Literature DB >> 21397738

Protein-surfactant interactions: a tale of many states.

Daniel Otzen1.   

Abstract

The scientific study of protein surfactant interactions goes back more than a century, and has been put to practical uses in everything from the estimation of protein molecular weights to efficient washing powder enzymes and products for personal hygiene. After a burst of activity in the late 1960s and early 1970s that established the general principles of how charged surfactants bind to and denature proteins, the field has kept a relatively low profile until the last decade. Within this period there has been a maturation of techniques for more accurate and sophisticated analyses of protein-surfactant complexes such as calorimetry and small angle scattering techniques. In this review I provide an overview of different useful approaches to study these complexes and identify eight different issues which define central concepts in the field. (1) Are proteins denatured by monomeric surfactant molecules, micelles or both? (2) How does unfolding of proteins in surfactant compare with "proper" unfolding in chemical denaturants? Recent work has highlighted the role of shared micelles, rather than monomers, below the critical micelle concentration (cmc) in promoting both protein denaturation and formation of higher order structures. Kinetic studies have extended the experimentally accessible range of surfactant concentrations to far above the cmc, revealing numerous different modes of denaturation by ionic surfactants below and above the cmc which reflect micellar properties as much as protein unfolding pathways. Uncharged surfactants follow a completely different denaturation strategy involving synergy between monomers and micelles. The high affinity of charged surfactants for proteins means that unfolding pathways are generally different in surfactants versus chemical denaturants, although there are common traits. Other issues are as follows: (3) Are there non-denaturing roles for SDS? (4) How reversible is unfolding in SDS? (5) How do solvent conditions affect the way in which surfactants denature proteins? The last three issues compare SDS with "proper" membranes. (6) Do anionic surfactants such as SDS mimic biological membranes? (7) How do mixed micelles interact with globular proteins? (8) How can mixed micelles be used to measure the stability of membrane proteins? The growing efforts to understand the unique features of membrane proteins have encouraged the development of mixed micelles to study the equilibria and kinetics of this class of proteins, and traits which unite globular and membrane proteins have also emerged. These issues emphasise the amazing power of surfactants to both extend the protein conformational landscape and at the same time provide convenient and reversible short-cuts between the native and denatured state for otherwise obdurate membrane proteins.
Copyright © 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21397738     DOI: 10.1016/j.bbapap.2011.03.003

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Biochim Biophys Acta        ISSN: 0006-3002


  72 in total

1.  SDS-assisted protein transport through solid-state nanopores.

Authors:  Laura Restrepo-Pérez; Shalini John; Aleksei Aksimentiev; Chirlmin Joo; Cees Dekker
Journal:  Nanoscale       Date:  2017-08-17       Impact factor: 7.790

2.  Biologic scaffold composed of skeletal muscle extracellular matrix.

Authors:  Matthew T Wolf; Kerry A Daly; Janet E Reing; Stephen F Badylak
Journal:  Biomaterials       Date:  2012-01-20       Impact factor: 12.479

3.  Differential Interaction of Myoglobin with Select Fatty Acids of Carbon Chain Lengths C8 to C16.

Authors:  Thomas Jue; Lifan Shih; Youngran Chung
Journal:  Lipids       Date:  2017-06-21       Impact factor: 1.880

4.  Formation of dynamic soluble surfactant-induced amyloid β peptide aggregation intermediates.

Authors:  Axel Abelein; Jørn Døvling Kaspersen; Søren Bang Nielsen; Grethe Vestergaard Jensen; Gunna Christiansen; Jan Skov Pedersen; Jens Danielsson; Daniel E Otzen; Astrid Gräslund
Journal:  J Biol Chem       Date:  2013-06-17       Impact factor: 5.157

5.  Membrane protein stability can be compromised by detergent interactions with the extramembranous soluble domains.

Authors:  Zhengrong Yang; Chi Wang; Qingxian Zhou; Jianli An; Ellen Hildebrandt; Luba A Aleksandrov; John C Kappes; Lawrence J DeLucas; John R Riordan; Ina L Urbatsch; John F Hunt; Christie G Brouillette
Journal:  Protein Sci       Date:  2014-05-03       Impact factor: 6.725

6.  Optimized solubilization of TRIzol-precipitated protein permits Western blotting analysis to maximize data available from brain tissue.

Authors:  Ashley M Kopec; Phillip D Rivera; Michael J Lacagnina; Richa Hanamsagar; Staci D Bilbo
Journal:  J Neurosci Methods       Date:  2017-02-13       Impact factor: 2.390

7.  Biomaterial-tight junction interaction and potential impacts.

Authors:  Xiangfei Han; Ershuai Zhang; Yuanjie Shi; Boyi Song; Hong Du; Zhiqiang Cao
Journal:  J Mater Chem B       Date:  2019-07-31       Impact factor: 6.331

8.  Lysophospholipid-containing membranes modulate the fibril formation of the repeat domain of a human functional amyloid, pmel17.

Authors:  Zhiping Jiang; Jennifer C Lee
Journal:  J Mol Biol       Date:  2014-10-14       Impact factor: 5.469

9.  Effect of surfactant hydrophobicity on the pathway for unfolding of ubiquitin.

Authors:  Bryan F Shaw; Grégory F Schneider; George M Whitesides
Journal:  J Am Chem Soc       Date:  2012-10-31       Impact factor: 15.419

10.  Effect of Leaf Surface Chemical Properties on Efficacy of Sanitizer for Rotavirus Inactivation.

Authors:  Miyu Fuzawa; Kang-Mo Ku; Sindy Paola Palma-Salgado; Kenya Nagasaka; Hao Feng; John A Juvik; Daisuke Sano; Joanna L Shisler; Thanh H Nguyen
Journal:  Appl Environ Microbiol       Date:  2016-09-30       Impact factor: 4.792

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.