Comparisons of Interfacial Phe, Tyr, and Trp Residues as Determinants of Orientation and Dynamics for GWALP Transmembrane Peptides
Aromatic amino acids often flank the transmembrane alpha helices of integral membrane proteins. By favoring locations within the membrane–water interface of the lipid bilayer, aromatic residues Trp, Tyr, and sometimes Phe may serve as anchors to help stabilize a transmembrane orientation. In this wo...
Saved in:
Published in | Biochemistry (Easton) Vol. 53; no. 22; pp. 3637 - 3645 |
---|---|
Main Authors | , , , , , |
Format | Journal Article |
Language | English |
Published |
United States
American Chemical Society
10.06.2014
|
Subjects | |
Online Access | Get full text |
Cover
Loading…
Abstract | Aromatic amino acids often flank the transmembrane alpha helices of integral membrane proteins. By favoring locations within the membrane–water interface of the lipid bilayer, aromatic residues Trp, Tyr, and sometimes Phe may serve as anchors to help stabilize a transmembrane orientation. In this work, we compare the influence of interfacial Trp, Tyr, or Phe residues upon the properties of tilted helical transmembrane peptides. For such comparisons, it has been critical to start with no more than one interfacial aromatic residue near each end of a transmembrane helix, for example, that of GWALP23 (acetyl-GGALW5(LA)6LW19LAGA-[ethanol]amide). To this end, we have employed 2H-labeled alanines and solid-state NMR spectroscopy to investigate the consequences of moving or replacing W5 or W19 in GWALP23 with selected Tyr, Phe, or Trp residues at the same or proximate locations. We find that GWALP23 peptides having F5, Y5, or W5 exhibit essentially the same average tilt and similar dynamics in bilayer membranes of 1,2-dilauroylphosphatidylcholine (DLPC) or 1,2-dioleoylphosphatidylcholine (DOPC). When double Tyr anchors are present, in Y4,5GWALP23 the NMR observables are markedly more subject to dynamic averaging and at the same time are less responsive to the bilayer thickness. Decreased dynamics are nevertheless observed when ring hydrogen bonding is removed, such that F4,5GWALP23 exhibits a similar extent of low dynamic averaging as GWALP23 itself. When F5 is the sole aromatic group in the N-interfacial region, the dynamic averaging is (only) slightly more extensive than with W5, Y5, or Y4 alone or with F4,5, yet it is much less than that observed for Y4,5GWALP23. Interestingly, moving Y5 to Y4 or W19 to W18, while retaining only one hydrogen-bond-capable aromatic ring at each interface, maintains the low level of dynamic averaging but alters the helix azimuthal rotation. The rotation change is about 40° for Y4 regardless of whether the host lipid bilayer is DLPC or DOPC. The rotational change (Δρ) is more dramatic and more complex when W19 is moved to W18, as Δρ is about +90° in DLPC but about −60° in DOPC. Possible reasons for this curious lipid-dependent helix rotation could include not only the separation distances between flanking aromatic or hydrophobic residues but also the absolute location of the W19 indole ring. For the more usual cases, when the helix azimuthal rotation shows little dependence on the host bilayer identity, excepting W18GWALP23, the transmembrane helices adapt to different lipids primarily by changing the magnitude of their tilt. We conclude that, in the absence of other functional groups, interfacial aromatic residues determine the preferred orientations and dynamics of membrane-spanning peptides. The results furthermore suggest possibilities for rotational and dynamic control of membrane protein function. |
---|---|
AbstractList | Aromatic
amino acids often flank the transmembrane alpha helices
of integral membrane proteins. By favoring locations within the membrane–water
interface of the lipid bilayer, aromatic residues Trp, Tyr, and sometimes
Phe may serve as anchors to help stabilize a transmembrane orientation.
In this work, we compare the influence of interfacial Trp, Tyr, or
Phe residues upon the properties of tilted helical transmembrane peptides.
For such comparisons, it has been critical to start with no more than
one interfacial aromatic residue near each end of a transmembrane
helix, for example, that of GWALP23 (acetyl-GGALW
5
(LA)
6
LW
19
LAGA-[ethanol]amide). To this end, we have
employed
2
H-labeled alanines and solid-state NMR spectroscopy
to investigate the consequences of moving or replacing W5 or W19 in
GWALP23 with selected Tyr, Phe, or Trp residues at the same or proximate
locations. We find that GWALP23 peptides having F5, Y5, or W5 exhibit
essentially the same average tilt and similar dynamics in bilayer
membranes of 1,2-dilauroylphosphatidylcholine (DLPC) or 1,2-dioleoylphosphatidylcholine
(DOPC). When double Tyr anchors are present, in Y
4,5
GWALP23
the NMR observables are markedly more subject to dynamic averaging
and at the same time are less responsive to the bilayer thickness.
Decreased dynamics are nevertheless observed when ring hydrogen bonding
is removed, such that F
4,5
GWALP23 exhibits a similar extent
of low dynamic averaging as GWALP23 itself. When F5 is the sole aromatic
group in the N-interfacial region, the dynamic averaging is (only)
slightly more extensive than with W5, Y5, or Y4 alone or with F4,5,
yet it is much less than that observed for Y
4,5
GWALP23.
