1,721,016 research outputs found

    Different domains cooperate to target the human ribosomal L7a protein to the nucleus and to the nucleoli.

    Full text link
    The human ribosomal protein L7a is a component of the major ribosomal subunit. We transiently expressed in HeLa cells L7a-β-galactosidase fusion proteins and studied their subcellular localization by indirect immunofluorescence staining with anti-β-galactosidase antibodies. We have identified three distinct domains responsible for the nuclear targeting of the protein: domain I, amino acids 23-51; domain II, amino acids 52-100; domain III, amino acids 101-220, each of which contains at least one nuclear localization signal (NLS). Through subcellular localization analysis of deletion mutants of L7a-β-galactosidase chimeras, we demonstrate that domain II plays a special role because it is necessary, although not sufficient, to target the chimeric β-galactosidase to the nucleoli. In fact, we demonstrate that the nucleolar targeting process requires the presence of domain II plus an additional basic domain that can be represented by an NLS or a basic stretch of amino acids without NLS activity. Thus, when multiple NLS are present, each NLS exerts distinct functions. Domain II drives nucleolar accumulation of a reporter protein with the cooperative action of a short basic amino acid sequence, suggesting a mechanism requiring protein-protein or protein-nucleic acid interactions

    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