4.4 Article

Selective biomolecular separation system inspired by the nuclear pore complex and nuclear transport

期刊

MOLECULAR SYSTEMS DESIGN & ENGINEERING
卷 2, 期 2, 页码 149-158

出版社

ROYAL SOC CHEMISTRY
DOI: 10.1039/c7me00006e

关键词

-

资金

  1. Defense Threat Reduction Agency [HDTRA1-13-1-0038]
  2. NIH [5-T32-GM008834]
  3. Program Science without Borders (CNP q scholarship) [234283/2014-9]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Inspired by selective molecular transport in the nuclear pore complex, a system that can separate proteins using a facilitated diffusion-based mechanism is developed. The system is comprised of two components: nuclear transporter receptors (NTRs) fused with a peptide tag that can catch target biomolecules and a nucleoporin-like protein (NLP) hydrogel that can selectively trap target molecule-NTR complexes due to the physical binding between hydrophobic Phe-Gly sequences in the protein polymer network and the NTR. Similar to the nuclear pore complex, substrate selectivity is achieved via complexation with NTRs, which permits transport into the gel, whereas environmental proteins are rejected. The NLP hydrogel effectively transports cargo complexes down to the single nanomolar range in the environment, and a selectivity of approximately 300 can be achieved between target molecule and protein impurity. High selectivity requires both interactions between the hydrogel and cargo complex for efficient catching as well as high NLP gel concentration to reduce the pore size for rejecting environmental molecules. As a proof of concept of catch-trap for a protein target, a partial green fluorescent protein (GFP) sequence and staphylococcal enterotoxin B (SEB) toxoid are both separated from protein mixtures using engineered NTRs that contain binding tags for the corresponding protein. This represents a versatile system for fusing nuclear transporters with diverse peptide tags, enabling the selective binding and transport of a wide variety of separations of high value biomolecules.

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