Dunaliella tertiolecta (Chlorophyta) Avoids Cell Death Under Ultraviolet Radiation By Triggering Alternative Photoprotective Mechanisms

The effect of different ultraviolet radiation (UVR) treatments combining PAR (P), UVA (A) and UVB (B) on the molecular physiology of Dunaliella tertiolecta was studied during 6 days to assess the response to chronic UVR exposure. UVR reduced cell growth but did not cause cell death, as shown by the absence of SYTOX Green labeling and cellular morphology. However, caspase‐like enzymatic activities (CLs), (regarded as cell death proteases), were active even though the cells were not dying. Maximal quantum yield of fluorescence (F_v/F_m) and photosynthetic electron transport rate (ETR) dropped. Decreased nonphotochemical quenching (NPQ) paralleled a drop in xanthophyll cycle de‐epoxidation under UVB. Reactive oxygen species (ROS) and D1 protein accumulation were inversely correlated. PAB exhibited elevated ROS production at earlier times. Once ROS decayed, D1 protein recovered two‐fold compared with P and PA at later stages. Therefore, PsbA gene was still transcribed, suggesting ROS involvement in D1 recovery by its direct effect on mRNA‐translation. We add evidence of an UVB‐induced positive effect on the cells when P is present, providing photoprotection and resilience, by means of D1 repair. This allowed cells to survive. The photoprotective mechanisms described here (which are counterintuitive in principle) conform to an important ecophysiological response regarding light stress acclimation.     

Electrochemical determination of basic biochemical properties of enzyme enterokinase

Monatshefte für Chemie - Chemical Monthly - Basic biochemical properties such as Michaelis constant (K M), turnover number (k cat), and the ratio between these two kinetic parameters of enzyme...     

Structural characterisation and photoluminescence of a pyridine–diimine compound

A pyridine–diimine compound N,N′-[pyridine-2,6-diyldi(E)methylylidene]bis(4-chloroaniline) is synthesised by a Schiff base condensation of 2,6-diformylpyridine with 4-chloroaniline in methanol and characterised by spectroscopic and analytical techniques. The molecular structure of the compound is determined by the single crystal X-ray diffraction study. The compound crystallizes in the monoclinic crystal system, I2/c space group with unit cell parameters a = 7.0843(12) Å, b = 6.1909(11) Å, c = 36.262(6) Å, β = 91.576(3)°, V = 1589.8(5) ų and Z = 4. There is an intermolecular hydrogen bonding in the molecule resulting in a 1D hydrogen bonding chain and these hydrogen bonding chains are linked by Cl…HC(aromatic) interactions forming a 2D network. Crystal packing of the compound is determined by Cl…HC and π–π interactions. In the fluorescence emission spectra in CH₃CN, DMF, DMSO and EtOH, the compound shows only one emission maximum.     

1,7-difluoro-1,1,3,5,7,7-hexanitro-3,5-diazaheptane: Crystal structure and sensitivity to mechanical actions

The X-ray crystallographic analysis of 1,7-difluoro-1,1,3,5,7,7-hexanitro-3,5-diazaheptane has been carried out. We have also determined its sensitivity to mechanical actions and a set of calculated and experimental data on explosion characteristics.     

The role of induced current density in Steroelectronic effects: Perlin effect

The normal and reverse Perlin effect is usually explained by the redistribution of electron density produced by hyperconjugative mechanisms, which increases the electron population within axial or equatorial proton in normal or reverse effect, respectively. Here an alternative explanation for the Perlin effect is presented on the basis of the topology of the induced current density, which directly determines the nuclear magnetic shielding. Current densities around the C? H bond critical point and intra‐atomic and interatomic contributions to the magnetic shielding explain the observed Perlin effect. The balance between intra‐atomic and interatomic contributions determines the difference in the total atomic shielding. Normal Perlin effect is dominated by intra‐atomic part, whereas reverse effect is dominated by interatomic contribution. © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.