4.8 Article

Colloidal stability of the living cell

出版社

NATL ACAD SCIENCES
DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1914599117

关键词

cellular organization; protein-protein interactions; electrostatics; halophilic adaptation; ion screening

资金

  1. Knut & Alice Wallenberg Foundation [20170041]
  2. Swedish Research Council [2017-01517]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Cellular function is generally depicted at the level of functional pathways and detailed structural mechanisms, based on the identification of specific protein-protein interactions. For an individual protein searching for its partner, however, the perspective is quite different: The functional task is challenged by a dense crowd of nonpartners obstructing the way. Adding to the challenge, there is little information about how to navigate the search, since the encountered surrounding is composed of protein surfaces that are predominantly nonconserved or, at least, highly variable across organisms. In this study, we demonstrate from a colloidal standpoint that such a blindfolded intracellular search is indeed favored and has more fundamental impact on the cellular organization than previously anticipated. Basically, the unique polyion composition of cellular systems renders the electrostatic interactions different from those in physiological buffer, leading to a situation where the protein net-charge density balances the attractive dispersion force and surface heterogeneity at close range. Inspection of naturally occurring proteomes and in-cell NMR data show further that the nonconserved protein surfaces are by no means passive but chemically biased to varying degree of net-negative repulsion across organisms. Finally, this electrostatic control explains how protein crowding is spontaneously maintained at a constant level through the intracellular osmotic pressure and leads to the prediction that the extreme in halophilic adaptation is not the ionic-liquid conditions per se but the evolutionary barrier of crossing its physicochemical boundaries.

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