4.7 Article

Stereoselective interactions of lactic acid enantiomers with HSA: Spectroscopy and docking application

期刊

FOOD CHEMISTRY
卷 270, 期 -, 页码 429-435

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.foodchem.2018.07.135

关键词

Lactic acid isomers; Human serum albumin; Fluorescence spectroscopy; Circular dichroism; Docking simulation

资金

  1. National Key Research and Development Program of China [2017YFC1601700]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China, China [31601540, 31771939]
  3. Natural Science Foundation of Guangdong Province, China
  4. Guangdong and Guangzhou ST Plan [2016A030310304, S2013030013338, 2017B020207010, 2016201604030004]
  5. Provincial Key Platform and Major Research Projects of Guangdong Universities [2015KQNCX106]
  6. Doctoral Research Project of Guangdong University of Education [2014ARF02]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Lactic acid enantiomers, normally found in fermented food, are absorbed into the blood and interact with plasma carrier protein human serum albumin (HSA). Unveiling the effect on the function and structure of HSA during chiral interaction can give a better understanding of the different distribution activities of the two enantiomers. Multi-spectroscopic methods and molecular modelling techniques are used to study the interactions between lactic acid enantiomers and HSA. Time-resolved and steady-state fluorescence spectra manifest that the fluorescence quenching mechanism is mainly static in type, due to complex formation. Binding interactions, deduced by thermodynamic calculation, agree with the docking prediction. Docking results and kinetic constants represent chiral-recognizing discriminations consistently. The bindings of lactic acid enantiomers lead to some microenvironmental and slight conformational changes of HSA as shown by circular dichroism (CD), synchronous and three-dimensional fluorescence spectra. This investigation may yield useful information about the possible toxicity risk of lactic acid enantiomers to human health.

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