Catalytic properties of 26 S and 20 S proteasomes and radiolabeling of MB1, LMP7, and C7 subunits associated with trypsin-like and chymotrypsin-like activities*

20 and 26 S proteasomes were isolated from rat liver. The procedure developed for the 26 S proteasome resulted in greatly improved yields compared with previously published methods. A comparison of the kinetic properties of 20 and 26 S proteasomes showed significant differences in the kinetic characteristics with certain substrates and differences in the effects of a protein substrate on peptidase activity. Observed differences in the kinetics of peptidylglutamyl peptide hydrolase activity suggest that the 26 S complex cannot undergo the conformational changes of 20 S proteasomes at high concentrations of the substrate benzyloxycarbonyl (Z) -Leu-Leu-Glu-b-naphthylamide. Various inhibitors that differentially affect the trypsin-like and chymotrypsin-like activities have been identified. Ala-Ala-Phe-chloromethyl (CH2Cl) inhibits chymotrypsin-like activity assayed with succinyl (Suc) -Leu-Leu-Val-Tyr-AMC, but surprisingly not hydrolysis of Ala-Ala-Phe-7-amido-4-methylcoumarin (AMC). Tyr-Gly-Arg-CH2Cl inhibits Suc-Leu-Leu-Val-Tyr-AMC hydrolysis as well as trypsinlike activity measured with t-butoxycarbonyl (Boc) -Leu-Ser-Thr-Arg-AMC, while Z-Phe-Gly-Tyr-diazomethyl (CHN2) was found to inhibit only the two chymotrypsin- like activities. Radiolabeled forms of peptidyl chloromethane and peptidyl diazomethane inhibitors, [3H]acetyl-Ala-Ala-Phe-CH2Cl, [3H]acetyland radioiodinated Tyr-Gly-Arg-CH2Cl, and Z-Phe-Gly- Tyr-(125I-CHN2), have been used to identify catalytic components associated with each of the three peptidase activities. In each case, incorporation of the label could be blocked by prior treatment of the proteasomes with known active site-directed inhibitors, calpain inhibitor 1 or 3,4-dichloroisocoumarin. Subunits of labeled proteasomes were separated either by reverse phase-HPLC and SDS-polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis or by twodimensional polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis followed by autoradiography/fluorography and immunoblotting with subunit-specific antibodies. In each case, label was found to be incorporated into subunits C7, MB1, and LMP7 but in different relative amounts depending on the inhibitor used, consistent with the observed effects on the different peptidase activities. The results strongly suggest a relationship between trypsin-like activity and chymotrypsin-like activity. They also help to relate the different subunits of the complex to the assayed multicatalytic endopeptidase activities

Knowledge-Intensive Business Processes: Proceedings of the 1st International Workshop on Knowledge-intensive Business Processes [CEUR Workshop Proceedings, Volume 861]

Nowadays, Workflow Management Systems (WfMSs) and, more generally, Process Management Systems (PMPs) are process-aware Information Systems (PAISs), are widely used to support many human organizational activities, ranging from well-understood, relatively stable and structures processes (supply chain management, postal delivery tracking, etc.) to processes that are more complicated, less structured and may exhibit a high degree of variation (health-care, emergency management, etc.). Every aspect of a business process involves a certain amount of knowledge which may be complex depending on the domain of interest. The adequate representation of this knowledge is determined by the modeling language used. Some processes behave in a way that is well understood, predictable and repeatable: the tasks are clearly delineated and the control flow is straightforward. Recent discussions, however, illustrate the increasing demand for solutions for knowledge-intensive processes, where these characteristics are less applicable. The actors involved in the conduct of a knowledge-intensive process have to deal with a high degree of uncertainty. Tasks may be hard to perform and the order in which they need to be performed may be highly variable. Modeling knowledge-intensive processes can be complex as it may be hard to capture at design-time what knowledge is available at run-time. In realistic environments, for example, actors lack important knowledge at execution time or this knowledge can become obsolete as the process progresses. Even if each actor (at some point) has perfect knowledge of the world, it may not be certain of its beliefs at later points in time, since tasks by other actors may change the world without those changes being perceived. Typically, a knowledge-intensive process cannot be adequately modeled by classical, state of the art process/workflow modeling approaches. In some respect there is a lack of maturity when it comes to capturing the semantic aspects involved, both in terms of reasoning about them. The main focus of the 1st International Workshop on Knowledge-intensive Business processes (KiBP 2012) was investigating how techniques from different fields, such as Artificial Intelligence (AI), Knowledge Representation (KR), Business Process Management (BPM), Service Oriented Computing (SOC), etc., can be combined with the aim of improving the modeling and the enactment phases of a knowledge-intensive process. The 1st International Workshop on Knowledge-intensive Business process (KiBP 2012) was held as part of the program of the 2012 Knowledge Representation & Reasoning International Conference (KR 2012) in Rome, Italy, in June 2012. The workshop was hosted by the Dipartimento di Ingegneria Informatica, Automatica e Gestionale Antonio Ruberti of Sapienza Universita di Roma, with financial support of the University, through grant 2010-C26A107CN9 TESTMED, and the EU Commission through the projects FP7-25888 Greener Buildings and FP7-257899 Smart Vortex. This volume contains the 5 papers accepted and presented at the workshop. Each paper was reviewed by three members of the internationally renowned Program Committee. In addition, a further paper was invted for inclusion in the workshop proceedings and for presentation at the workshop. There were two keynote talks, one by Marlon Dumas (Institute of Computer Science, University of Tartu, Estonia) on "Integrated Data and Process Management: Finally?" and the other by Yves Lesperance (Department of Computer Science and Engineering, York University, Canada) on "A Logic-Based Approach to Business Processes Customization" completed the scientific program. We would like to thank all the Program Committee members for the valuable work in selecting the papers, Andrea Marrella for his valuable work as publication and publicity chair of the workshop, and Carola Aiello and the consulting agency Consulta Umbria for the organization of this successful event.

