4.5 Article

The plant defensin NaD1 introduces membrane disorder through a specific interaction with the lipid, phosphatidylinositol 4,5 bisphosphate

期刊

BIOCHIMICA ET BIOPHYSICA ACTA-BIOMEMBRANES
卷 1858, 期 6, 页码 1099-1109

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.bbamem.2016.02.016

关键词

Plant defensin; Protein lipid interaction; Phosphatidylinositol 4,5 bisphosphate; Membrane disorder; Kinetics; Membrane fusion

资金

  1. Australian Research Council [DP150104386, DP1110101866]
  2. National Health and Medical Research Council [1044327]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Plant defensins interact with phospholipids in bilayers as part of their cytotoxic activity. Solanaceous class II defensins with the loop 5 sequence pattern S-[KR]-[ILVQ]-[ILVQ]-[KR]-[KR] interact with PI(4,5)P-2. Here, the prototypical defensin of this class, NaD1, is used to characterise the biophysical interactions between these defensins and phospholipid bilayers. Binding of NaD1 to bilayers containing PI(4,5)P-2 occurs rapidly and the interaction is very strong. Dual polarisation interferometry revealed that NaD1 does not dissociate from bilayers containing PI(4,5)P-2. Binding of NaD1 to bilayers with or without P1(4,5)P2 induced disorder in the bilayer. However, permeabilisation assays revealed that NaD1 only permeabilised liposomes with PI(4,5)P-2 in the bilayer, suggesting a role for this protein-lipid interaction in the plasma membrane permeabilising activity of this defensin. No defensins in the available databases have the PI(4,5)P-2 binding sequence outside the solanaceous class II defensins, leading to the hypothesis that PI(4,5)P-2 binding co-evolved with the C-terminal propeptide to protect the host cell against the effects of the tight binding of these defensins to their cognate lipid as they travel along the secretory pathway. This data has allowed us to develop a new model to explain how this class of defensins permeabilises plasma membranes to kill target cells. (C) 2016 Elsevier B.V. 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

4.5
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