4.7 Article

Structure network-based landscape of rhodopsin misfolding by mutations and algorithmic prediction of small chaperone action

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.csbj.2021.10.040

关键词

Molecular simulations; Protein structure network; Conformational diseases; GPCRs; Rhodopsin; Pharmacological chaperones

资金

  1. Telethon-Italy grant [GGP11210]
  2. Fondazione Roma grant
  3. FAR2018 grant

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study employed a computational model to predict the endoplasmic reticulum retention of RP mutants and determine the structural determinants of small chaperone action on misfolded protein mutants with therapeutic implications. The approach is applicable to conformational diseases linked to missense mutations in any membrane protein.
Failure of a protein to achieve its functional structural state and normal cellular location contributes to the etiology and pathology of heritable human conformational diseases. The autosomal dominant form of retinitis pigmentosa (adRP) is an incurable blindness largely linked to mutations of the membrane protein rod opsin. While the mechanisms underlying the noxious effects of the mutated protein are not completely understood, a common feature is the functional protein conformational loss. Here, the wild type and 39 adRP rod opsin mutants were subjected to mechanical unfolding simulations coupled to the graph theory-based protein structure network analysis. A robust computational model was inferred and in vitro validated in its ability to predict endoplasmic reticulum retention of adRP mutants, a feature linked to the mutation-caused misfolding. The structurebased approach could also infer the structural determinants of small chaperone action on misfolded protein mutants with therapeutic implications. The approach is exportable to conformational diseases linked to missense mutations in any membrane protein. (C) 2021 Published by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of Research Network of Computational and Structural Biotechnology.

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

4.7
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