Interestingly, moving Y5 to Y4 or W19 to W18, while retaining only
one hydrogen-bond-capable aromatic ring at each interface, maintains
the low level of dynamic averaging but alters the helix azimuthal
rotation. The rotation change is about 40° for Y4 regardless
of whether the host lipid bilayer is DLPC or DOPC. The rotational
change (Δρ) is more dramatic and more complex when W19
is moved to W18, as Δρ is about +90° in DLPC but
about −60° in DOPC. Possible reasons for this curious
lipid-dependent helix rotation could include not only the separation
distances between flanking aromatic or hydrophobic residues but also
the absolute location of the W19 indole ring. For the more usual cases,
when the helix azimuthal rotation shows little dependence on the host
bilayer identity, excepting W
18
GWALP23, the transmembrane
helices adapt to different lipids primarily by changing the magnitude
of their tilt. We conclude that, in the absence of other functional
groups, interfacial aromatic residues determine the preferred orientations
and dynamics of membrane-spanning peptides. The results furthermore
suggest possibilities for rotational and dynamic control of membrane
protein function. Aromatic amino acids often flank the transmembrane alpha helices of integral membrane proteins. By favoring locations within the membrane–water interface of the lipid bilayer, aromatic residues Trp, Tyr, and sometimes Phe may serve as anchors to help stabilize a transmembrane orientation. In this work, we compare the influence of interfacial Trp, Tyr, or Phe residues upon the properties of tilted helical transmembrane peptides. For such comparisons, it has been critical to start with no more than one interfacial aromatic residue near each end of a transmembrane helix, for example, that of GWALP23 (acetyl-GGALW⁵(LA)₆LW¹⁹LAGA-[ethanol]amide). To this end, we have employed ²H-labeled alanines and solid-state NMR spectroscopy to investigate the consequences of moving or replacing W5 or W19 in GWALP23 with selected Tyr, Phe, or Trp residues at the same or proximate locations. We find that GWALP23 peptides having F5, Y5, or W5 exhibit essentially the same average tilt and similar dynamics in bilayer membranes of 1,2-dilauroylphosphatidylcholine (DLPC) or 1,2-dioleoylphosphatidylcholine (DOPC). When double Tyr anchors are present, in Y⁴,⁵GWALP23 the NMR observables are markedly more subject to dynamic averaging and at the same time are less responsive to the bilayer thickness. Decreased dynamics are nevertheless observed when ring hydrogen bonding is removed, such that F⁴,⁵GWALP23 exhibits a similar extent of low dynamic averaging as GWALP23 itself. When F5 is the sole aromatic group in the N-interfacial region, the dynamic averaging is (only) slightly more extensive than with W5, Y5, or Y4 alone or with F4,5, yet it is much less than that observed for Y⁴,⁵GWALP23. Interestingly, moving Y5 to Y4 or W19 to W18, while retaining only one hydrogen-bond-capable aromatic ring at each interface, maintains the low level of dynamic averaging but alters the helix azimuthal rotation. The rotation change is about 40° for Y4 regardless of whether the host lipid bilayer is DLPC or DOPC. The rotational change (Δρ) is more dramatic and more complex when W19 is moved to W18, as Δρ is about +90° in DLPC but about −60° in DOPC. Possible reasons for this curious lipid-dependent helix rotation could include not only the separation distances between flanking aromatic or hydrophobic residues but also the absolute location of the W19 indole ring. For the more usual cases, when the helix azimuthal rotation shows little dependence on the host bilayer identity, excepting W¹⁸GWALP23, the transmembrane helices adapt to different lipids primarily by changing the magnitude of their tilt. We conclude that, in the absence of other functional groups, interfacial aromatic residues determine the preferred orientations and dynamics of membrane-spanning peptides. The results furthermore suggest possibilities for rotational and dynamic control of membrane protein function. Aromatic amino acids often flank the transmembrane alpha helices of integral membrane proteins. By favoring locations within the membrane-water interface of the lipid bilayer, aromatic residues Trp, Tyr, and sometimes Phe may serve as anchors to help stabilize a transmembrane orientation. In this work, we compare the influence of interfacial Trp, Tyr, or Phe residues upon the properties of tilted helical transmembrane peptides. For such comparisons, it has been critical to start with no more than one interfacial aromatic residue near each end of a transmembrane helix, for example, that of GWALP23 (acetyl-GGALW(5)(LA)6LW(19)LAGA-[ethanol]amide). To this end, we have employed (2)H-labeled alanines and solid-state NMR spectroscopy to investigate the consequences of moving or replacing W5 or W19 in GWALP23 with selected Tyr, Phe, or Trp residues at the same or proximate locations. We find that GWALP23 peptides having F5, Y5, or W5 exhibit essentially the same average tilt and similar dynamics in bilayer membranes of 1,2-dilauroylphosphatidylcholine (DLPC) or 1,2-dioleoylphosphatidylcholine (DOPC). When double Tyr anchors are present, in Y(4,5)GWALP23 the NMR observables are markedly more subject to dynamic