Natural variation at Strubbelig Receptor Kinase 3 drives immune-triggered incompatibilities between Arabidopsis thaliana accessions

Accumulation of genetic incompatibilities within species can lead to reproductive isolation and, potentially, speciation. In this study, we show that allelic variation at SRF3 (Strubbelig Receptor Family 3), encoding a receptor-like kinase, conditions the occurrence of incompatibility between Arabidopsis thaliana accessions. The geographical distribution of SRF3 alleles reveals that allelic forms causing epistatic incompatibility with a Landsberg erecta allele at the RPP1 resistance locus are present in A. thaliana accessions in central Asia. Incompatible SRF3 alleles condition for an enhanced early immune response to pathogens as compared to the resistance-dampening effect of compatible SRF3 forms in isogenic backgrounds. Variation in disease susceptibility suggests a basis for the molecular patterns of a recent selective sweep detected at the SRF3 locus in central Asian populations.     

Triosephosphate isomerase: a highly evolved biocatalyst

Triosephosphate isomerase (TIM) is a perfectly evolved enzyme which very fast interconverts dihydroxyacetone phosphate and d-glyceraldehyde-3-phosphate. Its catalytic site is at the dimer interface, but the four catalytic residues, Asn11, Lys13, His95 and Glu167, are from the same subunit. Glu167 is the catalytic base. An important feature of the TIM active site is the concerted closure of loop-6 and loop-7 on ligand binding, shielding the catalytic site from bulk solvent. The buried active site stabilises the enediolate intermediate. The catalytic residue Glu167 is at the beginning of loop-6. On closure of loop-6, the Glu167 carboxylate moiety moves approximately 2 Å to the substrate. The dynamic properties of the Glu167 side chain in the enzyme substrate complex are a key feature of the proton shuttling mechanism. Two proton shuttling mechanisms, the classical and the criss-cross mechanism, are responsible for the interconversion of the substrates of this enolising enzyme.     

Instruments of Music,Instruments of Science: Hermann von Helmholtz's Musical Practices,his Classicism,and his Beethoven Sonata

The young Hermann Helmholtz, in an 1838 letter home, declared that he always appreciated music much more when he played it for himself. Though a frequent concert-goer, and celebrated for his highly influential 1863 work on the physiological basis of music theory, Die Lehre von den Tonempfindungen, it is likely that Helmholtz's enduring engagement with music began with his initial, personal experience of playing music for himself. I develop this idea, shifting the discussion of Helmholtz's work on sound sensation back to its origins, and examine the role of his material interaction with musical instruments and music itself. In his sound sensation studies, Helmholtz understood sound as an external, physical object. But Helmholtz also conceived of sound in musical terms. Further, Helmholtz's particular musical tastes as well as his deeply personal interaction with musical instruments allowed him to reconcile his conception of sound as physical object with his conception of sound as music. Helmholtz's physiological theory of sound sensation was both the product of and constitutive of how he heard and created sound. I argue that Helmholtz himself was the embodied reconciliation of his physiological theory of sound sensation and his belief that musical aesthetics were historically and culturally contingent.     

Chemistry and meteorology, 1700–1825

In 1639–1640 Benedetto Castelli (1577–1643) wrote a treatise on the loadstone which is quite unlike any of its contemporaries. In it are the origins of the notion of elementary magnets sharing a common alignment, the idea that all materials are magnetic in different ways, and the first intimation of the conception of magnetic domains. Castelli did not publish his treatise. Nevertheless his work was noted during his life-time, and may have exerted an influence on the development of magnetic theory in the 17th century. The treatise was published in 1883. Since then, however, it has either been neglected or not appreciated. It deserves being rescued from the neglect of more than three centuries.     

The American Philosophical Society and the rise of astronomy in the United States in the middle of the nineteenth century

Early geological investigations in the St David's area (Pembrokeshire) are described, particularly the work of Murchison. In a reconnaissance survey in 1835, he regarded a ridge of rocks at St David's as intrusive in unfossiliferous Cambrian; and the early Survey mapping (chiefly the work of Aveline and Ramsay) was conducted on that assumption, leading to the publication of maps in 1845 and 1857. The latter represented the margins of the St David's ridge as ‘Altered Cambrian’. So the supposedly intrusive ‘syenite’ was regarded as younger, and there was no Precambrian. These views were challenged by a local doctor, Henry Hicks, who developed an idea of the ex-Survey palaeontologist John Salter that the rocks of the ridge were stratified and had formed a Precambrian island, round which Cambrian sediments (now confirmed by fossil discoveries) had been deposited. Hicks subsequently proposed subdivision of his Precambrian into ‘Dimetian’, ‘Pebidian’, and (later) ‘Arvonian’, and he attempted correlations with rocks in Shropshire, North Wales, and even North America, seeking to develop the neo-Neptunist ideas of Sterry Hunt. The challenge to the Survey's work was countered in the 1880s by the Director General, Geikie, who showed that Hicks's idea of stratification in the Dimetian was mistaken. A heated controversy developed, several amateur geologists, supported by a group of Cambridge Sedgwickians, forming a coalition of ‘Archaeans’ against the Survey. Geikie was supported by Lloyd Morgan. Attention focused particularly on Ogof Lle-sugn Cave and St Non's Arch, with theory/controversy-ladenness of observations evident on both sides. Evidence from an eyewitness student record of a Geological Society meeting reveals the ‘sanit`ized’ nature of the official summary of the debate in QJGS. Field mapping early in the twentieth century by J. F. N. Green allowed a compromise consensus to be achieved, but Green's evidence for unconformity between the Cambrian and the Dimetian, obtained by excavation, can no longer be verified, and his consensual history of the area may need revision. Unconformity between the Cambrian and the Pebidian tuffs is not in doubt, however, and Precambrian at St David's is accepted. The study exhibits features of geological controversy and the British geological community in the nineteenth century. It also furnishes a further instance of the great influence of Murchison in nineteenth-century British geology and the side-effects of his controversy with Sedgwick.