The influence of Mn2+ on DNA structure in the presence of Na+ ions: a Raman spectroscopic study

The influence of Mn(2+) ions on the structure of natural calf thymus DNA was studied by Raman spectroscopy. Measurements were done at room temperature and pH 6.2±0.2, in the presence of the physiological concentration of 150 mM Na+ ions, and in the presence of Mn(2+) concentrations that varied between 0 and 600 mM. No condensation of DNA was observed at any of the Mn(2+) concentrations. At 5 mM Mn(2+) and 150 mM Na(+) no significant influence of Mn(2+) ions on the DNA structure can be observed. Compared with our previous results obtained at 10 mM Na(+) ions, binding of Mn(2+) ions to charged phosphate groups and to DNA bases is inhibited in the presence of 150 mM Na(+) ions. DNA backbone conformational changes were not observed in the whole concentration range of Mn(2+) ions as judging from the Raman spectra. No evidence for DNA melting was identified. A high Mn(2+) affinity for binding to guanine N7 and possibly, in a much lesser extent, to adenine have been found

Interaction of Tet Repressor with Operator DNA and with Tetracycline Studied by Infrared and Raman Spectroscopy

AbstractTet repressor (TetR) is involved in the most abundant mechanism of tetracycline (Tc) resistance of Gram-negative bacteria. Raman spectra were measured for the class D TetR protein, for an oligodeoxyribonucleotide with sequence corresponding to operator site O1, and for the TetR:oligonucleotide complex. TetR forms a complex with [Ni-Tc]+, which does not bind to operator DNA. Raman and infrared measurements indicate nearly identical conformations of TetR with and without [Ni-Tc]+. Differences between the experimental spectrum of the TetR:operator DNA complex and the computed sum of the component spectra provide direct spectroscopic evidence for changes in DNA backbone torsions and base stacking, rearrangement of protein backbone, and specific contacts between TetR residues and DNA bases. Complex formation is connected with intensity decrease at 1376cm−1 (participation of thymine methyl groups), intensity increase at 1467cm−1 (hydrogen bond formation at guanine N7), decreased intensity ratio I854/I823 (increased hydrophobicity of tyrosine environment), increased intensity at 1363cm−1 (increased hydrophobicity of tryptophan ring environment), differences in the range 670–833cm−1 (changes in B-DNA backbone torsions and base stacking), and decreased intensity of the amide I band (structural rearrangement of TetR backbone consistent with a reduction of the distance between the two binding helices)

Evaluating the use of biomass energy with carbon capture and storage in low emission scenarios

Biomass Energy with Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS) is heavily relied upon in scenarios of future emissions that are consistent with limiting global mean temperature increase to 1.5 °C or 2 °C above pre-industrial. These temperature limits are defined in the Paris Agreement in order to reduce the risks and impacts of climate change. Here, we explore the use of BECCS technologies in a reference scenario and three low emission scenarios generated by an integrated assessment model (IMAGE). Using these scenarios we investigate the feasibility of key implicit and explicit assumptions about these BECCS technologies, including biomass resource, land use, CO2 storage capacity and carbon capture and storage (CCS) deployment rate. In these scenarios, we find that half of all global CO2 storage required by 2100 occurs in USA, Western Europe, China and India, which is compatible with current estimates of regional CO2 storage capacity. CCS deployment rates in the scenarios are very challenging compared to historical rates of fossil, renewable or nuclear technologies and are entirely dependent on stringent policy action to incentivise CCS. In the scenarios, half of the biomass resource is derived from agricultural and forestry residues and half from dedicated bioenergy crops grown on abandoned agricultural land and expansion into grasslands (i.e. land for forests and food production is protected). Poor governance of the sustainability of bioenergy crop production can significantly limit the amount of CO2 removed by BECCS, through soil carbon loss from direct and indirect land use change. Only one-third of the bioenergy crops are grown in regions associated with more developed governance frameworks. Overall, the scenarios in IMAGE are ambitious but consistent with current relevant literature with respect to assumed biomass resource, land use and CO2 storage capacity

Sustainability of bioenergy – Mapping the risks & benefits to inform future bioenergy systems

Bioenergy is widely included in energy strategies for its GHG mitigation potential. Bioenergy technologies will likely have to be deployed at scale to meet decarbonisation targets, and consequently biomass will have to be increasingly grown/mobilised. Sustainability risks associated with bioenergy may intensify with increasing deployment and where feedstocks are sourced through international trade. This research applies the Bioeconomy Sustainability Indicator Model (BSIM) to map and analyse the performance of bioenergy across 126 sustainability issues, evaluating 16 bioenergy case studies that reflect the breadth of biomass resources, technologies, energy vectors and bio-products. The research finds common trends in sustainability performance across projects that can inform bioenergy policy and decision making. Potential sustainability benefits are identified for People (jobs, skills, income, energy access); for Development (economy, energy, land utilisation); for Natural Systems (soil, heavy metals), and; for Climate Change (emissions, fuels). Also, consistent trends of sustainability risks where focus is required to ensure the viability of bioenergy projects, including for infrastructure, feedstock mobilisation, techno-economics and carbon stocks. Emission mitigation may be a primary objective for bioenergy, this research finds bioenergy projects can provide potential benefits far beyond emissions - there is an argument for supporting projects based on the ecosystem services and/or economic stimulation they may deliver. Also given the broad dynamics and characteristics of bioenergy projects, a rigid approach of assessing sustainability may be incompatible. Awarding ‘credit’ across a broader range of sustainability indicators in addition to requiring minimum performances in key areas, may be more effective at ensuring bioenergy sustainability