4.4 Article

Solution NMR structures of the antimicrobial peptides phylloseptin-1,-2, and-3 and biological activity: The role of charges and hydrogen bonding interactions in stabilizing helix conformations

期刊

PEPTIDES
卷 29, 期 10, 页码 1633-1644

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.peptides.2008.06.022

关键词

Amphipathic alpha-helix; Antibiotic; Antifungal; Helix capping; Hydrogen bonds; Membrane interactions; Helix dipole

资金

  1. Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Cientifico e Tecnologico (CNPq - Brazil)
  2. Coordenacao de Aperfeicoamento de Pessoal de Nivel Superior (CAPES - Brazil)
  3. FAPEMIG [EDT 24000]
  4. Brazilian-French program CAPES-COFECUB [487/05]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Phylloseptins are antimicrobial peptides of 19-20 residues which are found in the skin secretions of the Phyllomedusa frogs that inhabit the tropical forests of South and Central Americas. The peptide sequences of PS-1, -2, and -3 carry an amidated C-terminus and they exhibit 74% sequence homology with major variations of only four residues close to the C-terminus. Here we investigated and compared the structures of the three phylloseptins in detail by CD- and two-dimensional NMR spectroscopies in the presence of phospholipid vesicles or in membrane-mimetic environments. Both CD and NMR spectroscopies reveal a high degree of helicity in the order PS-2 >= PS-1 > PS-3, where the differences accumulate at the C-terminus. The conformational. variations can be explained by taking into consideration electrostatic interactions of the negative ends of the helix dipoles with potentially cationic residues at positions 17 and 18. Whereas two are present in the sequence of PS-1 and -2 only one is present in PS-3. In conclusion, the antimicrobial phylloseptin peptides adopt alpha-helical conformations in membrane environments which are stabilized by electrostatic interactions of the helix dipole as well as other contributions such hydrophobic and capping interactions. (C) Elsevier Inc. 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

4.4
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