Living system controls its activity through enzymes. Enzymes are biological catalysts. They increase or decrease the rate of chemical reaction in the cell, but enzymes remain unchanged after the reaction. Most cellular reaction occurs about a million time faster with the help of the enzymes rather than in the absence of it. Enzymes work on which chemical substances are known as substrate. Enzyme works on substrate to form an enzyme-substrate complex. After reaction, this complex split and produce the Product and enzyme get released. In the end of the reaction, enzyme remains unchanged and paired with another substrate. A small amunt of enzyme can work on a huge amount of substrate.

The term, enzyme was first used by Kuhne(1878). Buchner (1897) first collected enzymes from Yeast cell.

The general properties of enzymes are

1.      All enzymes are globular protein and catalyst.

2.      Their presence do not affect on characteristic and type of the Product.

3.      Enzyme reactions are bi-directional.

4.      Enzymes are selective for their substrate.

5.      Enzyme’s activity can be influenced by other molecules. Inhibitors are the molecule that decreases enzyme’s activity. Activators are molecule that increases the activity.

6.      Enzyme works in definite pH, temperature and concentration.

7.      The protein parts of the enzymes are apoenzyme, and non-protein part is known as co-factors.

International Union of Biochemistry (IUB) and Enzyme Commissiob (EC) classify and name the various enzymes. Generally, -ase is added with the name of the substrate to form the name of an enzyme, eg; the enzymes function on arginine and urea are respectively known as arginase and urease.

Tulip Das

http://www.orangecounty.in/kabini/home.php

Elephants’ Fear Of Angry Bees Could Help To Protect Them

At a time when encroaching human development in former wildlife areas has compressed African elephants into ever smaller home ranges and increased levels of human-elephant conflict, a study in  Current Biology,  suggests that strategically placed beehives might offer a low-tech elephant deterrent and conservation measure.

The researchers found that a significant majority of African elephants fled immediately after hearing the sound of bees, providing "strong support" for the idea that bees, and perhaps even their buzz alone, might keep elephants at bay. By contrast, the elephants ignored a control recording of natural white-noise, the authors reported.

"We weren’t surprised that they responded to the threatening sound of disturbed bees, as elephants are intelligent animals that are intimately aware of their surroundings, but we were surprised at how quickly they responded to the sounds by running away," said Lucy King of the University of Oxford. "Almost half of our study herds started to move away within 10 seconds of the bee playback." King is also affiliated with Save the Elephants, a Kenya-based organization that aims to secure a future for elephants.

Earlier studies had suggested that elephants prefer to steer clear of bees. For instance, one report showed that elephant damage to acacia trees hosting occupied or empty beehives was significantly less than in trees without hives, the researchers said. In Zimbabwe, scientists have also seen elephants forging new trails in an effort to avoid beehives.

This behavioral discovery suggests that bees might very well be a valuable addition to the toolbox of elephant deterrents used by farmers and conservation managers across Kenya, King said. She added that such innovative approaches are sorely needed "to avoid extreme solutions such as shooting problem animals."

"But if we could use bees to reduce elephant crop raiding and tree destruction while at the same time enhancing local income through the sale of honey, this could be a significant and valuable step towards sustainable human-elephant coexistence."

Source: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/10/071008130405.htm

 Robert Shapiro rose to the top of Monsanto Corp. with a powerful vision for transforming the company from a chemical manufacturer to a life sciences company using genetic engineering to produce "Food,Health and Hope." His logic seemed impeccable: use science, specifically genetics, to engineer plants that were resistant to disease, drought, and insects and that produced better yields per acre using less energy and pesticides.  Monsanto spent millions of dollars developing the technology and several billion to acquire the seed companies and distributors it needed to make Shapiro’s vision a reality.  Wall street applauded Monsanto’s pioneering efforts.  The stock price even rose after the company slashed its dividend to help cover its heavy spending. 

Monsanto’s genetically engineered products were a hit with big American agricultural companies.  The soybean, corn, cotton, and other seeds, while more expensive to purchase than unmodified seeds, fulfilled Monsanto’s promise of better yields.  Cultivation of genetically modified crops in the United States soared from 18 million acres in 1997 to 58 million acres in 1998. By the end of that year Monsanto was on a path to generate $10 billion in annual revenue from a pipeline of new products to be introduced over the next few years.

Then the problems began.  A farmer in Canada reported that some canola seeds, genetically modified to be pesticide resistant, had escaped and cross pollinated with a related type of weed on the fringes of his field, creating, in effect, a "super weed" that couldn’t be controlled by existing pesticides.  A rival seed company introduced genes from a from a Brazil nut into a soybean to make it more nutritious as animal feed.  But soybeans are a big source of protein for human consumption too, and some people are fatally allergic to Brazil nuts.  The product never made it to the market, but news accounts speculating that modified soybeans could kill people allergic to Brazil nuts got plenty of attention.  And then there was the Terminator gene.  Monsanto bought a seed company that had patented the technology to insert a gene in crops that effectively sterilized new seeds when the crop was harvested.  The idea was to prevent farmers from saving the seeds from a portion of their crop to plant the next year, in effect, protecting the seed company’s proprietary genetic modification technology.  Farmers would have to buy new seeds each year.

