4.4 Article

Kinetic isotope effects of proton transfer in aqueous and methanol containing solutions, and in gramicidin A channels

期刊

BIOPHYSICAL CHEMISTRY
卷 103, 期 2, 页码 179-190

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/S0301-4622(02)00255-7

关键词

water wire; ionic permeability; Grotthuss mechanism; single channel conductance; proton transfer in deuterated methanol; deuterium oxide

资金

  1. NIGMS NIH HHS [GM59674] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The electrochemical conductivities of HCl and DCl were measured in: H2O and D2O in methanol and fully deuterated methanol; and in water-methanol solutions. The single channel conductances to H+ (g(H)) and D+ (g(D)) in various gramicidin A (gA) ion channels incorporated in glycerylmonooleate planar bilayers were also measured. Kinetic isotope effects (KIE) were estimated from the ratio of conductivity measurements. In 1 and 5 M HCl aqueous solutions and in 1 M HCl + 3.7 M methanol, the KIE ( approximate to 1.35) is not different from values previously determined in dilute acid solutions. This suggests that the mobility of protons in those solutions is largely determined by proton transfer. In 10 M HCl, however, where the mobility of protons is likely to be determined by hydrodynamic diffusion, the measured KIE is considerably larger (1.47). Possible causes for this effect are discussed. The KIE of proton conductivities in 5 and 50 mM HCl in methanol and d-methanol is approximate to 1.15. This is considerably smaller than the ratio between conductivities of 5 mM KCl in methanol and d-methanol (1.24). The KIE values (1.22-1.37) for g(H) in gA channels in I M HCl are significantly larger than for other monovalent cations and consistent with H+ transfer. Methanol reduces gm in gA channels. The KIE of this effect is not different from the one measured in the absence of methanol. Possible mechanisms for the methanol-induced block of H+ conductivities in solution and gA channels are discussed. (C) 2002 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.

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

4.4
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