Analysis of Free Energy Signals Arising from Nucleotide Hybridization Between rRNA and mRNA Sequences during Translation in Eubacteria

A decoding algorithm is tested that mechanistically models the progressive alignments that arise as the mRNA moves past the rRNA tail during translation elongation. Each of these alignments provides an opportunity for hybridization between the single-stranded, -terminal nucleotides of the 16S rRNA and the spatially accessible window of mRNA sequence, from which a free energy value can be calculated. Using this algorithm we show that a periodic, energetic pattern of frequency 1/3 is revealed. This periodic signal exists in the majority of coding regions of eubacterial genes, but not in the non-coding regions encoding the 16S and 23S rRNAs. Signal analysis reveals that the population of coding regions of each bacterial species has a mean phase that is correlated in a statistically significant way with species () content. These results suggest that the periodic signal could function as a synchronization signal for the maintenance of reading frame and that codon usage provides a mechanism for manipulation of signal phase.[1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32]     

Coomassie Blue as a Near-infrared Fluorescent Stain: A Systematic Comparison With Sypro Ruby for In-gel Protein Detection

Quantitative proteome analyses suggest that the well-established stain colloidal Coomassie Blue, when used as an infrared dye, may provide sensitive, post-electrophoretic in-gel protein detection that can rival even Sypro Ruby. Considering the central role of two-dimensional gel electrophoresis in top-down proteomic analyses, a more cost effective alternative such as Coomassie Blue could prove an important tool in ongoing refinements of this important analytical technique. To date, no systematic characterization of Coomassie Blue infrared fluorescence detection relative to detection with SR has been reported. Here, seven commercial Coomassie stain reagents and seven stain formulations described in the literature were systematically compared. The selectivity, threshold sensitivity, inter-protein variability, and linear-dynamic range of Coomassie Blue infrared fluorescence detection were assessed in parallel with Sypro Ruby. Notably, several of the Coomassie stain formulations provided infrared fluorescence detection sensitivity to <1 ng of protein in-gel, slightly exceeding the performance of Sypro Ruby. The linear dynamic range of Coomassie Blue infrared fluorescence detection was found to significantly exceed that of Sypro Ruby. However, in two-dimensional gel analyses, because of a blunted fluorescence response, Sypro Ruby was able to detect a few additional protein spots, amounting to 0.6% of the detected proteome. Thus, although both detection methods have their advantages and disadvantages, differences between the two appear to be small. Coomassie Blue infrared fluorescence detection is thus a viable alternative for gel-based proteomics, offering detection comparable to Sypro Ruby, and more reliable quantitative assessments, but at a fraction of the cost.Gel electrophoresis is an accessible, widely applicable and mature protein resolving technology. As the original top-down approach to proteomic analyses, among its many attributes the high resolution achievable by two dimensional gel-electrophoresis (2DE)¹ ensures that it remains an effective analytical technology despite the appearance of alternatives. However, in-gel detection remains a limiting factor for gel-based analyses; available technology generally permits the detection and quantification of only relatively abundant proteins (35). Many critical components in normal physiology and also disease may be several orders of magnitude less abundant and thus below the detection threshold of in-gel stains, or indeed most techniques. Pre- and post-fractionation technologies have been developed to address this central issue in proteomics but these are not without limitations (1–5). Thus improved detection methods for gel-based proteomics continue to be a high priority, and the literature is rich with different in-gel detection methods and innovative improvements (6–34). This history of iterative refinement presents a wealth of choices when selecting a detection strategy for a gel-based proteomic analysis (35).Perhaps the best known in-gel detection method is the ubiquitous Coomassie Blue (CB) stain; CB has served as a gel stain and protein quantification reagent for over 40 years. Though affordable, robust, easy to use, and compatible with mass spectrometry (MS), CB staining is relatively insensitive. In traditional organic solvent formulations, CB detects ∼ 10 ng of protein in-gel, and some reports suggest poorer sensitivity (27, 29, 36, 37). Sensitivity is hampered by relatively high background staining because of nonspecific retention of dye within the gel matrix (32, 36, 38, 39). The development of colloidal CB (CCB) formulations largely addressed these limitations (12); the concentration of soluble CB was carefully controlled by sequestering the majority of