Jaseja M, Copié V, Starkey J
Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, Montana State University, Bozeman, Massachusetts 59717, USA.
J Pept Res. 2003 Jan;61(1):24-39. doi: 10.1034/j.1399-3011.2003.21040.x.
Due to its critical role in cancer progression, interactions between laminin-1 and the 67 kDa Laminin-Binding Protein (the 67 kDa LBP) have been the focus of a number of structural and biological studies. As laminin-1 is such a large and complex molecule, research interests have turned to the investigation of bioactive peptides derived from binding domains of laminin-1. Two peptides of interest, CDPGYIGSR (peptide 11) and YIGSR, both derived from the beta1 chain of laminin-1, have been shown to block invasion of basement membranes by tumor cells. Substituting the C-terminal arginine to lysine, a conservative substitution, results in a loss of peptide antimetastatic activity. This difference in bioactivity has been attributed, based on numerous modeling studies of free peptide conformations, to structural differences between YIGSR and YIGSK. Yet the nature of the 'active' free peptide backbone conformation has been a matter of debate and controversy. In order to test the validity of the structural modeling claims, we have undertaken detailed conformational studies of the two laminin-1 derived peptides YIGSR and CDPGYIGSR along with the biologically inactive YIGSK analog by two-dimensional solution 1H NMR spectroscopy in three different solvent systems. Herein we report that although both the active (YIGSR, CDPGYIGSR) and the inactive (YIGSK) peptides can adopt several closely related conformations in solution, the two peptides share similar conformational preferences, and there are no significant structural differences between the active and inactive peptides, contrary to previously reported modeling data. We conclude that the basis of the peptide biological activity, in contrast to published models, cannot be attributed to well-defined structural preferences of the free peptides. We infer that the difference in bioactivity observed between YIGSR and YIGSK originates primarily from the chemical nature of the arginine versus lysine sidechain substitution, rather than being due to a structural change in the free peptide conformations.
