Where do we aspire to publish? A position paper on scientific communication in biochemistry and molecular biology

The scientific publication landscape is changing quickly, with an enormous increase in options and models. Articles can be published in a complex variety of journals that differ in their presentation format (online-only or in-print), editorial organizations that maintain them (commercial and/or society-based), editorial handling (academic or professional editors), editorial board composition (academic or professional), payment options to cover editorial costs (open access or pay-to-read), indexation, visibility, branding, and other aspects. Additionally, online submissions of non-revised versions of manuscripts prior to seeking publication in a peer-reviewed journal (a practice known as pre-printing) are a growing trend in biological sciences. In this changing landscape, researchers in biochemistry and molecular biology must re-think their priorities in terms of scientific output dissemination. The evaluation processes and institutional funding for scientific publications should also be revised accordingly. This article presents the results of discussions within the Department of Biochemistry, University of São Paulo, on this subject.

Characterization of the interdependency between residues that bind the substrate in a â-glycosidase

The manner by which effects of simultaneous mutations combine to change enzymatic activity is not easily predictable because these effects are not always additive in a linear manner. Hence, the characterization of the effects of simultaneous mutations of amino acid residues that bind the substrate can make a significant contribution to the understanding of the substrate specificity of enzymes. In the â-glycosidase from Spodoptera frugiperda (Sfâgly), both residues Q39 and E451 interact with the substrate and this is essential for defining substrate specificity. Double mutants of Sfâgly (A451E39, S451E39 and S451N39) were prepared by site-directed mutagenesis, expressed in bacteria and purified using affinity chromatography. These enzymes were characterized using p-nitrophenyl â-galactoside and p-nitrophenyl â-fucoside as substrates. The k cat/Km ratio for single and double mutants of Sfâgly containing site-directed mutations at positions Q39 and E451 was used to demonstrate that the effect on the free energy of ES‡ (enzyme-transition state complex) of the double mutations (∆∆G‡xy) is not the sum of the effects resulting from the single mutations (∆∆G‡x and ∆∆G‡y). This difference in ∆∆G‡ indicates that the effects of the single mutations partially overlap. Hence, this common effect counts only once in ∆∆G‡xy. Crystallographic data on â-glycosidases reveal the presence of a bidentate hydrogen bond involving residues Q39 and E451 and the same hydroxyl group of the substrate. Therefore, both thermodynamic and crystallographic data suggest that residues Q39 and E451 exert a mutual influence on their respective interactions with the substrate.

Cloning, purification and comparative characterization of two digestive lysozymes from Musca domestica larvae

cDNA coding for two digestive lysozymes (MdL1 and MdL2) of the Musca domestica housefly was cloned and sequenced. MdL2 is a novel minor lysozyme, whereas MdL1 is the major lysozyme thus far purified from M. domestica midgut. MdL1 and MdL2 were expressed as recombinant proteins in Pichia pastoris, purified and characterized. The lytic activities of MdL1 and MdL2 upon Micrococcus lysodeikticus have an acidic pH optimum (4.8) at low ionic strength (ì = 0.02), which shifts towards an even more acidic value, pH 3.8, at a high ionic strength (ì = 0.2). However, the pH optimum of their activities upon 4-methylumbelliferyl N-acetylchitotrioside (4.9) is not affected by ionic strength. These results suggest that the acidic pH optimum is an intrinsic property of MdL1 and MdL2, whereas pH optimum shifts are an effect of the ionic strength on the negatively charged bacterial wall. MdL2 affinity for bacterial cell wall is lower than that of MdL1. Differences in isoelectric point (pI) indicate that MdL2 (pI = 6.7) is less positively charged than MdL1 (pI = 7.7) at their pH optima, which suggests that electrostatic interactions might be involved in substrate binding. In agreement with that finding, MdL1 and MdL2 affinities for bacterial cell wall decrease as ionic strength increases.