4.8 Article

A Biomimetic of Endogenous Tissue Inhibitors of Metalloproteinases: Inhibition Mechanism and Contribution of Composition, Polymer Size, and Shape to the Inhibitory Effect

期刊

NANO LETTERS
卷 21, 期 13, 页码 5663-5670

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acs.nanolett.1c01357

关键词

Polymer inhibitor; Enzyme inhibition; Protein affinity; Hydrogel; Snake venom

资金

  1. Japan Society for the Promotion of Science [15J04705]
  2. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [15J04705] Funding Source: KAKEN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A biomimetic of endogenous tissue inhibitors of metalloproteinases was engineered with three binding elements, showing inhibition of snake venom metalloproteinase. The size of the polymer contributed to inhibition efficacy, while a low crosslinked polymer hydrogel nanoparticle had comparable efficacy, suggesting potential for in vivo applications. The abiotic TIMP was effective against two classes of SVMPs in whole snake venom, serving as a design principle for biomimetic polymer inhibitors of enzymes.
A biomimetic of endogenous tissue inhibitors of metall-oproteinases (TIMPs) was engineered by introducing three binding elements to a synthetic tetrapolymer. We evaluated the contribution of composition, size, and shape of the TIMP-mimicking polymers to the inhibition of BaP1, a P-I class snake venom metalloproteinase (SVMP). Inhibition was achieved when the size of the linear polymer (LP) was comparable to or greater than that of the enzyme, indicating the efficacy requires binding to a significant portion of the enzyme surface in the vicinity of the active site. The efficacy of a low crosslinked polymer hydrogel nanoparticle (NP) of substantially greater molecular weight was comparable to that of the LPs despite differences in size and shape, an important finding for in vivo applications. The abiotic TIMP was effective against two classes of SVMPs in whole snake venom. The results can serve as a design principle for biomimetic polymer inhibitors of enzymes.

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