averaging and at the same time are less responsive to the bilayer thickness. Decreased dynamics are nevertheless observed when ring hydrogen bonding is removed, such that F(4,5)GWALP23 exhibits a similar extent of low dynamic averaging as GWALP23 itself. When F5 is the sole aromatic group in the N-interfacial region, the dynamic averaging is (only) slightly more extensive than with W5, Y5, or Y4 alone or with F4,5, yet it is much less than that observed for Y(4,5)GWALP23. Interestingly, moving Y5 to Y4 or W19 to W18, while retaining only one hydrogen-bond-capable aromatic ring at each interface, maintains the low level of dynamic averaging but alters the helix azimuthal rotation. The rotation change is about 40° for Y4 regardless of whether the host lipid bilayer is DLPC or DOPC. The rotational change (Δρ) is more dramatic and more complex when W19 is moved to W18, as Δρ is about +90° in DLPC but about -60° in DOPC. Possible reasons for this curious lipid-dependent helix rotation could include not only the separation distances between flanking aromatic or hydrophobic residues but also the absolute location of the W19 indole ring. For the more usual cases, when the helix azimuthal rotation shows little dependence on the host bilayer identity, excepting W(18)GWALP23, the transmembrane helices adapt to different lipids primarily by changing the magnitude of their tilt. We conclude that, in the absence of other functional groups, interfacial aromatic residues determine the preferred orientations and dynamics of membrane-spanning peptides. The results furthermore suggest possibilities for rotational and dynamic control of membrane protein function. Aromatic amino acids often flank the transmembrane alpha helices of integral membrane proteins. By favoring locations within the membrane–water interface of the lipid bilayer, aromatic residues Trp, Tyr, and sometimes Phe may serve as anchors to help stabilize a transmembrane orientation. In this work, we compare the influence of interfacial Trp, Tyr, or Phe residues upon the properties of tilted helical transmembrane peptides. For such comparisons, it has been critical to start with no more than one interfacial aromatic residue near each end of a transmembrane helix, for example, that of GWALP23 (acetyl-GGALW5(LA)6LW19LAGA-[ethanol]amide). To this end, we have employed 2H-labeled alanines and solid-state NMR spectroscopy to investigate the consequences of moving or replacing W5 or W19 in GWALP23 with selected Tyr, Phe, or Trp residues at the same or proximate locations. We find that GWALP23 peptides having F5, Y5, or W5 exhibit essentially the same average tilt and similar dynamics in bilayer membranes of 1,2-dilauroylphosphatidylcholine (DLPC) or 1,2-dioleoylphosphatidylcholine (DOPC). When double Tyr anchors are present, in Y4,5GWALP23 the NMR observables are markedly more subject to dynamic averaging and at the same time are less responsive to the bilayer thickness. Decreased dynamics are nevertheless observed when ring hydrogen bonding is removed, such that F4,5GWALP23 exhibits a similar extent of low dynamic averaging as GWALP23 itself. When F5 is the sole aromatic group in the N-interfacial region, the dynamic averaging is (only) slightly more extensive than with W5, Y5, or Y4 alone or with F4,5, yet it is much less than that observed for Y4,5GWALP23. Interestingly, moving Y5 to Y4 or W19 to W18, while retaining only one hydrogen-bond-capable aromatic ring at each interface, maintains the low level of dynamic averaging but alters the helix azimuthal rotation. The rotation change is about 40° for Y4 regardless of whether the host lipid bilayer is DLPC or DOPC. The rotational change (Δρ) is more dramatic and more complex when W19 is moved to W18, as Δρ is about +90° in DLPC but about −60° in DOPC. Possible reasons for this curious lipid-dependent helix rotation could include not only the separation distances between flanking aromatic or hydrophobic residues but also the absolute location of the W19 indole ring. For the more usual cases, when the helix azimuthal rotation shows little dependence on the host bilayer identity, excepting W18GWALP23, the transmembrane helices adapt to different lipids primarily by changing the magnitude of their tilt. We conclude that, in the absence of other functional groups, interfacial aromatic residues determine the preferred orientations and dynamics of membrane-spanning peptides. The results furthermore suggest possibilities for rotational and dynamic control of membrane protein function. Aromatic amino acids often flank the transmembrane alpha helices of integral membrane proteins. By favoring locations within the membrane-water interface of the lipid bilayer, aromatic residues Trp, Tyr, and sometimes Phe may serve as anchors to help stabilize a transmembrane orientation. In this work, we compare the influence of interfacial Trp, Tyr, or Phe residues upon the properties of tilted helical transmembrane peptides. For such comparisons, it has been critical to start with no more than one interfacial aromatic residue near each end of a transmembrane helix, for example, that of GWALP23 (acetyl-GGALW(5)(LA)6LW(19)LAGA-[ethanol]amide). To this end, we have employed (2)H-labeled alanines and solid-state NMR spectroscopy to investigate