4.5 Article

Interaction of three-finger toxins with phospholipid membranes: comparison of S- and P-type cytotoxins

期刊

BIOCHEMICAL JOURNAL
卷 387, 期 -, 页码 807-815

出版社

PORTLAND PRESS LTD
DOI: 10.1042/BJ20041814

关键词

P-31-NMR; membrane-binding mode; molecular hydrophobicity potential; Monte Carlo simulation; phospholipid; three-finger toxins

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The CTs (cytotoxins) I and 11 are positively charged three-finger folded proteins from venom of Naja oxiana (the Central Asian cobra). They belong to S- and P-type respectively based on Ser-28 and Pro-30 residues within a putative phospholipid bilayer binding site. Previously, we investigated the interaction of CTII with multilamellar lippsomes of dipalmitoylphosphatidylglycerol by wide-line P-31-NMR spectroscopy. To compare interactions of these proteins With phospholipids, we investigated the interaction of CTI with the multilamellar liposomes of dipalmitoylphosphatidylglycerol analogously. The effect of CTI on the chemical shielding anisotropy and deformation of the liposomes in the magnetic field was determined at different temperatures and lipid/protein ratios. It was found that both the proteins do not affect lipid organization in the gel state. In the liquid crystalline state of the bilayer they disturb lipid packing. To get insight into the interactions of the toxins with membranes, Monte Carlo simulations of CTI and CTII in the presence of the bilayer membrane were performed. It was found that both the toxins penetrate into the bilayer with the tips of all the three loops. However, the free-energy gain on membrane insertion of CTI is smaller (by approximate to 7 kcal/mol; 1 kcal equivalent to 4.184 kJ) when compared with CTII, because of the lower hydrophobicity of the membrane-binding site of CTI. These results clearly demonstrate that the P-type cytotoxins interact with membranes stronger than those of the S-type, although the mode of the membrane insertion is similar for both the types.

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

4.5
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