scholarly journals Immunological evidence for structural homology between Drosophila melanogaster (S14), rabbit liver (S12), Saccharomyces cerevisiae (S25), Bacillus subtilis (S6), and Escherichia coli (S6) ribosomal proteins.

1984 ◽  
Vol 4 (11) ◽  
pp. 2535-2539 ◽  
Author(s):  
W Y Chooi ◽  
E Otaka
Keyword(s):  
Escherichia Coli ◽  
Saccharomyces Cerevisiae ◽  
Drosophila Melanogaster ◽  
Bacillus Subtilis ◽  
Comparative Study ◽  
Ribosomal Proteins ◽  
Rabbit Liver ◽  
Antigenic Determinants ◽  
Structural Homology ◽  
Specific Antibodies

Specific antibodies directed against Drosophila melanogaster acidic ribosomal protein S14 were used in a comparative study of eucaryotic and procaryotic ribosomes by immunoblotting and enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays. Common antigenic determinants and, thus, structural homology were found between D. melanogaster, Saccharomyces cerevisiae (S25), rabbit liver (S12), Bacillus subtilis (S6), and Escherichia coli (S6) ribosomes.

Immunological evidence for structural homology between Drosophila melanogaster (S14), rabbit liver (S12), Saccharomyces cerevisiae (S25), Bacillus subtilis (S6), and Escherichia coli (S6) ribosomal proteins

1984 ◽  
Vol 4 (11) ◽  
pp. 2535-2539
Author(s):  
W Y Chooi ◽  
E Otaka
Keyword(s):  
Escherichia Coli ◽  
Saccharomyces Cerevisiae ◽  
Drosophila Melanogaster ◽  
Bacillus Subtilis ◽  
Comparative Study ◽  
Ribosomal Proteins ◽  
Rabbit Liver ◽  
Antigenic Determinants ◽  
Structural Homology ◽  
Specific Antibodies

Specific antibodies directed against Drosophila melanogaster acidic ribosomal protein S14 were used in a comparative study of eucaryotic and procaryotic ribosomes by immunoblotting and enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays. Common antigenic determinants and, thus, structural homology were found between D. melanogaster, Saccharomyces cerevisiae (S25), rabbit liver (S12), Bacillus subtilis (S6), and Escherichia coli (S6) ribosomes.

Structural homology between Drosophila melanogaster and Escherichia coli acidic ribosomal proteins

1984 ◽  
Vol 22 (7-8) ◽  
pp. 749-767 ◽  
Author(s):  
W. Yean Chooi ◽  
Linda M. Sabatini ◽  
Michael Macklin
Keyword(s):  
Escherichia Coli ◽  
Drosophila Melanogaster ◽  
Ribosomal Proteins ◽  
Structural Homology

scholarly journals Antioxidative, Antifungal and Additive Activity of the Antimicrobial Peptides Leg1 and Leg2 from Chickpea

Foods ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (3) ◽  
pp. 585
Author(s):  
Marie-Louise Heymich ◽  
Laura Nißl ◽  
Dominik Hahn ◽  
Matthias Noll ◽  
Monika Pischetsrieder
Keyword(s):  
Escherichia Coli ◽  
Saccharomyces Cerevisiae ◽  
Ascorbic Acid ◽  
Bacillus Subtilis ◽  
Antifungal Activity ◽  
Antimicrobial Peptides ◽  
Antioxidative Activity ◽  
Radical Scavenging ◽  
Cytotoxic Effects ◽  
Zygosaccharomyces Bailii

The fight against food waste benefits from novel agents inhibiting spoilage. The present study investigated the preservative potential of the antimicrobial peptides Leg1 (RIKTVTSFDLPALRFLKL) and Leg2 (RIKTVTSFDLPALRWLKL) recently identified in chickpea legumin hydrolysates. Checkerboard assays revealed strong additive antimicrobial effects of Leg1/Leg2 with sodium benzoate against Escherichia coli and Bacillus subtilis with fractional inhibitory concentrations of 0.625 and 0.75. Additionally, Leg1/Leg2 displayed antifungal activity with minimum inhibitory concentrations of 500/250 µM against Saccharomyces cerevisiae and 250/125 µM against Zygosaccharomyces bailii. In contrast, no cytotoxic effects were observed against human Caco-2 cells at concentrations below 2000 µM (Leg1) and 1000 µM (Leg2). Particularly Leg2 showed antioxidative activity by radical scavenging and reducing mechanisms (maximally 91.5/86.3% compared to 91.2/94.7% for the control ascorbic acid). The present results demonstrate that Leg1/Leg2 have the potential to be applied as preservatives protecting food and other products against bacterial, fungal and oxidative spoilage.