the consequences of moving or replacing W5 or W19 in GWALP23 with selected Tyr, Phe, or Trp residues at the same or proximate locations. We find that GWALP23 peptides having F5, Y5, or W5 exhibit essentially the same average tilt and similar dynamics in bilayer membranes of 1,2-dilauroylphosphatidylcholine (DLPC) or 1,2-dioleoylphosphatidylcholine (DOPC). When double Tyr anchors are present, in Y(4,5)GWALP23 the NMR observables are markedly more subject to dynamic averaging and at the same time are less responsive to the bilayer thickness. Decreased dynamics are nevertheless observed when ring hydrogen bonding is removed, such that F(4,5)GWALP23 exhibits a similar extent of low dynamic averaging as GWALP23 itself. When F5 is the sole aromatic group in the N-interfacial region, the dynamic averaging is (only) slightly more extensive than with W5, Y5, or Y4 alone or with F4,5, yet it is much less than that observed for Y(4,5)GWALP23. Interestingly, moving Y5 to Y4 or W19 to W18, while retaining only one hydrogen-bond-capable aromatic ring at each interface, maintains the low level of dynamic averaging but alters the helix azimuthal rotation. The rotation change is about 40° for Y4 regardless of whether the host lipid bilayer is DLPC or DOPC. The rotational change (Δρ) is more dramatic and more complex when W19 is moved to W18, as Δρ is about +90° in DLPC but about -60° in DOPC. Possible reasons for this curious lipid-dependent helix rotation could include not only the separation distances between flanking aromatic or hydrophobic residues but also the absolute location of the W19 indole ring. For the more usual cases, when the helix azimuthal rotation shows little dependence on the host bilayer identity, excepting W(18)GWALP23, the transmembrane helices adapt to different lipids primarily by changing the magnitude of their tilt. We conclude that, in the absence of other functional groups, interfacial aromatic residues determine the preferred orientations and dynamics of membrane-spanning peptides. The results furthermore suggest possibilities for rotational and dynamic control of membrane protein function.Aromatic amino acids often flank the transmembrane alpha helices of integral membrane proteins. By favoring locations within the membrane-water interface of the lipid bilayer, aromatic residues Trp, Tyr, and sometimes Phe may serve as anchors to help stabilize a transmembrane orientation. In this work, we compare the influence of interfacial Trp, Tyr, or Phe residues upon the properties of tilted helical transmembrane peptides. For such comparisons, it has been critical to start with no more than one interfacial aromatic residue near each end of a transmembrane helix, for example, that of GWALP23 (acetyl-GGALW(5)(LA)6LW(19)LAGA-[ethanol]amide). To this end, we have employed (2)H-labeled alanines and solid-state NMR spectroscopy to investigate the consequences of moving or replacing W5 or W19 in GWALP23 with selected Tyr, Phe, or Trp residues at the same or proximate locations. We find that GWALP23 peptides having F5, Y5, or W5 exhibit essentially the same average tilt and similar dynamics in bilayer membranes of 1,2-dilauroylphosphatidylcholine (DLPC) or 1,2-dioleoylphosphatidylcholine (DOPC). When double Tyr anchors are present, in Y(4,5)GWALP23 the NMR observables are markedly more subject to dynamic averaging and at the same time are less responsive to the bilayer thickness. Decreased dynamics are nevertheless observed when ring hydrogen bonding is removed, such that F(4,5)GWALP23 exhibits a similar extent of low dynamic averaging as GWALP23 itself. When F5 is the sole aromatic group in the N-interfacial region, the dynamic averaging is (only) slightly more extensive than with W5, Y5, or Y4 alone or with F4,5, yet it is much less than that observed for Y(4,5)GWALP23. Interestingly, moving Y5 to Y4 or W19 to W18, while retaining only one hydrogen-bond-capable aromatic ring at each interface, maintains the low level of dynamic averaging but alters the helix azimuthal rotation. The rotation change is about 40° for Y4 regardless of whether the host lipid bilayer is DLPC or DOPC. The rotational change (Δρ) is more dramatic and more complex when W19 is moved to W18, as Δρ is about +90° in DLPC but about -60° in DOPC. Possible reasons for this curious lipid-dependent helix rotation could include not only the separation distances between flanking aromatic or hydrophobic residues but also the absolute location of the W19 indole ring. For the more usual cases, when the helix azimuthal rotation shows little dependence on the host bilayer identity, excepting W(18)GWALP23, the transmembrane helices adapt to different lipids primarily by changing the magnitude of their tilt. We conclude that, in the absence of other functional groups, interfacial aromatic residues determine the preferred orientations and dynamics of membrane-spanning peptides. The results furthermore suggest possibilities for rotational and dynamic control of membrane protein function. |
Author | Greathouse, Denise V Sparks, Kelsey A Gleason, Nicholas J Gist, Renetra Koeppe, Roger E Langston, Rebekah |
AuthorAffiliation | Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry University of Arkansas |