Design process excludes users : the co-creation activities between user and designer

User needs are a fundamental element of design. If the design process does not properly reflect user needs, the design will be severely compromised. Therefore, it is worthwhile to investigate how the user is, and user needs are, understood in the design process. In this article, three accepted linear process models for web site and interactive media design are reviewed in terms of the designer and user participation. The article then proposes a user-evolving collaborative design process which is built on co-creation activities between designer and user. Co-creation activities across the entire design process structurally and ontologically reposition the users, and user needs, centrally, which allows the designers to holistically approach to the user needs through building a partnership with the users. Co-creation creates an equal evolving participatory process between user and designer towards sharing values and knowledge and creating new domains of collective creativity.

Early years activities for NLNW 2012 - Pearl Barley & Charlie Parsley

This Early Years unit is designed to engage students in a sequence of activities that use a range of literacies which explore feelings, friendships and personality traits. The text, Pearl Barley and Charlie Parsley, is the focus of this unit. Suggested activities promote participation through simple and effective strategies, using technology, process drama, graphic ogranisers and critical literacy. This unit allows for flexibility so teachers can select activities that best suit time, resources and students' needs and interests. Students are asked to make connections between the text and their own friendships, understanding that the best of friends can be different in almost every way.

Combination of MEK-ERK inhibitor and hyaluronic acid has a synergistic effect on anti-hypertrophic and pro-chondrogenic activities in osteoarthritis treatment

We hypothesised that a potentially disease-modifying osteoarthritis (OA) drug such as hyaluronic acid (HA) given in combination with anti-inflammatory signalling agents such as mitogen-activated protein kinase kinase–extracellular signal-regulated kinase (MEK-ERK) signalling inhibitor (U0126) could result in additive or synergistic effects on preventing the degeneration of articular cartilage. Chondrocyte differentiation and hypertrophy were evaluated using human OA primary cells treated with either HA or U0126, or the combination of HA + U0126. Cartilage degeneration in menisectomy (MSX) induced rat OA model was investigated by intra-articular delivery of either HA or U0126, or the combination of HA + U0126. Histology, immunostaining, RT-qPCR, Western blotting and zymography were performed to assess the expression of cartilage matrix proteins and hypertrophic markers. Phosphorylated ERK (pERK)1/2-positive chondrocytes were significantly higher in OA samples compared with those in healthy control suggesting the pathological role of that pathway in OA. It was noted that HA + U0126 significantly reduced the levels of pERK, chondrocyte hypertrophic markers (COL10 and RUNX2) and degenerative markers (ADAMTs5 and MMP-13), however, increased the levels of chondrogenic markers (COL2) compared to untreated or the application of HA or U0126 alone. In agreement with the results in vitro, intra-articular delivery of HA + U0126 showed significant therapeutic improvement of cartilage in rat MSX OA model compared with untreated or the application of HA or U0126 alone. Our study suggests that the combination of HA and MEK-ERK inhibition has a synergistic effect on preventing cartilage degeneration.

