Structural elucidation of selenocysteine insertion machinery of microalgal selenoprotein T and its transcriptional analysis

Author(s):  
Ragini Reshma ◽  
Sunitha Kumari ◽  
Muthu Arumugam
Planta Medica ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 79 (13) ◽  
Author(s):  
C Si ◽  
X Ren ◽  
S Liu ◽  
G Xu ◽  
J Jiang

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert Calin-Jageman ◽  
Irina Calin-Jageman ◽  
Tania Rosiles ◽  
Melissa Nguyen ◽  
Annette Garcia ◽  
...  

[[This is a Stage 2 Registered Report manuscript now accepted for publication at eNeuro. The accepted Stage 1 manuscript is posted here: https://psyarxiv.com/s7dft, and the pre-registration for the project is available here (https://osf.io/fqh8j, 9/11/2019). A link to the final Stage 2 manuscript will be posted after peer review and publication.]] There is fundamental debate about the nature of forgetting: some have argued that it represents the decay of the memory trace, others that the memory trace persists but becomes inaccessible due to retrieval failure. These different accounts of forgetting lead to different predictions about savings memory, the rapid re-learning of seemingly forgotten information. If forgetting is due to decay, then savings requires re-encoding and should thus involve the same mechanisms as initial learning. If forgetting is due to retrieval failure, then savings should be mechanistically distinct from encoding. In this registered report we conducted a pre-registered and rigorous test between these accounts of forgetting. Specifically, we used microarray to characterize the transcriptional correlates of a new memory (1 day after training), a forgotten memory (8 days after training), and a savings memory (8 days after training but with a reminder on day 7 to evoke a long-term savings memory) for sensitization in Aplysia californica (n = 8 samples/group). We found that the re-activation of sensitization during savings does not involve a substantial transcriptional response. Thus, savings is transcriptionally distinct relative to a newer (1-day old) memory, with no co-regulated transcripts, negligible similarity in regulation-ranked ordering of transcripts, and a negligible correlation in training-induced changes in gene expression (r = .04 95% CI [-.12, .20]). Overall, our results suggest that forgetting of sensitization memory represents retrieval failure.


2020 ◽  
Vol 24 (1) ◽  
pp. 104-112 ◽  
Author(s):  
Krzysztof Kamil Wojtanowski ◽  
Tomasz Mroczek

Flavonoids are one of the most common secondary metabolites occurring in plants. Their activity in the Central Nervous System (CNS) including sedative, anxiolytic, anti-convulsive, anti-depressant and neuro-protective actions is well known and documented. The most popular methods for detection, identification and structural elucidation of flavonoids are these based on Nuclear Magnetic Resonance (NMR) and mass spectrometry (MS). NMR allows rapid, high throughput analysis of crude extracts and also gives stereochemical details about identified substances. However, these methods are expensive and less sensitive than MS-based techniques. Combining High Performance Liquid Chromatography (HPLC) with MS detection gives the most powerful tool for analysis of flavonoids occurring in plants. There is a lot of different approaches to use LC/MS based techniques for identification of flavonoids and this short review shows the most important.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document