Cargando…

Comparative Study on Hyaluronic Acid Binding to Murine SAA1.1 and SAA2.2

[Image: see text] Persistently high plasma levels of serum amyloid A (SAA) may induce AA amyloidosis in various organs causing their dysfunction. Although SAA isoforms share a high degree of homology, only the SAA1.1 isoform is found in amyloid deposits. SAA1.1 misfolding is a nucleation-dependent p...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Jin, Lu, Syrovets, Tatiana, Scheller, Judith S., Zhang, Xinlei, Simmet, Thomas
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: American Chemical Society 2019
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6704436/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31460467
http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acsomega.9b01590
_version_ 1783445506216689664
author Jin, Lu
Syrovets, Tatiana
Scheller, Judith S.
Zhang, Xinlei
Simmet, Thomas
author_facet Jin, Lu
Syrovets, Tatiana
Scheller, Judith S.
Zhang, Xinlei
Simmet, Thomas
author_sort Jin, Lu
collection PubMed
description [Image: see text] Persistently high plasma levels of serum amyloid A (SAA) may induce AA amyloidosis in various organs causing their dysfunction. Although SAA isoforms share a high degree of homology, only the SAA1.1 isoform is found in amyloid deposits. SAA1.1 misfolding is a nucleation-dependent process with dimer and trimer formation playing a major role in SAA fibril formation through self-catalyzed recruitment of native SAA molecules. Yet, a structural model of initial SAA oligomerization is still missing. In this study, we constructed a loosely associated model for murine SAA1.1 and SAA2.2 dimers in the presence or absence of hyaluronic acid as an exemplary glycosaminoglycan, a factor known to facilitate SAA fibril formation. Molecular dynamics simulations predicted that hyaluronic acid finally stabilized in a different binding pocket of the pathogenic SAA1.1 dimer compared to the nonpathogenic SAA2.2 dimer. Besides, Markov state modeling points to dynamic behavioral differences between the linker region of SAA1.1 and SAA2.2 and identifies a state unique to pathogenic SAA1.1 while bound to hyaluronic acid. The presence or absence of hyaluronic acid, as well as the dimer interface switch, affects dynamic behavior and possible oligomeric states, proposing a conceivable clue to the deviant pathogenicity of the two SAA isoforms.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6704436
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher American Chemical Society
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-67044362019-08-27 Comparative Study on Hyaluronic Acid Binding to Murine SAA1.1 and SAA2.2 Jin, Lu Syrovets, Tatiana Scheller, Judith S. Zhang, Xinlei Simmet, Thomas ACS Omega [Image: see text] Persistently high plasma levels of serum amyloid A (SAA) may induce AA amyloidosis in various organs causing their dysfunction. Although SAA isoforms share a high degree of homology, only the SAA1.1 isoform is found in amyloid deposits. SAA1.1 misfolding is a nucleation-dependent process with dimer and trimer formation playing a major role in SAA fibril formation through self-catalyzed recruitment of native SAA molecules. Yet, a structural model of initial SAA oligomerization is still missing. In this study, we constructed a loosely associated model for murine SAA1.1 and SAA2.2 dimers in the presence or absence of hyaluronic acid as an exemplary glycosaminoglycan, a factor known to facilitate SAA fibril formation. Molecular dynamics simulations predicted that hyaluronic acid finally stabilized in a different binding pocket of the pathogenic SAA1.1 dimer compared to the nonpathogenic SAA2.2 dimer. Besides, Markov state modeling points to dynamic behavioral differences between the linker region of SAA1.1 and SAA2.2 and identifies a state unique to pathogenic SAA1.1 while bound to hyaluronic acid. The presence or absence of hyaluronic acid, as well as the dimer interface switch, affects dynamic behavior and possible oligomeric states, proposing a conceivable clue to the deviant pathogenicity of the two SAA isoforms. American Chemical Society 2019-08-06 /pmc/articles/PMC6704436/ /pubmed/31460467 http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acsomega.9b01590 Text en Copyright © 2019 American Chemical Society This is an open access article published under an ACS AuthorChoice License (http://pubs.acs.org/page/policy/authorchoice_termsofuse.html) , which permits copying and redistribution of the article or any adaptations for non-commercial purposes.
spellingShingle Jin, Lu
Syrovets, Tatiana
Scheller, Judith S.
Zhang, Xinlei
Simmet, Thomas
Comparative Study on Hyaluronic Acid Binding to Murine SAA1.1 and SAA2.2
title Comparative Study on Hyaluronic Acid Binding to Murine SAA1.1 and SAA2.2
title_full Comparative Study on Hyaluronic Acid Binding to Murine SAA1.1 and SAA2.2
title_fullStr Comparative Study on Hyaluronic Acid Binding to Murine SAA1.1 and SAA2.2
title_full_unstemmed Comparative Study on Hyaluronic Acid Binding to Murine SAA1.1 and SAA2.2
title_short Comparative Study on Hyaluronic Acid Binding to Murine SAA1.1 and SAA2.2
title_sort comparative study on hyaluronic acid binding to murine saa1.1 and saa2.2
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6704436/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31460467
http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acsomega.9b01590
work_keys_str_mv AT jinlu comparativestudyonhyaluronicacidbindingtomurinesaa11andsaa22
AT syrovetstatiana comparativestudyonhyaluronicacidbindingtomurinesaa11andsaa22
AT schellerjudiths comparativestudyonhyaluronicacidbindingtomurinesaa11andsaa22
AT zhangxinlei comparativestudyonhyaluronicacidbindingtomurinesaa11andsaa22
AT simmetthomas comparativestudyonhyaluronicacidbindingtomurinesaa11andsaa22