4.6 Article

Disorder-to-Order Markers of a Cyclic Hexapeptide Inspired from the Binding Site of Fertilin β Involved in Fertilization Process

期刊

ACS OMEGA
卷 4, 期 19, 页码 18049-18060

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acsomega.9b01885

关键词

-

资金

  1. Spanish Ministerio de Economia, Industria y Competitividad [FIS2014-52212-R, FIS2017-84318-R]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Synthetic peptides mimicking the binding site of fertilin beta to its receptor, integrin alpha 6 beta 1, were shown to inhibit sperm-egg fusion when added to in vitro media. In contrast, the synthetic cyclic hexapeptide, cyclo(Cys(1)-Ser(2)-Phe(3)-Glu(4)-Glu(5)-Cys(6)), named as cFEE, proved to stimulate gamete fusion. Owing to its biological specificity, this hexapeptide could help improve the in vitro fertilization pregnancy rate in human. In an attempt to establish the structure-activity relationship of cFEE, its structural dynamics was herein analyzed by means of ultraviolet circular dichroism (UV-CD) and Raman scattering. The low concentration CD profile in water, containing mainly a deep minimum at similar to 202 nm, is consistent with a rather unordered chain. However, an ordering trend of the peptide loop has been observed in a less polar solvent such as methanol, where the UV-CD signal shape is formed by a double negative marker at similar to 202/215 nm, indicating the presence of a type-II '' beta-turn. Raman spectra recorded in aqueous samples upon a 100-fold concentration increase, still showed an important population (similar to 30%) of the disordered structure. The structural flexibility of the disulfide bridge was confirmed by the Raman markers arising from the Cys(1)-Cys(6) disulfide bond-stretch motions. Density functional theory calculations highlighted the formation of the type-II' beta-turn on the four central residues of cFEE (i.e., -Ser(2)-Phe(3)-Glu(4)-Glu(5)-) either with a left- or with a right-handed disulfide. The structure with a left-handed S-S bond, however, appears to be more stable.

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