4.7 Article

Biochemical Characterization of Membrane Fractions in Murine Sperm: Identification of Three Distinct Sub-Types of Membrane Rafts

期刊

JOURNAL OF CELLULAR PHYSIOLOGY
卷 218, 期 3, 页码 537-548

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/jcp.21623

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Institute of Health [K01-RR00188, R01-HD-045664]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Despite enormous interest in membrane raft micro-domains, no studies in any cell type have defined the relative compositions of the raft fractions on the basis of their major components sterols, phospholipids, and proteins or additional raft-associating lipids such as the ganglioside, G(M1). Our previous localization data in live sperm showed that the plasma membrane overlying the acrosome represents a stabilized platform enriched in G(M1) and sterols. These findings, along with the physiological requirement for sterol efflux for sperm to function, prompted us to characterize sperm membrane fractions biochemically. After confirming limitations of commonly used detergent-based approaches, we utilized a non-detergent-based method, separating membrane fractions that were reproducibly distinct based on sterol, G(M1), phospholipid, and protein compositions (both mass amounts and molar ratios). Based on fraction buoyancy and biochemical composition, we identified at least three highly reproducible sub-types of membrane raft. Electron microscopy revealed that raft fractions were. free of visible contaminants and were separated by buoyancy rather than morphology. Quantitative proteomic comparisons and fluorescence localization of lipids suggested that different organelles contributed differentially to individual raft sub-types, but that multiple membrane micro-domain sub-types could exist within individual domains. This has important implications for scaffolding functions broadly associated with rafts. Most importantly, we show that the common practice of characterizing membrane domains as either raft or non-raft oversimplifies the actual biochemical complexity of cellular membranes.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据