No abstract

Proteases or peptidases constitute the largest group of enzymes in bio-industry with a long array of uses. They play an invincible role in industrial biotechnology, especially in detergent, food and pharmaceutical arena. This focused review encompasses an overview on alkaline proteases, mainly of microbial sources in a handy module. Following an introduction and general classification with evolutionary insight, major sources of proteases (animal, plant and microbial including fungal, bacterial), their general properties with mechanism of action and molecular masses are discussed. Proteases from Bacillus spp. have been given special attention. In addition to this, an overview on the applications of proteases in detergent, tannery, food, metal recovery and waste treatment industries is also addressed briefly.

This exhaustive in silico study looks into the molecular interactions of phthalates and their metabolites with human peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor (hPPAR) and retinoid X receptor (hRXR) α, β and γ subtypes--the nuclear receptor proteins function as transcription factors by regulating the expression of downstream genes. Apart from the much discussed plasticizer bisphenol A, we examined the binding affinities of 15 common diphthalates and their monophthalates, natural (linoleic acid, conjugated linoleic acid) and synthetic (bezafibrate, pioglitazone, GW 50156) ligands with hPPARs. In addition to these phthalates, specific natural (retinoic and phytanic acids) and synthetic (bexarotene, rosiglitazone) ligands were examined with hRXRs. The Maestro, Schrödinger Suite 2012 was used for the molecular docking study. In general, natural ligands of hPPAR showed less binding efficiencies than phthalic acid esters and drugs. The diphthalate di-iso-decyl phthalate showed the highest G score (-9.99) with hPPAR (γ), while its monophthalate (mono-iso-decyl phthalate) showed a comparatively less G score (-9.56). Though the PPAR modulator GW 50156 showed strong affinity with all hPPAR subtypes, its highest G score (-12.43) was with hPPARβ. Hazardous di(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate generally showed a greater preference to hRXRs than hPPARs, but its highest G score (-10.87) was with hRXRα; while its monophthalate (Mono(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate) showed a lesser G score (-8.59). The drug bexarotene showed the highest G score (-13.32) with hRXRβ. Moreover, bisphenol A showed more affinity towards hRXR. Briefly, this study gives an overview on the preference of phthalic acid esters, natural and synthetic ligands on to hPPAR and hRXR subtypes, which would lead to further in vitro mechanistic as well as in vivo preclinical and clinical studies.

No abstract

No abstract