4.7 Review

Folding of conotoxins: Formation of the native disulfide bridges during chemical synthesis and biosynthesis of Conus peptides

期刊

ANTIOXIDANTS & REDOX SIGNALING
卷 10, 期 1, 页码 141-155

出版社

MARY ANN LIEBERT, INC
DOI: 10.1089/ars.2007.1856

关键词

-

资金

  1. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF GENERAL MEDICAL SCIENCES [P01GM048677] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  2. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF NEUROLOGICAL DISORDERS AND STROKE [R21NS055845] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  3. NIGMS NIH HHS [GM 48677] Funding Source: Medline
  4. NINDS NIH HHS [R21 NS055845] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Conopeptides from >700 species of predatory marine Conus snails provide an impressive molecular diversity of cysteine-rich peptides. Most of the estimated 50,000-100,000 distinct conopeptides range in size from 10 to 50 amino acid residues, often with multiple posttranslational modifications. The great majority contain from two to four disulfide bridges. As the biosynthetic and chemical production of this impressive repertoire of disulfide-rich peptides has been investigated, particularly the formation of native disulfide bridges, differences between in vivo and in vitro oxidative folding have become increasingly evident. In this article, we provide an overview of the molecular diversity of conotoxins with an emphasis on the cysteine patterns and disulfide frameworks. The conotoxin folding studies reviewed include regioselective and direct oxidation strategies, recombinant expression, optimization of folding methods, mechanisms of in vitro folding, and preliminary data on the biosynthesis of conotoxins in venom ducts. Despite these studies, how the cone snails efficiently produce properly folded conotoxins remains unanswered. As chemists continue to master oxidative folding techniques, insights gleaned from how conotoxins are folded in vivo will likely lead to the development-of the new folding methods, as well as shed some light on fundamental mechanisms relevant to the protein folding problem.

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