Search

The integration of closed biomass cycles into residential buildings enables efficient resource utilization and avoids the transport of biowaste. In our scenario called Integrated Cycles for Urban Biomass (ICU), biowaste is degraded on-site into biogas that is converted into heat and electricity. Nitrification processes upgrade the liquid fermentation residues to refined fertilizer, which can be used subsequently in house-internal gardens to produce fresh food for residents. Our research aims to assess the ICU scenario regarding produced amounts of biogas and food, saved CO2 emissions and costs, and social–cultural aspects. Therefore, a model-based feasibility study was performed assuming a building with 100 residents. The calculations show that the ICU concept produces 21% of the annual power (electrical and heat) consumption from the accumulated biowaste and up to 7.6 t of the fresh mass of lettuce per year in a 70 m2 professional hydroponic production area. Furthermore, it saves 6468 kg CO2-equivalent (CO2-eq) per year. While the ICU concept is technically feasible, it becomes economically feasible for large-scale implementations and higher food prices. Overall, this study demonstrates that the ICU implementation can be a worthwhile contribution towards a sustainable CO2-neutral society and decrease the demand for agricultural land. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The characterization of protein--protein interactions (PPIs) is of high value for understanding protein function. Two strategies are popular for identification of PPIs direct from the cellular environment: affinity capture (pulldown) isolates the protein of interest with an immobilized matrix that specifically captures the target and potential partners, whereas in BioID, genetic fusion of biotin ligase facilitates proximity biotinylation, and labeled proteins are isolated with streptavidin. Whilst both methods provide valuable insights, they can reveal distinct PPIs, but the basis for these differences is less obvious. Here, we compare both methods using four different trypanosome proteins as baits: poly(A)-binding proteins PABP1 and PABP2, mRNA export receptor MEX67, and the nucleoporin NUP158. With BioID, we found that the population of candidate interacting proteins decreases with more confined bait protein localization, but the candidate population is less variable with affinity capture. BioID returned more likely false positives, in particular for proteins with less confined localization, and identified low molecular weight proteins less efficiently. Surprisingly, BioID for MEX67 identified exclusively proteins lining the inner channel of the nuclear pore complex (NPC), consistent with the function of MEX67, whereas the entire NPC was isolated by pulldown. Similarly, for NUP158, BioID returned surprisingly few PPIs within NPC outer rings that were by contrast detected with pulldown but instead returned a larger cohort of nuclear proteins. These rather significant differences highlight a clear issue with reliance on a single method to identify PPIs and suggest that BioID and affinity capture are complementary rather than alternative approaches. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]