Characterization of a novel 14 kDa bile acid-binding protein from rat ileal cytosol

A 14 kDa polypeptide in rat ileal cytosol has been identified as the major intestinal cytosolic bile acid-binding protein (I-BABP) by photoaffinity labeling with the radiolabeled 7,7-azo derivative of taurocholate (7,7-azo-TC). To further characterize I-BABP, the protein was purified by lysylglycocholate Sepharose 4B affinity and DE-52 anion-exchange chromatography. The purified I-BABP contained a single 14 kDa band on SDS-PAGE. The 14 kDa protein showed a 26-fold increase in binding affinity for [3H]7,7-azo-TC compared to cytosolic protein. Immunoblotting of protein fractions separated by affinity chromatography showed that neither liver fatty acid binding protein (L-FABP) nor intestinal fatty acid binding protein (I-FABP) bind to the affinity column and that the 14 kDa protein which bound to the column and was subsequently eluted with detergent did not cross-react with anti-L-FABP or anti-I-FABP. The 14 kDa protein labeled with [3H]7,7-azo-TC was radioimmunoprecipitated from cytosol by rabbit antiserum raised against purified I-BABP. I-BABP was shown to have a blocked N-terminus; however, its mixed internal sequence generated from cyanogen bromide-cleaved protein and amino acid composition indicated that it was related to (although clearly distinct from) both I-FABP and L-FABP. These studies have isolated a 14 kDa bile acid-binding protein from rat ileal cytosol which is immunologically and biochemically distinct from I-FABP and L-FABP.     

On the necessity of an archetypal concept in morphology: With special reference to the concepts of “structure” and “homology”

Morphological elements, or structures, are sorted into four categories depending on their level of anatomical isolation and the presence or absence of intrinsically identifying characteristics. These four categories are used to highlight the difficulties with the concept of structure and our ability to identify or define structures. The analysis is extended to the concept of homology through a discussion of the methodological and philosophical problems of the current concept of homology. It is argued that homology is fundamentally a similarity based concept rather than a phylogenetic concept, and a proposal is put forth to return to a comparative context for homology. It is shown that for both the concepts of structure and homology ana priori assumption of stable underlying patterns (i.e. archetypes) is essential.