It appears you don't have support to open PDFs in this web browser. To view this file, Open with your PDF reader
Abstract
Studies of folded-to-misfolded transitions using model protein systems reveal a range of unfolding needed for exposure of amyloid-prone regions for subsequent fibrillization. Here, we probe the relationship between unfolding and aggregation for glaucoma-associated myocilin. Mutations within the olfactomedin domain of myocilin (OLF) cause a gain-of-function, namely cytotoxic intracellular aggregation, which hastens disease progression. Aggregation by wild-type OLF (OLFWT) competes with its chemical unfolding, but only below the threshold where OLF loses tertiary structure. Representative moderate (OLFD380A) and severe (OLFI499F) disease variants aggregate differently, with rates comparable to OLFWT in initial stages of unfolding, and variants adopt distinct partially folded structures seen along the OLFWT urea-unfolding pathway. Whether initiated with mutation or chemical perturbation, unfolding propagates outward to the propeller surface. In sum, for this large protein prone to amyloid formation, the requirement for a conformational change to promote amyloid fibrillization leads to direct competition between unfolding and aggregation.
Here, the relationship between unfolding and amyloid aggregation of glaucoma-associated myocilin is probed, showing that myocilin is not at equilibrium and pathogenic aggregation competes directly with unfolding.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
Details




1 Georgia Institute of Technology, School of Chemistry & Biochemistry, Atlanta, USA (GRID:grid.213917.f) (ISNI:0000 0001 2097 4943)
2 Arizona State University, Biodesign Center for Personalized Diagnostics, Tempe, USA (GRID:grid.215654.1) (ISNI:0000 0001 2151 2636); Arizona State University, School of Molecular Sciences, Tempe, USA (GRID:grid.215654.1) (ISNI:0000 0001 2151 2636)
3 Georgia Institute of Technology, School of Biological Sciences, Atlanta, USA (GRID:grid.213917.f) (ISNI:0000 0001 2097 4943)
4 Interdisciplinary Graduate Program in Quantitative Biosciences, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, USA (GRID:grid.213917.f) (ISNI:0000 0001 2097 4943)
5 Emory University School of Medicine, Aflac Cancer and Blood Disorders Center, Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta and Department of Pediatrics, Atlanta, USA (GRID:grid.189967.8) (ISNI:0000 0001 0941 6502)
6 Georgia Institute of Technology, School of Chemistry & Biochemistry, Atlanta, USA (GRID:grid.213917.f) (ISNI:0000 0001 2097 4943); Georgia Institute of Technology, School of Biological Sciences, Atlanta, USA (GRID:grid.213917.f) (ISNI:0000 0001 2097 4943); School of Physics, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, USA (GRID:grid.213917.f) (ISNI:0000 0001 2097 4943)