The influence of the loop between residues 223-235 in beetle luciferase bioluminescence spectra: A solvent gate for the active site of pH-sensitive luciferases

Beetle luciferases emit a wide range of bioluminescence colors, ranging from green to red. Firefly luciferases can shift the spectrum to red in response to pH and temperature changes, whereas click beetle and railroadworm luciferases do not. Despite many studies on firefly luciferases, the origin of pH-sensitivity is far from being understood. Through comparative site-directed mutagenesis and modeling studies, using the pH-sensitive luciferases (Macrolampis and Cratomorphus distinctus fireflies) and the pH-insensitive luciferases (Pyrearinus termitilluminans, Phrixotrix viviani and Phrixotrix hirtus) cloned by our group, here we show that substitutions dramatically affecting bioluminescence colors in both groups of luciferases are clustered in the loop between residues 223-235 (Photinus pyralis sequence). The substitutions at positions 227, 228 and 229 (P. pyralis sequence) cause dramatic redshift and temporal shift in both groups of luciferases, indicating their involvement in labile interactions. Modeling studies showed that the residues Y227 and N229 are buried in the protein core, fixing the loop to other structural elements participating at the bottom of the luciferin binding site. Changes in pH and temperature (in firefly luciferases), as well as point mutations in this loop, may disrupt the interactions of these structural elements exposing the active site and modulating bioluminescence colors. © 2007 The Authors.

Rotary Club of Rock Hill Records - Accession 223

The Rock Hill Rotary Club was chartered by the International Association of Rotary Clubs on February 1, 1919 as a service organization. The Rotary Club of Rock Hill Records consist of the club charter, correspondence, yearbooks, membership lists, minutes, financial records, program notes and other records relating to the historical development of the Club.

The Probe, Issue 223 – July/August 2002

• Suburban Invasion! By Wildlife? -- Michelle L. Shuey, Southwest Texas State University • What are the health risks of consuming meat from deer or elk infected with Chronic Wasting Disease ? • The 68th North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference is set for March 26-30, 2003, in Winston-Salem, North Carolina • Book Review: Living in the Shadows: How to Help the Stray Cat in Your Life (Without Adding to the Problem) by Ann K. Fisher.--“I was impressed with her chapter on taming feral cats. It would certainly take a dedicated soul to put that much work into taming a cat.” • Goose School: the first National Goose Management Training Academy in Indianapolis, Indiana (June 8 & 9, 2002) -- Larry Sullivan • The California Contractors State License Board, (CSLB), recently approved a new sub-classification in its Non-Specialty Contractors License category. The new license is listed as C-61/D-64 "Animal Damage and Bird Control". • Los Angeles animal control recently approved increased efforts to control coyotes in residential areas by using traditional deterrent programs. • Identifying Predator Kills: Texas A&M has a website with some excellent photos to help identify predator kills of livestock. See http://texnat.tamu.edu/ranchref/predator/p-gen.htm • History of Wolf Attacks in Europe and Asia -- Barton Stam, Utah State University

RNA Interference of Endochitinases in the Sugarcane Endophyte Trichoderma virens 223 Reduces Its Fitness as a Biocontrol Agent of Pineapple Disease

The sugarcane root endophyte Trichoderma virens 223 holds enormous potential as a sustainable alternative to chemical pesticides in the control of sugarcane diseases. Its efficacy as a biocontrol agent is thought to be associated with its production of chitinase enzymes, including N-acetyl-beta-D-glucosaminidases, chitobiosidases and endochitinases. We used targeted gene deletion and RNA-dependent gene silencing strategies to disrupt N-acetyl-beta-D-glucosaminidase and endochitinase activities of the fungus, and to determine their roles in the biocontrol of soil-borne plant pathogens. The loss of N-acetyl-beta-D-glucosaminidase activities was dispensable for biocontrol of the plurivorous damping-off pathogens Rhizoctonia solani and Sclerotinia sclerotiorum, and of the sugarcane pathogen Ceratocystis paradoxa, the causal agent of pineapple disease. Similarly, suppression of endochitinase activities had no effect on R. solani and S. sclerotiorum disease control, but had a pronounced effect on the ability of T. virens 223 to control pineapple disease. Our work demonstrates a critical requirement for T. virens 223 endochitinase activity in the biocontrol of C. paradoxa sugarcane disease, but not for general antagonism of other soil pathogens. This may reflect its lifestyle as a sugarcane root endophyte.