AuthorAffiliation_xml | – name: University of Arkansas – name: Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry |
Author_xml | – sequence: 1 givenname: Kelsey A surname: Sparks fullname: Sparks, Kelsey A – sequence: 2 givenname: Nicholas J surname: Gleason fullname: Gleason, Nicholas J – sequence: 3 givenname: Renetra surname: Gist fullname: Gist, Renetra – sequence: 4 givenname: Rebekah surname: Langston fullname: Langston, Rebekah – sequence: 5 givenname: Denise V surname: Greathouse fullname: Greathouse, Denise V – sequence: 6 givenname: Roger E surname: Koeppe fullname: Koeppe, Roger E email: rk2@uark.edu |
BackLink | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24829070$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed |
BookMark | eNqNkVFrFDEUhYNU7Lb64B-QvAgKHXuTSWYmL0LZai0sdJEVH0Nm9samzCRjMivua395Y7cuKn3w6RLy3cM59xyRAx88EvKSwTsGnJ22TgKIUv18QmZMciiEUvKAzACgKriq4JAcpXSTnwJq8YwcctFwBTXMyO08DKOJLgWfaLD00k8Yremc6enyGk_oahtPqPFruooj_YzJrTeYqEn0HDM5OG_8dL95FR36yUwu-Hv-fOvN4LpEbYj04uvZYpkljE8DDm2eSJc4Tm6N6Tl5ak2f8MXDPCZfPn5YzT8Vi6uLy_nZojCibKaiKVsOVmIrJBrWWVk1vDa8bTjLWUBZ5J0UDDrk2T_WYFjT1haVgVK03JbH5P1Od9y0A6677DaaXo_RDSZudTBO__3j3bX-Fn5oAbKESmWBNw8CMXzPV5j04FKHfZ_ThE3SrCmrSjSs_A9UlqJWUsk6o6_-tLX387ujDLzdAV0MKUW0e4SB_tW_3vef2dN_2M7tOsmJXP_oxuvdhumSvgmb6HMHj3B38Qi_bA |
CitedBy_id | crossref_primary_10_1016_j_bbamem_2015_01_019 crossref_primary_10_1111_aab_12539 crossref_primary_10_1002_1873_3468_13926 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_bpj_2018_03_026 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_bbrc_2018_09_095 crossref_primary_10_3390_ijms251910821 crossref_primary_10_1021_acs_jpcb_6b00611 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_ijbiomac_2022_04_130 crossref_primary_10_1021_acs_jpclett_1c00636 crossref_primary_10_1007_s00232_022_00243_z crossref_primary_10_1038_s41598_020_74332_1 crossref_primary_10_1021_acsomega_1c02800 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_fsi_2022_07_055 crossref_primary_10_1007_s00726_024_03388_4 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_bbamem_2014_11_017 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_bioadv_2022_212830 crossref_primary_10_1002_prot_25473 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_bbamem_2014_09_007 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_bbamem_2019_183134 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_micpath_2020_104591 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_peptides_2021_170553 crossref_primary_10_3390_pharmaceutics14051089 crossref_primary_10_3390_biom10020273 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_bbamem_2018_02_010 crossref_primary_10_1074_jbc_M116_738583 crossref_primary_10_1021_acs_biochem_8b01119 crossref_primary_10_1038_s41598_020_71585_8 crossref_primary_10_1002_cbic_201900282 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_bpj_2018_04_016 crossref_primary_10_1039_C9CP02996F crossref_primary_10_1016_j_bbamem_2017_01_006 crossref_primary_10_1039_C6MD00607H crossref_primary_10_1021_acsomega_1c00276 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_bbamem_2020_183501 crossref_primary_10_1021_acs_jpcb_9b06034 crossref_primary_10_1002_cbic_201500656 crossref_primary_10_1021_acs_biochem_6b00896 crossref_primary_10_1042_BST20190170 |
Cites_doi | 10.1021/bi2006459 10.1016/j.bpj.2013.02.030 10.1021/bi201732e 10.1021/ja073784q 10.1021/jp308182b 10.1021/bi700082v 10.1126/science.1700867 10.1021/ja803734k 10.1021/ja100598e 10.1074/jbc.274.30.20839 10.1021/bi0257686 10.1016/j.bpj.2011.11.008 10.1074/jbc.M110.152470 10.1093/protein/5.3.213 10.1080/00268979300100281 10.1021/jp407542e 10.1529/biophysj.107.113043 10.1529/biophysj.104.056606 10.1073/pnas.1215400110 10.1021/bi9519258 10.1016/S0006-3495(02)73918-0 10.1016/j.bbamem.2012.01.023 10.1016/0009-2614(76)80392-2 10.1529/biophysj.103.035402 10.1016/j.bpj.2009.02.040 10.1529/biophysj.105.070466 10.1103/PhysRevLett.100.018103 10.1006/jmbi.1993.1066 10.1103/PhysRevE.69.040901 |
ContentType | Journal Article |
Copyright | Copyright © 2014 American Chemical Society Copyright © 2014 American Chemical Society 2014 American Chemical Society |
Copyright_xml | – notice: Copyright © 2014 American Chemical Society – notice: Copyright © 2014 American Chemical Society 2014 American Chemical Society |
DBID | N~. AAYXX CITATION CGR CUY CVF ECM EIF NPM 7X8 7S9 L.6 5PM |
DOI | 10.1021/bi500439x |
DatabaseName | American Chemical Society (ACS) Open Access CrossRef Medline MEDLINE MEDLINE (Ovid) MEDLINE MEDLINE PubMed MEDLINE - Academic AGRICOLA AGRICOLA - Academic PubMed Central (Full Participant titles) |
DatabaseTitle | CrossRef MEDLINE Medline Complete MEDLINE with Full Text PubMed MEDLINE (Ovid) MEDLINE - Academic AGRICOLA AGRICOLA - Academic |
DatabaseTitleList | AGRICOLA MEDLINE MEDLINE - Academic |
Database_xml | – sequence: 1 dbid: N~. name: American Chemical Society (ACS) Open Access url: https://pubs.acs.org sourceTypes: Publisher – sequence: 2 dbid: NPM name: PubMed url: https://proxy.k.utb.cz/login?url=http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed sourceTypes: Index Database – sequence: 3 dbid: EIF name: MEDLINE url: https://proxy.k.utb.cz/login?url=https://www.webofscience.com/wos/medline/basic-search sourceTypes: Index Database |
DeliveryMethod | fulltext_linktorsrc |
