4.5 Article

Fluorophore labeling of a cell-penetrating peptide induces differential effects on its cellular distribution and affects cell viability

期刊

BIOCHIMICA ET BIOPHYSICA ACTA-BIOMEMBRANES
卷 1859, 期 12, 页码 2483-2494

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.bbamem.2017.09.015

关键词

Cell-penetrating peptide; Drug delivery; Mammalian cells; Membrane association; Metabolic activity

资金

  1. Innovative Medicines Initiative Joint Undertaking - European Union's Seventh Framework Programme (FP7) [115363]
  2. EFPIA
  3. Danish Council for Independent Research, Technology and Production Sciences [4005-00455]
  4. Alfred Benzon Foundation
  5. Drug Research Academy

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Cell-penetrating peptides constitute efficient delivery vectors, and studies of their uptake and mechanism of translocation typically involve fluorophore-labeled conjugates. In the present study, the influence of a number of specific fluorophores on the physico-chemical properties and uptake-related characteristics of penetratin were studied. An array of seven fluorophores belonging to distinct structural classes was examined, and the impact of fluorophore labeling on intracellular distribution and cytotoxicity was correlated to the physico-chemical properties of the conjugates. Exposure of several mammalian cell types to fluorophore-penetratin conjugates revealed a strong structure-dependent reduction in viability (1.5- to 20-fold lower IC50 values as compared to those of non-labeled penetratin). Also, the degree of less severe effects on membrane integrity, as well as intracellular distribution patterns differed among the conjugates. Overall, neutral hydrophobic fluorophores or negatively charged fluorophores conferred less cytotoxicity as compared to the effect exerted by positively charged, hydrophobic fluorophores. The latter conjugates, however, exhibited less membrane association and more clearly defined intracellular distribution patterns. Thus, selection of the appropriate flurophore is critical.

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

4.5
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