4.1 Review

Structure-function correlations of pulmonary surfactant protein SP-B and the saposin-like family of proteins

期刊

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00249-012-0858-9

关键词

Pulmonary surfactant; Saposin; Amphipathic helices; Surface tension; Air-liquid interface; Lipid-protein interactions

资金

  1. Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitivity [BIO2009-09694, BIO2012-30733, CSD2007-00010]
  2. Madrid Regional Government [S2009MAT-1507]
  3. Ramon y Cajal contract

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Pulmonary surfactant is a lipid-protein complex secreted by the respiratory epithelium of mammalian lungs, which plays an essential role in stabilising the alveolar surface and so reducing the work of breathing. The surfactant protein SP-B is part of this complex, and is strictly required for the assembly of pulmonary surfactant and its extracellular development to form stable surface-active films at the air-liquid alveolar interface, making the lack of SP-B incompatible with life. In spite of its physiological importance, a model for the structure and the mechanism of action of SP-B is still needed. The sequence of SP-B is homologous to that of the saposin-like family of proteins, which are membrane-interacting polypeptides with apparently diverging activities, from the co-lipase action of saposins to facilitate the degradation of sphingolipids in the lysosomes to the cytolytic actions of some antibiotic proteins, such as NK-lysin and granulysin or the amoebapore of Entamoeba histolytica. Numerous studies on the interactions of these proteins with membranes have still not explained how a similar sequence and a potentially related fold can sustain such apparently different activities. In the present review, we have summarised the most relevant features of the structure, lipid-protein and protein-protein interactions of SP-B and the saposin-like family of proteins, as a basis to propose an integrated model and a common mechanistic framework of the apparent functional versatility of the saposin fold.

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