高效生物表面活性剂产生菌筛选及其性质研究

目的:获得产高效生物表面活性剂的菌株并获得优化培养基。方法:通过从山东文登某加油站附近长期污染富含油质的土壤中逐步采用富集培养基和平板筛选培养基分离筛选菌株并进行优化培养寻找最优生长培养和高产生物表面活性剂的条件。结果:筛选出产表面活性剂的微生物12株,分别命名为BSF1#-BSF12#,从中筛选出1株高效表面活性剂产生菌BSF8#,优化培养结果表明BSF8#的最佳生长pH在7.5左右,最佳碳源为葡萄糖,最佳氮源为蛋白胨,BSF8#培养基中最佳NaCl浓度为2g/L。BSF8#菌株可将发酵液的表面张力由最初的48.29mN/m降到27.79 mN/m,上层乳化状发酵液的排油圈最大直径超过7.5cm,并经红外光谱分析确定其生物表面活性剂为1个糖肽类化合物。结论:BSF8#菌株产生的生物表面活性剂活性突出,有较大的开发潜力。     

稳定表达人Eps8基因的胶质瘤U251细胞系的建立

应用亚克隆方法构建pEGFP-C3／Eps8真核表达载体,经测序鉴定后,用脂质体进行胶质瘤U251细胞的转染,应用G418筛选出稳定表达pEGFP-C3／Eps8和pEGFP—C3的细胞系,最后通过Western blot和荧光定位证明印娼在U251细胞中过量表达。本实验成功建立了稳定转染Eps8的U251细胞系,为进一步研究Eps8基因在胶质瘤中的功能奠定了良好的实验基础。     

周期节律与肿瘤关系的分子机理

周期节律是由内在时钟系统介导的多重生物过程的周期循环.周期节律系统是由位于大脑的视神经交叉上核的中央时钟系统和位于外周的几乎存在于所有细胞的外周时钟系统组成的.中央时钟与外周时钟都能够对生物体的生理过程进行调控,如激素的分泌、能量代谢、细胞增殖、DNA损伤修复等.而周期节律基因的表达失调,对其下游靶基因包括细胞周期相关基因的表达,以及细胞抗凋亡能力等产生重要的影响.而这一结果会导致细胞增殖加速及基因组不稳定,并可能促进肿瘤的发生.许多实验证据表明,肿瘤是一种节律相关的生理失调,在许多肿瘤中都发现周期节律遭到破坏,如乳腺癌、前列腺癌、子宫内膜癌等.本文将从周期节律对细胞周期进程及对细胞DNA损伤修复的影响来讨论分子水平上细胞的周期节律与肿瘤发生发展的关系.     

NOD1真核表达质粒的构建及表达

目的:构建天然免疫胞内识别受体核苷酸寡聚域1(NOD1)真核表达质粒。方法:NOD1基因片段经PCR扩增获得,经酶切后连接到真核表达载体pcDNA3/flag中,对挑选出的阳性克隆测序,将序列正确的重组质粒pflag-NOD1转染293T细胞,用Western印迹检测目的蛋白的表达,同时用NF-κB的萤光素酶报告基因检测NOD1蛋白的活性。结果:pflag-NOD1可以在真核细胞293T中表达,并可以增强NF-κB报告基因的转录活性。结论:构建了重组质粒pflag-NOD1,在细胞中表达NOD1后能够提高NF-κB转录的生物活性,为进一步研究NOD1的功能奠定了基础。     

