4.4 Article

VSV transmembrane domain (TMD) peptide promotes PEG-mediated fusion of liposomes in a conformationally sensitive fashion

期刊

BIOCHEMISTRY
卷 41, 期 50, 页码 14925-14934

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/bi0203233

关键词

-

资金

  1. NIGMS NIH HHS [GM59204, GM32707] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Helical instability induced by gly residues in the transmembrane domain (TMD) of G protein, the fusion protein of vesicular stomatitis virus (VSV), was speculated to aid in the later steps of the fusion process, because G protein with ala's substituted for the two TMD gly's was inactive (Cleverley, D. Z., and Lenard, J. (1998) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 95, 3425-30). Here we examine the conformations of synthetic peptides corresponding to fusion-active (GGpep) and inactive (AApep; G's replaced by A's) TMDs by CD spectroscopy, and then their effects on the kinetics of poly (ethyleneglycol) (PEG)-mediated fusion of small unilamellar vesicles. GGpep and AApep both assumed history-dependent, non-interconvertible ordered structures. Both peptides were largely helical under all conditions if derived from trifluoroethanol solutions, and aggregated in a beta-sheet form if derived from acetonitrile solutions. In solvent, detergents or lipid bilayers, GGpep showed a greater range of secondary structural features than did AApep. The two peptides had large but different effects on PEG-mediated fusion. Both enhanced the rate but not the extent of lipid mixing. AApep significantly inhibited the extent of fusion pore formation while GGpep had no effect. The initial rate of fusion was enhanced 6-fold by GGpep and less than 2-fold by AApep. Addition of 5 mol % hexadecane overrode all peptide-induced effects. We suggest that both GGpep and hexadecane promote pore formation by stabilizing the nonlamellar structures in fusion intermediates or initial small pores. AApep, which had fewer nonhelical features in its CD spectrum than GGpep, actually inhibited fusion pore formation.

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