Solution structure of amyloid beta-peptide(1-40) in a water-micelle environment. Is the membrane-spanning domain where we think it is?

The three-dimensional solution structure of the 40 residue amyloid beta-peptide, A beta(1-40), has been determined using NMR spectroscopy at pH 5.1, in aqueous sodium dodecyl sulfate (SDS) micelles, In this environment, which simulates to some extent a water-membrane medium, the peptide is unstructured between residues 1 and 14 which are mainly polar and likely solvated by water. However, the rest of the protein adopts an alpha-helical conformation between residues 15 and 36 with a kink or hinge at 25-27. This largely hydrophobic region is likely solvated by SDS. Based on the derived structures, evidence is provided in support of a possible new location for the transmembrane domain of A beta within the amyloid precursor protein (APP). Studies between pH 4.2 and 7.9 reveal a pH-dependent helix-coil conformational switch. At the lower pH values, where the carboxylate residues are protonated, the helix is uncharged, intact, and lipid-soluble. As the pH increases above 6.0, part of the helical region (15-24) becomes less structured, particularly near residues E22 and D23 where deprotonation appears to facilitate unwinding of the helix. This pH-dependent unfolding to a random coil conformation precedes any tendency of this peptide to aggregate to a beta-sheet as the pH increases. The structural biology described herein for A beta(1-40) suggests that (i) the C-terminal two-thirds of the peptide is an alpha-helix in membrane-like environments, (ii) deprotonation of two acidic amino acids in the helix promotes a helix-coil conformational transition that precedes aggregation, (iii) a mobile hinge exists in the helical region of A beta(1-40) and this may be relevant to its membrane-inserting properties and conformational rearrangements, and (iv) the location of the transmembrane domain of amyloid precursor proteins may be different from that accepted in the Literature. These results may provide new insight to the structural properties of amyloid beta-peptides of relevance to Alzheimer's disease.

DNA binding-independent transcriptional activation of the vascular endothelial growth factor gene (VEGF) by the Myb oncoprotein

Myb is a key transcription factor that can regulate proliferation, differentiation, and apoptosis, predominantly in the haemopoietic system. Abnormal expression of Myb is associated with a number of cancers, both haemopoietic and non-haemopoietic. In order to better understand the role of Myb in normal and tumorigenic processes, we undertook a cDNA array screen to identify genes that are regulated by this factor. In this way, we identified the gene encoding vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) as being potentially regulated by the Myb oncoprotein in myeloid cells. To determine whether this was a direct effect on VEGF gene transcription, we examined the activity of the murine VEGF promoter in the presence of either wild-type (WT) or mutant forms of Myb. It was found that WT Myb was able to activate the VEGF promoter and that a minimal promoter region of 120 bp was sufficient to confer Myb responsiveness. Surprisingly, activation of the VEGF promoter was independent of DNA binding by Myb. This was shown by the use of DNA binding-defective Myb mutants and by mutagenesis of a potential Myb-binding site in the minimal promoter. Mutation of Sp1 sites within this region abolished Myb-mediated regulation of a reporter construct, suggesting that Myb DNA binding-independent activation of VEGF expression occurs via these Sp1 binding elements. Regulation of VEGF production by Myb has implications for the potential role of Myb in myeloid leukaemias and in solid tumours where VEGF may be functioning as an autocrine growth factor. (c) 2006 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Evaluation of short dietary questions from the 1995 National Nutrition Survey

Six of the short dietary questions used in the 1995 National Nutrition Survey (see box below) were evaluated for relative validity both directly and indirectly and for consistency, by documenting the differences in mean intakes of foods and nutrients as measured on the 24-hour recall, between groups with different responses to the short questions. 1. Including snacks, how many times do you usually have something to eat in a day including evenings? 2. How many days per week do you usually have something to eat for breakfast? 3. In the last 12 months, were there any times that you ran out of food and couldn’t afford to buy more? 4. What type of milk do you usually consume? 5. How many serves of vegetables do you usually eat each day? (a serve = 1/2 cup cooked vegetables or 1 cup of salad vegetables) 6. How many serves of fruit do you usually eat each day? (a serve = 1 medium piece or 2 small pieces of fruit or 1 cup of diced pieces) These comparisons were made for males and females overall and for population sub-groups of interest including: age, socio-economic disadvantage, region of residence, country of birth, and BMI category. Several limitations to this evaluation of the short questions, as discussed in the report, need to be kept in mind including: · The method for comparison available (24-hour recall) was not ideal (gold standard); as it measures yesterday’s intake. This limitation was overcome by examining only mean differences between groups of respondents, since mean intake for a group can provide a reasonable approximation for ‘usual’ intake. · The need to define and identify, post-hoc, from the 24-hour recall the number of eating occasions, and occasions identified by the respondents as breakfast. · Predetermined response categories for some of the questions effectively limited the number of categories available for evaluation. · Other foods and nutrients, not selected for this evaluation, may have an indirect relationship with the question, and might have shown stronger and more consistent responses. · The number of responses in some categories of the short questions eg for food security may have been too small to detect significant differences between population sub-groups. · No information was available to examine the validity of these questions for detecting differences over time (establishing trends) in food habits and indicators of selected nutrient intakes. By contrast, the strength of this evaluation was its very large sample size, (atypical of most validation studies of dietary assessment) and thus, the opportunity to investigate question performance in a range of broad population sub-groups compared with a well-conducted, quantified survey of intakes. The results of the evaluation are summarised below for each of the questions and specific recommendations for future testing, modifications and use provided for each question. The report concludes with some general recommendations for the further development and evaluation of short dietary questions.