4.1 Article

The role of aromatic side-chains in amyloid growth and membrane interaction of the islet amyloid polypeptide fragment LANFLVH

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00249-010-0623-x

关键词

Islet amyloid polypeptide; Differential scanning calorimetry; Membranes; Fibrils; Diabetes mellitus type II

资金

  1. Universita degli Studi di Catania
  2. CNR [620]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Human islet amyloid polypeptide (hIAPP) is known to misfold and aggregate into amyloid deposits that may be found in pancreatic tissues of patients affected by type 2 diabetes. Recent studies have shown that the highly amyloidogenic peptide LANFLVH, corresponding the N-terminal 12-18 region of IAPP, does not induce membrane damage. Here we assess the role played by the aromatic residue Phe in driving both amyloid formation and membrane interaction of LANFLVH. To this aim, a set of variant heptapeptides in which the aromatic residue Phe has been substituted with a Leu and Ala is studied. Differential scanning calorimetry (DSC) and membrane-leakage experiments demonstrated that Phe substitution noticeably affects the peptide-induced changes in the thermotropic properties of the lipid bilayer but not its membrane damaging potential. Atomic force microscopy (AFM), ThT fluorescence and Congo red birefringence assays evidenced that the Phe residue is not required for fibrillogenesis, but it can influence the self-assembling kinetics. Molecular dynamics simulations have paralleled the outcome of the experimental trials also providing informative details about the structure of the different peptide assemblies. These results support a general theory suggesting that aromatic residues, although capable of affecting the self-assembly kinetics of small peptides and peptide-membrane interactions, are not essential either for amyloid formation or membrane leakage, and indicate that other factors such as beta-sheet propensity, size and hydrophobicity of the side chain act synergistically to determine peptide properties.

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

4.1
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