4.8 Article

Extended β-Strands Contribute to Reversible Amyloid Formation

期刊

ACS NANO
卷 16, 期 2, 页码 2154-2163

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acsnano.1c08043

关键词

amyloid structure; C5 hydrogen-bond; DFT; X-ray crystallography; reversible amyloid

资金

  1. UCLA-Caltech Medical Scientist Training Program [GM08042]
  2. UCLA Chemistry-Biology Interface training grant (USPHS National Research Service Award) [5T32GM008496]
  3. Howard Hughes Medical Institute
  4. NIH
  5. National Institute of General Medical Sciences from the National Institutes of Health [P30 GM124165]
  6. NIH-ORIP HEI grant [S10OD021527]
  7. DOE Office of Science [DE-AC02-06CH11357]
  8. NIH [AG 054022, AG070895, AG 048120]
  9. DOE [DE-FC02-02ER63421]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Recent studies have revealed that some amyloid-like structures are reversible and derived from protein low-complexity domains involved in cellular metabolism. The finding of unique structural features of reversible amyloid fibrils suggests the involvement of intraresidue interactions known as C5 hydrogen-bonds in stabilizing these structures.
The assembly of proteins into fibrillar amyloid structures was once considered to be pathologic and essentially irreversible. Recent studies reveal amyloid-like structures that form reversibly, derived from protein low-complexity domains which function in cellular metabolism. Here, by comparing atomic-level structures of reversible and irreversible amyloid fibrils, we find that the beta-sheets of reversible fibrils are enriched in flattened (as opposed to pleated) beta-sheets formed by stacking of extended beta-strands. Quantum mechanical calculations show that glycine residues favor extended beta-strands which may be stabilized by intraresidue interactions between the amide proton and the carbonyl oxygen, known as C5 hydrogen-bonds. Larger residue side chains favor shorter strands and pleated sheets. These findings highlight a structural element that may regulate reversible amyloid assembly.

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