4.5 Article

Involvement of amino-acid side chains of membrane proteins in the binding of glutathione to pig cerebral cortical membranes

期刊

NEUROCHEMICAL RESEARCH
卷 27, 期 5, 页码 389-394

出版社

KLUWER ACADEMIC/PLENUM PUBL
DOI: 10.1023/A:1015599830320

关键词

glutathione binding; chemical modification; disulfide bonds; cysteinyl; arginyl and lysyl residues; synaptic membranes; pig; cerebral cortex

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Glutathione (GSH), a general antioxidant and detoxifying compound, is the most abundant thiol-containing peptide in the central nervous system. It has been earlier shown to regulate the functions of glutamate receptors and to possess specific binding sites in both neurons and glial cells. The possible involvement of disulfide bonds, cysteinyl, arginyl, lysyl, glutamyl, and aspartyl residues in the binding of tritiated GSH to specific sites in pig cerebral cortical synaptic membranes was now studied after covalent modification of membrane proteins. Treatment of synaptic membranes with the thiol-modifying reagents 5,5'-dithio-bis(2-nitrobenzoate) (DTNB) and 4,4'-dithiodipyridine (DDP) dramatically enhanced the binding of [H-3]GSH in a dose-dependent manner. Dithiothreitol (DTT) alone reduced the binding, but pretreatment of the membranes with DTT potentiated the enhancing effect of DTNB. On the other hand, when the modification with DTNB was followed by treatment with DTT, the enhancement by DTNB was completely reversed. N-ethylmaleimide, a thiol alkylating agent, and phenylisothiocyanate, a thiol- and amino-group modifying compound, reduced the binding, and their effects were additive. The guanidino-modifying agent phenylglyoxal reduced the binding but the carboxyl-modifying reagent 1-ethyl-3-(3-dimethylaminopropyl)carbodiimide had no significant effect. The results indicate that cysteinyl side chains and disulfide bonds are essential in the binding of GSH to membrane proteins and that arginyl and lysyl side chains may also be directly involved in this process.

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