Modules which share the same consensus sequence are assumed to have common structural features, at the secondary and tertiary level. In order to test the extent of such similarities, it is necessary to examine the structures of several examples from each module family. Recently, the first three-dimensional structure of a complement control protein (CCP) module (the 16th repeat of human factor H, H16) was determined using a combination of two-dimensional NMR and simulated annealing [Norman, D.G., Barlow, P.N., Baron, M., Day, A.J., Sim, R.B., & Campbell, I.D. (1991) J. Mol. Biol. 219, 717-725]. Using the same techniques, the three-dimensional structure of a second CCP module (the 5th repeat of human factor H, H5) has now been determined. The primary sequence of H5 contains 17 residues which are identical and in equivalent position to those in H16. Thirteen of these 17 are part of the consensus sequence. The similarities between the secondary structure of H5 and that of H16 are extensive. This implies that the consensus sequence dictates a particular secondary structure. The tertiary structure of H5, a compact hydrophobic core wrapped in beta-strand and sheet, bears much overall resemblance to that of H16. However, there is a deletion in the first strand of H5, and an insertion in a loop, resulting in slightly shorter overall length. This is associated with a rearrangement of residues within the hydrophobic core. The side chain of the highly conserved Tyr29, which occupies a central position within the core of H16, lies on the periphery of the core of H5.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Performance-based research funding systems have been extensively used around the globe to allocate funds across higher education institutes (HEIs), which led to an increased amount of literature examining their use. The UK’s Research Excellence Framework (REF) uses a peer-review process to evaluate the research environment, research outputs and non-academic impact of research produced by HEIs to produce a more accountable distribution of public funds. However, carrying out such a research evaluation is costly. Given the cost and that it is suggested that the evaluation of each component is subject to bias and has received other criticisms, this article uses correlation and principal component analysis to evaluate REF’s usefulness as a composite evaluation index. As the three elements of the evaluation—environment, impact and output—are highly and positively correlated, the effect of the removal of an element from the evaluation leads to relatively small shifts in the allocation of funds and in the rankings of HEIs. As a result, future evaluations may consider the removal of some elements of the REF or reconsider a new way of evaluating different elements to capture organizational achievement rather than individual achievements.