4.2 Article

Hexafluoroisopropanol induces self-assembly of ß-amyloid peptides into highly ordered nanostructures

期刊

JOURNAL OF PEPTIDE SCIENCE
卷 18, 期 4, 页码 233-241

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1002/psc.2391

关键词

amyloid fibrils; self-assembly; ring-like structures; fluorinated alcohol

资金

  1. CSIR [NWP035]
  2. Department of Science and Technology, India

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Deposition of insoluble fibrillar aggregates of beta-amyloid (A beta) peptides in the brain is a hallmark of Alzheimer's disease. Apart from forming fibrils, these peptides also exist as soluble aggregates. Fibrillar and a variety of nonfibrillar aggregates of A beta have also been obtained in vitro. Hexafluoroisopropanol (HFIP) has been widely used to dissolve A beta and other amyloidogenic peptides. In this study, we show that the dissolution of A beta 40, 42, and 43 in HFIP followed by drying results in highly ordered aggregates. Although a-helical conformation is observed, it is not stable for prolonged periods. Drying after prolonged incubation of A beta 40, 42, and 43 peptides in HFIP leads to structural transition from a-helical to beta-conformation. The peptides form short fibrous aggregates that further assemble giving rise to highly ordered ring-like structures. A beta 1622, a highly amyloidogenic peptide stretch from A beta, also formed very similar rings when dissolved in HFIP and dried. HFIP could not induce a-helical conformation in A beta 1622, and rings were obtained from freshly dissolved peptide. The rings formed by A beta 40, 42, 43, and A beta 1622 are composed of the peptides in beta-conformation and cause enhancement in thioflavin T fluorescence, suggesting that the molecular architecture of these structures is amyloid-like. Our results clearly indicate that dissolution of A beta 40, 42 and 43 and the amyloidogenic fragment A beta 1622 in HFIP results in the formation of annular amyloid-like structures. Copyright (c) 2012 European Peptide Society and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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

4.2
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