4.1 Article

Uptake mechanisms of cell-penetrating peptides derived from the Alzheimer's disease associated gamma-secretase complex

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10989-005-9007-y

关键词

cell-penetrating peptide; CPP; internalization; endocytosis; Alzheimer's disease; gamma-secretase

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Basic peptides with vector abilities, so called cell-penetrating peptides (CPPs), have been reported to enter cells, carrying cargoes ranging from oligonucleotides and proteins to nanoparticles. In this study we present novel CPPs derived from the gamma-secretase complex, which is involved in the amyloidogenic processing of the amyloid precursor protein (APP) and one of the major research targets for Alzheimer's disease therapeutics today. In order to examine the uptake efficiency and internalization mechanism of these novel CPPs, side-by-side comparison with the well characterized CPPs penetratin and tat were made. For assessment of the CPP uptake mechanism, endocytosis inhibitors, endosomal markers and cells deficient in the expression of glycosaminoglycans were used. Also, in order to determine the vector ability of the peptides, protein delivery was quantified. We demonstrate the uptake of the gamma-secretase derived CPPs, in accordance to penetratin and tat, to be largely dependent on temperature and initial binding to cell-surface glycosaminoglycans. After this initial step, there is a discrepancy in the mechanism of uptake, where all peptides, except one, is taken up by a PI 3-kinase dependent fluid phase endocytosis, which could be inhibited by wortmannin. Also, by using endosomal markers and protein delivery efficacy, we conclude that the pathway of internalization for different CPPs could determine the possible cargo size for which they can be used as a vector. The, in this study demonstrated, cell-penetrating properties of the gamma-secretase constituents could prove to be of importance for the gamma-secretase function, which is a matter of further investigation.

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

4.1
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