate the function of ALKBH3 in cancer, we performed ChIP-seq to investigate the genomic binding pattern of endogenous ALKBH3 in PC3 prostate cancer cells coupled with microarray experiments to examine the expression effects of ALKBH3 depletion. RESULTS: We demonstrate that ALKBH3 binds to transcription associated locations, such as places of promoter-proximal paused RNA polymerase II and enhancers. Strikingly, ALKBH3 strongly binds to the transcription initiation sites of a small number of highly active gene promoters. These promoters are characterized by high levels of transcriptional regulators, including transcription factors, the Mediator complex, cohesin, histone modifiers, and active histone marks. Gene expression analysis showed that ALKBH3 does not directly influence the transcription of its target genes, but its depletion induces an upregulation of ALKBH3 non-bound inflammatory genes. CONCLUSIONS: The genomic binding pattern of ALKBH3 revealed a putative novel hyperactive promoter type. Further, we propose that ALKBH3 is an intrinsic DNA repair protein that suppresses transcription associated DNA damage at highly expressed genes and thereby plays a role to maintain genomic integrity in ALKBH3-overexpressing cancer cells. These results raise the possibility that ALKBH3 may be a potential target for inhibiting cancer progression. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13073-015-0180-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users

Training future generations to deliver evidence-based conservation and ecosystem management

Data availability statement: No data was used in this study.Peer review: The peer review history for this article is available at: https://publons.com/publon/10.1002/2688-8319.12032.Supporting Information: eso312032-sup-0001-SuppMat.docx (21.1 KB) available at: https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/action/downloadSupplement?doi=10.1002%2F2688-8319.12032&file=eso312032-sup-0001-SuppMat.docx. Please note: The publisher is not responsible for the content or functionality of any supporting information supplied by the authors. Any queries (other than missing content) should be directed to the corresponding author for the article.Copyright © 2021 The Authors. 1. To be effective, the next generation of conservation practitioners and managers need to be critical thinkers with a deep understanding of how to make evidence-based decisions and of the value of evidence synthesis. 2. If, as educators, we do not make these priorities a core part of what we teach, we are failing to prepare our students to make an effective contribution to conservation practice. 3. To help overcome this problem we have created open access online teaching materials in multiple languages that are stored in Applied Ecology Resources. So far, 117 educators from 23 countries have acknowledged the importance of this and are already teaching or about to teach skills in appraising or using evidence in conservation decision-making. This includes 145 undergraduate, postgraduate or professional development courses. 4. We call for wider teaching of the tools and skills that facilitate evidence-based conservation and also suggest that providing online teaching materials in multiple languages could be beneficial for improving global understanding of other subject areas. Making informed conservation and ecosystem management choices is based upon a sound understanding of the relevant evidence. There is an increasing wealth of conservation science available, and access to this is becoming easier. But, are conservation practitioners being trained to utilize this information? In conservation, decision-making is often based upon past experience or expert knowledge, as opposed to the full body of scientific literature (e.g., Pullin, Knight, Stone, & Charman, 2004; Rafidimanantsoa, Poudyal, Ramamonjisoa, & Jones, 2018). The failure to include scientific evidence in decision-making has the potential to reduce the effectiveness of management, or even lead to detrimental actions being undertaken (Walsh, Dicks, & Sutherland, 2015). Evidence-based conservation (EBC) seeks to avoid this by providing tools to facilitate and inform decision-making. To do this, scientific evidence is collated and critically appraised for its quality and relevance, and integrated with other knowledge, experience, values and costs (Sutherland, Pullin, Dolman, & Knight, 2004). Wider adoption of EBC requires conservation professionals to be trained in its principles and taught how to use it to inform conservation decision-making.MAVA Foundation; Arcadia Fund

How does cognition evolve? Phylogenetic comparative psychology

Now more than ever animal studies have the potential to test hypotheses regarding how cognition evolves. Comparative psychologists have developed new techniques to probe the cognitive mechanisms underlying animal behavior, and they have become increasingly skillful at adapting methodologies to test multiple species. Meanwhile, evolutionary biologists have generated quantitative approaches to investigate the phylogenetic distribution and function of phenotypic traits, including cognition. In particular, phylogenetic methods can quantitatively (1) test whether specific cognitive abilities are correlated with life history (e.g., lifespan), morphology (e.g., brain size), or socio-ecological variables (e.g., social system), (2) measure how strongly phylogenetic relatedness predicts the distribution of cognitive skills across species, and (3) estimate the ancestral state of a given cognitive trait using measures of cognitive performance from extant species. Phylogenetic methods can also be used to guide the selection of species comparisons that offer the strongest tests of a priori predictions of cognitive evolutionary hypotheses (i.e., phylogenetic targeting). Here, we explain how an integration of comparative psychology and evolutionary biology will answer a host of questions regarding the phylogenetic distribution and history of cognitive traits, as well as the evolutionary processes that drove their evolution