the dye into colloidal particles, mediated by pH, solvent, and the ionic strength of the solution. Minimizing soluble dye concentration and penetration of the gel matrix mitigated background staining, and the introduction of phosphoric acid into the staining reagent enhanced dye-protein interactions (8, 12, 40), contributing to an in-gel staining sensitivity of 5–10 ng protein, with some formulations reportedly yielding sensitivities of 0.1–1 ng (8, 12, 22, 39, 41, 42). Thus CCB achieved higher sensitivity than traditional CB staining, yet maintained all the advantages of the latter, including low cost and compatibility with existing densitometric detection instruments and MS. Although surpassed by newer methods, the practical advantages of CCB ensure that it remains one of the most common gel stains in use.Fluorescent stains have become the routine and sensitive alternative to visible dyes. Among these, the ruthenium-organometallic family of dyes have been widely applied and the most commercially well-known is Sypro Ruby (SR), which is purported to interact noncovalently with primary amines in proteins (15, 18, 19, 43). Chief among the attributes of these dyes is their high sensitivity. In-gel detection limits of < 1 ng for some proteins have been reported for SR (6, 9, 14, 44, 45). Moreover, SR staining has been reported to yield a greater linear dynamic range (LDR), and reduced interprotein variability (IPV) compared with CCB and silver stains (15, 19, 46–49). SR is easy to use, fully MS compatible, and relatively forgiving of variations in initial conditions (6, 15). The chief consequence of these advances remains high cost; SR and related stains are notoriously expensive, and beyond the budget of many laboratories. Furthermore, despite some small cost advantage relative to SR, none of the available alternatives has been consistently and quantitatively demonstrated to substantially improve on the performance of SR under practical conditions (9, 50).Notably, there is evidence to suggest that CCB staining is not fundamentally insensitive, but rather that its sensitivity has been limited by traditional densitometric detection (50, 51). When excited in the near IR at ∼650 nm, protein-bound CB in-gel emits light in the range of 700–800 nm. Until recently, the lack of low-cost, widely available and sufficiently sensitive infrared (IR)-capable imaging instruments prevented mainstream adoption of in-gel CB infrared fluorescence detection (IRFD); advances in imaging technology are now making such instruments far more accessible. Initial reports suggested that IRFD of CB-stained gels provided greater sensitivity than traditional densitometric detection (50, 51). Using CB R250, in-gel IRFD was reported to detect as little as 2 ng of protein in-gel, with a LDR of about an order of magnitude (2 to 20 ng, or 10 to 100 ng in separate gels), beyond which the fluorescent response saturated into the μg range (51). Using the G250 dye variant, it was determined that CB-IRFD of 2D gels detected ∼3 times as many proteins as densitometric imaging, and a comparable number of proteins as seen by SR (50). This study also concluded that CB-IRFD yielded a significantly higher signal to background ratio (S/BG) than SR, providing initial evidence that CB-IRFD may be superior to SR in some aspects of stain performance (50).Despite this initial evidence of the viability of CB-IRF as an in-gel protein detection method, a detailed characterization of this technology has not yet been reported. Here a more thorough, quantitative characterization of CB-IRFD is described, establishing its lowest limit of detection (LLD), IPV, and LDR in comparison to SR. Finally a wealth of modifications and enhancements of CCB formulations have been reported (8, 12, 21, 24, 26, 29, 40, 41, 52–54), and likewise there are many commercially available CCB stain formulations. To date, none of these formulations have been compared quantitatively in terms of their relative performance when detected using IRF. As a general detection method for gel-based proteomics, CB-IRFD was found to provide comparable or even slightly superior performance to SR according to most criteria, including sensitivity and selectivity (50). Furthermore, in terms of LDR, CB-IRFD showed distinct advantages over SR. However, assessing proteomes resolved by 2DE revealed critical distinctions between CB-IRFD and SR in terms of protein quantification versus threshold detection: neither stain could be considered unequivocally superior to the other by all criteria. Nonetheless, IRFD proved the most sensitive method of detecting CB-stained protein in-gel, enabling high sensitivity detection without the need for expensive reagents or even commercial formulations. Overall, CB-IRFD is a viable alternative to SR and other mainstream fluorescent stains, mitigating the high cost of large-scale gel-based proteomic analyses, making high sensitivity gel-based proteomics accessible to all labs. With improvements to CB formulations and/or image acquisition instruments, the performance of this detection technology may be further enhanced.     