Moving beyond transition pedagogy: Maturity models and student engagement

Australian higher education institutions (HEIs) have entered a new phase of regulation and accreditation which includes performance-based funding relating to the participation and retention of students from social and cultural groups previously underrepresented in higher education. However, in addressing these priorities, it is critical that HEIs do not further disadvantage students from certain groups by identifying them for attention because of their social or cultural backgrounds, circumstances which are largely beyond the control of students. In response, many HEIs are focusing effort on university-wide approaches to enhancing the student experience because such approaches will enhance the engagement, success and retention of all students, and in doing so, particularly benefit those students who come from underrepresented groups. Measuring and benchmarking student experiences and engagement that arise from these efforts is well supported by extensive collections of student experience survey data. However no comparable instrument exists that measures the capability of institutions to influence and/or enhance student experiences where capability is an indication of how well an organisational process does what it is designed to do (Rosemann & de Bruin, 2005). This paper proposes that the concept of a maturity model (Marshall, 2010; Paulk, 1999) may be useful as a way of assessing the capability of HEIs to provide and implement student engagement, success and retention activities. We will describe the Student Engagement, Success and Retention Maturity Model (SESR-MM), (Clarke, Nelson & Stoodley, 2012; Nelson, Clarke & Stoodley, 2012) we are currently investigating. We will discuss if our research may address the current gap by facilitating the development of an SESR-MM instrument that aims (i) to enable institutions to assess the capability of their current student engagement and retention programs and strategies to influence and respond to student experiences within the institution; and (ii) to provide institutions with the opportunity to understand various practices across the sector with a view to further improving programs and practices relevant to their context. The first aim of our research is to extend the generational approach which has been useful in considering the evolutionary nature of the first year experience (FYE) (Wilson, 2009). Three generations have been identified and explored: First generation approaches that focus on co-curricular strategies (e.g. orientation and peer programs); Second generation approaches that focus on curriculum (e.g. pedagogy, curriculum design, and learning and teaching practice); and third generation approaches—also referred to as transition pedagogy—that focus on the production of an institution-wide integrated holistic intentional blend of curricular and co-curricular activities (Kift, Nelson & Clarke, 2010). The second aim of this research is to move beyond assessments of students’ experiences to focus on assessing institutional processes and their capability to influence student engagement. In essence, we propose to develop and use the maturity model concept to produce an instrument that will indicate the capability of HEIs to manage and improve student engagement, success and retention programs and strategies. References Australian Council for Educational Research. (n.d.). Australasian Survey of Student Engagement. Retrieved from http://www.acer.edu.au/research/ausse/background Clarke, J., Nelson, K., & Stoodley, I. (2012, July). The Maturity Model concept as framework for assessing the capability of higher education institutions to address student engagement, success and retention: New horizon or false dawn? A Nuts & Bolts presentation at the 15th International Conference on the First Year in Higher Education, “New Horizons,” Brisbane, Australia. Kift, S., Nelson, K., & Clarke, J. (2010) Transition pedagogy - a third generation approach to FYE: A case study of policy and practice for the higher education sector. The International Journal of the First Year in Higher Education, 1(1), pp. 1-20. Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations. (n.d.). The University Experience Survey. Advancing quality in higher education information sheet. Retrieved from http://www.deewr.gov.au/HigherEducation/Policy/Documents/University_Experience_Survey.pdf Marshall, S. (2010). A quality framework for continuous improvement of e-Learning: The e-Learning Maturity Model. Journal of Distance Education, 24(1), 143-166. Nelson, K., Clarke, J., & Stoodley, I. (2012). An exploration of the Maturity Model concept as a vehicle for higher education institutions to assess their capability to address student engagement. A work in progress. Submitted for publication. Paulk, M. (1999). Using the Software CMM with good judgment, ASQ Software Quality Professional, 1(3), 19-29. Wilson, K. (2009, June–July). The impact of institutional, programmatic and personal interventions on an effective and sustainable first-year student experience. Keynote address presented at the 12th Pacific Rim First Year in Higher Education Conference, “Preparing for Tomorrow Today: The First Year as Foundation,” Townsville, Australia. Retrieved from http://www.fyhe.com.au/past_papers/papers09/ppts/Keithia_Wilson_paper.pdf

Verifying a Student Engagement, Success and Retention Maturity Model (SESR-MM): A reality check of the model using data derived from three universities

