A method for detergent-free isolation of membrane proteins in their local lipid environment.

Despite the great importance of membrane proteins, structural and functional studies of these proteins present major challenges. A significant hurdle is the extraction of the functional protein from its natural lipid membrane. Traditionally achieved with detergents, purification procedures can be costly and time consuming. A critical flaw with detergent approaches is the removal of the protein from the native lipid environment required to maintain functionally stable protein. This protocol describes the preparation of styrene maleic acid (SMA) co-polymer to extract membrane proteins from prokaryotic and eukaryotic expression systems. Successful isolation of membrane proteins into SMA lipid particles (SMALPs) allows the proteins to remain with native lipid, surrounded by SMA. We detail procedures for obtaining 25 g of SMA (4 d); explain the preparation of protein-containing SMALPs using membranes isolated from Escherichia coli (2 d) and control protein-free SMALPS using E. coli polar lipid extract (1-2 h); investigate SMALP protein purity by SDS-PAGE analysis and estimate protein concentration (4 h); and detail biophysical methods such as circular dichroism (CD) spectroscopy and sedimentation velocity analytical ultracentrifugation (svAUC) to undertake initial structural studies to characterize SMALPs (∼2 d). Together, these methods provide a practical tool kit for those wanting to use SMALPs to study membrane proteins

Combined pharmacotherapy and psychological therapies for post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD)

BACKGROUND PTSD is an anxiety disorder related to exposure to a severe psychological trauma. Symptoms include re-experiencing the event, avoidance and arousal as well as distress and impairment resulting from these symptoms.Guidelines suggest a combination of both psychological therapy and pharmacotherapy may enhance treatment response, especially in those with more severe PTSD or in those who have not responded to either intervention alone. OBJECTIVES To assess whether the combination of psychological therapy and pharmacotherapy provides a more efficacious treatment for PTSD than either of these interventions delivered separately. SEARCH STRATEGY Searches were conducted on the trial registers kept by the CCDAN group (CCDANCTR-Studies and CCDANCTR-References) to June 2010. The reference sections of included studies and several conference abstracts were also scanned. SELECTION CRITERIA Patients of any age or gender, with chronic or recent onset PTSD arising from any type of event relevant to the diagnostic criteria were included. A combination of any psychological therapy and pharmacotherapy was included and compared to wait list, placebo, standard treatment or either intervention alone. The primary outcome was change in total PTSD symptom severity. Other outcomes included changes in functioning, depression and anxiety symptoms, suicide attempts, substance use, withdrawal and cost. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Two or three review authors independently selected trials, assessed their 'risk of bias' and extracted trial and outcome data. We used a fixed-effect model for meta-analysis. The relative risk was used to summarise dichotomous outcomes and the mean difference and standardised mean difference were used to summarise continuous measures. MAIN RESULTS Four trials were eligible for inclusion, one of these trials (n =24) was on children and adolescents. All used an SSRI and prolonged exposure or a cognitive behavioural intervention. Two trials compared combination treatment with pharmacological treatment and two compared combination treatment with psychological treatment. Only two trials reported a total PTSD symptom score and these data could not be combined. There was no strong evidence to show if there were differences between the group receiving combined interventions compared to the group receiving psychological therapy (mean difference 2.44, 95% CI -2.87, 7.35 one study, n=65) or pharmacotherapy (mean difference -4.70, 95% CI -10.84 to 1.44; one study, n = 25). Trialists reported no significant differences between combination and single intervention groups in the other two studies. There were very little data reported for other outcomes, and in no case were significant differences reported. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS There is not enough evidence available to support or refute the effectiveness of combined psychological therapy and pharmacotherapy compared to either of these interventions alone. Further large randomised controlled trials are urgently required

Secondary structure and DNA binding by the C-terminal domain of the transcriptional activator NifA from Klebsiella pneumoniae

The NifA protein of Klebsiella pneumoniae is required for transcriptional activation of all nitrogen fixation (nif) operons except the regulatory nifLA genes. At these operons, NifA binds to an upstream activator sequence (UAS), with the consensus TGT-N(10)-ACA, via a C-terminal DNA-binding domain (CTD). Binding of the activator to this upstream enhancer-like sequence allows NifA to interact with RNA polymerase containing the alternative sigma factor, σ(54). The isolated NifA CTD is monomeric and binds specifically to DNA in vitro as shown by DNase I footprinting. Heteronuclear 3D NMR experiments have been used to assign the signals from the protein backbone. Three α-helices have been identified, based on secondary chemical shifts and medium range Hα(i)-NH(i + 1), and NH(i)-NH(i + 1) NOEs. On addition of DNA containing a half-site UAS, several changes are observed in the NMR spectra, allowing the identification of residues that are most likely to interact with DNA. These occur in the final two helices of the protein, directly confirming that DNA binding is mediated by a helix–turn–helix motif