4.8 Article

Measuring Lipid Transfer Protein Activity Using Bicelle-Dilution Model Membranes

期刊

ANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY
卷 92, 期 4, 页码 3417-3425

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acs.analchem.9b05523

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health [NHLBI HL125353, NIGMS GM45928]
  2. Russian Foundation for Basic Research [01504-07415]
  3. Hormel Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In vitro assessment of lipid intermembrane transfer activity by cellular proteins typically involves measurement of either radiolabeled or fluorescently labeled lipid trafficking between vesicle model membranes. Use of bilayer vesicles in lipid transfer assays usually comes with inherent challenges because of complexities associated with the preparation of vesicles and their rather short shelf life. Such issues necessitate the laborious task of fresh vesicle preparation to achieve lipid transfer assays of high quality, precision, and reproducibility. To overcome these limitations, we have assessed model membrane generation by bicelle dilution for monitoring the transfer rates and specificity of various BODIPY-labeled sphingolipids by different glycolipid transfer protein (GLTP) superfamily members using a sensitive fluorescence resonance energy transfer approach. Robust, protein-selective sphingolipid transfer is observed using donor and acceptor model membranes generated by dilution of 0.5 q-value mixtures. The sphingolipid transfer rates are comparable to those observed between small bilayer vesicles produced by sonication or ethanol injection. Among the notable advantages of using bicelle-generated model membranes are (i) easy and straightforward preparation by means that avoid lipid fluorophore degradation and (ii) long shelf life after production (>= 6 days) and resilience to freeze-thaw storage. The bicelle-dilution-based assay is sufficiently robust, sensitive, and stable for application, not only to purified LTPs but also for LTP activity detection in crude cytosolic fractions of cell homogenates.

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

4.8
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