4.8 Article

Protein diffusion in Escherichia coli cytoplasm scales with the mass of the complexes and is location dependent

期刊

SCIENCE ADVANCES
卷 8, 期 32, 页码 -

出版社

AMER ASSOC ADVANCEMENT SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.abo5387

关键词

-

资金

  1. EU Marie-Curie ITN project SynCrop [764591]
  2. ERC Advanced grant ABCVolume [670578]
  3. NWO National Science Program The limits to growth [NWA.1292.19.170]
  4. Heising-Simons Faculty Fellows award
  5. European Research Council (ERC) [670578] Funding Source: European Research Council (ERC)
  6. Marie Curie Actions (MSCA) [764591] Funding Source: Marie Curie Actions (MSCA)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study analyzed the structure of the cytoplasm in Escherichia coli by performing single-molecule displacement mapping on native cytoplasmic proteins. It found that protein diffusion at the poles is consistently slower than in the center of the cell and that the diffusion coefficient scales with the mass of the used probes, while other parameters do not correlate with protein mobility.
We analyze the structure of the cytoplasm by performing single-molecule displacement mapping on a diverse set of native cytoplasmic proteins in exponentially growing Escherichia coli. We evaluate the method for application in small compartments and find that confining effects of the cell membrane affect the diffusion maps. Our analysis reveals that protein diffusion at the poles is consistently slower than in the center of the cell, i.e., to an extent greater than the confining effect of the cell membrane. We also show that the diffusion coefficient scales with the mass of the used probes, taking into account the oligomeric state of the proteins, while parameters such as native protein abundance or the number of protein-protein interactions do not correlate with the mobility of the proteins. We argue that our data paint the prokaryotic cytoplasm as a compartment with subdomains in which the diffusion of macromolecules changes with the perceived viscosity.

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