Inhibition of co-operative enzymes by substrate-analogues: Possible implications for the physiological significance of negative co-operativity illustrated by phenylalanine metabolism in higher plants

The “Hill” equation for co-operative binding-systems has been extended to describe the effect of substrate-analogue on the binding of substrate to an oligomeric protein. It is demonstrated that the more negatively co-operative the binding-system, the more sensitive is the binding of substrate to inhibition by increases in the relative concentration of substrate-analogue. It is proposed that the physiological significance of negative co-operativity for enzymes may be complementary to the physiological significance of positive co-operativity. The effect of negative co-operativity is to make substrate binding more sensitive to inhibition by relative increases in the concentration of substrate-analogue (e.g. for many enzymes product of the reaction) at the expense of decreased sensitivity of substrate binding to relative changes in substrate concentration compared to a system with equivalent, independent substrate binding sites. In contrast, the effect of positive co-operativity is to make the enzyme more sensitive to relative changes in substrate concentration at the expense of decreased sensitivity to inhibition by relative increases in product concentration, compared to an enzyme without co-operative binding.     

The DExD/H-box ATPase Prp2p destabilizes and proofreads the catalytic RNA core of the spliceosome

After undergoing massive RNA and protein rearrangements during assembly, the spliceosome undergoes a final, more subtle, ATP-dependent rearrangement that is essential for catalysis. This rearrangement requires the DEAH-box protein Prp2p, an RNA-dependent ATPase. Prp2p has been implicated in destabilizing interactions between the spliceosome and the protein complexes SF3 and RES, but a role for Prp2p in destabilizing RNA–RNA interactions has not been explored. Using directed molecular genetics in budding yeast, we have found that a cold-sensitive prp2 mutation is suppressed not only by mutations in SF3 and RES components but also by a range of mutations that disrupt the spliceosomal catalytic core element U2/U6 helix I, which is implicated in juxtaposing the 5′ splice site and branch site and in positioning metal ions for catalysis within the context of a putative catalytic triplex; indeed, mutations in this putative catalytic triplex also suppressed a prp2 mutation. Remarkably, we also found that prp2 mutations rescue lethal mutations in U2/U6 helix I. These data provide evidence that RNA elements that comprise the catalytic core are already formed at the Prp2p stage and that Prp2p destabilizes these elements, directly or indirectly, both to proofread spliceosome activation and to promote reconfiguration of the spliceosome to a fully competent, catalytic conformation.     

Four-site four-electron model for Bi(III)-Bi(V) mixed valence complex

In most quantum models for the four-site four-electron problem the lowest singlet state has two short and two long bonds in the absence of lattice polarization and is called the resonating valence bond (VB) state. It is shown here that if the lattice polarization is large, the ground state is a ‘negative U’ state with valence disproportionation (for example BaBiO₃ with Bi(V) and Bi(III) sites). Furthermore the model shows that the coupling between the pairs on different sites is provided via the VB state.     

3′-End processing of histone pre-mRNAs in Drosophila: U7 snRNP is associated with FLASH and polyadenylation factors

3′-End cleavage of animal replication-dependent histone pre-mRNAs is controlled by the U7 snRNP. Lsm11, the largest component of the U7-specific Sm ring, interacts with FLASH, and in mammalian nuclear extracts these two proteins form a platform that recruits the CPSF73 endonuclease and other polyadenylation factors to the U7 snRNP. FLASH is limiting, and the majority of the U7 snRNP in mammalian extracts exists as a core particle consisting of the U7 snRNA and the Sm ring. Here, we purified the U7 snRNP from Drosophila nuclear extracts and characterized its composition by mass spectrometry. In contrast to the mammalian U7 snRNP, a significant fraction of the Drosophila U7 snRNP contains endogenous FLASH and at least six subunits of the polyadenylation machinery: symplekin, CPSF73, CPSF100, CPSF160, WDR33, and CstF64. The same composite U7 snRNP is recruited to histone pre-mRNA for 3′-end processing. We identified a motif in Drosophila FLASH that is essential for the recruitment of the polyadenylation complex to the U7 snRNP and analyzed the role of other factors, including SLBP and Ars2, in 3′-end processing of Drosophila histone pre-mRNAs. SLBP that binds the upstream stem–loop structure likely recruits a yet-unidentified essential component(s) to the processing machinery. In contrast, Ars2, a protein previously shown to interact with FLASH in mammalian cells, is dispensable for processing in Drosophila. Our studies also demonstrate that Drosophila symplekin and three factors involved in cleavage and polyadenylation—CPSF, CstF, and CF I_m—are present in Drosophila nuclear extracts in a stable supercomplex.     

Dual character of Toll-like receptor signaling: Pro-tumorigenic effects and anti-tumor functions

As a major class of pattern-recognition receptors, Toll-like receptors (TLRs) play a critical role in defense against invading pathogens. Increasing evidence demonstrates that, in addition to infection, TLRs are involved in other important pathological processes, such as tumorigenesis. Activation of TLRs results in opposing outcomes, pro-tumorigenic effects and anti-tumor functions. TLR signaling can inhibit apoptosis and promote chronic inflammation-induced tumorigenesis. TLR activation in tumor cells and immune cells can induce production of cytokines, increase tumor cell proliferation and apoptosis resistance, promote invasion and metastasis, and inhibit immune cell activity resulting in tumor immune escape. In contrast, the engagement of other TLRs directly induces growth inhibition and apoptosis of tumor cells and triggers activation of immune cells enhancing anti-tumor immune responses. Thus, the interpretation of the precise function of each TLR in tumors is very important for targeting TLRs and using TLR agonists in tumor therapy. We review the role of TLR signaling in tumors and discuss the factors that affect outcomes of TLR activation.