4.2 Review

Using X-ray Footprinting and Mass Spectrometry to Study the Structure and Function of Membrane Proteins

期刊

PROTEIN AND PEPTIDE LETTERS
卷 26, 期 1, 页码 44-54

出版社

BENTHAM SCIENCE PUBL LTD
DOI: 10.2174/0929866526666181128142401

关键词

Hydroxyl-radical footprinting; oxidative labeling; mass spectrometry; ion channels; transporters; radiolysis

资金

  1. NIH-NIGMS [R01 GM126218]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Membrane proteins are crucial for cellular sensory cascades and metabolite transport, and hence are key pharmacological targets. Structural studies by traditional high-resolution techniques are limited by the requirements for high purity and stability when handled in high concentration and nonnative buffers. Hence, there is a growing requirement for the use of alternate methods in a complementary but orthogonal approach to study the dynamic and functional aspects of membrane proteins in physiologically relevant conditions. In recent years, significant progress has been made in the field of X-ray radiolytic labeling in combination with mass spectroscopy, commonly known as X-ray Footprinting and Mass Spectrometry (XFMS), which provide residue-specific information on the solvent accessibility of proteins. In combination with both low-resolution biophysical methods and high-resolution structural data, XFMS is capable of providing valuable insights into structure and dynamics of membrane proteins, which have been difficult to obtain by standalone high-resolution structural techniques. The XFMS method has also demonstrated a unique capability for identification of structural waters and their dynamics in protein cavities at both a high degree of spatial and temporal resolution, and thus capable of identifying conformational hot-spots in transmembrane proteins. Conclusion: We provide a perspective on the place of XFMS amongst other structural biology methods and showcase some of the latest developments in its usage for studying conformational changes in membrane 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

4.2
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