4.6 Article

Insights into the domains required for dimerization and assembly of human αB crystallin

期刊

PROTEIN SCIENCE
卷 14, 期 3, 页码 684-695

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1110/ps.041152805

关键词

alpha B crystallin; lens; chaperone; small heat shock protein; assembly; molecular modeling

资金

  1. NEI NIH HHS [EY04542, R01 EY004542] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Protein pin array technology was used to identify subunit-subunit interaction sites in the small heat shock protein (sHSP) alphaB crystallin. Subunit-subunit interaction sites were defined as consensus sequences that interacted with both human alphaA crystallin and alphaB crystallin. The human alphaB crystallin protein pin array consisted of contiguous and overlapping peptides, eight amino acids in length, immobilized on pins that were in a 96-well ELISA plate format. The interaction of alphaB crystallin peptides with physiological partner proteins, alphaA crystallin and alphaB crystallin, was detected using antibodies and recorded using spectrophotometric absorbance. Five peptide sequences including 37LFPTSTSLSPFYLRPPSF54 in the N terminus, 75FSVNLDVK82 (beta3), 131LTITSSLS138 (beta8) and (141)GVLTVNGP(148) (beta9) that form beta strands in the conserved alpha crystallin core domain, and 155PERTIPITREEK166 in the C-terminal extension were identified as subunit-subunit interaction sites in human alphaB crystallin using the novel protein pin array assay. The subunit-subunit interaction sites were mapped to a three-dimensional (3D) homology model of wild-type human alphaB crystallin that was based on the crystal structure of wheat sHSP16.9 and Methanococcus jannaschi sHSP16.5 (Mj sHSP16.5). The subunit-subunit interaction sites identified and mapped onto the homology model were solvent-exposed and had variable secondary structures ranging from beta strands to random coils and short a helices. The subunit-subunit interaction sites formed a pattern of hydrophobic patches on the 3D surface of human alphaB crystallin.

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