4.4 Article

Membrane binding of peptides containing both basic and aromatic residues.: Experimental studies with peptides corresponding to the scaffolding region of caveolin and the effector region of MARCKS

期刊

BIOCHEMISTRY
卷 39, 期 33, 页码 10330-10339

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/bi001039j

关键词

-

资金

  1. NIGMS NIH HHS [GM24971] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We have studied the binding of peptides containing both basic and aromatic residues to phospholipid vesicles. The peptides caveolin(92-101) and MARCKS(151-175) both contain five aromatic residues, but have 3 and 13 positive charges, respectively. Our results show the aromatic residues insert into the bilayer and anchor the peptides weakly to vesicles formed from the zwitterionic lipid phosphatidylcholine (PC). incorporation of a monovalent acidic lipid (e.g., phosphatidylserine, PS) into the vesicles enhances the binding of both peptides via nonspecific electrostatic interactions. As predicted from application of the Poisson-Boltzmann equation to atomic models of the peptide and membranes, the enhancement is larger (e.g., 10(4)- vs 10-fold for 17% PS) for the more basic MARCKS(151-175). Replacing the five Phe with five Ala residues in MARCKS(151-175) decreases the binding to 10:1 PC/PS vesicles only slightly (6-fold). This result is also consistent with the predictions of our theoretical model: the loss of the attractive hydrophobic energy is partially compensated by a decrease in the repulsive Born/desolvation energy as the peptide moves away from the membrane surface. Incorporating multivalent phosphatidylinositol 4,5-bisphosphate (PIP2) into PC vesicles produces dramatically different effects on the membrane binding of the two peptides: 1% PIP2 enhances caveolin(92-101) binding only S-ford, but increases MARCKS(151-175) binding 10(4)-fold. The strong interaction between the effector region of MARCKS and PIP2 has interesting implications for the cellular function of MARCKS.

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