scholarly journals Nontraditional systems in aging research: an update

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Justyna Mikuła-Pietrasik ◽  
Martyna Pakuła ◽  
Małgorzata Markowska ◽  
Paweł Uruski ◽  
Ludwina Szczepaniak-Chicheł ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Escherichia Coli ◽  
Saccharomyces Cerevisiae ◽  
Drosophila Melanogaster ◽  
Caenorhabditis Elegans ◽  
Caulobacter Crescentus ◽  
Killer Whale ◽  
Somatic Cells ◽  
Greenland Shark ◽  
Arctica Islandica ◽  
Aging Research

Abstract Research on the evolutionary and mechanistic aspects of aging and longevity has a reductionist nature, as the majority of knowledge originates from experiments on a relatively small number of systems and species. Good examples are the studies on the cellular, molecular, and genetic attributes of aging (senescence) that are primarily based on a narrow group of somatic cells, especially fibroblasts. Research on aging and/or longevity at the organismal level is dominated, in turn, by experiments on Drosophila melanogaster, worms (Caenorhabditis elegans), yeast (Saccharomyces cerevisiae), and higher organisms such as mice and humans. Other systems of aging, though numerous, constitute the minority. In this review, we collected and discussed a plethora of up-to-date findings about studies of aging, longevity, and sometimes even immortality in several valuable but less frequently used systems, including bacteria (Caulobacter crescentus, Escherichia coli), invertebrates (Turritopsis dohrnii, Hydra sp., Arctica islandica), fishes (Nothobranchius sp., Greenland shark), reptiles (giant tortoise), mammals (blind mole rats, naked mole rats, bats, elephants, killer whale), and even 3D organoids, to prove that they offer biogerontologists as much as the more conventional tools. At the same time, the diversified knowledge gained owing to research on those species may help to reconsider aging from a broader perspective, which should translate into a better understanding of this tremendously complex and clearly system-specific phenomenon.

scholarly journals Anatomy of a twin DNA replication factory

2020 ◽  
Vol 48 (6) ◽  
pp. 2769-2778
Author(s):  
Huilin Li ◽  
Nina Y. Yao ◽  
Michael E. O'Donnell
Keyword(s):  
Escherichia Coli ◽  
Saccharomyces Cerevisiae ◽  
Bacillus Subtilis ◽  
Dna Replication ◽  
In Vivo Studies ◽  
Replication Forks ◽  
Structural Studies ◽  
Replication Factory ◽  
Higher Eukaryotes

The replication of DNA in chromosomes is initiated at sequences called origins at which two replisome machines are assembled at replication forks that move in opposite directions. Interestingly, in vivo studies observe that the two replication forks remain fastened together, often referred to as a replication factory. Replication factories containing two replisomes are well documented in cellular studies of bacteria (Escherichia coli and Bacillus subtilis) and the eukaryote, Saccharomyces cerevisiae. This basic twin replisome factory architecture may also be preserved in higher eukaryotes. Despite many years of documenting the existence of replication factories, the molecular details of how the two replisome machines are tethered together has been completely unknown in any organism. Recent structural studies shed new light on the architecture of a eukaryote replisome factory, which brings with it a new twist on how a replication factory may function.

scholarly journals Study on the extraction and antibacterial activity of Monascin

2021 ◽  
Vol 251 ◽  
pp. 02061
Author(s):  
Xiaojuan Gao ◽  
Xiaoshi Lu ◽  
Zifeng Wang ◽  
Guangpeng Liu ◽  
Xinjun Li
Keyword(s):  
Escherichia Coli ◽  
Saccharomyces Cerevisiae ◽  
Staphylococcus Aureus ◽  
Antibacterial Activity ◽  
Bacillus Subtilis ◽  
Aspergillus Niger ◽  
Inhibitory Effect ◽  
Ethanol Extraction ◽  
Inhibitory Ability ◽  
Strong Inhibitory Effect

Taking monascin as the research object, monascin was extracted from red kojic rice by ethanol extraction and extracted with 60%, 70% and 80% ethanol respectively. Finally, it was concluded that when the concentration of ethanol was 70%, the extraction rate of monascin was the highest, reached 75.68%. The bacteriostatic experiments of monascin extract and monascin fermentation showed that it had strong inhibitory effect on Staphylococcus aureus and Bacillus subtilis, weak inhibitory ability on Escherichia coli and Aspergillus niger, and no obvious inhibitory effect on the growth of Saccharomyces cerevisiae.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document