Using the institutional grammar tool to understand regulatory compliance: The case of Colorado aquaculture

What is the relationship between the design of regulations and levels of individual compliance? To answer this question, Crawford and Ostrom's institutional grammar tool is used to deconstruct regulations governing the aquaculture industry in Colorado, USA. Compliance with the deconstructed regulatory components is then assessed based on the perceptions of the appropriateness of the regulations, involvement in designing the regulations, and intrinsic and extrinsic motivations. The findings suggest that levels of compliance with regulations vary across and within individuals regarding various aspects of the regulatory components. As expected, the level of compliance is affected by the perceived appropriateness of regulations, participation in designing the regulations, and feelings of guilt and fear of social disapproval. Furthermore, there is a strong degree of interdependence among the written components, as identified by the institutional grammar tool, in affecting compliance levels. The paper contributes to the regulation and compliance literature by illustrating the utility of the institutional grammar tool in understanding regulatory content, applying a new Q-Sort technique for measuring individual levels of compliance, and providing a rare exploration into feelings of guilt and fear outside of the laboratory setting. © 2012 Blackwell Publishing Asia Pty Ltd.

Control of the orientational order and nonlinear optical response of the "push-pull" chromophore RuPZn via specific incorporation into densely packed monolayer ensembles of an amphiphilic four-helix bundle peptide: characterization of the peptide-chromophore complexes.

"Push-pull" chromophores based on extended pi-electron systems have been designed to exhibit exceptionally large molecular hyperpolarizabilities. We have engineered an amphiphilic four-helix bundle peptide to vectorially incorporate such hyperpolarizable chromophores having a metalloporphyrin moiety, with high specificity into the interior core of the bundle. The amphiphilic exterior of the bundle facilitates the formation of densely packed monolayer ensembles of the vectorially oriented peptide-chromophore complexes at the liquid-gas interface. Chemical specificity designed into the ends of the bundle facilitates the subsequent covalent attachment of these monolayer ensembles onto the surface of an inorganic substrate. In this article, we describe the structural characterization of these monolayer ensembles at each stage of their fabrication for one such peptide-chromophore complex designated as AP0-RuPZn. In the accompanying article, we describe the characterization of their macroscopic nonlinear optical properties.

HDAC6 and Ubp-M BUZ domains recognize specific C-terminal sequences of proteins.

The BUZ/Znf-UBP domain is a protein module found in the cytoplasmic deacetylase HDAC6, E3 ubiquitin ligase BRAP2/IMP, and a subfamily of ubiquitin-specific proteases. Although several BUZ domains have been shown to bind ubiquitin with high affinity by recognizing its C-terminal sequence (RLRGG-COOH), it is currently unknown whether the interaction is sequence-specific or whether the BUZ domains are capable of binding to proteins other than ubiquitin. In this work, the BUZ domains of HDAC6 and Ubp-M were subjected to screening against a one-bead-one-compound (OBOC) peptide library that exhibited random peptide sequences with free C-termini. Sequence analysis of the selected binding peptides as well as alanine scanning studies revealed that the BUZ domains require a C-terminal Gly-Gly motif for binding. At the more N-terminal positions, the two BUZ domains have distinct sequence specificities, allowing them to bind to different peptides and/or proteins. A database search of the human proteome on the basis of the BUZ domain specificities identified 11 and 24 potential partner proteins for Ubp-M and HDAC6 BUZ domains, respectively. Peptides corresponding to the C-terminal sequences of four of the predicted binding partners (FBXO11, histone H4, PTOV1, and FAT10) were synthesized and tested for binding to the BUZ domains by fluorescence polarization. All four peptides bound to the HDAC6 BUZ domain with low micromolar K(D) values and less tightly to the Ubp-M BUZ domain. Finally, in vitro pull-down assays showed that the Ubp-M BUZ domain was capable of binding to the histone H3-histone H4 tetramer protein complex. Our results suggest that BUZ domains are sequence-specific protein-binding modules, with each BUZ domain potentially binding to a different subset of proteins.

Mergers, Acquisitions, and Alliances

© 2012 by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved.This article considers the determinants and effects of M&As in the pharmaceutical industry, with a particular focus on innovation and R&D productivity. As is the case in other industries, mergers in the pharmaceutical field are driven by a variety of company motives and conditions. These include defensive responses to industry shocks as well as more proactive rationales, such as economies of scale and scope, access to new technologies, and expansion to new markets. It is important to take account of firms' characteristics and motivations in evaluating merger performance, rather than using a broad aggregate brushstroke. Research to date on pharmaceuticals suggests considerable variation in both motivation and outcomes. From an antitrust policy standpoint, the larger horizontal mergers in pharmaceuticals have run into few challenges from regulatory authorities in the United States and the European Union, given the option to spin off competing therapeutic products to other drug firms.

New business models for antibiotic innovation.

The increase in antibiotic resistance and the dearth of novel antibiotics have become a growing concern among policy-makers. A combination of financial, scientific, and regulatory challenges poses barriers to antibiotic innovation. However, each of these three challenges provides an opportunity to develop pathways for new business models to bring novel antibiotics to market. Pull-incentives that pay for the outputs of research and development (R&D) and push-incentives that pay for the inputs of R&D can be used to increase innovation for antibiotics. Financial incentives might be structured to promote delinkage of a company's return on investment from revenues of antibiotics. This delinkage strategy might not only increase innovation, but also reinforce rational use of antibiotics. Regulatory approval, however, should not and need not compromise safety and efficacy standards to bring antibiotics with novel mechanisms of action to market. Instead regulatory agencies could encourage development of companion diagnostics, test antibiotic combinations in parallel, and pool and make transparent clinical trial data to lower R&D costs. A tax on non-human use of antibiotics might also create a disincentive for non-therapeutic use of these drugs. Finally, the new business model for antibiotic innovation should apply the 3Rs strategy for encouraging collaborative approaches to R&D in innovating novel antibiotics: sharing resources, risks, and rewards.