4.6 Review

Ceramide: A simple sphingolipid with unique biophysical properties

期刊

PROGRESS IN LIPID RESEARCH
卷 54, 期 -, 页码 53-67

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.plipres.2014.01.004

关键词

Ceramide-gel domains; Lipid rafts; Membrane lipid domains; Morphological alterations; N-acyl chain ceramides; Sphingomyelinase

资金

  1. Fundacao para a Ciencia e Tecnologia, Portugal [PTDC/QUI-BIQ/111411/2009, PTDC/BBB-BQB/0506/2012]
  2. Compromisso para a Ciencia
  3. Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia [PTDC/BBB-BQB/0506/2012, PTDC/QUI-BIQ/111411/2009] Funding Source: FCT

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Ceramides are involved in a variety of cellular processes and in disease. Their biological functions are thought to depend on ceramides' unique biophysical properties, which promote strong alterations of cell membrane properties and consequent triggering of signaling events. Over the last decades, efforts were made to understand the impact of ceramide on membrane biophysical features. Several studies, performed in a multitude of membrane models, address ceramides' specific interactions, the effect of their acyl chain structure and the influence of membrane lipid composition and properties on ceramide biophysical outcome. In this review, a rationale for the multiple and complex changes promoted by ceramide is provided, highlighting, on a comprehensive and critical manner, the interactions between ceramides and specific lipids and/or lipid phases. Focus is also given to the interplay between ceramide and cholesterol, particularly in lipid raft-mimicking mixtures, an issue of intense debate due to the urgent need to understand the biophysical impact of ceramide formation in models resembling the cell membrane. The implications of ceramide-induced biophysical changes on lipid protein interactions and cell signaling are also discussed, together with the emerging evidence for the existence of ceramide-gel like domains in cellular membranes. (C) 2014 Elsevier Ltd. 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

4.6
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