Otzen Daniel
Aarhus University, Interdisciplinary Nanoscience Center, Department of Molecuular Biology, Aarhus C, Denmark.
Biochim Biophys Acta. 2011 May;1814(5):562-91. doi: 10.1016/j.bbapap.2011.03.003. Epub 2011 Mar 22.
The scientific study of protein surfactant interactions goes back more than a century, and has been put to practical uses in everything from the estimation of protein molecular weights to efficient washing powder enzymes and products for personal hygiene. After a burst of activity in the late 1960s and early 1970s that established the general principles of how charged surfactants bind to and denature proteins, the field has kept a relatively low profile until the last decade. Within this period there has been a maturation of techniques for more accurate and sophisticated analyses of protein-surfactant complexes such as calorimetry and small angle scattering techniques. In this review I provide an overview of different useful approaches to study these complexes and identify eight different issues which define central concepts in the field. (1) Are proteins denatured by monomeric surfactant molecules, micelles or both? (2) How does unfolding of proteins in surfactant compare with "proper" unfolding in chemical denaturants? Recent work has highlighted the role of shared micelles, rather than monomers, below the critical micelle concentration (cmc) in promoting both protein denaturation and formation of higher order structures. Kinetic studies have extended the experimentally accessible range of surfactant concentrations to far above the cmc, revealing numerous different modes of denaturation by ionic surfactants below and above the cmc which reflect micellar properties as much as protein unfolding pathways. Uncharged surfactants follow a completely different denaturation strategy involving synergy between monomers and micelles. The high affinity of charged surfactants for proteins means that unfolding pathways are generally different in surfactants versus chemical denaturants, although there are common traits. Other issues are as follows: (3) Are there non-denaturing roles for SDS? (4) How reversible is unfolding in SDS? (5) How do solvent conditions affect the way in which surfactants denature proteins? The last three issues compare SDS with "proper" membranes. (6) Do anionic surfactants such as SDS mimic biological membranes? (7) How do mixed micelles interact with globular proteins? (8) How can mixed micelles be used to measure the stability of membrane proteins? The growing efforts to understand the unique features of membrane proteins have encouraged the development of mixed micelles to study the equilibria and kinetics of this class of proteins, and traits which unite globular and membrane proteins have also emerged. These issues emphasise the amazing power of surfactants to both extend the protein conformational landscape and at the same time provide convenient and reversible short-cuts between the native and denatured state for otherwise obdurate membrane proteins.
蛋白质与表面活性剂相互作用的科学研究可以追溯到一个多世纪以前,并且已在从蛋白质分子量的估算到高效洗衣粉酶以及个人卫生用品等各个领域得到实际应用。在20世纪60年代末和70年代初一阵研究热潮确立了带电表面活性剂与蛋白质结合并使其变性的一般原理之后,该领域在过去十年之前一直相对低调。在此期间,用于更准确、更精细分析蛋白质 - 表面活性剂复合物的技术已经成熟,如量热法和小角散射技术。在这篇综述中,我概述了研究这些复合物的不同有用方法,并确定了定义该领域核心概念的八个不同问题。(1)蛋白质是被单体表面活性剂分子、胶束还是两者都使其变性?(2)表面活性剂中蛋白质的去折叠与化学变性剂中“正常”的去折叠相比如何?最近的研究强调了在临界胶束浓度(cmc)以下共享胶束而非单体在促进蛋白质变性和高阶结构形成中的作用。动力学研究已将表面活性剂浓度的实验可及范围扩展到远高于cmc,揭示了离子表面活性剂在cmc上下通过多种不同的变性模式,这些模式既反映了胶束性质,也反映了蛋白质去折叠途径。不带电的表面活性剂遵循一种完全不同的变性策略,涉及单体和胶束之间的协同作用。带电表面活性剂对蛋白质的高亲和力意味着表面活性剂中的去折叠途径通常与化学变性剂中的不同,尽管存在共同特征。其他问题如下:(3)SDS是否有非变性作用?(4)SDS中的去折叠有多可逆?(5)溶剂条件如何影响表面活性剂使蛋白质变性的方式?最后三个问题将SDS与“正常”膜进行比较。(6)SDS等阴离子表面活性剂是否模拟生物膜?(7)混合胶束如何与球状蛋白质相互作用?(8)如何使用混合胶束来测量膜蛋白的稳定性?人们越来越努力去理解膜蛋白的独特特征,这推动了混合胶束的发展,以研究这类蛋白质的平衡和动力学,并且也出现了球状蛋白和膜蛋白共有的特征。这些问题强调了表面活性剂惊人的能力,既能扩展蛋白质构象格局,同时又能为原本顽固的膜蛋白在天然态和变性态之间提供便捷且可逆的捷径。