Dynamics of Bacteriorhodopsin in the Dark-Adapted State from Solution Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopy

To achieve efficient proton pumping in the light-driven proton pump bacteriorhodopsin (bR), the protein must be tightly coupled to the retinal to rapidly convert retinal isomerization into protein structural rearrangements. Methyl group dynamics of bR embedded in lipid nanodiscs were determined in the dark-adapted state, and were found to be mostly well ordered at the cytosolic side. Methyl groups in the M145A mutant of bR, which displays only 10 % residual proton pumping activity, are less well ordered, suggesting a link between side-chain dynamics on the cytosolic side of the bR cavity and proton pumping activity. In addition, slow conformational exchange, attributed to low frequency motions of aromatic rings, was indirectly observed for residues on the extracellular side of the bR cavity. This may be related to reorganization of the water network. These observations provide a detailed picture of previously undescribed equilibrium dynamics on different time scales for ground-state bR.     

Enantiodiscrimination of racemic electrophiles by diketopiperazine enolates: asymmetric synthesis of methyl 2-amino-3-aryl-butanoates and 3-methyl-aspartates

Enolates of (S)-N,N′-bis-(p-methoxybenzyl)-3-iso-propylpiperazine-2,5-dione exhibit high levels of enantiodiscrimination in alkylations with (RS)-1-aryl-1-bromoethanes and (RS)-2-bromoesters, affording substituted diketopiperazines containing two new stereogenic centres in high de. Deprotection and hydrolysis of the resultant substituted diketopiperazines provides a route to the asymmetric synthesis of homochiral methyl 2-amino-3-aryl-butanoates and 3-methyl-aspartates in high de and ee.     

Reply to Nathan: How to reconstruct the causal argument

Nicholas Nathan tries to resist the current version of the causal argument for sense-data in two ways. First he suggests that, on what he considers to be the correct re-construction of the argument, it equivocates on the sense of proximate cause. Second he defends a form of disjunctivism, by claiming that there might be an extra mechanism involved in producing veridical hallucination, that is not present in perception. I argue that Nathan’s reconstruction of the argument is not the appropriate one, and that, properly interpreted, the argument does not equivocate on proximate cause. Furthermore, I claim that his postulation of a modified mechanism for hallucinations is implausibly ad hoc.