Mechanisms of substrate selection by the signal recognition particle

The signal recognition particle (SRP) targets membrane and secretory proteins to their correct cellular destination with remarkably high fidelity. Previous studies have shown that multiple checkpoints exist within this targeting pathway that allows ‘correct cargo’ to be quickly and efficiently targeted and for ‘incorrect cargo’ to be promptly rejected. In this work, we delved further into understanding the mechanisms of how substrates are selected or discarded by the SRP. First, we discovered the role of the SRP fingerloop and how it activates the SRP and SRP receptor (SR) GTPases to target and unload cargo in response to signal sequence binding. Second, we learned how an ‘avoidance signal’ found in the bacterial autotransporter, EspP, allows this protein to escape the SRP pathway by causing the SRP and SR to form a ‘distorted’ complex that is inefficient in delivering the cargo to the membrane. Lastly, we determined how Trigger Factor, a co-translational chaperone, helps SRP discriminate against ‘incorrect cargo’ at three distinct stages: SRP binding to RNC; targeting of RNC to the membrane via SRP-FtsY assembly; and stronger antagonism of SRP targeting of ribosomes bearing nascent polypeptides that exceed a critical length. Overall, results delineate the rich underlying mechanisms by which SRP recognizes its substrates, which in turn activates the targeting pathway and provides a conceptual foundation to understand how timely and accurate selection of substrates is achieved by this protein targeting machinery.

Information processing and higher psychological functions in the disconnected hemispheres of human commissurotomy patients

Several patients of P. J. Vogel who had undergone cerebral commissurotomy for the control of intractable epilepsy were tested on a variety of tasks to measure aspects of cerebral organization concerned with lateralization in hemispheric function. From tests involving identification of shapes it was inferred that in the absence of the neocortical commissures, the left hemisphere still has access to certain types of information from the ipsilateral field. The major hemisphere can still make crude differentiations between various left-field stimuli, but is unable to specify exact stimulus properties. Most of the time the major hemisphere, having access to some ipsilateral stimuli, dominated the minor hemisphere in control of the body.

Competition for control of the body between the hemispheres is seen most clearly in tests of minor hemisphere language competency, in which it was determined that though the minor hemisphere does possess some minimal ability to express language, the major hemisphere prevented its expression much of the time. The right hemisphere was superior to the left in tests of perceptual visualization, and the two hemispheres appeared to use different strategies in attempting to solve the problems, namely, analysis for the left hemisphere and synthesis for the right hemisphere.

Analysis of the patients' verbal and performance I.Q.'s, as well as observations made throughout testing, suggest that the corpus callosum plays a critical role in activities that involve functions in which the minor hemisphere normally excels, that the motor expression of these functions may normally come through the major hemisphere by way of the corpus callosum.

Lateral specialization is thought to be an evolutionary adaptation which overcame problems of a functional antagonism between the abilities normally associated with the two hemispheres. The tests of perception suggested that this function lateralized into the mute hemisphere because of an active counteraction by language. This latter idea was confirmed by the finding that left-handers, in whom there is likely to be bilateral language centers, are greatly deficient on tests of perception.