Bioremediation of PAHs - Limitations and soultions

Introduction 1.1 Occurrence of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) in the environment Worldwide industrial and agricultural developments have released a large number of natural and synthetic hazardous compounds into the environment due to careless waste disposal, illegal waste dumping and accidental spills. As a result, there are numerous sites in the world that require cleanup of soils and groundwater. Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) are one of the major groups of these contaminants (Da Silva et al., 2003). PAHs constitute a diverse class of organic compounds consisting of two or more aromatic rings with various structural configurations (Prabhu and Phale, 2003). Being a derivative of benzene, PAHs are thermodynamically stable. In addition, these chemicals tend to adhere to particle surfaces, such as soils, because of their low water solubility and strong hydrophobicity, and this results in greater persistence under natural conditions. This persistence coupled with their potential carcinogenicity makes PAHs problematic environmental contaminants (Cerniglia, 1992; Sutherland, 1992). PAHs are widely found in high concentrations at many industrial sites, particularly those associated with petroleum, gas production and wood preserving industries (Wilson and Jones, 1993). 1.2 Remediation technologies Conventional techniques used for the remediation of soil polluted with organic contaminants include excavation of the contaminated soil and disposal to a landfill or capping - containment - of the contaminated areas of a site. These methods have some drawbacks. The first method simply moves the contamination elsewhere and may create significant risks in the excavation, handling and transport of hazardous material. Additionally, it is very difficult and increasingly expensive to find new landfill sites for the final disposal of the material. The cap and containment method is only an interim solution since the contamination remains on site, requiring monitoring and maintenance of the isolation barriers long into the future, with all the associated costs and potential liability. A better approach than these traditional methods is to completely destroy the pollutants, if possible, or transform them into harmless substances. Some technologies that have been used are high-temperature incineration and various types of chemical decomposition (for example, base-catalyzed dechlorination, UV oxidation). However, these methods have significant disadvantages, principally their technological complexity, high cost , and the lack of public acceptance. Bioremediation, on the contrast, is a promising option for the complete removal and destruction of contaminants. 1.3 Bioremediation of PAH contaminated soil & groundwater Bioremediation is the use of living organisms, primarily microorganisms, to degrade or detoxify hazardous wastes into harmless substances such as carbon dioxide, water and cell biomass Most PAHs are biodegradable unter natural conditions (Da Silva et al., 2003; Meysami and Baheri, 2003) and bioremediation for cleanup of PAH wastes has been extensively studied at both laboratory and commercial levels- It has been implemented at a number of contaminated sites, including the cleanup of the Exxon Valdez oil spill in Prince William Sound, Alaska in 1989, the Mega Borg spill off the Texas coast in 1990 and the Burgan Oil Field, Kuwait in 1994 (Purwaningsih, 2002). Different strategies for PAH bioremediation, such as in situ , ex situ or on site bioremediation were developed in recent years. In situ bioremediation is a technique that is applied to soil and groundwater at the site without removing the contaminated soil or groundwater, based on the provision of optimum conditions for microbiological contaminant breakdown.. Ex situ bioremediation of PAHs, on the other hand, is a technique applied to soil and groundwater which has been removed from the site via excavation (soil) or pumping (water). Hazardous contaminants are converted in controlled bioreactors into harmless compounds in an efficient manner. 