4.3 Article

The self-association of the giant hemoglobin from the earthworm, Lumbricus terrestris

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.bbapap.2014.03.004

关键词

Lumbricus hemoglobin; Self-association; Light-scattering; Molar mass; Erythrocruorin; Dimers

资金

  1. NSF [MCB-0237651, 951179, 972385]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: The crystallographic structure of the gigantic hemoglobin (erythrocruorin) of the annelid worm, Lumbricus terrestris, provides a molar mass of 3.6 MDa for the hexagonal bilayer structure. Prior to this determination, some light-scattering and ultracentrifugal measurements indicated higher masses: 4.1-4.4 MDa. Values of 3.6 MDa were attributed to dissociation or subunit loss. However, early electron microscopy of the giant hemoglobin from a related annelid, Eumenia crassa by Oster Levin, showed that the hexagonal bilayer molecules were present mostly as oligomers; few were monomeric. Methods: Measurements by light-scattering of solutions of Lumbricus hemoglobin resolved by size-exclusion chromatography have been used to determine the weight-average molar mass of self-associating proteins. The X-ray structure has been re-examined. Results: Our measurements show that both 3.6 MDa monomers and self-association products are present as a mixture. Analysis of the Xray structure indicates several different kinds of monomer-monomer interactions. Conclusions: We propose that the measured masses of Lumbricus hemoglobin as high as 4.4 MDa, result from oligomerization. These masses would result from the presence of an array of oligomers of various sizes together with monomers of 3.6 MDa. Furthermore, several different kinds of monomer-monomer interactions are clearly evident in the X-ray structure as well as in solution. General significance: The results demonstrate that self-association of monomers of the hemoglobin of Lumbricus terrestris explains the high molar masses of 4.1-4.4 MDa previously observed. (C) 2014 Elsevier 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

4.3
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