Advertisement

Positively charged gramicidin A based peptides form two types of membrane channels

  • Sergey I. Kovalchuk
  • Elena A. Kotova
  • Tatyana B. Stoilova
  • Sergey V. Sychev
  • Natalya S. Egorova
  • Andrey Y. Surovoy
  • Yuri N. Antonenko
  • Vadim T. Ivanov
Part of the Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology book series (volume 611)

Introduction

In recent years investigation of new membrane-active antimicrobial peptides attracted much attention. At present at least 5 types of pore structures are proposed: rigid intramolecular tubes formed by head-to-head dimerization of gramicidin A (gA) [1], intramolecular pores resulting from stacking of cyclic peptides [2], intermolecular “barrel-stave” pores formed by bundles of α-helical rods of alamethicin [3], porin-like high-conductance intermolecular pores with a β-barrel structure [4], intermolecular peptide—lipidic pores with pore walls formed both by peptide molecules and lipid headgroups [5, 6].

The factors remain unclear for forming pores of different structure by peptide molecules of one sort. Searching of new pore structure types also is of great interest. In the present work, we addressed this question by studying the activity of gramicidin A positively charged derivatives. It was found that peptides having a positively charged moiety conjugated with gramicidin A...

Keywords

Cyclic Peptide Bilayer Lipid Membrane Choline Chloride Peptide Molecule Lipid Headgroups 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work was supported in part by a grant from the RFBR: 06-04-48523 (Y.N.A.).

References

  1. 1.
    Koeppe, R.E. and Andersen, O.S. Annu. Rev. Biophys. Biomol. Struct. 25, 231–258 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Fernandez-Lopez, S., Kim, H.S., Choi, E.C., Delgado, M., Granja, J.R., Khasanov, A., Kraehenbuehl, K., Long, G., Weinberger, D.A., Wilcoxen, K.M. and Ghadiri, M.R. Nature 412, 452–455 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Sansom, M.S. Prog. Biophys. Mol. Biol. 55, 139–235 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Thundimadathil, J., Roeske, R.W. and Guo, L. Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 330, 585–590 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Zemel, A., Fattal, D.R. and Ben Shaul, A. Biophys. J. 84, 2242–2255 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Zakharov, S.D., Kotova, E.A., Antonenko, Y.N. and Cramer, W.A. Biochim. Biophys. Acta 1666, 239–249 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sergey I. Kovalchuk
    • 1
  • Elena A. Kotova
    • 2
  • Tatyana B. Stoilova
    • 1
  • Sergey V. Sychev
    • 1
  • Natalya S. Egorova
    • 1
  • Andrey Y. Surovoy
    • 1
  • Yuri N. Antonenko
    • 2
  • Vadim T. Ivanov
    • 1
  1. 1.Shemyakin-Ovchinnikov Institute of Bioorganic Chemistry Russian Academy of SciencesMoscowRussia
  2. 2.Belozersky Institute of Physico-Chemical BiologyMoscow State UniversityMoscowRussia

Personalised recommendations