Discipline | Anatomy & Physiology Chemistry |
EISSN | 1520-4995 |
EndPage | 3645 |
ExternalDocumentID | PMC4053069 24829070 10_1021_bi500439x a910251516 |
Genre | Research Support, U.S. Gov't, Non-P.H.S Comparative Study Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't Journal Article Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural |
GrantInformation_xml | – fundername: NIGMS NIH HHS grantid: GM103450 – fundername: NIGMS NIH HHS grantid: P30 GM103450 – fundername: NIGMS NIH HHS grantid: GM103429 |
GroupedDBID | - .K2 02 23N 4.4 53G 55 55A 5GY 5RE 5VS 7~N 85S AABXI ABFLS ABMVS ABOCM ABPTK ABUCX ABUFD ACGFS ACJ ACNCT ACS AEESW AENEX AFEFF AJYGW ALMA_UNASSIGNED_HOLDINGS AQSVZ BAANH CS3 D0L DU5 DZ EBS ED ED~ EJD F5P GNL IH9 IHE JG JG~ K2 KM L7B LG6 N~. P2P ROL TN5 UI2 VF5 VG9 VQA W1F WH7 X X7M YZZ ZA5 --- -DZ -~X .55 AAYXX ABBLG ABJNI ABLBI ABQRX ADHLV AGXLV AHGAQ CITATION CUPRZ GGK XSW ZCA ~02 ~KM CGR CUY CVF ECM EIF NPM 7X8 7S9 L.6 5PM |
ID | FETCH-LOGICAL-a438t-83b20f5eb45ea1cf56827a2b82129009fe2c5410ce2face70a18b7fe9a034b2f3 |
IEDL.DBID | N~. |
ISSN | 0006-2960 1520-4995 |
IngestDate | Thu Aug 21 14:06:52 EDT 2025 Fri Jul 11 06:46:33 EDT 2025 Fri Jul 11 08:02:26 EDT 2025 Mon Jul 21 06:03:59 EDT 2025 Tue Jul 01 03:33:21 EDT 2025 Thu Apr 24 23:03:58 EDT 2025 Thu Aug 27 13:44:51 EDT 2020 |
IsDoiOpenAccess | true |
IsOpenAccess | true |
IsPeerReviewed | true |
IsScholarly | true |
Issue | 22 |
Language | English |
License | http://pubs.acs.org/page/policy/authorchoice_termsofuse.html |
LinkModel | DirectLink |
MergedId | FETCHMERGED-LOGICAL-a438t-83b20f5eb45ea1cf56827a2b82129009fe2c5410ce2face70a18b7fe9a034b2f3 |
Notes | ObjectType-Article-2 SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1 ObjectType-Feature-1 content type line 23 ObjectType-Article-1 ObjectType-Feature-2 |
OpenAccessLink | http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/bi500439x |
PMID | 24829070 |
PQID | 1534795957 |
PQPubID | 23479 |
PageCount | 9 |
ParticipantIDs | pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_4053069 proquest_miscellaneous_1836648139 proquest_miscellaneous_1534795957 pubmed_primary_24829070 crossref_primary_10_1021_bi500439x crossref_citationtrail_10_1021_bi500439x acs_journals_10_1021_bi500439x |
ProviderPackageCode | JG~ 55A AABXI GNL VF5 7~N ACJ VG9 W1F ACS AEESW AFEFF .K2 ABMVS ABUCX IH9 BAANH AQSVZ ED~ N~. UI2 CITATION AAYXX |
PublicationCentury | 2000 |
PublicationDate | 2014-06-10 |
PublicationDateYYYYMMDD | 2014-06-10 |
PublicationDate_xml | – month: 06 year: 2014 text: 2014-06-10 day: 10 |
PublicationDecade | 2010 |
PublicationPlace | United States |
PublicationPlace_xml | – name: United States |
PublicationTitle | Biochemistry (Easton) |
PublicationTitleAlternate | Biochemistry |
PublicationYear | 2014 |
Publisher | American Chemical Society |
Publisher_xml | – name: American Chemical Society |
References | O’Connell A. M. (ref1/cit1) 1990; 250 Vostrikov V. V. (ref19/cit19) 2012; 116 Liu Y. (ref25/cit25) 2004; 69 Vostrikov V. V. (ref14/cit14) 2011; 101 Strandberg E. (ref13/cit13) 2009; 96 Gleason N. J. (ref26/cit26) 2013; 117 Strandberg E. (ref8/cit8) 2004; 86 de Planque M. R. (ref5/cit5) 1999; 274 Siegel D. P. (ref21/cit21) 2006; 90 Gleason N. J. (ref20/cit20) 2013; 110 Vostrikov V. V. (ref28/cit28) 2011; 50 Vostrikov V. V. (ref18/cit18) 2010; 132 Sánchez-Munoz O. L. (ref23/cit23) 2013; 104 Gleason N. J. (ref17/cit17) 2012; 51 Lee J. (ref9/cit9) 2008; 100 Vostrikov V. V. (ref15/cit15) 2008; 130 Özdirekcan S. (ref10/cit10) 2007; 129 Esteban-Martín S. (ref11/cit11) 2007; 93 Killian J. A. (ref4/cit4) 1996; 35 Davis J. H. (ref22/cit22) 1976; 42 Vostrikov V. V. (ref12/cit12) 2010; 285 de Planque M. R. (ref6/cit6) 2002; 41 Strandberg E. (ref16/cit16) 2012; 1818 Kučerka N. (ref24/cit24) 2005; 88 van der Wel P. C. (ref7/cit7) 2002; 83 van der Wel P. C. (ref27/cit27) 2007; 46 ref30/cit30 Separovic F. (ref29/cit29) 1993; 78 Landolt-Marticorena C. (ref3/cit3) 1993; 229 Schiffer M. (ref2/cit2) 1992; 5 20667827 - J Biol Chem. 2010 Oct 8;285(41):31723-30 23561527 - Biophys J. 2013 Apr 2;104(7):1508-16 21800919 - Biochemistry. 2011 Sep 6;50(35):7522-35 15665131 - Biophys J. 2005 Apr;88(4):2626-37 23319623 - Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2013 Jan 29;110(5):1692-5 24111589 - J Phys Chem B. 2013 Nov 7;117(44):13786-94 20373735 - J Am Chem Soc. 2010 Apr 28;132(16):5803-11 12202373 - Biophys J. 2002 Sep;83(3):1479-88 15169001 - Phys Rev E Stat Nonlin Soft Matter Phys. 2004 Apr;69(4 Pt 1):040901 17530863 - Biochemistry. 2007 Jun 26;46(25):7514-24 8547239 - Biochemistry. 1996 Jan 23;35(3):1037-45 16214859 - Biophys J. 2006 Jan 1;90(1):200-11 17720729 - Biophys J. 2007 Dec 15;93(12):4278-88 10409625 - J Biol Chem. 1999 Jul 23;274(30):20839-46 22208192 - Biophys J. 2011 Dec 21;101(12):2939-47 1409540 - Protein Eng. 1992 Apr;5(3):213-4 18232823 - Phys Rev Lett. 2008 Jan 11;100(1):018103 23030363 - J Phys Chem B. 2012 Nov 1;116(43):12980-90 19383466 - Biophys J. 2009 Apr 22;96(8):3223-32 8433362 - J Mol Biol. 1993 Feb 5;229(3):602-8 22364236 - Biochemistry. 2012 Mar 13;51(10):2044-53 18763771 - J Am Chem Soc. 2008 Sep 24;130(38):12584-5 12081488 - Biochemistry. 2002 Jul 2;41(26):8396-404 22326890 - Biochim Biophys Acta. 2012 May;1818(5):1242-9 18001020 - J Am Chem Soc. 2007 Dec 12;129(49):15174-81 15189867 - Biophys J. 2004 Jun;86(6):3709-21 1700867 - Science. 1990 Nov 30;250(4985):1256-9 |
