4.6 Article

Glycosaminoglycan Binding and Non-Endocytic Membrane Translocation of Cell-Permeable Octaarginine Monitored by Real-Time In-Cell NMR Spectroscopy

期刊

PHARMACEUTICALS
卷 10, 期 2, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/ph10020042

关键词

glycosaminoglycan; heparin; cell penetrating peptide; octaarginine; non-endocytic membrane translocation; in-cell nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy

资金

  1. Japan Society for the Promotion of Science [24550035, 15K05401]
  2. Hyogo Science and Technology Association [25073]
  3. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [24550035, 15K05401, 17H03979, 15K05254] Funding Source: KAKEN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Glycosaminoglycans (GAGs), which are covalently-linked membrane proteins at the cell surface have recently been suggested to involve in not only endocytic cellular uptake but also non-endocytic direct cell membrane translocation of arginine-rich cell-penetrating peptides (CPPs). However, in-situ comprehensive observation and the quantitative analysis of the direct membrane translocation processes are challenging, and the mechanism therefore remains still unresolved. In this work, real-time in-cell NMR spectroscopy was applied to investigate the direct membrane translocation of octaarginine (R8) into living cells. By introducing 4-trifluoromethyl-L-phenylalanine to the N terminus of R8, the non-endocytic membrane translocation of F-19-labeled R8 (F-19-R8) into a human myeloid leukemia cell line was observed at 4 degrees C with a time resolution in the order of minutes. F-19 NMR successfully detected real-time R8 translocation: the binding to anionic GAGs at the cell surface, followed by the penetration into the cell membrane, and the entry into cytosol across the membrane. The NMR concentration analysis enabled quantification of how much of R8 was staying in the respective translocation processes with time in situ. Taken together, our in-cell NMR results provide the physicochemical rationale for spontaneous penetration of CPPs in cell membranes.

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

4.6
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