4.7 Article

Headgroup specificity for the interaction of the antimicrobial peptide tritrpticin with phospholipid Langmuir monolayers

期刊

COLLOIDS AND SURFACES B-BIOINTERFACES
卷 100, 期 -, 页码 95-102

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.colsurfb.2012.05.002

关键词

Tritrpticin; Antimicrobial peptide; Model membranes; Phospholipid monolayers; Toroidal pore

资金

  1. FAPESP
  2. CNPq
  3. Rede Biomat (Brazil)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We examined the interaction of the cationic antimicrobial peptide (AMP) tritrpticin (VRRFPWWWPFLRR, TRP3) with Langmuir monolayers of zwitterionic (dipalmitoyl phosphatidylcholine, DPPC, and dipalmitoyl phosphatidylethanolamine, DPPE) and negatively charged phospholipids (dipalmitoyl phosphatidic acid, DPPA, and dipalmitoyl phosphatidylglycerol, DPPG). Both surface pressure and surface potential isotherms became more expanded upon addition of TRP3 (DPPE similar to DPPC << DPPA < DPPG). The stronger interaction with negatively charged phospholipids agrees with data for vesicles and planar lipid bilayers, and with AMPs greater activity against bacterial membranes versus mammalian cell membranes. Considerable expansion of negatively charged monolayers occurred at 10 and 30 mol% TRP3, especially at low surface pressure. Moreover, a difference was observed between PA and PG, demonstrating that the interaction, besides being modulated by electrostatic interactions, displays specificity with regard to headgroup, being more pronounced in the case of PG, present in large quantities in bacterial membranes. In previous studies, it was proposed that the peptide acts by a toroidal pore-like mechanism [1,2]. Considering the evidence from the literature that PG shows a propensity to form a positive curvature as do toroidal pores, the observation of TRP3's preference for the PG headgroup and the dramatic increase in area promoted by this interaction represent further support for the toroidal pore mechanism of action proposed for TRP3. (C) 2012 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

4.7
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