References_xml | – volume: 50 start-page: 7522 year: 2011 ident: ref28/cit28 publication-title: Biochemistry doi: 10.1021/bi2006459 – volume: 104 start-page: 1508 year: 2013 ident: ref23/cit23 publication-title: Biophys. J. doi: 10.1016/j.bpj.2013.02.030 – volume: 51 start-page: 2044 year: 2012 ident: ref17/cit17 publication-title: Biochemistry doi: 10.1021/bi201732e – volume: 129 start-page: 15174 year: 2007 ident: ref10/cit10 publication-title: J. Am. Chem. Soc. doi: 10.1021/ja073784q – volume: 116 start-page: 12980 year: 2012 ident: ref19/cit19 publication-title: J. Phys. Chem. B doi: 10.1021/jp308182b – volume: 46 start-page: 7514 year: 2007 ident: ref27/cit27 publication-title: Biochemistry doi: 10.1021/bi700082v – volume: 250 start-page: 1256 year: 1990 ident: ref1/cit1 publication-title: Science doi: 10.1126/science.1700867 – volume: 130 start-page: 12584 year: 2008 ident: ref15/cit15 publication-title: J. Am. Chem. Soc. doi: 10.1021/ja803734k – volume: 132 start-page: 5803 year: 2010 ident: ref18/cit18 publication-title: J. Am. Chem. Soc. doi: 10.1021/ja100598e – volume: 274 start-page: 20839 year: 1999 ident: ref5/cit5 publication-title: J. Biol. Chem. doi: 10.1074/jbc.274.30.20839 – volume: 41 start-page: 8396 year: 2002 ident: ref6/cit6 publication-title: Biochemistry doi: 10.1021/bi0257686 – volume: 101 start-page: 2939 year: 2011 ident: ref14/cit14 publication-title: Biophys. J. doi: 10.1016/j.bpj.2011.11.008 – volume: 285 start-page: 31723 year: 2010 ident: ref12/cit12 publication-title: J. Biol. Chem. doi: 10.1074/jbc.M110.152470 – volume: 5 start-page: 213 year: 1992 ident: ref2/cit2 publication-title: Protein Eng. doi: 10.1093/protein/5.3.213 – volume: 78 start-page: 357 year: 1993 ident: ref29/cit29 publication-title: Mol. Phys. doi: 10.1080/00268979300100281 – volume: 117 start-page: 13786 year: 2013 ident: ref26/cit26 publication-title: J. Phys. Chem. B doi: 10.1021/jp407542e – volume: 93 start-page: 4278 year: 2007 ident: ref11/cit11 publication-title: Biophys. J. doi: 10.1529/biophysj.107.113043 – volume: 88 start-page: 2626 year: 2005 ident: ref24/cit24 publication-title: Biophys. J. doi: 10.1529/biophysj.104.056606 – volume: 110 start-page: 1692 year: 2013 ident: ref20/cit20 publication-title: Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1215400110 – volume: 35 start-page: 1037 year: 1996 ident: ref4/cit4 publication-title: Biochemistry doi: 10.1021/bi9519258 – volume: 83 start-page: 1479 year: 2002 ident: ref7/cit7 publication-title: Biophys. J. doi: 10.1016/S0006-3495(02)73918-0 – volume: 1818 start-page: 1242 year: 2012 ident: ref16/cit16 publication-title: Biochim. Biophys. Acta doi: 10.1016/j.bbamem.2012.01.023 – volume: 42 start-page: 390 year: 1976 ident: ref22/cit22 publication-title: Chem. Phys. Lett. doi: 10.1016/0009-2614(76)80392-2 – volume: 86 start-page: 3709 year: 2004 ident: ref8/cit8 publication-title: Biophys. J. doi: 10.1529/biophysj.103.035402 – volume: 96 start-page: 3223 year: 2009 ident: ref13/cit13 publication-title: Biophys. J. doi: 10.1016/j.bpj.2009.02.040 – volume: 90 start-page: 200 year: 2006 ident: ref21/cit21 publication-title: Biophys. J. doi: 10.1529/biophysj.105.070466 – volume: 100 start-page: 018103 year: 2008 ident: ref9/cit9 publication-title: Phys. Rev. Lett. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.100.018103 – volume: 229 start-page: 602 year: 1993 ident: ref3/cit3 publication-title: J. Mol. Biol. doi: 10.1006/jmbi.1993.1066 – volume: 69 start-page: 040901 (R) year: 2004 ident: ref25/cit25 publication-title: Phys. Rev. E doi: 10.1103/PhysRevE.69.040901 – ident: ref30/cit30 – reference: 8547239 - Biochemistry. 1996 Jan 23;35(3):1037-45 – reference: 16214859 - Biophys J. 2006 Jan 1;90(1):200-11 – reference: 21800919 - Biochemistry. 2011 Sep 6;50(35):7522-35 – reference: 19383466 - Biophys J. 2009 Apr 22;96(8):3223-32 – reference: 22364236 - Biochemistry. 2012 Mar 13;51(10):2044-53 – reference: 1700867 - Science. 1990 Nov 30;250(4985):1256-9 – reference: 20373735 - J Am Chem Soc. 2010 Apr 28;132(16):5803-11 – reference: 18232823 - Phys Rev Lett. 2008 Jan 11;100(1):018103 – reference: 17530863 - Biochemistry. 2007 Jun 26;46(25):7514-24 – reference: 23319623 - Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2013 Jan 29;110(5):1692-5 – reference: 12202373 - Biophys J. 2002 Sep;83(3):1479-88 – reference: 1409540 - Protein Eng. 1992 Apr;5(3):213-4 – reference: 18763771 - J Am Chem Soc. 2008 Sep 24;130(38):12584-5 – reference: 23561527 - Biophys J. 2013 Apr 2;104(7):1508-16 – reference: 15189867 - Biophys J. 2004 Jun;86(6):3709-21 – reference: 18001020 - J Am Chem Soc. 2007 Dec 12;129(49):15174-81 – reference: 24111589 - J Phys Chem B. 2013 Nov 7;117(44):13786-94 – reference: 23030363 - J Phys Chem B. 2012 Nov 1;116(43):12980-90 – reference: 12081488 - Biochemistry. 2002 Jul 2;41(26):8396-404 – reference: 15665131 - Biophys J. 2005 Apr;88(4):2626-37 – reference: 10409625 - J Biol Chem. 1999 Jul 23;274(30):20839-46 – reference: 22208192 - Biophys J. 2011 Dec 21;101(12):2939-47 – reference: 20667827 - J Biol Chem. 2010 Oct 8;285(41):31723-30 – reference: 22326890 - Biochim Biophys Acta. 2012 May;1818(5):1242-9 – reference: 15169001 - Phys Rev E Stat Nonlin Soft Matter Phys. 2004 Apr;69(4 Pt 1):040901 – reference: 8433362 - J Mol Biol. 1993 Feb 5;229(3):602-8 – reference: 17720729 - Biophys J. 2007 Dec 15;93(12):4278-88 |
