The "DEAD box" protein DbpA interacts specifically with the peptidyltransferase center in 23S rRNA.

The Escherichia coli DEAD (Asp-Glu-Ala-Asp) box protein DbpA is a putative RNA helicase and established RNA-dependent ATPase and is the only member of the DEAD box protein family for which a specific RNA substrate, bacterial 23S rRNA, has been identified. We have investigated the nature of this specificity in depth and have localized by deletion mutagenesis and PCR a single region of 93 bases (bases 2496-2588) in 23S rRNA that is both necessary and sufficient for complete activation of ATPase activity of DbpA. This target region forms part of the peptidyltransferase center and includes many bases involved in interaction with the 3' terminal adenosines of both A- and P-site tRNAs. Deletion of stem loops within the 93-base segment abolished ATPase activation. Similarly, point mutations that disrupt base pairing within stem structures ablated stimulation of ATPase activity. These data are consistent with roles for DbpA either in establishing and/or maintaining the correct three-dimensional structure of the peptidyltransferase center in 23S rRNA during ribosome assembly or in the peptidyltransferase reaction.

Are drawings dead? …and performance over aesthetics?

When the act of 'drawing' became what can only be called formalised, (whose growth can be said to have blossomed during the Renaissance), there developed a separation between the drawing and its procurement. Recently, David Ross Scheer, in his book ‘The Death of Drawing, Architecture in the Age of Simulation’ wrote: ‘…whereas architectural drawings exist to represent construction, architectural simulations exist to anticipate building performance.’ Meanwhile, Paolo Belardi, in his work ‘Why Architects Still Draw’ likens a drawing to an acorn, where he says: ‘It is the paradox of the acorn: a project emerges from a drawing – even from a sketch, rough and inchoate - just as an oak tree emerges from an acorn.’ He tells us that Giorgio Vasari would work late at night ‘seeking to solve the problems of perspective’ and he makes a passionate plea that this reflective process allows the concept to evolve, grow and/or develop. However, without belittling Belardi, the virtual model now needs this self-same treatment where it is nurtured, coaxed and encouraged to be the inchoate blueprint of the resultant oak tree. The model now too can embrace the creative process going through the first phase of preparation, where it focuses on the problem. The manipulation of the available material can then be incubated so that it is reasoned and generates feedback. This paper serves to align this shift in perception, methodologies and assess whether the 2D paper abstraction still has a purpose and role in today’s digital world!

Inventory of seeds and plants imported / U.S. Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Plant Industry.

37-47

A Map of the Dead Sea, Low plains and Gulf of Eloth, [1812 May 4]

A pen-and-ink map of the Dead Sea from Jericho to the Gulf of Eloth on a grid. The map accompanied a letter by Winthrop (HUG 1203.5 Box 1, Folder 13).

[Map of the Dead Sea before the Biblical destruction of Sodom, 1812 May 4]

A pen-and-ink and watercolor map of the Dead Sea noting the "Course of Jordan before the destruction of Sodom." The map accompanied a letter by Winthrop (HUG 1203.5 Box 1, Folder 13).

The concept of 'economic activity' in the EU treaty: from ideological dead-ends to workable judicial concepts. Research Paper in Law 06/2011

[From the Introduction]. The economic rules, or put more ambitiously, the economic constitution of the Treaty,1 only apply to economic activities. This general principle remains valid, even if some authors strive to demonstrate that certain Treaty rules also apply in the absence of an economic activity,2 and despite the fact that non-economic (horizontal) Treaty provisions (e.g. principle of nondiscrimination, rules on citizenship) are also applicable in the absence of any economic activity.3 Indeed, the exercise of some economic activity transcends the concepts of ‘goods’ (having positive or negative market value),4 workers (even if admitted in an extensive manner),5 and services (offered for remuneration).6 It is also economic activity or ‘the activity of offering goods and services into the market’7 that characterises an ‘undertaking’ thus making the competition rules applicable. Further, it is for regulating economic activity that Article 115 TFEU, Article 106(3) TFEU and most other legal bases in the TFEU provide harmonisation powers in favour of the EU. Last but not least, Article 14 TFEU on the distinction between services of general economic interest (SGEIs) and non-economic services of general interest (NESGIs), as well as Protocol n. 26 on Services of General Interest (SGIs) confirm the constitutional significance of the distinction between economic and non-economic: a means of dividing competences between the EU and the member states. The distinction between economic and non-economic activities is fraught with legal and technical intricacies – the latter being generated by dynamic technological advances and regulatory experimentation. More importantly, however, the distinction is overcharged with political and ideological significations and misunderstandings and, even, terminological confusions.8

Why the regulatory witch-hunt for ‘closet trackers’ is a dead-end. CEPS Commentary, 9 December 2014

ESMA, the European watchdog of securities markets, has announced its intention to take a closer look at so-called ‘closet trackers’, with a view to identify whether there is a potential need for a coordinated pan-European policy response to these particular funds, which are supposedly actively managed but in reality closely track their benchmarks. In this commentary, Jean Pierre Casey suggests that more work needs to be done to demonstrate that a market failure exists. He also cautions on some of the difficulties associated with a potential regulatory intervention. In his view, the perceived problem is best tackled through transparency and competition.