1.4 Bioavailability of PAH in the subsurface Frequently, PAH contamination in the environment is occurs as contaminants that are sorbed onto soilparticles rather than in phase (NAPL, non aqueous phase liquids). It is known that the biodegradation rate of most PAHs sorbed onto soil is far lower than rates measured in solution cultures of microorganisms with pure solid pollutants (Alexander and Scow, 1989; Hamaker, 1972). It is generally believed that only that fraction of PAHs dissolved in the solution can be metabolized by microorganisms in soil. The amount of contaminant that can be readily taken up and degraded by microorganisms is defined as bioavailability (Bosma et al., 1997; Maier, 2000). Two phenomena have been suggested to cause the low bioavailability of PAHs in soil (Danielsson, 2000). The first one is strong adsorption of the contaminants to the soil constituents which then leads to very slow release rates of contaminants to the aqueous phase. Sorption is often well correlated with soil organic matter content (Means, 1980) and significantly reduces biodegradation (Manilal and Alexander, 1991). The second phenomenon is slow mass transfer of pollutants, such as pore diffusion in the soil aggregates or diffusion in the organic matter in the soil. The complex set of these physical, chemical and biological processes is schematically illustrated in Figure 1. As shown in Figure 1, biodegradation processes are taking place in the soil solution while diffusion processes occur in the narrow pores in and between soil aggregates (Danielsson, 2000). Seemingly contradictory studies can be found in the literature that indicate the rate and final extent of metabolism may be either lower or higher for sorbed PAHs by soil than those for pure PAHs (Van Loosdrecht et al., 1990). These contrasting results demonstrate that the bioavailability of organic contaminants sorbed onto soil is far from being well understood. Besides bioavailability, there are several other factors influencing the rate and extent of biodegradation of PAHs in soil including microbial population characteristics, physical and chemical properties of PAHs and environmental factors (temperature, moisture, pH, degree of contamination). Figure 1: Schematic diagram showing possible rate-limiting processes during bioremediation of hydrophobic organic contaminants in a contaminated soil-water system (not to scale) (Danielsson, 2000). 1.5 Increasing the bioavailability of PAH in soil Attempts to improve the biodegradation of PAHs in soil by increasing their bioavailability include the use of surfactants , solvents or solubility enhancers.. However, introduction of synthetic surfactant may result in the addition of one more pollutant. (Wang and Brusseau, 1993).A study conducted by Mulder et al. showed that the introduction of hydropropyl-ß-cyclodextrin (HPCD), a well-known PAH solubility enhancer, significantly increased the solubilization of PAHs although it did not improve the biodegradation rate of PAHs (Mulder et al., 1998), indicating that further research is required in order to develop a feasible and efficient remediation method. Enhancing the extent of PAHs mass transfer from the soil phase to the liquid might prove an efficient and environmentally low-risk alternative way of addressing the problem of slow PAH biodegradation in soil.

