4.7 Article

Probing the toxic mechanism of Ag+ with lysozyme

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.saa.2015.06.080

关键词

Ag+; Lysozyme; Fluorescence spectra; UV-vis absorption spectra; Circular dichroism spectra; Isothermal titration calorimetry

资金

  1. NSFC [20875055, 21277081, 21477067]
  2. Cultivation Fund of the Key Scientific and Technical Innovation Project
  3. Research Fund for the Doctoral Program of Higher Education
  4. Ministry of Education of China [708058, 20130131110016]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Silver (Ag) is widely used in human activities, which provides possibilities to distribute in organisms and tissues, resulting in harmful effects on human health. In this work, lysozyme was chosen as the target molecule to study the mechanism of toxic interactions between Ag+ and protein using fluorescence emission spectra, synchronous fluorescence spectra, UV-vis absorption spectra, circular dichroism (CD) spectra, isothermal titration calorimetry (ITC), and enzyme activity assay. The results of fluorescence emission and synchronous fluorescence showed that there were interactions between Ag+ and lysozyme by eliminating the inner filter effect (IFE). Data from UV-vis spectra indicated that the frame structure of lysozyme became looser with Ag+ existent, while the micro-environment of aromatic amino acid residues did not show any significant alteration. CD results suggested that the secondary structure of lysozyme presented a decrease in alpha-helix contents with the increasing amount of Ag+. ITC results showed Ag+ can spontaneously bind with lysozyme through hydrogen bonding and van der Waals forces with one binding site (K-a = 1.93 x 10(6)). The lysozyme activity was inhibited by Ag+ according to the enzyme activity assay, revealing that Ag+ bound to lysozyme at the active site which resulted in inhibition of lysozyme activity. This work showed that Ag can cause damages to the structure and function of lysozyme. (C) 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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