4.5 Article

Single-channel permeability and glycerol affinity of human aquaglyceroporin AQP3

期刊

BIOCHIMICA ET BIOPHYSICA ACTA-BIOMEMBRANES
卷 1861, 期 4, 页码 768-775

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.bbamem.2019.01.008

关键词

Aquaporin; Aquaglyceroporin; Glycerol affinity; Erythrocyte membrane; Transport; Free energy

资金

  1. NIH [GM121275]
  2. Lowe Foundation
  3. Alzheimer's Association [AARFD 17-529742]
  4. Semmes Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

For its fundamental relevance, transport of water and glycerol across the erythrocyte membrane has long been investigated before and after the discovery of aquaporins (AQPs), the membrane proteins responsible for water and glycerol transport. AQP1 is abundantly expressed in the human erythrocyte for maintaining its hydro homeostasis where AQP3 is also expressed (at a level similar to 30-folds lower than AQP1) facilitating glycerol transport. This research is focused on two of the remaining questions: How permeable is AQP3 to water? What is the glycerol-AQP3 affinity under near-physiological conditions? Through atomistic modelling and large-scale simulations, we found that AQP3 is two to three times more permeable to water than AQP1 and that the glycerolAQP3 affinity is approximately 500/M. Using these computed values along with the data from the latest literature on AQP1 and on erythrocyte proteomics, we estimated the water and glycerol transport rates across the membrane of an entire erythrocyte. We used these rates to predict the time courses of erythrocyte swelling shrinking in response to inward and outward osmotic gradients. Experimentally, we monitored the time course of human erythrocytes when subject to an osmotic or glycerol gradient with light scattering in a stopped-flow spectrometer. We observed close agreement between the experimentally measured and the computationally predicted time courses of erythrocytes, which corroborated our computational conclusions on the AQP3 water-permeability and the glycerol-AQP3 affinity.

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

4.5
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