4.8 Article

Membrane damage by human islet amyloid polypeptide through fibril growth at the membrane

出版社

NATL ACAD SCIENCES
DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0708354105

关键词

amylin; amyloid cytotoxicity; large unilamellar vesicles; protein-membrane interaction; type 2 diabetes mellitus

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Fibrillar protein deposits (amyloid) in the pancreatic islets of Langerhans are thought to be involved in death of the insulinproducing islet beta cells in type 2 diabetes mellitus. It has been suggested that the mechanism of this beta cell death involves membrane disruption by human islet amyloid polypeptide (hIAPP), the major constituent of islet arnyloid. However, the molecular mechanism of hIAPP-induced membrane disruption is not known. Here, we propose a hypothesis that growth of hIAPP fibrils at the membrane causes membrane damage. We studied the kinetics of hIAPP-induced membrane damage in relation to hIAPP fibril growth and found that the kinetic profile of hIAPP-induced membrane damage is characterized by a lag phase and a sigmoidal transition, which matches the kinetic profile of hIAPP fibril growth. The observation that seeding accelerates membrane damage supports the hypothesis. In addition, variables that are well. known to affect hIAPP fibril formation, i.e., the presence of a fibril formation inhibitor, hIAPP concentration, and lipid composition, were found to have the same effect on hIAPP-induced membrane damage. Furthermore, electron microscopy analysis showed that hIAPIP fibrils line the surface of distorted phospholipid vesicles, in agreement with the notion that hIAPP fibril growth at the membrane and membrane damage are physically connected. Together, these observations point toward a mechanism in which growth of hIAPP fibrils, rather than a particular hIAPP species, is responsible for the observed membrane damage. This hypothesis provides an additional mechanism next to the previously proposed role of oligomers as the main cytotoxic species of amyloidogenic proteins.

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

4.8
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