4.6 Article

Design of peptides with high affinities for heparin and endothelial cell proteoglycans

Journal

JOURNAL OF BIOLOGICAL CHEMISTRY
Volume 275, Issue 11, Pages 7701-7707

Publisher

AMER SOC BIOCHEMISTRY MOLECULAR BIOLOGY INC
DOI: 10.1074/jbc.275.11.7701

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. NHLBI NIH HHS [HL 29282, HL 53590] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Proteoglycan-binding peptides were designed based on consensus sequences in heparin-binding proteins: XBBXBX and XBBBXXBX, where X and B are hydropathic and basic residues, respectively. initial peptide constructs included (AKKARA)(n) and (ARKKAAKA)(n) (n = 1-6), Affinity coelectrophoresis revealed that low M-r peptides (600-1300) had no affinities for low M-r heparin, but higher M-r peptides (2000-3500) exhibited significant affinities (K-d congruent to 50-150 nM), which increased with peptide M-r. Affinity was strongest when sequence arrays were contiguous and alanines and arginines occupied hydropathic and basic positions, but inclusion of prolines was disruptive. A peptide including a single consensus sequence of the serglycin proteoglycan core protein bound heparin strongly (K-d congruent to 200 nM), likely owing to dimerization through cysteine-cysteine linkages. circular dichroism showed that high affinity heparin-binding peptides converted from a charged coil to an alpha-helix upon heparin addition, whereas weak heparin-binding peptides did not. Higher M-r peptides exhibited high affinities for total endothelial cell proteoglycans (K-d congruent to 300 nM), and similar to 4-fold weaker affinities for their free glycosaminoglycan chains. Thus, peptides including concatamers of heparin-binding consensus sequences may exhibit strong affinities for heparin and proteoglycans. Such peptides may be applicable in promoting cell-substratum adhesion or in the design of drugs targeted to proteoglycan-containing cell surfaces and extracellular matrices.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available