Crystal structure of a tripeptide,L-alanyl-glycyl-glycine and its relevance to the poly(glycine)-II type of conformation

A tripeptide molecule, L -alanyl-glycyl-glycine, crystallizes in the form of a left-handed helix with (?,ψ) = ?83°, 170°. A pseudohexagonal packing arrangement and interchain hydrogen-bonded interactions are reminiscent of the model for the structure of poly(glycine)-II. Observations of certain intermolecular interactions appear to be relevant to the stereochemical assumptions incorporated in the models proposed for poly(glycine)-II and related polypeptides.     

Biosafety in DIY‐bio laboratories: from hype to policy: Discussions about regulating DIY biology tend to ignore the extent of self‐regulation and oversight of DIY laboratories

Policymakers should treat DIY‐biology laboratories as legitimate parts of the scientific enterprise and pay attention to the role of community norms. Subject Categories: Synthetic Biology & Biotechnology, S&S: Economics & Business, S&S: Ethics

DIY biology – very broadly construed as the practice of biological experiments outside of traditional research environments such as universities, research institutes or companies – has, during the past decade, gained much prominence. This increased attention has raised a number of questions about biosafety and biosecurity, both in the media and by policy makers who are concerned about safety and security lapses in “garage biology”. There are a number of challenges here though when it comes to policies to regulate DIY biology. For a start, the term itself escapes easy definition: synonyms or related terms abound, including garage biotechnology, bio‐hacking, self‐modification/grinding, citizen science, bio‐tinkering, bio‐punk, even transhumanism. Some accounts even use ‘DIY‐bio’ interchangeably with synthetic biology, even though these terms refer to different emerging trends in biology. Some of these terms are more charged than others but each carries its own connotations with regard to practice, norms and legality. As such, conversations about the risk, safety and regulation of DIY‐bio can be fraught.

Synonyms or related terms abound, including garage biotechnology, bio‐hacking, self‐modification/grinding, citizen science, bio‐tinkering, bio‐punk, even transhumanism.

Given the increasing policy discussions about DIY‐bio, it is crucial to consider prevailing practice thoughtfully, and accurately. Key questions that researchers, policy makers and the public need to contemplate include the following: “How do different DIY‐bio spaces exist within regulatory frameworks, and enact cultures of (bio)safety?”, “How are these influenced by norms and governance structures?”, “If something is unregulated, must it follow that it is unsafe?” and “What about the reverse: does regulatory oversight necessarily lead to safer practice?”.The DIY‐bio movement emerged from the convergence of two trends in science and technology. The first one is synthetic biology, which can broadly be defined as a conception of genetic engineering as systematic, modular and programmable. While engineering living organisms is obviously a complex endeavour, synthetic biology has sought to re‐frame it by treating genetic components as inherently modular pieces to be assembled, through rational design processes, into complex but predictable systems. This has prompted many “LEGO” metaphors and a widespread sense of democratisation, making genetic engineering accessible not only to trained geneticists, but also to anyone with an “engineering mindset”.The second, much older, trend stems from hacker‐ and makerspaces, which are – usually not‐for‐profit – community organisations that enable groups of enthusiasts to share expensive or technically complex infrastructure, such as 3D printers or woodworking tools, for their projects. These provide a model of community‐led initiatives based on the sharing of infrastructure, equipment and knowledge. Underpinning these two trends is an economic aspect. Many of the tools of synthetic biology – notably DNA sequencing and synthesis – have seen a dramatic drop in cost, and much of the necessary physical apparatus is available for purchase, often second‐hand, through auction sites.DIY‐bio labs are often set‐up under widely varying management schemes. While some present themselves as community outreach labs focusing on amateur users, others cater specifically to semi‐ or professional members with advanced degrees in the biosciences. Other such spaces act as incubators for biotech startups with an explicitly entrepreneurial culture. Membership agreements, IP arrangements, fees, access and the types of project that are encouraged in each of these spaces can have a profound effect on the science being done.     

Corticosterone administration and lipid metabolism in brain regions during development.

Effect of corticosterone on lipid contents of different brain regions and the effect of age on the sensitivity of these regions to corticosterone have been studied. Corticosterone administration (40 mg/kg body wt, sc) to 17-day-old rat for 3 days led to significant decrease in phospholipid content of cerebellum and increase in cholesterol contents of hippocampus and striatum. However, there was no effect on cerebral cortex and brain stem lipids. This alteration in lipids was associated with decrease in [U-14C] glucose incorporation into cholesterol and phospholipids, decrease in plasma beta-hydroxy butyrate levels and increase in beta-hydroxy butyrate dehydrogenase activity in hippocampus and striatum, thereby suggesting that suppression of glucose utilization by corticosterone was compensated by higher utilization of ketone bodies for lipid synthesis in these regions. The sensitivity to corticosterone appears to be age-specific as, at 20-day, cerebellum, hippocampus and striatum were susceptible, at 10-day only hippocampus and at 40- and 90-day none of these regions responded to the treatment.