Crystal Structure of a Virus-Encoded Putative Glycosyltransferase

The chloroviruses (family Phycodnaviridae), unlike most viruses, encode some, if not most, of the enzymes involved in the glycosylation of their structural proteins. Annotation of the gene product B736L from chlorovirus NY-2A suggests that it is a glycosyltransferase. The structure of the recombinantly expressed B736L protein was determined by X-ray crystallography to 2.3-Å resolution, and the protein was shown to have two nucleotide-binding folds like other glycosyltransferase type B enzymes. This is the second structure of a chlorovirus-encoded glycosyltransferase and the first structure of a chlorovirus type B enzyme to be determined. B736L is a retaining enzyme and belongs to glycosyltransferase family 4. The donor substrate was identified as GDP-mannose by isothermal titration calorimetry and was shown to bind into the cleft between the two domains in the protein. The active form of the enzyme is probably a dimer in which the active centers are separated by about 40 Å.Glycosyltransferases constitute a large family of enzymes that catalyze the transfer of sugar moieties from donor molecules to specific acceptor molecules. Unlike other enzyme families that usually share conserved features in their primary sequences, glycosyltransferases can have highly diversified sequences that have been grouped into more than 90 families (designated GTn, where n = 1, 2, …) (http://www.CAZy.org) (1, 15). However, two families, GT2 and GT4, account for about half of the total number of glycosyltransferases. Despite the large variation in the primary sequences of glycosyltransferases, their three-dimensional structures are usually conserved. There are two major glycosyltransferase structural types, named GT-A and GT-B. The GT-A members contain a single nucleotide-binding domain consisting of six parallel β-strands flanked by connecting α-helices (referred to as a “Rossmann fold” in most of the literature on these enzymes and herein). GT-A enzyme activities are usually metal ion dependent. The GT-B type glycosyltransferases have two Rossmann folds separated by a cleft that forms the substrate-binding site. Metal ions are normally not required for GT-B function. Based on their catalytic mechanism, glycosyltransferases are also classified as either retaining or inverting enzymes depending on the geometry between the sugar donor and the receptor in the product molecule (e.g., depending on whether the anomeric carbon atom is linked to the acceptor via its α or β position). If the anomeric carbon atom has the same configuration in the donor and in the product, the enzyme is classified as a retaining enzyme; if the configurations are different, the enzyme is considered to be an inverting enzyme (2).Many viruses, especially those that infect eukaryotic cells, have extensively glycosylated structural proteins. Glycans coating viral structural proteins serve multiple biological roles, e.g., they mimic host glycans to evade host cell immune reactions, aid in folding or assembly of viral structural proteins, function as a receptor recognized by cell surface proteins, or aid in stabilizing viral particles (see, e.g., reference 36).Typically, viruses use host-encoded glycosyltransferases and glycosidases located in the endoplasmic reticulum (ER) and Golgi apparatus to add and remove N-linked sugar residues from virus glycoproteins either during or shortly after translation of the protein. This posttranslational processing aids in protein folding and requires other host-encoded enzymes. After folding and assembly, virus glycoproteins are transported by host-sorting and membrane transport functions to virus-specified regions in host membranes, where they displace host glycoproteins. Progeny viruses then bud through these virus-specific target membranes, in what is usually the final step in the assembly of infectious virions (3, 14, 21, 36). Thus, nascent viruses become infectious only by budding through the target membrane, usually the plasma membrane, as they are released from the cell. Consequently, the glycan portion of virus glycoproteins is host specific. The theme that emerges is that virus glycoproteins are synthesized and glycosylated by the same mechanisms as host glycoproteins. Therefore, the only way to alter glycosylation of virus proteins is to either grow the virus in a different host or have a mutation in the virus protein that alters the protein glycosylation site.One explanation for this scenario is that, in general, viruses lack genes encoding glycosyltransferases. However, a few virus-encoded glycosyltransferases have been reported in recent years (see reference 17 for a review). Often these virus-encoded glycosyltransferases add sugars to compounds other than proteins. For instance, some phage-encoded glycosyltransferases modify virus DNA to protect it from host restriction endonucleases (see, e.g., reference 10), and a glycosyltransferase encoded by baculoviruses modifies a host insect ecdysteroid hormone, leading to its inactivation (22). Bovine herpesvirus 4 encodes a β-1,6-N-acetyl-glucosaminyltransferase that is localized in the Golgi apparatus and is probably involved in posttranslational modification of the virus structural proteins (32).One group of viruses differs from the scenario that viruses use the host machinery located in the ER and the Golgi apparatus to glycosylate their glycoproteins. These viruses are the large, plaque-forming, double-stranded DNA (dsDNA)-containing chloroviruses (family Phycodnaviridae) that infect eukaryotic algae (4, 34, 39, 40). The chloroviruses have up to 400 protein-encoding genes (or coding sequences [CDSs]). Annotation of six chlorovirus genomes showed that each virus encodes 3 to 6 putative glycosyltransferases (7-9, 16, 33). Three of these viruses, NY-2A, AR158, and the prototype chlorovirus Paramecium bursaria chlorella virus 1 (PBCV-1), infect Chlorella strain NC64A. Two of the viruses, MT325 and FR483, infect Chlorella Pbi, and one of them, Acanthocystis turfacea chlorella virus (ATCV-1), infects Chlorella SAG 3.83.Glycosylation of the PBCV-1 major capsid protein, Vp54, is at least partially performed by the viral glycosyltransferases (11, 20, 33, 38, 41). PBCV-1 encodes 5 putative glycosyltransferases. A previous structural study established that the N-terminal 211 amino acids of the A64R protein from PBCV-1 form a GT-A group glycosyltransferase that is a retaining enzyme belonging to the GT34 family and that UDP-glucose possibly serves as the donor sugar (41).Among the four additional PBCV-1 glycosyltransferase-encoding genes, gene a546l encodes a 396-amino-acid protein that resembles members in the GT4 family of glycosyltransferases, based on amino acid sequence comparison of members in the CAZy classification (1, 15). Homologs of this protein, A546L, are encoded by 3 other chloroviruses, NY-2A, AR158, and ATCV-1. Here, we report the crystal structure of one of these homologs, B736L, at 2.3-Å resolution.     

