1,721,072 research outputs found

    Crystal structures of bovine odorant-binding protein in complex with odorant molecules

    No full text
    The structure of bovine odorant-binding protein (bOBP) revealed a striking feature of a dimer formed by domain swapping [Tegoni, M., Ramoni, R., Bignetti, E., Spinelli, S. & Cambillau, C. (1996) Nat. Struct. Biol.3, 863-867; Bianchet, M.A., Bains, G., Pelosi, P., Pevsner, J., Snyder, S.H., Monaco, H.L. & Amzel, L.M. (1996) Nat. Struct. Biol.3, 934-939] and the presence of a naturally occuring ligand [Ramoni, R., Vincent, F., Grolli, S., Conti, V., Malosse, C., Boyer, F.D., Nagnan-Le Meillour, P., Spinelli, S., Cambillau, C. & Tegoni, M. (2001) J. Biol. Chem.276, 7150-7155]. These features led us to investigate the binding of odorant molecules with bOBP in solution and in the crystal. The behavior of odorant molecules in bOBP resembles that observed with porcine OBP (pOBP), although the latter is monomeric and devoid of ligand when purified. The odorant molecules presented K(d) values with bOBP in the micromolar range. Most of the X-ray structures revealed that odorant molecules interact with a common set of residues forming the cavity wall and do not exhibit specific interactions. Depending on the ligand and on the monomer (A or B), a single residue--Phe89--presents alternate conformations and might control cross-talking between the subunits. Crystal data on both pOBP and bOBP, in contrast with binding and spectroscopic studies on rat OBP in solution, reveal an absence of significant conformational changes involving protein loops or backbone. Thus, the role of OBP in signal triggering remains unresolved

    Going Beyond Counting First Authors in Author Co-citation Analysis

    Full text link
    The present study examines one of the fundamental aspects of author co-citation analysis (ACA) - the way co-citation counts are defined. Co-citation counting provides the data on which all subsequent statistical analyses and mappings are based, and we compare ACA results based on two different types of co-citation counting - the traditional type that only counts the first one among a cited work's authors on the one hand and a non-traditional type that takes into account the first 5 authors of a cited work on the other hand. Results indicate that the picture produced through this non-traditional author co-citation counting contains more coherent author groups and is therefore considerably clearer. However, this picture represents fewer specialties in the research field being studied than that produced through the traditional first-author co-citation counting when the same number of top-ranked authors is selected and analyzed. Reasons for these effects are discussed
    corecore