Refine
Has Fulltext
- yes (52)
Is part of the Bibliography
- yes (52)
Year of publication
- 2004 (52) (remove)
Document Type
- Doctoral Thesis (50)
- Journal article (1)
- Master Thesis (1)
Language
- English (52) (remove)
Keywords
- Supersymmetrie (3)
- Chemische Synthese (2)
- Femtosekundenbereich (2)
- Flavour <Elementarteilchen> (2)
- Genregulation (2)
- Hochtemperatursupraleiter (2)
- Lepton (2)
- Listeria monocytogenes (2)
- Pheromone (2)
- Ratte (2)
Institute
- Institut für Theoretische Physik und Astrophysik (9)
- Theodor-Boveri-Institut für Biowissenschaften (8)
- Physikalisches Institut (4)
- Institut für Anorganische Chemie (3)
- Institut für Organische Chemie (3)
- Institut für Virologie und Immunbiologie (3)
- Julius-von-Sachs-Institut für Biowissenschaften (3)
- Institut für Geographie (2)
- Institut für Informatik (2)
- Institut für Physikalische und Theoretische Chemie (2)
Shadow Mask assisted Molecular Beam Epitaxy (SMMBE) is a technique enabling selected area epitaxy of semiconductor heterostructures through shadow masks. The objective of this work was the development of the SMMBE technique for the reliable fabrication of compound semiconductor nanostructures of high structural and optical quality. In order to accomplish this, technological processes have been developed and optimized. This, in combination with model calculations of the basic kinetic growth processes has enabled the fabrication of high quality quantum structures. A high spatial precision and control of the incidence regions of the molecular beams during the SMMBE process are required for the fabrication of nanostructures. One of the technological developments to this effect, which has substantially enhanced the versatility of SMMBE, is the introduction of a new type of freestanding shadow masks: Growth through such a mask with different incidence angles of the molecular beams is equivalent to employing different mechanical masks, but is much more accurate since the precision of mechanical alignment is limited. A consistent model has been developed, which successfully explains the growth dynamics of molecular beam epitaxy through shadow masks. The redistribution of molecular fluxes under shadow masks may affect the growth rates on selected areas of the substrate drastically. In the case of compound semiconductors, reactions between the constituent species play important roles in controlling the growth rates as a function of the growth parameters. The predictions of the model regarding the growth of II-VI and III-V compounds have been tested experimentally and the dependence of the growth rates on the growth parameters has been verified. Moreover, it has been shown, that selected area epitaxy of II-VI and III-V compounds are governed by different surface kinetics. Coexisting secondary fluxes of both constituent species and the apparent non-existence of surface diffusion are characteristic for SMMBE of II-VI compounds. In contrast, III-V SMMBE is governed by the interplay between secondary group-V flux and the surface migration of group-III adatoms. In addition to the basic surface kinetic processes described by the model, the roles of orientation and strain-dependent growth dynamics, partial shadow, and material deposition on the mask (closure of apertures) have been discussed. The resulting advanced understanding of the growth dynamics (model and basic experiments) in combination with the implementation of technical improvements has enabled the development and application of a number of different processes for the fabrication of both II-VI and III-V nanostructures. In addition to specific material properties, various other phenomena have been exploited, e.g., self-organization. It has been shown that, e.g., single quantum dots and quantum wires can be reliably grown. Investigations performed on the SMMBE nanostructures have demonstrated the high positional and dimensional precision of the SMMBE technique. Bright cathodoluminescence demonstrates that the resulting quantum structures are of high structural and optical quality. In addition to these results, which demonstrate SMMBE as a prospective nanofabrication technique, the limitations of the method have also been discussed, and various approaches to overcome them have been suggested. Moreover, propositions for the fabrication of complex quantum devices by the multiple application of a stationary shadow mask have been put forward. In addition to selected area growth, the shadow masks can assist in etching, doping, and in situ contact definition in nanoscale selected areas. Due to the high precision and control over the dimensions and positions of the grown structures, which at the same time are of excellent chemical, crystal, and optical quality, SMMBE provides an interesting perspective for the fabrication of complex quantum devices from II-VI and III-V semiconductors.
