L-galactono-gamma-lactone dehydrogenase from sweet potato: purification and cDNA sequence analysis

L-Galactono-gamma-lactone dehydrogenase (EC 1.3.2.3, GLDHase) was partially purified from mitochondria of sweet potato tuberous roots over 600-fold on a specific activity basis, followed by purification of the enzyme protein of 56 kDa by a preparative SDS-PAGE. The absorption spectrum of the hydroxylapatite column-purified GLDH-ase showed peaks at 448 and 373 nm, suggesting the presence of flavin as a prosthetic group. The activity of GLDH-ase was inhibited by lycorine, an alkaloid which inhibits ascorbic acid biosynthesis in vivo. N-terminal partial sequences of four internal polypeptides generated by partial digestion of GLDHase with V8 protease were determined. The deduced nucleotide sequences were used to amplify a cDNA fragment of the GLDHase gene. The clone encoded a polypeptide of 581 amino acid residues with a molecular mass of 66 kDa. The deduced amino acid sequence showed 77% identity with that of cauliflower GLDHase, and significant homology to those of L-gulono-gamma-lactone oxidase (22% identity) from rat and L-galactono-gamma-lactone oxidase from yeast (17% identity), which are enzymes involved in L-ascorbic acid biosynthesis in these organisms. The absorption spectrum and cDNA sequence suggested that the flavin group bound noncovalently. We conclude that GLDHase, L-gulono-gamma-lactone oxidase and L-galactono-gamma-lactone oxidase are homologous in spite of the difference in substrates and electron acceptors. Genomic Southern analysis suggested that GLDHase gene exists as a single copy in the genome of sweet potato.     

Functional and Physical Interaction between Rad24 and Rfc5 in the Yeast Checkpoint Pathways

The RFC5 gene encodes a small subunit of replication factor C (RFC) complex in Saccharomyces cerevisiae and has been shown to be required for the checkpoints which respond to replication block and DNA damage. Here we describe the isolation of RAD24, known to play a role in the DNA damage checkpoint, as a dosage-dependent suppressor of rfc5-1. RAD24 overexpression suppresses the sensitivity of rfc5-1 cells to DNA-damaging agents and the defect in DNA damage-induced Rad53 phosphorylation. Rad24, like Rfc5, is required for the regulation of Rad53 phosphorylation in response to DNA damage. The Rad24 protein, which is structurally related to the RFC subunits, interacts physically with RFC subunits Rfc2 and Rfc5 and cosediments with Rfc5. Although the rad24Δ mutation alone does not cause a defect in the replication block checkpoint, it does enhance the defect in rfc5-1 mutants. Furthermore, overexpression of RAD24 suppresses the rfc5-1 defect in the replication block checkpoint. Taken together, our results demonstrate a physical and functional interaction between Rad24 and Rfc5 in the checkpoint pathways.     

Neural Networks for Mindfulness and Emotion Suppression

Mindfulness, an attentive non-judgmental focus on “here and now” experiences, has been incorporated into various cognitive behavioral therapy approaches and beneficial effects have been demonstrated. Recently, mindfulness has also been identified as a potentially effective emotion regulation strategy. On the other hand, emotion suppression, which refers to trying to avoid or escape from experiencing and being aware of one’s own emotions, has been identified as a potentially maladaptive strategy. Previous studies suggest that both strategies can decrease affective responses to emotional stimuli. They would, however, be expected to provide regulation through different top-down modulation systems. The present study was aimed at elucidating the different neural systems underlying emotion regulation via mindfulness and emotion suppression approaches. Twenty-one healthy participants used the two types of strategy in response to emotional visual stimuli while functional magnetic resonance imaging was conducted. Both strategies attenuated amygdala responses to emotional triggers, but the pathways to regulation differed across the two. A mindful approach appears to regulate amygdala functioning via functional connectivity from the medial prefrontal cortex, while suppression uses connectivity with other regions, including the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex. Thus, the two types of emotion regulation recruit different top-down modulation processes localized at prefrontal areas. These different pathways are discussed.