4.4 Article Proceedings Paper

Nanomechanical interactions of phenylalanine-glycine nucleoporins studied by single molecule force-volume spectroscopy

期刊

JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL BIOLOGY
卷 159, 期 2, 页码 277-289

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.jsb.2007.01.018

关键词

atomic force microscopy; binding promiscuity; nanomechanics; nuclear pore complex; natively unfolded proteins; nucleoporins

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Phenylalanine-glycine (FG)-repeat nucleoporins (Nups) form the major components of the selective gating mechanism in the nuclear pore complex (NPC). Hence, a primary requirement is to understand how they vacillate between preventing the access of passively diffusing molecules and promoting the translocation of receptor-bound cargo into the NPC. To shed light on such behavior, we have studied the nanomechanical properties of a cysteine-modified FG-rich C-terminal domain of hNup153 (i.e., cNup153) and its interactions with importin-beta. This is carried out using single molecule force spectroscopy (SMFS) with the atomic force microscope (AFM). In the absence of importin-beta, cNup153 is highly flexible and can be reversibly stretched and relaxed without any change to its intrinsic entropic elasticity, indicating a lack of intra-FG interactions, i.e., natively unfolded. Importin-beta-modified AFM tips reveal complex binding topologies with cNup153, and provide evidence for binding promiscuity in FG-receptor interactions. These differences suggest that cooperativity between FG-domains arises from FG-receptor interactions instead of FG-FG interactions. On a technical note, this work highlights an improved SMFS technique which involves pre-passivating the underlying substrate surface with polyethylene glycol to reduce undesirable AFM tip-surface effects. A high yield of acceptable data is subsequently obtained from the low surface coverage of target molecules by implementing SMFS measurements in force-volume (FV) mode. (C) 2007 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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