4.8 Article

Enzymatic Assemblies Disrupt the Membrane and Target Endoplasmic Reticulum for Selective Cancer Cell Death

期刊

JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN CHEMICAL SOCIETY
卷 140, 期 30, 页码 9566-9573

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/jacs.8b04641

关键词

-

资金

  1. NIH [R01CA142746]
  2. NSF [DMR-1420382]
  3. NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE [R01CA142746] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The endoplasmic reticulum (ER) is responsible for the synthesis and folding of a large number of proteins, as well as intracellular calcium regulation, lipid synthesis, and lipid transfer to other organelles, and is emerging as a target for cancer therapy. However, strategies for selectively targeting the ER of cancer cells are limited. Here we show that enzymatically generated crescent-shaped supramolecular assemblies of short peptides disrupt cell membranes and target ER for selective cancer cell death. As revealed by sedimentation assay, the assemblies interact with synthetic lipid membranes. Live cell imaging confirms that the assemblies impair membrane integrity, which is further supported by lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) assays. According to transmission electron microscopy (TEM), static light scattering (SLS), and critical micelle concentration (CMC), attaching an L-amino acid at the C-terminal of a D-tripeptide results in the crescent-shaped supramolecular assemblies. Structure-activity relationship suggests that the crescent- shaped morphology is critical for interacting with membranes and for controlling cell fate. Moreover, fluorescent imaging indicates that the assemblies accumulate on the ER. Time-dependent Western blot and ELISA indicate that the accumulation causes ER stress and subsequently activates the caspase signaling cascade for cell death. As an approach for in situ generating membrane binding scaffolds (i.e., the crescent-shaped supramolecular assemblies), this work promises a new way to disrupt the membrane and to target the ER for developing anticancer therapeutics.

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

4.8
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