4.6 Article

Conformational analysis of the natural iron chelator myo-inositol 1,2,3-trisphosphate using a pyrene-based fluorescent mimic

期刊

ORGANIC & BIOMOLECULAR CHEMISTRY
卷 8, 期 12, 页码 2850-2858

出版社

ROYAL SOC CHEMISTRY
DOI: 10.1039/c001078b

关键词

-

资金

  1. EPSRC
  2. BBSRC

向作者/读者索取更多资源

myo-Inositol phosphates possessing the 1,2,3-trisphosphate motif share the remarkable ability to completely inhibit iron-catalysed hydroxyl radical formation. The simplest derivative, myo-inositol 1,2,3-trisphosphate [Ins(1,2,3)P-3], has been proposed as an intracellular iron chelator involved in iron transport. The binding conformation of Ins(1,2,3)P-3 is considered to be important to complex Fe3+ in a 'safe' manner. Here, a pyrene-based fluorescent probe, 4,6-bispyrenoyl-myo-inositol 1,2,3,5-tetrakisphosphate [4,6-bispyrenoyl Ins(1,2,3,5)P-4], has been synthesised and used to monitor the conformation of the 1,2,3-trisphosphate motif using excimer fluorescence emission. Ring-flip of the cyclohexane chair to the penta-axial conformation occurs upon association with Fe3+, evident from excimer fluorescence induced by pi-pi stacking of the pyrene reporter groups, accompanied by excimer formation by excitation at 351 nm. This effect is unique amongst biologically relevant metal cations, except for Ca2+ cations exceeding a 1 : 1 molar ratio. In addition, the thermodynamic constants for the interaction of the fluorescent probe with Fe3+ have been determined. The complexes formed between Fe3+ and 4,6-bispyrenoyl Ins(1,2,3,5)P-4 display similar stability to those formed with Ins(1,2,3)P-3, indicating that the fluorescent probe acts as a good model for the 1,2,3-trisphosphate motif This is further supported by the antioxidant properties of 4,6-bispyrenoyl Ins(1,2,3,5)P-4, which closely resemble those obtained for Ins(1,2,3)P-3. The data presented confirms that Fe3+ binds tightly to the unstable penta-axial conformation of myo-inositol phosphates possessing the 1,2,3-trisphosphate motif

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

4.6
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