4.6 Article

Characterization of hydroxycinnamic acid derivatives binding to bovine serum albumin

期刊

ORGANIC & BIOMOLECULAR CHEMISTRY
卷 10, 期 17, 页码 3424-3431

出版社

ROYAL SOC CHEMISTRY
DOI: 10.1039/c2ob25237f

关键词

-

资金

  1. Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities [lzujbky-2010-113]
  2. 111 Project
  3. National Natural Science Foundation of China [20972063]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Hydroxycinnamic acid derivatives (HCAs) are a group of naturally occurring polyphenolic compounds which possess various pharmacological activities. In this work, the interactions of bovine serum albumin (BSA) with six HCA derivatives, including chlorogenic acid (CHA), caffeic acid (CFA), m-coumaric acid (m-CA), p-coumaric acid (p-CA), ferulic acid (FA) and sinapic acid (SA) have been investigated by NMR spectroscopic techniques in combination with fluorescence and molecular modeling methods. Competitive STD NMR experiments using warfarin sodium and L-tryptophan as site-selective probes indicated that HCAs bind to site I in the subdomain IIA of BSA. From the analysis of the STD NMR-derived binding epitopes and molecular docking models, it was deduced that CHA, CFA, m-CA and p-CA show similar binding modes and orientation, in which the phenyl ring is in close contact with protein surface, whereas carboxyl group points out of the protein. However, FA and SA showed slightly different binding modes, due to the steric hindrance of methoxy-substituents on the phenyl ring. Relaxation experiments provided detailed information about the relationship between the affinity and structure of HCAs. The binding affinity was the strongest for CHA and ranked in the order CHA > CFA > m-CA >= p-CA > FA > SA, which agreed well with the results from fluorescence experiments. Based on our experimental results, we also conclude that HCAs bind to BSA mainly by hydrophobic interaction and hydrogen bonding. This study therefore provides valuable information for elucidating the mechanisms of BSA-HCAs interaction.

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