Comparison of the effects of smooth and skeletal tropomyosin on skeletal actomyosin subfragment 1 ATPase

Chicken gizzard tropomyosin, like rabbit skeletal tropomyosin, inhibits and activates skeletal actomyosin subfragment 1 ATPase at low and high [subfragment 1], respectively, showing that both smooth and skeletal tropomyosin qualitatively produce similar cooperative effects on activity. For gizzard tropomyosin, however, the extent of the inhibition was less, and the activation curve rose more sharply at lower [subfragment 1]. In terms of a two-state cooperative activity model for the actin-tropomyosin filament (Hill, T. L., Eisenberg, E., and Chalovich, J. (1981) Biophys. J. 35, 99-112), these results qualitatively suggest that, for the gizzard tropomyosin system, more units are initially in the active state (in the absence of subfragment 1) and that the switching of units to the active state is more cooperative. The greater cooperativity indicated for the gizzard system may be a consequence of the greater rigidity of gizzard tropomyosin indicated from conformational studies.     

Complementarity of regulation for the two glutamine synthetases from Bacillus caldolyticus, an extreme thermophile

Chromatophores from Rhodopseudomonas capsulata cells grown semiaerobically in the dark oxidize NADH, succinate, and dichlorophenolindophenol. In the presence of N₃^? these activities are inhibited, but light induces oxidation of dichlorophenolindophenol with O₂ as a terminal electron acceptor. Cyanide also inhibits electron transport but much higher concentrations are required to inhibit the photooxidation than the dark oxidation. The photooxidation was studied in a mutant strain of Rhodopseudomonas capsulata (YIV) which cannot grow anaerobically in the light, but similarly to the wild type, grows in the presence of oxygen. Chromatophores from YIV mutant catalyze photophosphorylation and dark oxidation activities with the same properties as those of the wild type. However, the rate of photooxidation in the mutant is only one-third that of the wild type. Based on the differential inhibitor sensitivity and on the mutation it is suggested that the photooxidase is different from the two respiratory oxidases and that this photooxidation activity might be essential for growth of the cells under anaerobic conditions in the light.     

Interacting forces of predation and fishing affect species’ maturation size

1. Fishing is a strong selective force and is supposed to select for earlier maturation at smaller body size. However, the extent to which fishing‐induced evolution is shaping ecosystems remains debated. This is in part because it is challenging to disentangle fishing from other selective forces (e.g., size‐structured predation and cannibalism) in complex ecosystems undergoing rapid change.
2. Changes in maturation size from fishing and predation have previously been explored with multi‐species physiologically structured models but assumed separation of ecological and evolutionary timescales. To assess the eco‐evolutionary impact of fishing and predation at the same timescale, we developed a stochastic physiologically size‐structured food‐web model, where new phenotypes are introduced randomly through time enabling dynamic simulation of species'' relative maturation sizes under different types of selection pressures.
3. Using the model, we carried out a fully factorial in silico experiment to assess how maturation size would change in the absence and presence of both fishing and predation (including cannibalism). We carried out ten replicate stochastic simulations exposed to all combinations of fishing and predation in a model community of nine interacting fish species ranging in their maximum sizes from 10 g to 100 kg. We visualized and statistically analyzed the results using linear models.
4. The effects of fishing on maturation size depended on whether or not predation was enabled and differed substantially across species. Fishing consistently reduced the maturation sizes of two largest species whether or not predation was enabled and this decrease was seen even at low fishing intensities (F = 0.2 per year). In contrast, the maturation sizes of the three smallest species evolved to become smaller through time but this happened regardless of the levels of predation or fishing. For the four medium‐size species, the effect of fishing was highly variable with more species showing significant and larger fishing effects in the presence of predation.
5. Ultimately our results suggest that the interactive effects of predation and fishing can have marked effects on species'' maturation sizes, but that, at least for the largest species, predation does not counterbalance the evolutionary effect of fishing. Our model also produced relative maturation sizes that are broadly consistent with empirical estimates for many fish species.