Complexity of miR-223 regulation by CEBPA in human AML

microRNA-223 (miR-223) can trigger normal granulopoiesis. miR-223 expression is regulated by two distinct CEBPA (CCAAT/enhancer binding protein-alpha) sites. Here, we report that miR-223 is largely suppressed in cells from acute myeloid leukemia (AML) patients. By sequencing, we found that miR-223 suppression in AML is not caused by DNA sequence alterations, nor is it mediated by promoter hypermethylation. The analysis of the individual contribution of both CEBPA sites to miR-223 regulation identified the site upstream of the miR-223 primary transcript as the predominant regulatory element. Our results suggest that miR-223 suppression in AML is caused by impaired miR-223 upstream factors.

[Iatrogenic preterm births and late preterm births of 340/7 to 366/7 - risks and chances]

Late preterm births with a gestational age of 340/7-366/7 are physiologically, anatomically and metabolically immature and develop medical complications significantly more frequently, have a high morbidity and an elevated mortality. Consideration of this knowledge will in future require new strategies for obstretric, peripartal and neonatal management options that take into account not only maternal risks and demands but also those of the infant.

Na 50 Nachlass Arthur Schopenhauer - 'Schopenhauer-Archiv', 366 - Ausleihe eines Buches an N.N.

2 Seiten

Na 1 Nachlass Max Horkheimer, 13 - Korrespondenzen u.a. mit Familie Eder (p. I 7, 1-223)

7 Briefe zwischen Edward Mead Earle, American Committee for International Studies, Princeton N. J. und Max Horkheimer, 1940-1941; 3 Briefe zwischen Margaret Ebert und Margot von Mendelssohn, 1941, 28.08.1941; 6 Briefe zwischen C. C. Eckhardt und Max Horkheimer, 1940; 5 Briefe zwischen Kay Eckstein und Max Horkheimer, 1940; 2 Briefe zwischen George Eckstein und Max Horkheimer, 16.05.1939, 35.05.1939; 1 Brief von F. K. Eden an Max Horkheimer, 02.04.1944; 33 Briefe zwischen Leopold Eder, Frieda Eder, Ruth Eder und Max Horkheimer, 1937-1940; 2 Briefe zwischen Dale Edwards und Max Horkheimer, 16.07.1940; 1 Brief von Hedwig Ehrlich an Max Horkheimer; 1 Brief von Max Horkheimer an Albert Einstein, 20.02.1935; 1 Brief von Max Horkheimer an W. Eisemann, 02.11.1939; 1 Brief von Else Eisner an Max Horkheimer, 09.12.1935; 2 Briefe zwischen Edit Elbogen und Max Horkheimer, 24.03.1942, 26.03.1942; 1 Brief von Käte von Hirsch an Max Horkheimer, 03.08.1941; 2 Briefe von Emmy Elbogen an Margot von Mendelssohn, 1945; 2 Briefe zwischen Paul Elbogen und Max Horkheimer, 02.06.1944, 09.06.1944; 4 Briefe zwischen Norbert Elias und Max Horkheimer, 1934-1935; 1 Brief von Werner B. Ellinger an Max Horkheimer, 16.12.1937; 19 Briefe zwischen dem Emergency Committee in Aid of Displaced Foreign Scholars New York und Max Horkheimer, 1938-1944; 2 Briefe zwischen dem Emergency Rescue Committee New York und Max Horkheimer, 12.06.1941, 14.06.1941; 1 Brief von F.L. Neumann an Emhardt, 13.02.1939; 23 Briefe zwischen Alice Engel und Max Horkheimer, 1937-1941; 9 briefe zwischen Paul Doernberg, Sofie Doernberg und Max Horkheimer, 1940-1942; 3 Briefe zwischen der Hebrew Sheltering and Immigrant Aid Society New York und Max Horkheimer, 05.01.1942, 1942; 1 Brief von der Selfhelp of Emigres from Central Europe, New York an Max Horkheimer, 18.08.1941; 2 Briefe zwischen R. Weissmann und Max Horkheimer, 09.01.1941, 03.02.1941; 5 Briefe zwischen Ernst Engelberg und Max Horkheimer, 1939-1940, 07.06.1939; 1 Brief von Fritz Epstein an Max Horkheimer, 10.04.1937; 1 Brief von Erika Ermel an Max Horkheimer, 15.09.1948; 2 Briefe zwischen Max Ernst und Max Horkheimer, 23.01.1936; 4 Briefe zwischen Margot Esser und Max Horkheimer, 1935-1936; 16 Briefe zwischen Rene Etiemble und Max Horkheimer, 1936-1938; 4 Briefe zwischen L.M. Ettlinger und Max Horkheimer, 1937; 8 Briefe zwischen Walter Fabien und Max Horkheimer, 1937-1941; 1 Brief von Max Horkheimer an Henry Pratt Fairchild, 25.03.1941; 2 Briefe zwischen Marvin Farber und Max Horkheimer, 14.03.1940, 17.05.1940; 4 Briefe zwischen Walter Farley udn Max Horkheimer, 1935, 01.10.1935; 8 Briefe zwischen Alexander Farquharson und Max Horkheimer, 1935-1939;