We have measured the efficiency of stop‐transfer function for a set of pseudo‐random, 18‐residue amino acid segments, both in Escherichia coli and in mammalian microsomes. In general, stop‐transfer function correlates well with the mean hydrophobicity of the segment, though exceptions exist. Kinetic studies suggest that polar segments are rapidly translocated through the E. coli inner membrane and that strongly hydrophobic segments become permanently anchored, while sequences with an intermediate mean hydrophobicity become partly trapped in a transmembrane disposition for a considerable time before being released to the periplasm or degraded.
Protein sorting signals provide good examples of peptides that can be studied both from a chemical and a biochemical perspective. Their simple designs and low degree of sequence conservation suggest that they are involved in rather non-specific peptide-lipid interactions, yet their ability to discriminate efficiently between the import machineries of different subcellular compartments rather points to the importance of peptide-receptor interactions. The study of protein sorting signals thus invites a cross-disciplinary approach.
No abstract is provided for this article.
Membrane-protein integration, folding and assembly processes in vivo depend on complex targeting, translocation, chaperoning, and sorting machineries that somehow read the 'molecular code' built into the nascent polypeptide, ultimately producing a properly folded protein integrated into the correct target membrane. Although the main molecular constituents and the basic mechanistic principles of many of these machines are known in outline, the codes remain poorly defined and there is little quantitative information on how protein sequence affects the final structure of membrane proteins. By carefully designing model protein constructs, we have derived the first true biological hydrophobicity scale and have been able to get a first impression of how the position of a given type of residue within a transmembrane segment affects its ability to promote membrane insertion.
No abstract is provided for this article.
No abstract is provided for this article.
Transmembrane helices (TMHs) in membrane proteins can be orientated with their N‐terminus towards the cytoplasm (N in ), or facing the non‐cytoplasmic side (N out ). Most membrane proteins are inserted co‐translationally into membranes, aided by Sec‐type translocons. Since the final orientation of N in ‐ and N out ‐orientated TMHs differs, they could also interact differently with the translocon and the surrounding membrane during insertion. We measured pulling forces exerted on N in ‐orientated TMHs during co‐translational insertion into the inner membrane of Escherichia coli . Our results demonstrate that N in ‐orientated TMHs experience a weaker pulling force but retain the overall biphasic force profile seen previously for N out ‐orientated TMHs (Ismail et al., 2012 [1]).
No abstract is provided for this article.
We show that the N‐terminal leader peptides from the bacterial membrane proteins bacteriorhodopsin and halorhodopsin can be expected to form amphipathic α‐helices with a highly hydrophobic nonpolar face and a narrow, negatively charged polar face. This finding is discussed in terms of a model for the integration of these proteins into the bacterial membrane.
Journal Article Membrane proteins: from sequence to structure Get access Gunnar von Heijne, Gunnar von Heijne 1 1 To whom correspondence should be addressed Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic PubMed Google Scholar Colin Manoil Colin Manoil 2Department of Genetics, University of WashingtonSeattle, WA 98195, USA Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic PubMed Google Scholar Protein Engineering, Design and Selection, Volume 4, Issue 2, December 1990, Pages 109–112, https://doi.org/10.1093/protein/4.2.109 Published: 01 December 1990 Article history Received: 06 July 1990 Accepted: 24 August 1990 Published: 01 December 1990