Everything came to a head when Monsanto applied to sell its genetically modified seed in Europe.   Europeans were already reeling from a decade of health scares related to food, including Britain’s terrifying encounter with "mad cow" disease.  Although the European Union’s regulators gave Monsanto permission to sell its modified products, consumer reaction on the Continent verged on hysteria.   Environmental groups and the media led the charge against Monsanto, labeling its products "Frankenstein Foods".  Prince Charles weighed in with the opinion that "I happen to believe that this kind of genetic modification takes mankind into realms that belong to God, and to God alone."  The German subsidiaries of both Nestle` and Unilever said they would not use Monsanto’s genetically modified soybeans.   Polls showed huge majorities of Europeans firmly against altered foods.  Monsanto’s efforts to counter the critics-a $5million advertising campaign that told Europeans that while they were new to biotechnology, Monsanto has been researching the subject for twenty years-instead inflamed public opinion as being condescending.

Shapiro wasn’t swayed by the furor.  "This is the single most successful introduction of technology in the history of agriculture, including the plow," he proclaimed.  He acknowledged the opposition, but contended that "eventually, scientific proof should win over reluctant and skeptical consumers."

But science had never been the real issue.  Public opinion was what counted.  A consultant whom Monsanto brought in to mediate with the company’s growing number of critics gave up, claiming that Monsanto just didn’t get it.  "There is a barrier to really listening to what people are saying." he said of the company.  In the United States, where small farmers were becoming increasingly incensed over Monsanto’s efforts to collect fees and put restrictions on their use of modified seeds, Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman got straight to the point, warning Shapiro to keep quiet because" every time he opens his mouth, U.S. agriculture loses millions more bushels of agriculture exports." Monsanto’s stock price fell 35 percent even as the overall market rallied 30 percent in 1999. 

( Source Know-How by Ram Charan)

Delhi Cycling Club is organizing a bicycle rally  India Gate-Red Fort at 7.AM 0n 24th June 2007

to create awareness about various benefits of cycling;  Promote road safety  amongst cyclists;and demand from the Government the much needed cycle tracks on all main roads of Delhi. 

About DELHI CYCLING CLUB:

Formed by ITDP India in April 2007, Delhi Cycling Club is a forum of bicycle enthusiasts, health and environmental conscious citizens in New Delhi.

The club has been engaged in carrying out the following activities:

1. Creating public awareness and sensitization about the environmental, health, economic, energy and other benefits of bicycling. 
2. Educating various decision makers and stakeholders about the need and advantages of promoting cycling and NMT in our cities and integrating them with other modes of transportation. 
3. Demanding fast implementation of better and safe cycling infrastructure in Delhi from the Government. 
4. Planning regular traffic safety programmes for bicycle users in association with other NGOs and Traffic Police especially amongst the students and factory workers who are more vulnerable to accidents. 
5. Planning and organizing regular bike trips on various themes such as Heritage Biking, Excursion trip, adventure trips, and bike rallies etc.

About ITDP INDIA:

The Initiative for Transportation and Development Programmes (ITDP India) is a Delhi based NGO involved in the research and advocacy of Bus Rapid Transit System (BRT) cities and non motorized transportation. The organization is the India chapter of New York based Institute for Transportation and Development Policy (ITDP). ITDP is dedicated to the promotion of transportation policies and projects which are environmentally, socially and economically sustainable as well as equitable.

Maharashtra all set to induct women foresters

CHANDRAPUR: For 21-year-old Yogita Madavi, the steep climb of Tipagarh hills in the naxal-hit Gadchiroli last month was no mean feat. Physically challenged, this tribal girl wanted to prove a point. "My friends used to taunt by calling me a langdi. Every time they did so, I got more determined to prove my mettle some day. And I think I’ve done it," she says.

Yogita is one of the 11 successful girls who were recruited by the Maharashtra Forest Department last April after a written and physical test. She and her co-mates literally walked into what was hitherto a male bastion. "We walked 16 km in four hours on the trot to pass the physical test. All of us here passed the test at ease," the gutsy recruit says. “This is the first batch of women foresters in Maharashtra. And it’s doing very well,” said S P Wadaskar,  principal of Rangers Training College. Though a few other states have already recruited women cadres before, this is the first time in Maharashtra, he said. After a two-month training, the 11 women foresters would join work, the principal said.

Their responsibilities include everything from joint forest management to catching poachers and safeguarding wildlife.  They have to lead separate teams of guards to monitor the depleting jungle wealth.

Three of the 11 female recruits are married. Motivated by their husbands, all of them decided to join the department as foresters  post-marriage.  "It was my husband who motivated me to go for the test," said Seema Sherki nee Gore.

Last year, the forest department received 47,000 applications, including 7,000-odd from female aspirants for 36 vacant posts. Of them, 36,000 got short-listed for the preliminary examination.

About 520 got through for the mains, and finally only 33, including 11 women were selected, Wadaskar said. Amrapali Khobragade, one of the women recruits, says: "We are no less than men. And we are extremely anxious to prove that women can work even harder than men. This was, perhaps, the only field without women. There is no field left now where women haven’t countered risks and challenges successfully."

Source: DNA, January 21, 2007