Ring (chemistry)

About: Ring (chemistry) is a research topic. Over the lifetime, 121980 publications have been published within this topic receiving 949304 citations.

Functional Analysis of the RING-Type Ubiquitin Ligase Family of Arabidopsis

Abstract: Approximately 5% of the Arabidopsis (Arabidopsis thaliana) proteome is predicted to be involved in the ubiquitination/26S proteasome pathway. The majority of these predicted proteins have identity to conserved domains found in E3 ligases, of which there are multiple types. The RING-type E3 is characterized by the presence of a cysteine-rich domain that coordinates two zinc atoms. Database searches followed by extensive manual curation identified 469 predicted Arabidopsis RING domain-containing proteins. In addition to the two canonical RING types (C3H2C3 or C3HC4), additional types of modified RING domains, named RING-v, RING-D, RING-S/T, RING-G, and RING-C2, were identified. The modified RINGs differ in either the spacing between metal ligands or have substitutions at one or more of the metal ligand positions. The majority of the canonical and modified RING domain-containing proteins analyzed were active in in vitro ubiquitination assays, catalyzing polyubiquitination with the E2 AtUBC8. To help identity regions of the proteins that may interact with substrates, domain analyses of the amino acids outside the RING domain classified RING proteins into 30 different groups. Several characterized protein-protein interaction domains were identified, as well as additional conserved domains not described previously. The two largest classes of RING proteins contain either no identifiable domain or a transmembrane domain. The presence of such a large and diverse number of RING domain-containing proteins that function as ubiquitin E3 ligases suggests that target-specific proteolysis by these E3 ligases is a complex and important part of cellular regulation in Arabidopsis.

Aromaticity and ring currents.

Abstract: Accepting a commission to review progress in the subject embodied in our title is, perhaps, to take up something of a ‘poisoned chalice’. One of us, contributing on this same topic more than 20 years ago at the 1979 International Symposium on Aromaticity in Dubrovnik, wrote1 “A cynic would say that there are actually only two difficulties in discussing the subject of ‘aromaticity’ and ‘ring currents’sdeciding what is meant by ‘ring current’, and assigning a meaning to the term ‘aromaticity’!” That comment, though ostensibly facetious, had serious intent: it did encapsulate, with only a modicum of exaggeration, the problems that inherently beset any assessment such as the one attempted at Dubrovnik1 and in the present review. At the heart of the matter lies the undeniable fact that neither ring currents nor aromaticity are physical observables. Nevertheless, the intervening period has seen the ring-current idea, at least, become generally less controversial and more accepted than it once was. At the time of our opening quotation, one of us and Haigh had just published an exhaustive review2 of the ring-current concept covering the period up to about 1980sthe end of what might now be regarded as the era of semiempirical calculations in this field.2 This review2 (1979/1980) concluded that “the ‘ring current’ picture has proved itself ... to have great power in rationalising, at least qualitatively, the magnetic properties of π-electron systems. It is so pictorial that one can almost feel what is happening when a [conjugated] molecule is subjected to a magnetic field. Whatever advances the future may bring, it may be that the favourite habitat of the ‘ring current’ will be that in which it was born and brought up, namely, that of semi-empirical π-electron theory”. In other words, these authors were sanguine that, at the time (ca. 1980), the ring-current idea was gently coming to the end of its natural, useful life. However, as recently as 1997, when reviewing progress concerning the status of the ring-current model during the decade and a half or so after 1980s a period in this field that we have dubbed3 ‘the ab initio era’sthe present authors3 were initially somewhat surprised to find themselves concluding that “the ‘ring-current’ idea has well survived the first 15 years of the ab initio era.” Lazzeretti’s subsequent magnum opus4 on ring currents has more than confirmed this. By contrast, the sheer fact that in 2001sthe very first year of the 21st centurysthe American Chemical Society has seen fit to run this particular issue of Chemical Reviews shows that the concept of Aromaticity is as elusive as it ever was (see section II). There are three reasons for our not feeling obliged or inclined to present, in this review, an exhaustive, systematic, or historical critique of the ring-current concept itself. First, as we have just claimed, the idea of a ring current seems more secure now than it was 20 years ago, and it would appear that less apology or justification is needed for invoking it. Second, we ourselves have, in any case, only recently updated 1349 Chem. Rev. 2001, 101, 1349−1383