Santosh C M Kumar |
|
Ph. D.
|
|
National Centre For Cell Science, Pune
·
Laboratory of Structural Biology
|
Skills (8)
-
968 Questions118373 Followers
-
496 Questions74853 Followers
-
38 Questions13540 Followers
-
69 Questions1396 Followers
Research experience
-
Teaching: India in 2002. Invited for and delivered lecture on “Patterns in Protein Sequences” at the Short Term Training Program (STTP) on Data Mining for Bioinformatics
-
Teaching: Awarded Lectureship from the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR
-
Teaching: India.
-
Teaching: organised by All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE
-
Teaching: 2004
-
May 2012–
presentResearch: Functional Analysis of M. tuberculosis Chaperones
National Centre For Cell Science · Laboratory of Structural Biology · Structural BiologyIndia · Pune -
Dec 2009–
Feb 2012Research: Determining the Energy Landscape for Protein Folding in the Cell.
University of Massachusetts · Biochemistry and Molecular Biology · University of MassachusettsUSA · Amherstin vivo Protein Folding -
Dec 2005–
Jun 2006Research: Purification and characterization of r32kDa BCG protein.
Blue Peter Research Center · Lepra Society · Blue Peter Research CenterVijaya Valluri · Hyderabad -
Jul 2003–
Dec 2009Research: Host-Pathogen Interactions: A Study on the Interactions between Human sCD40 and Mycobacterium tuberculosis Hsp70
Center for DNA Fingerprinting and Diagnostics (CDFD) · Laboratory of Structural Biology · Center for DNA Fingerprinting and Diagnostics (CDFD)Shekhar C. Mande · Hyderabad -
Jul 2003–
Dec 2009Research: Facilitated Oligomerization of Mycobacterial GroEL: Evidence for Phosphorylation-Mediated Oligomerization.
Center for DNA Fingerprinting and Diagnostics (CDFD) · Laboratory of Structural Biology · Center for DNA Fingerprinting and Diagnostics (CDFD)Shekhar C. Mande · Hyderabad -
Jun 2003–
Dec 2009Research: The Centre for DNA Fingerprinting and Diagnostics
The Centre for DNA Fingerprinting and Diagnostics · Laboratory of Structural Biology · Structural BiologyIndia · Hyderābād
Awards & achievements
-
Sep 2006Award: EMBO-FEBS-FEMS youth travel grant for attending 40th Spetsai Summer School on Molecular Basis of Bacterial Virulence and Survival within Infected Hosts and in the Environment, at Island of Spetsai, Greece.
-
Jun 2006Award: Travel fellowship for attending meeting on “Molecular Chaperones and Heat Shock Response, 2006 at CSHL, USA
-
Jul 2004Award: Senior Research Fellowship (SRF), from Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR), India.
-
Jul 2002Award: Junior Research Fellowship (JRF) from Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR), India.
-
Feb 2002Award: First Prize in Science Quiz for the National Science Day Celebrations at Sri Krishnadevaraya University (SKU), India.
-
Feb 2001Award: Special Prize in Posters/Exhibits Category for the National Science Day Celebrations at Sri Krishnadevaraya University (SKU), India.
-
Feb 1998Award: National Service Scheme Award
Other
-
LanguagesTelugu, Hindi, English
-
Scientific MembershipsTuberculosis Structural Genomics Consortium, USA
-
Other InterestsResearch, Nature group, Cell group, Science and PLOS group, Nature Group, Biochemistry by Voet and Voet.