The gram-positive, facultative intracellular pathogen Listeria monocytogenes is the causal agent of listeriosis. Most of well-known virulence genes are controlled by PrfA that belongs to the Crp-Fnr family of transcriptional activators. A PrfA-mediated transcription initiating at a virulence gene promoter, inlC promoter (PinlC) that regulates the expression of the small, secreted internalin C, was in-depth characterized by an in vitro transcription system to unravel the essential features of a PrfA-dependent promoter in this study. The obtained results indicate a dual promoter for inlC that leads to PrfA-dependent and -independent transcription in vitro and in vivo. The PrfA-dependent transcription requires, as expected, the PrfA-box, a conserved 14 bp sequence of dyad symmetry located about 40 bp upstream of the transcriptional start site of each PrfA-regulated gene. Another important structural feature for this PrfA-dependent promoter is the distance between the 3´-end of the PrfA-box and the 5´-end of the SigA-recognized –10 box fixed to 22 or 23 bp, which is observed in the interspace regions of the other known PrfA-dependent promoters, e.g. PactA, PplcA, Phly and Pmpl. The –35 box of PinlC is not necessary for PrfA-dependent transcription. The –10 box of PinlC and also that of the other PrfA-dependent promoters of L. monocytogenes closely resemble SigA-recognized –10 promoter sequences of the well-characterized gram-positive bacterium B. subtilis. Even the extended –10 motif (5´-TRTG-3´) considered to be a basic element for many SigA-recognized promoters in B. subtilis is present in PinlC. Primer extension studies reveal that both the PrfA-dependent and the independent promoter share the same –10 box. The PrfA-independent transcription of inlC depends on a –35 box located directly downstream of the PrfA-box, and the close proximity of the two sites inhibits strongly the transcription activity of the PrfA-independent promoter when the PrfA-RNA polymerase complex binds to the PrfA-box. Deletion of the PrfA-box results in PrfA-independent transcription from PinlC, which is no longer inhibited by PrfA. High concentration of GTP appears to be necessary for PrfA-dependent transcription initiated at the inlC promoter and at other PrfA-dependent promoters. Based on transcriptome analysis, Milohanic and his co-workers identified three groups of genes that were regulated differently by PrfA. Some of these genes containing putative PrfA-boxes in their 5´-upstream regulatory regions were selected for analysis of their transcriptional dependency on PrfA using again the in vitro transcription system. The data show that among these “PrfA-regulated” promoters tested, only the promoter of the hpt gene belonging to group I is clearly activated by PrfA. This promoter is also the only one that exhibited all essential features of a typical PrfA-dependent promoter as described above. In vitro transcription starting at most of the other promoters was neither positively nor negatively affected by PrfA. Transcription initiated at some of the promoters of group III genes (lmo0596 and lmo2067) is rather inefficient with SigA-loaded RNA polymerase, but is highly activated with RNA polymerase loaded with purified SigB. Addition of purified PrfA protein has no effect on the SigB-dependent transcription. These in vitro transcription results indicate that the in vivo observed PrfA effect on the expression of most of the new genes is either indirect or PrfA-mediated transcription of these genes requires - in contrast to the PrfA-dependent transcription of the known virulence genes (including hpt) - additional factors not present in the in vitro transcription assay. In addition to these new genes described by Milohanic, the promoters of two genes (lmo2420 and lmo2840) that contain putative PrfA-boxes with only a single mismatch in their upstream regulatory regions were analyzed in this study. However, transcription of none of these genes is regulated by PrfA, suggesting that these genes are either not truly regulated by PrfA or regulated by other global transcription activators that interact with PrfA by yet unknown mechanisms. By exchanging corresponding sequences between a functionally inactive promoter ParoAP2 and a typical PrfA-dependent promoter PplcA, it is found that PrfA-dependent in vitro transcription can be initiated from the hybrid promoter containing the putative PrfA-box and the SigA-recognized –10 box (TTTAAT) from the putative PrfA-dependent aroAP2 promoter, but it is inhibited strongly by the interspace sequence between these two sites apparently due to an additional RNA polymerase binding site [the –10 box (TAATAT) for the PrfA-independent transcription of ParoAP1)] within this region. Furthermore, a symmetric sequence downstream of the –10 box (TTTAAT) is also shown to be a strongly inhibitory for PrfA-dependent transcription from the putative PrfA-dependent aroAP2 promoter.