4.6 Article

Influence of the N-terminal domain on the aggregation properties of the prion protein

期刊

PROTEIN SCIENCE
卷 14, 期 8, 页码 2154-2166

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1110/ps.051434005

关键词

prion protein; aggregation; full-length prion protein; N-terminal domain

资金

  1. NIA NIH HHS [P01 AG004342, AG004342] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Prion diseases appear to be caused by the aggregation of the cellular prion protein (PrPC) into an infectious form denoted PrPSc. The in vitro aggregation of the prion protein has been extensively investigated, yet many of these studies utilize truncated polypeptides. Because the C-terminal portion of PrPSc is protease-resistant and retains infectivity, it is assumed that studies on this fragment are most relevant. The full-length protein can be distinguished from the truncated protein because it contains a largely structured, alpha-helical, C-terminal region in addition to an N terminus that is unstructured in the absence of metal ion binding. Herein, the in vitro aggregation of a truncated portion of the prion protein (PrP 90-231) and a full-length version (PrP 23-231) were compared. In each case, concentration-dependent aggregation was analyzed to discern whether it proceeds by a nucleation-dependent pathway. Both protein constructs appear to aggregate via a nucleated polymerization with a small nucleus size, yet the later steps differ. The full-length protein forms larger aggregates than the truncated protein, indicating that the N terminus may mediate higher-order aggregation processes. In addition, the N terminus has an influence on the assembly state of PrP before aggregation begins, causing the full-length protein to adopt several oligomeric forms in a neutral pH buffer. Our results emphasize the importance of studying the full-length protein in addition to the truncated forms for in vitro aggregation studies in order to make valid hypotheses about the mechanisms of prion aggregation and the distribution of aggregates in vivo.

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

4.6
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