Questions and Answers (3) View all
-
Answer added in Transformation26 Transformation and LigationBy Jaya GosalaSantosh Kumar · National Centre For Cell Science, PuneAdding to the above suggestions, I suppose the problem could be of size... Insert + vector, the plasmid becomes 8.5 kb, which is not easily taken-up b... [more]Adding to the above suggestions, I suppose the problem could be of size... Insert + vector, the plasmid becomes 8.5 kb, which is not easily taken-up by the cell. So, the ligated products came in less number than the self ligated ones. The best way to deal with large plasmids is to go for electroporation. Sambrook's molecular cloning has protocols for making electro-competent E. coli. The self-ligation problem (colonies in control plate) might be because one of your restriction enzymes did not work. Therefore, the cohesive ends from one RE digestion could ligate during ligation to give self ligated products. Another reason could be that the digested vector might not have been isolated from the junk, so the cohesive ends due to the fall-out would have recircularized your vector. To counter this, it is a good idea to test individual REs for their activity and after digestion, extract the digested vector from the gel.Following
-
Answer added in Native PAGE7 How can an individual, starting the enzyme-protein purification, assess the level of 'Protein Purification?By Sanjay Mishra · IFTM UniversitySantosh Kumar · National Centre For Cell Science, PuneI agree with Mr. Malih... The best way will be to do a SDS-PAGE (Tris-Glycine or Tricine, depending on your resolution requirement) and stain it with ... [more]I agree with Mr. Malih... The best way will be to do a SDS-PAGE (Tris-Glycine or Tricine, depending on your resolution requirement) and stain it with Silver staining method. Since silver staining is sensitive than the coomassie staining, you will get to know even the minor contaminants. I hope this will help you.Following
-
Question asked in BacteriaOpen Is GroEL promiscuity limited to pathogenic bacteria?GroELs from several pathogenic bacteria have been shown to display substrate promioscuity, wherein the substrate spectrum expands to non-proteins as w... [more]GroELs from several pathogenic bacteria have been shown to display substrate promioscuity, wherein the substrate spectrum expands to non-proteins as well. We have argued in our article that different chaperonins in an organism might be involved in distinct biochemical functions that remain to be discovered, some of which might be modulated by different oligomeric states of the chaperonins. However, I wish to know if there are examples for chaperonins from free living bacteria, exhibiting such substrate promiscuity.Protein chaperones and non-protein substrates: on substrate promiscuity of GroEL. × C. M. Santosh Kumar, Shekhar C. MandeBy Santosh Kumar · National Centre For Cell Science, PuneFollowing
Publications (15) View all
-
Chapter: Evolution of Bacterial Chaperonin 60 Paralogues and Moonlighting Activity.
• Shekhar C. Mande, C M Santosh Kumar, Aditi Sharma01/2013: pages 1-41; -
SourceAvailable from: Santosh C M Kumar
Article: Facilitated oligomerization of mycobacterial GroEL: evidence for phosphorylation-mediated oligomerization.
[show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The distinctive feature of the GroES-GroEL chaperonin system in mediating protein folding lies in its ability to exist in a tetradecameric state, form a central cavity, and encapsulate the substrate via the GroES lid. However, recombinant GroELs of Mycobacterium tuberculosis are unable to act as effective molecular chaperones when expressed in Escherichia coli. We demonstrate here that the inability of M. tuberculosis GroEL1 to act as a functional chaperone in E. coli can be alleviated by facilitated oligomerization. The results of directed evolution involving random DNA shuffling of the genes encoding M. tuberculosis GroEL homologues followed by selection for functional entities suggested that the loss of chaperoning ability of the recombinant mycobacterial GroEL1 and GroEL2 in E. coli might be due to their inability to form canonical tetradecamers. This was confirmed by the results of domain-swapping experiments that generated M. tuberculosis-E. coli chimeras bearing mutually exchanged equatorial domains, which revealed that E. coli GroEL loses its chaperonin activity due to alteration of its oligomerization capabilities and vice versa for M. tuberculosis GroEL1. Furthermore, studying the oligomerization status of native GroEL1 from cell lysates of M. tuberculosis revealed that it exists in multiple oligomeric forms, including single-ring and double-ring variants. Immunochemical and mass spectrometric studies of the native M. tuberculosis GroEL1 revealed that the tetradecameric form is phosphorylated on serine-393, while the heptameric form is not, indicating that the switch between the single- and double-ring variants is mediated by phosphorylation.Journal of bacteriology 09/2009; 191(21):6525-38. · 3.94 Impact Factor -
Conference Proceeding: Directed Evolution of Functional GroELs From Mycobacterium tuberculosis GroELs: Phenotypic and Sequence Analysis of the Mutants
Meeting on Molecular Chaperones and Heat Shock Response, Cold Spring Harbour Laboratory, NY; 01/2006 -
SourceAvailable from: Santosh C M Kumar
Article: Functional Analysis of M. tuberculosis Chaperones.
Santosh Kumar C. M -
SourceAvailable from: Santosh C M Kumar
Article: Protein chaperones and non-protein substrates: on substrate promiscuity of GroEL.
C. M. Santosh Kumar, Shekhar C. Mande[show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Chaperonins are a group of molecular chaperones that form large multi subunit structures and are found in all forms of life. Encoded by the groEL and groES genes, bacterial chaperonins are required for appropriate folding of many cellular proteins. A significant number of bacterial species are known to express multiple copies of chaperonin genes, possibly to confer redundancy of GroEL function in these species. It is also likely that the paralogous GroELs might be undergoing diversification of function as a consequence of gene duplication. We argue in this article that different chaperonins in an organism might be involved in distinct biochemical functions that remain to be discovered, some of which might be modulated by different oligomeric states of the chaperonins.Current science. 01/2011; 100:1646.