Visible light-induced water splitting in an aqueous suspension of a plasmonic Au/TiO2 photocatalyst with metal co-catalysts.

We found that plasmonic Au particles on titanium(iv) oxide (TiO2) act as a visible-light-driven photocatalyst for overall water splitting free from any additives. This is the first report showing that surface plasmon resonance (SPR) in a suspension system effectively induces overall water splitting. Modification with various types of metal nanoparticles as co-catalysts enhanced the evolution of H2 and O2. Among these, Ni-modified Au/TiO2 exhibited 5-times higher rates of H2 and O2 evolution than those of Ni-free Au/TiO2. We succeeded in designing a novel solar energy conversion system including three elemental technologies, charge separation with light harvest and an active site for O2 evolution (plasmonic Au particles), charge transfer from Au to the active site for H2 production (TiO2), and an active site for H2 production (Ni cocatalyst), by taking advantage of a technique for fabricating size-controlled Au and Ni nanoparticles. Water splitting occurred in aqueous suspensions of Ni-modified Au/TiO2 even under irradiation of light through an R-62 filter.

Regulation of mammalian phospholipase D2: interaction with and stimulation by G(M2) activator.

We have previously reported that a heat-stable activator for ganglioside metabolism, G(M2) activator, potently stimulates ADP-ribosylation factor (ARF)-dependent phospholipase D (PLD) activity (presumably PLD1) in an in vitro system [Nakamura, Akisue, Jinnai, Hitomi, Sarkar, Miwa, Okada, Yoshida, Kuroda, Kikkawa and Nishizuka (1998) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 95, 12249-12253]. However, little is known about the regulation of PLD2. In the present studies we have investigated the regulation of PLD2 by G(M2) activator and various other regulators including ARF. PLD2 was potently stimulated in vitro by G(M2) activator in a time- and dose-dependent manner. Neither ARF nor protein kinase C caused any significant changes in PLD2 activity. Importantly, PLD2 responsiveness to ARF was greatly enhanced by G(M2) activator, suggesting a possible role for G(M2) activator as a coupling factor. G(M2) activator was also demonstrated to physically associate with PLD2 in a stoichiometric manner. Further, PMA stimulation of COS-7 cells overexpressing both G(M2) activator and PLD2 resulted in a marked increase in the association of the two molecules. Interestingly, ARF association with PLD2 was greatly increased by G(M2) activator. Moreover, G(M2) activator enhanced PMA-induced PLD activity in a synergistic manner with ARF in streptolysin-O-permeabilized, cytosol-depleted HL-60 cells, suggesting that G(M2) activator may regulate PLD in a concerted manner with other factors, including ARF, inside the cells.

Localization of gastrin-releasing peptide (GRP)-like immunoreactivity in the lysosomal compartment of the trigeminal ganglion cells of the rat.

Cellular and subcellular localizations of gastrin-releasing peptide-like immunoreactivity (GRP-LI) were examined in the perikarya of trigeminal ganglion cells. By immunolight microscopy using semi-thin sections, GRP-LI was observed in almost all the neuronal somata with various intensity as granular profiles distributing widely in the cytoplasm. By immunoelectron microscopy using ultrathin frozen sections and protein A-gold, GRP-LI was found predominantly in rounded or oval membrane-bound structures which were 300-800 nm in diameter and displayed various electron-density and heterogenous contents. Double-labeling immunoelectron microscopy using antibodies for GRP and cathepsin L, a well-characterized lysosomal proteinase, clearly demonstrated that these GRP-immunoreactive intracytoplasmic structures were lysosomes. In contrast, GRP-LI was detected only occasionally in the large granular vesicles (100-200 nm in diameter). These findings strongly suggest that considerable amount of GRP or GRP-like peptide is subject to intracellular degradation in the lysosome rather than to the regulatory secretion pathway, and this is the reason why no fibers immunoreactive for GRP have been detected in the peripheral sensory field.