SSID | ssj0004074 |
Score | 2.3230436 |
Snippet | Aromatic amino acids often flank the transmembrane alpha helices of integral membrane proteins. By favoring locations within the membrane–water interface of... Aromatic amino acids often flank the transmembrane alpha helices of integral membrane proteins. By favoring locations within the membrane-water interface of... Aromatic amino acids often flank the transmembrane alpha helices of integral membrane proteins. By favoring locations within the membrane–water interface of... |
SourceID | pubmedcentral proquest pubmed crossref acs |
SourceType | Open Access Repository Aggregation Database Index Database Enrichment Source Publisher |
StartPage | 3637 |
SubjectTerms | amino acids aromatic compounds ethanol hydrogen bonding hydrophobicity lipid bilayers lipids Mass Spectrometry membrane proteins Membrane Proteins - chemical synthesis Molecular Dynamics Simulation nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy Peptide Fragments - chemical synthesis peptides Peptides - chemical synthesis Phenylalanine - chemical synthesis Tryptophan - chemical synthesis Tyrosine - chemistry Tyrosine - metabolism |
Title | Comparisons of Interfacial Phe, Tyr, and Trp Residues as Determinants of Orientation and Dynamics for GWALP Transmembrane Peptides |
URI | http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/bi500439x https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24829070 https://www.proquest.com/docview/1534795957 https://www.proquest.com/docview/1836648139 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/PMC4053069 |
Volume | 53 |
hasFullText | 1 |
inHoldings | 1 |
isFullTextHit | |
isPrint | |
link | http://utb.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwhV1LbxMxEB5V5VAuqA8eoSVyASEOXfBz1z5G6UsISgWp6G1lb2wRiWyqbHrohQO_nPFmsyRtgbNnZMvj0Xzz8AzA62CYZEzIxKaFT6TLVOKcVckQbb20qUFMHuOQn87S0wv54VJdrsGrv2TwOXvvRiqmqwwCxQc81Tpq39nPd38-P9Km1TK6xhzx-KJ90DJrND1FtWp67uDJ22WRS3bmeBMeNQCR9OYS3YI1X27DTq9E53h8Q96QumSzjoVvw0Z_Ma5tB37124mCFZkEUof6go0RceTxB2RwMz0gthySwfSKfPH4CvFcxFbkcKkiJnJ-no6aD0llTX84H1pfEcS35ORb7-M5qS3c2I_R1S49OY-VMUNfPYaL46NB_zRpBiwkVgo9S7RwnAblnVTesiKoVPPMcqd5jE5REzwvlGS08BzP6zNqmXZZ8MZSIR0P4gmsl5PSPwMihRMmBlSDwKUgDNpGQ23GRWEsC6wDXZRA3ihIlde5b87yVkQdeLsQTl407cnjlIwf95G-bEmv5j057iPaX0g4R0nENAjeyOQat1bx96wyKvsHjRZpKjXC4w48nb-KdisuY_I5ox3IVt5LSxA7dq-ulKPvdeduRMfoopnn_7uMXXiIwEzGkjRG92B9Nr32LxD8zFwXwX__a7dWgd9LxwE6 |
linkProvider | American Chemical Society |
linkToHtml | http://utb.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwhV1LbxMxEB6hcigXBC2P0FIMQohDl_q5uz5GKSVAGiqUit5W9sYWkcimyqaHXjjwyxk7m20CFZw9Xls7tubzPL4BeO01k4wJmZi0dIm0mUqsNSoZo62XJtWIyYMf8nSY9s_lpwt10dDkhFoY3ESNX6pjEP-GXYAd2YkKUSuNePEughAVLuHw57ubGkjaMC7jC5kjLF-xCK1PDRaorDct0F-w8s_syDVzc_IA7jc4kXSXin0Id1y1A7vdCt_I02vyhsTMzegS34Ht3qpr2y786rWNBWsy8yR6_LwJjnGc4w7J6Hp-SEw1JqP5Jfnq8DDivoipyfFaYkyY-WU-aeqSqih_vOxdXxOEueTDt-7gjERDN3VTfHFXjpyFBJmxqx_B-cn7Ua-fNH0WEiNFvkhyYTn1ylmpnGGlV2nOM8NtzoOTimrveKkko6XjuF-XUcNym3mnDRXSci8ew1Y1q9xTIFJYoYNf1Qsc8kKjidTUZFyU2jDPOnCAGiiae1IXMQTOWdGqqANvV8opyoalPDTL-HGb6KtW9HJJzXGb0MuVhgvURIiG4B-ZXeHSKhTRKq2yf8jkIk1ljii5A0-Wp6JdissQg85oB7KN89IKBOLuzZFq8j0SeCNIxpeafva_n_ECtvuj00Ex-Dj8vAf3EKvJkKXG6D5sLeZX7jnioYU9iBfhN5t7Bec |
linkToPdf | http://utb.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwhV1LbxMxEB6hIgEXBC2P8CgGIcShW_zcXR-jhFCghAiloreVvbFFJLKJsumhFw78csbOZkmggrPHa2vHo_nmDfDSayYZEzIxaekSaTOVWGtUMkFdL02qEZMHP-SnYXpyJj-cq_PGUAy1MHiJGr9UxyB-kOrFxDcdBtgbO1UhcqURM15HGEKDIA5_HP-ug6RN12W0kjlC800noe2tQQuV9a4W-gta_pkhuaVyBnfgdoMVSXfN3LtwzVX7cNCt0E6eXZJXJGZvRrf4PtzsbSa3HcDPXjtcsCZzT6LXz5vgHMc97oiML5dHxFQTMl4uyBeHDxLvRUxN-lvJMWHn5-W0qU2qIn1_Pb--Jgh1ybuv3dMRicpu5mZodVeOjEKSzMTV9-Bs8HbcO0maWQuJkSJfJbmwnHrlrFTOsNKrNOeZ4TbnwVFFtXe8VJLR0nG8r8uoYbnNvNOGCmm5F_dhr5pX7iEQKazQwbfqBS55oVFNamoyLkptmGcdOEQOFI2s1EUMg3NWtCzqwOsNc4qy6VQeBmZ8v4r0RUu6WLfnuIro-YbDBXIiRETwj8wv8GgVCmmVVtk_aHKRpjJHpNyBB-tX0R7FZYhDZ7QD2c57aQlC8-7dlWr6LTbxRqCM1pp-9L-f8QxujPqD4vT98ONjuIVwTYZENUafwN5qeeGeIiRa2cMoB78AXCMG9A |
openUrl | ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info%3Aofi%2Fenc%3AUTF-8&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fsummon.serialssolutions.com&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Comparisons+of+Interfacial+Phe%2C+Tyr%2C+and+Trp+Residues+as+Determinants+of+Orientation+and+Dynamics+for+GWALP+Transmembrane+Peptides&rft.jtitle=Biochemistry+%28Easton%29&rft.au=Sparks%2C+Kelsey+A.&rft.au=Gleason%2C+Nicholas+J.&rft.au=Gist%2C+Renetra&rft.au=Langston%2C+Rebekah&rft.date=2014-06-10&rft.pub=American+Chemical+Society&rft.issn=0006-2960&rft.eissn=1520-4995&rft.volume=53&rft.issue=22&rft.spage=3637&rft.epage=3645&rft_id=info:doi/10.1021%2Fbi500439x&rft_id=info%3Apmid%2F24829070&rft.externalDocID=PMC4053069 |
thumbnail_l | http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/lc.gif&issn=0006-2960&client=summon |
thumbnail_m | http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/mc.gif&issn=0006-2960&client=summon |
thumbnail_s | http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/sc.gif&issn=0006-2960&client=summon |