4.7 Article

The aquaporin sidedness revisited

期刊

JOURNAL OF MOLECULAR BIOLOGY
卷 299, 期 5, 页码 1271-1278

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS LTD- ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1006/jmbi.2000.3811

关键词

aquaporin Z; aquaporin 1; atomic force microscopy; water channel; metal-shadowing

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aquaporins are transmembrane water channel proteins, which play important functions in the osmoregulation and water balance of microorganisms, plants, and animal tissues. All aquaporins studied to date are thought to be tetrameric assemblies of four subunits each containing its own aqueous pore. Moreover, the subunits contain an internal sequence repeat forming two obversely symmetric hemichannels predicted to resemble an hour-glass. This unique arrangement of two highly related protein domains oriented at 180 degrees to each other poses a significant challenge in the determination of sidedness. Aquaporin Z (AqpZ) from Escherichia coli was reconstituted into highly ordered two-dimensional crystals. They were freeze-dried and metal-shadowed to establish the relationship between surface structure and underlying protein density by electron microscopy. The shadowing of some surfaces was prevented by protruding aggregates. Thus, images collected from freeze-dried crystals that exhibited both metal-coated and uncoated regions allowed surface relief reconstructions and projection maps to be obtained from the same crystal. Cross-correlation peak searches along lattices crossing metal-coated and uncoated regions allowed an unambiguous alignment of the surface reliefs to the underlying density maps. AqpZ topographs previously determined by AFM could then be aligned with projection maps of AqpZ, and finally with human erythrocyte aquaporin-1 (AQP1). Thereby features of the AqpZ topography could be interpreted by direct comparison to the 6 Angstrom three-dimensional structure of AQP1. We conclude that the sidedness we originally proposed for aquaporin density maps was inverted. (C) 2000 Academic Press.

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

4.7
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