Vinyl Sulfones as Antiparasitic Agents and a Structural Basis for Drug Design

Cysteine proteases of the papain superfamily are implicated in a number of cellular processes and are important virulence factors in the pathogenesis of parasitic disease. These enzymes have therefore emerged as promising targets for antiparasitic drugs. We report the crystal structures of three major parasite cysteine proteases, cruzain, falcipain-3, and the first reported structure of rhodesain, in complex with a class of potent, small molecule, cysteine protease inhibitors, the vinyl sulfones. These data, in conjunction with comparative inhibition kinetics, provide insight into the molecular mechanisms that drive cysteine protease inhibition by vinyl sulfones, the binding specificity of these important proteases and the potential of vinyl sulfones as antiparasitic drugs.Sleeping sickness (African trypanosomiasis), caused by Trypanosoma brucei, and malaria, caused by Plasmodium falciparum, are significant, parasitic diseases of sub-Saharan Africa (1). Chagas'' disease (South American trypanosomiasis), caused by Trypanosoma cruzi, affects approximately, 16–18 million people in South and Central America. For all three of these protozoan diseases, resistance and toxicity to current therapies makes treatment increasingly problematic, and thus the development of new drugs is an important priority (2–4).T. cruzi, T. brucei, and P. falciparum produce an array of potential target enzymes implicated in pathogenesis and host cell invasion, including a number of essential and closely related papain-family cysteine proteases (5, 6). Inhibitors of cruzain and rhodesain, major cathepsin L-like papain-family cysteine proteases of T. cruzi and T. brucei rhodesiense (7–10) display considerable antitrypanosomal activity (11, 12), and some classes have been shown to cure T. cruzi infection in mouse models (11, 13, 14).In P. falciparum, the papain-family cysteine proteases falcipain-2 (FP-2)⁶ and falcipain-3 (FP-3) are known to catalyze the proteolysis of host hemoglobin, a process that is essential for the development of erythrocytic parasites (15–17). Specific inhibitors, targeted to both enzymes, display antiplasmodial activity (18). However, although the abnormal phenotype of FP-2 knock-outs is “rescued” during later stages of trophozoite development (17), FP-3 has proved recalcitrant to gene knock-out (16) suggesting a critical function for this enzyme and underscoring its potential as a drug target.Sequence analyses and substrate profiling identify cruzain, rhodesain, and FP-3 as cathepsin L-like, and several studies describe classes of small molecule inhibitors that target multiple cathepsin L-like cysteine proteases, some with overlapping antiparasitic activity (19–22). Among these small molecules, vinyl sulfones have been shown to be effective inhibitors of a number of papain family-like cysteine proteases (19, 23–27). Vinyl sulfones have many desirable attributes, including selectivity for cysteine proteases over serine proteases, stable inactivation of the target enzyme, and relative inertness in the absence of the protease target active site (25). This class has also been shown to have desirable pharmacokinetic and safety profiles in rodents, dogs, and primates (28, 29). We have determined the crystal structures of cruzain, rhodesain, and FP-3 bound to vinyl sulfone inhibitors and performed inhibition kinetics for each enzyme. Our results highlight key areas of interaction between proteases and inhibitors. These results help validate the vinyl sulfones as a class of antiparasitic drugs and provide structural insights to facilitate the design or modification of other small molecule inhibitor scaffolds.