Australian higher education institutions (HEIs) have entered a new phase of regulation and accreditation which includes performance-based funding relating to the participation and retention of students from social and cultural groups previously underrepresented in higher education. However, in addressing these priorities, it is critical that HEIs do not further disadvantage students from certain groups by identifying them for attention because of their social or cultural backgrounds, circumstances which are largely beyond the control of students. In response, many HEIs are focusing effort on university-wide approaches to enhancing the student experience because such approaches will enhance the engagement, success and retention of all students, and in doing so, particularly benefit those students who come from underrepresented groups. Measuring and benchmarking student experiences and engagement that arise from these efforts is well supported by extensive collections of student experience survey data. However no comparable instrument exists that measures the capability of institutions to influence and/or enhance student experiences where capability is an indication of how well an organisational process does what it is designed to do (Rosemann & de Bruin, 2005). We have proposed that the concept of a maturity model (Marshall, 2010; Paulk, 1999) may be useful as a way of assessing the capability of HEIs to provide and implement student engagement, success and retention activities and we are currently articulating a Student Engagement, Success and Retention Maturity Model (SESR-MM), (Clarke, Nelson & Stoodley, 2012; Nelson, Clarke & Stoodley, 2012). Our research aims to address the current gap by facilitating the development of an SESR-MM instrument that aims (i) to enable institutions to assess the capability of their current student engagement and retention programs and strategies to influence and respond to student experiences within the institution; and (ii) to provide institutions with the opportunity to understand various practices across the sector with a view to further improving programs and practices relevant to their context. Our research extends the generational approach which has been useful in considering the evolutionary nature of the first year experience (FYE) (Wilson, 2009). Three generations have been identified and explored: First generation approaches that focus on co-curricular strategies (e.g. orientation and peer programs); Second generation approaches that focus on curriculum (e.g. pedagogy, curriculum design, and learning and teaching practice); and third generation approaches—also referred to as transition pedagogy—that focus on the production of an institution-wide integrated holistic intentional blend of curricular and co-curricular activities (Kift, Nelson & Clarke, 2010). Our research also moves beyond assessments of students’ experiences to focus on assessing institutional processes and their capability to influence student engagement. In essence, we propose to develop and use the maturity model concept to produce an instrument that will indicate the capability of HEIs to manage and improve student engagement, success and retention programs and strategies. The issues explored in this workshop are (i) whether the maturity model concept can be usefully applied to provide a measure of institutional capability for SESR; (ii) whether the SESR-MM can be used to assess the maturity of a particular set of institutional practices; and (iii) whether a collective assessment of an institution’s SESR capabilities can provide an indication of the maturity of the institution’s SESR activities. The workshop will be approached in three stages. Firstly, participants will be introduced to the key characteristics of maturity models, followed by a discussion of the SESR-MM and the processes involved in its development. Secondly, participants will be provided with resources to facilitate the development of a maturity model and an assessment instrument for a range of institutional processes and related practices. In the final stage of the workshop, participants will “assess” the capability of these practices to provide a collective assessment of the maturity of these processes. References Australian Council for Educational Research. (n.d.). Australasian Survey of Student Engagement. Retrieved from http://www.acer.edu.au/research/ausse/background Clarke, J., Nelson, K., & Stoodley, I. (2012, July). The Maturity Model concept as framework for assessing the capability of higher education institutions to address student engagement, success and retention: New horizon or false dawn? A Nuts & Bolts presentation at the 15th International Conference on the First Year in Higher Education, “New Horizons,” Brisbane, Australia. Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations. (n.d.). The University Experience Survey. Advancing quality in higher education information sheet. Retrieved from http://www.deewr.gov.au/HigherEducation/Policy/Documents/University_Experience_Survey.pdf Kift, S., Nelson, K., & Clarke, J. (2010) Transition pedagogy - a third generation approach to FYE: A case study of policy and practice for the higher education sector. The International Journal of the First Year in Higher Education, 1(1), pp. 1-20. Marshall, S. (2010). A quality framework for continuous improvement of e-Learning: The e-Learning Maturity Model. Journal of Distance Education, 24(1), 143-166. Nelson, K., Clarke, J., & Stoodley, I. (2012). An exploration of the Maturity Model concept as a vehicle for higher education institutions to assess their capability to address student engagement. A work in progress. Submitted for publication. Paulk, M. (1999). Using the Software CMM with good judgment, ASQ Software Quality Professional, 1(3), 19-29. Wilson, K. (2009, June–July). The impact of institutional, programmatic and personal interventions on an effective and sustainable first-year student experience. Keynote address presented at the 12th Pacific Rim First Year in Higher Education Conference, “Preparing for Tomorrow Today: The First Year as Foundation,” Townsville, Australia. Retrieved from http://www.fyhe.com.au/past_papers/papers09/ppts/Keithia_Wilson_paper.pdf

Gaps in organizational leadership : linking strategic and operational activities through design-led propositions

The relationship between design process and business systems has been of interest to both practitioners and researchers exploring the numerous opportunities and challenges of this unlikely relationship. Often the relationship is presented as building design thinking capability within an organization, which can be broadly described as the union of design and strategy. Brown (2008) notes that design thinking is ‘‘a discipline that uses the designer’s sensibility and methods to match people’s needs with what is technically feasible and what business strategy can convert into customer value and market opportunities’’ (p. 1). The value that design thinking brings to an organization is a different way of framing situations and possibilities, doing things, and tackling problems: essentially a cultural transformation of the way it undertakes its business. The work of Martin (2009) has clearly shown the generalized differences between design thinking and business thinking, highlighting many instances in which these differences have been overcome, but also noting the many obstacles of trying to unify both approaches within an organization. Liedtka (2010) encourages firms to try and persist in overcoming these barriers, as she has noted that ‘‘business strategy desperately needs design ... because design is all about action and business strategy too often turns out to be only about talk ... fewer than 10 percent of new strategies are ever fully executed’’ (p. 9).