4.6 Article

Interaction of amphiphilic α-helical cell-penetrating peptides with heparan sulfate

期刊

ORGANIC & BIOMOLECULAR CHEMISTRY
卷 12, 期 26, 页码 4673-4681

出版社

ROYAL SOC CHEMISTRY
DOI: 10.1039/c4ob00673a

关键词

-

资金

  1. Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT) of Japan
  2. KAKENHI, JSPS

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Cell-penetrating peptides (CPPs) are able to be taken up by cells and can deliver macromolecular cargos. However, the mechanism of this internalization is not yet fully understood. Recent theories suggest that the binding of cationic CPPs to negatively charged extracellular glycosaminoglycans, such as heparan sulfate (HS), is a possible mechanism of cellular uptake (CU). Our group has screened the CU activities of 54 systematically designed amphiphilic alpha-helical peptides in HeLa cells. Notably, a mutation in even a single residue significantly alters the CU ability of a peptide. To determine the structure-CU activity relationship of CPPs, four peptides, which contain a difference in one or two amino acids (i.e., Arg/Glu and Ala/Phe), were chosen from our CPP library to examine their interactions with HS. Fluorescence spectroscopy, isothermal titration calorimetry (ITC) and dynamic light scattering analysis indicated that the HS-binding affinities and HS-clustering abilities of the four CPPs correlated well with their CU activities in HeLa and A549 cells. The heat capacities of the CPPs, determined using ITC and binding free energy decomposition analyses in molecular dynamics simulations, revealed that electrostatic interactions were more dominant in the HS-binding processes of Arg-containing peptides in comparison to Glu-containing peptides, whereas hydrophobic contributions were the primary mode of interaction of Phe-containing peptides in comparison to Ala-containing peptides. Furthermore, it was implied that hydrophobic interactions may be more favourable than electrostatic interactions during the CU process.

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

4.6
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