Characterization of Androgen Receptor Structure and Nucleocytoplasmic Shuttling of the Rice Field Eel

Androgen receptor (AR) plays a critical role in prostate cancer and male sexual differentiation. We have identified AR from a primitive vertebrate with a sex reversal characteristic, the rice field eel. AR of this species (eAR) is distinct from human AR, especially in the ligand binding domain (LBD), and its expression in gonads shows an increasing tendency during gonadal transformation from ovary via ovotestis to testis. eAR has a restricted androgen-dependent transactivation function after a nuclear translocation upon dihydrotestosterone exposure. A functional nuclear localization signal was further identified in the DNA binding domain and hinge region. Although nuclear export is CRM1-independent, eAR has a novel nuclear export signal, which is negatively charged, indicating that a nuclear export pathway may be mediated by electrostatic interaction. Further, our studies have identified critical sequences for ligand binding in the C terminus. A structure of three α-helices in the LBD has been conserved from eels to humans during vertebrate evolution, despite a distinct amino acid sequence. Mutation analysis confirmed that the LBD is essential for dihydrotestosterone-induced nuclear import of eAR and following transactivation function in the nucleus. In addition, eAR interacts with both Sox9a1 and Sox9a2, and their interaction regulates transactivation of eAR. Our data suggest that the primitive species conserves and especially acquires key novel domains, the nuclear export signal and LBD, for the eAR function in spite of a rapid sequence evolution.     

Type and orientation of yielded trabeculae during overloading of trabecular bone along orthogonal directions

Trabecular architecture plays a major role in bone mechanics. Osteoporosis leads to a transition from a plate-like to a more rod-like trabecular morphology, which may contribute to fracture risk beyond that predicted by changes in density. In this study, microstructural finite element analysis results were analyzed using individual trabeculae segmentation (ITS) to identify the type and orientation of trabeculae where tissue yielded during compressive overloads in two orthogonal directions. For both apparent loading conditions, most of the yielded tissue was found in longitudinally oriented plates. However, the primary loading mode of yielded trabeculae was axial compression with superposed bending for on-axis loading in contrast to bending for transverse loading. For either loading direction, most plate-like trabeculae yielded in the same loading mode, regardless of their orientation. In contrast, rods oriented parallel to the loading axis yielded in compression, while rods oblique or perpendicular to the loading axis yielded in combined bending and tension. The predominance of tissue yielding in plates during both on-axis and transverse overloading explains why on-axis overloading is detrimental to the off-axis mechanical properties. At the same time, a large fraction of the tissue in rod-like trabeculae parallel to the loading direction yielded in both on-axis and transverse loading. Hence, rods may be more likely to be damaged and potentially resorbed by damage mediated remodeling.