4.5 Review

Force spectroscopy studies on protein-ligand interactions: A single protein mechanics perspective

期刊

FEBS LETTERS
卷 588, 期 19, 页码 3613-3620

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.febslet.2014.04.009

关键词

Force spectroscopy; Protein-ligand interaction; Protein unfolding; Mechanical stability; Binding assay

资金

  1. Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
  2. Canadian Institutes of Health Research
  3. Canada Research Chairs Program
  4. Canada Foundation for Innovation
  5. National Natural Science Foundation of China

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Protein-ligand interactions are ubiquitous and play important roles in almost every biological process. The direct elucidation of the thermodynamic, structural and functional consequences of protein-ligand interactions is thus of critical importance to decipher the mechanism underlying these biological processes. A toolbox containing a variety of powerful techniques has been developed to quantitatively study protein-ligand interactions in vitro as well as in living systems. The development of atomic force microscopy-based single molecule force spectroscopy techniques has expanded this toolbox and made it possible to directly probe the mechanical consequence of ligand binding on proteins. Many recent experiments have revealed how ligand binding affects the mechanical stability and mechanical unfolding dynamics of proteins, and provided mechanistic understanding on these effects. The enhancement effect of mechanical stability by ligand binding has been used to help tune the mechanical stability of proteins in a rational manner and develop novel functional binding assays for protein-ligand interactions. Single molecule force spectroscopy studies have started to shed new lights on the structural and functional consequence of ligand binding on proteins that bear force under their biological settings. (C) 2014 Federation of European Biochemical Societies. Published by 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

4.5
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