Journal:JBSD:4

From Proteopedia

(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
Line 8: Line 8:
Our main results are the following:
Our main results are the following:
(i) The chimeras resistant to PrPSc infection show shorter intramolecular distances between the α1 helix and N-terminal of α3 helix than HuPrP, MoPrP and the non-resistant chimeras. This is due to stronger specific interactions between these two regions, mainly the Y149-D202 and D202-Y157 (in Hu numbering and hereafter) hydrogen bonds and the R156-E196 salt bridge (Fig. 1).
(i) The chimeras resistant to PrPSc infection show shorter intramolecular distances between the α1 helix and N-terminal of α3 helix than HuPrP, MoPrP and the non-resistant chimeras. This is due to stronger specific interactions between these two regions, mainly the Y149-D202 and D202-Y157 (in Hu numbering and hereafter) hydrogen bonds and the R156-E196 salt bridge (Fig. 1).
-
(ii) The β2-α2 loop (residues 167-171) of PrPC is known to differ in its conformation across different species and is suggested to be responsible for the species barrier of PrPSc propagation. Our simulations detect exchanges between different conformations in this loop which can be categorized into two distinct patterns: some chimeras experience a 310-helix/turn pattern like in MoPrP and others show a bend/turn pattern like in HuPrP. In the Mo-like pattern, 310-helix conformation is stabilized by the Q168-P165 and Y169-V166 hydrogen bonds (1.pdb). In the Hu-like pattern, a D167-S170 hydrogen bond stabilizes the bend conformation (2.pdb). Interestingly, the dominant-negative effect of MoPrP chimeras over WT MoPrP occurs if the chimera not only resists PrPSc infection but also adopts the Mo-like pattern of exchanges between conformations in the β2-α2 loop. This suggests that the compatible loop conformation allows these dominant-negative chimeras to interfere with the conversion of MoPrP to PrPSc.
+
(ii) The &#946;2-&#945;2 loop (residues 167-171) of PrPC is known to differ in its conformation across different species and is suggested to be responsible for the species barrier of PrPSc propagation. Our simulations detect exchanges between different conformations in this loop which can be categorized into two distinct patterns: some chimeras experience a 3<sub>10</sub>-helix/turn pattern like in MoPrP and others show a bend/turn pattern like in HuPrP. In the Mo-like pattern, 3<sub>10</sub>-helix conformation is stabilized by the Q168-P165 and Y169-V166 hydrogen bonds (1.pdb). In the Hu-like pattern, a D167-S170 hydrogen bond stabilizes the bend conformation (2.pdb). Interestingly, the dominant-negative effect of MoPrP chimeras over WT MoPrP occurs if the chimera not only resists PrPSc infection but also adopts the Mo-like pattern of exchanges between conformations in the &#946;2-&#945;2 loop. This suggests that the compatible loop conformation allows these dominant-negative chimeras to interfere with the conversion of MoPrP to PrPSc.
The structural features presented here indicate that stronger interactions between &#945;1 helix and N-terminal of &#945;3 helix are related to the resistance to PrPC &#8594; PrPSc conversion, while the &#946;2-&#945;2 loop conformation may play an important role in the dominant-negative effect.
The structural features presented here indicate that stronger interactions between &#945;1 helix and N-terminal of &#945;3 helix are related to the resistance to PrPC &#8594; PrPSc conversion, while the &#946;2-&#945;2 loop conformation may play an important role in the dominant-negative effect.

Revision as of 10:56, 23 July 2012

Drag the structure with the mouse to rotate
  1. REF

Proteopedia Page Contributors and Editors (what is this?)

Alexander Berchansky, Jaime Prilusky

This page complements a publication in scientific journals and is one of the Proteopedia's Interactive 3D Complement pages. For aditional details please see I3DC.
Personal tools