4.8 Article

Stitched α-Helical Peptides via Bis Ring-Closing Metathesis

期刊

JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN CHEMICAL SOCIETY
卷 136, 期 35, 页码 12314-12322

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/ja505141j

关键词

-

资金

  1. NSF
  2. Harvard College Research Program
  3. Harvard and Dana-Farber Program in Cancer Chemical Biology
  4. Korean Research Foundation Grant - Korean Government (MOEFRD, Basic Research Promotion Fund) [2012R1A2A01004687]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Conformationally stabilized a-helical peptides are capable of inhibiting disease-relevant intracellular or extracellular protein protein interactions in vivo. We have previously reported that the employment of ring-closing metathesis to introduce a single all-hydrocarbon staple along one face of an a-helical peptide greatly increases a-helical content, binding affinity to a target protein, cell penetration through active transport, and resistance to proteolytic degradation. In an effort to improve upon this technology for stabilizing a peptide in a bioactive a-helical conformation, we report the discovery of an efficient and selective bis ring-closing metathesis reaction leading to peptides bearing multiple contiguous staples connected by a central spiro ring junction. Circular dichroism spectroscopy, NMR, and computational analyses have been used to investigate the conformation of these stitched peptides, which are shown to exhibit remarkable thermal stabilities. Likewise, trypsin proteolysis assays confirm the achievement of a structural rigidity unmatched by peptides bearing a single staple. Furthermore, fluorescence-activated cell sorting (FACS) and confocal microscopy assays demonstrate that stitched peptides display superior cell penetrating ability compared to their stapled counterparts, suggesting that this technology may be useful not only in the context of enhancing the drug-like properties of a-helical peptides but also in producing potent agents for the intracellular delivery of proteins and oligonucleotides.

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

4.8
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