4.4 Article

The molecular organization of the beta-sheet region in Corneous beta proteins (beta-keratins) of sauropsids explains its stability and polymerization into filaments

期刊

JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL BIOLOGY
卷 194, 期 3, 页码 282-291

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.jsb.2016.03.004

关键词

Reptiles; Birds; Corneous beta-proteins; 3D-modeling; Polymer formation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The hard corneous material of avian and reptilian scales, claws, beak and feathers is mainly derived from the presence of proteins formerly known as beta-keratins but now termed Corneous beta-proteins of sauropsids to distinguish them from keratins, which are members of the intermediate filament protein family. The modeling of the conserved 34 amino acid residues long central beta-sheet region of Corneous beta-proteins using an ab batio protein folding and structure prediction algorithm indicates that this region is formed by four antiparallel beta-sheets. Molecular dynamic simulations and Molecular Mechanics/Poisson Boltzmann Surface Area (MM-PBSA) analysis showed that the disposition of polar and apolar amino acids within the beta-region gives rise to an amphipathic core whose stability is further increased, especially in an aqueous environment, by the association into a dimer due to apolar interactions and specific amino-acid interactions. The dimers in turn polymerize into a 3 nm thick linear beta-filament due to van der Waals and hydrogen-bond interactions. It is suggested that once this nuclear core of anti-parallel sheets evolved in the genome of a reptilian ancestor of the extant reptiles and birds about 300 millions years ago, new properties emerged in the corneous material forming scales, claws, beaks and feathers in these amniotes based on the tendency of these unique corneous proteins to form stable filaments different from keratin intermediate filaments or sterical structures formed by other corneous proteins so far known. (C) 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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

4.4
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