Highly dynamic mitotic-spindle microtubules are among the most successful targets for anticancer therapy. Microtubule-targeted drugs, including paclitaxel and Vinca alkaloids, were previously considered to work primarily by increasing or decreasing the cellular microtubule mass. Although these effects might have a role in their chemotherapeutic actions, we now know that at lower concentrations, microtubule-targeted drugs can suppress microtubule dynamics without changing microtubule mass; this action leads to mitotic block and apoptosis. In addition to the expanding array of chemically diverse antimitotic agents, some microtubule-targeted drugs can act as vascular-targeting agents, rapidly depolymerizing microtubules of newly formed vasculature to shut down the blood supply to tumours.

Microtubules as a target for anticancer drugs.

The molar absorption coefficient, E, of a protein is usually based on concentrations measured by dry weight, nitrogen, or amino acid analysis. The studies reported here suggest that the Edelhoch method is the best method for measuring E for a protein. (This method is described by Gill and von Hippel [1989, Anal Biochem 182:3193261 and is based on data from Edelhoch [1967, Biochemistry 6:1948-19541.) The absorbance of a protein at 280 nm depends on the content of Trp, Tyr, and cystine (disulfide bonds). The average E values for these chromophores in a sample of 18 well-characterized proteins have been estimated, and the E values in water, propanol, 6 M guanidine hydrochloride (GdnHCI), and 8 M urea have been measured. For Trp, the average E values for the proteins are less than the E values measured in any of the solvents. For Tyr, the average E values for the proteins are intermediate between those measured in 6 M GdnHCl and those measured in propanol. Based on a sample of 116 measured t values for 80 proteins, the t at 280 nm of a folded protein in water, t(280), can best be predicted with this equation:

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/pro.5560041120

How to measure and predict the molar absorption coefficient of a protein.

Striking convergent evolution is found in the properties of the organic osmotic solute (osmolyte) systems observed in bacteria, plants, and animals Polyhydric alcohols, free amino acids and their derivatives, and combinations of urea and methylamines are the three types of osmolyte systems found in all water-stressed organisms except the halobacteria The selective advantages of the organic osmolyte systems are, first, a compatibility with macromolecular structure and function at high or variable (or both) osmolyte concentrations, and, second, greatly reduced needs for modifying proteins to function in concentrated intracellular solutions Osmolyte compatibility is proposed to result from the absence of osmolyte interactions with substrates and cofactors, and the nonperturbing or favorable effects of osmolytes on macromolecular-solvent interactions

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/sci/217/4566/1214.full.pdf

Living with water stress: evolution of osmolyte systems

Size-Distribution Analysis of Macromolecules by Sedimentation Velocity Ultracentrifugation and Lamm Equation Modeling

T e purpose of this review is to assess the nature and magnitudes of the dominant forces in protein folding. Since proteins are only marginally stable at room temperature,’ no type of molecular interaction is unimportant, and even small interactions can contribute significantly (positively or negatively) to stability (Alber, 1989a,b; Matthews, 1987a,b). However, the present review aims to identify only the largest forces that lead to the structural features of globular proteins: their extraordinary compactness, their core of nonpolar residues, and their considerable amounts of internal architecture. This review explores contributions to the free energy of folding arising from electrostatics (classical charge repulsions and ion pairing), hydrogen-bonding and van der Waals interactions, intrinsic propensities, and hydrophobic interactions. An earlier review by Kauzmann (1959) introduced the importance of hydrophobic interactions. His insights were particularly remarkable considering that he did not have the benefit of known protein structures, model studies, high-resolution calorimetry, mutational methods, or force-field or statistical mechanical results. The present review aims to provide a reassessment of the factors important for folding in light of current knowledge. Also considered here are the opposing forces, conformational entropy and electrostatics. The process of protein folding has been known for about 60 years. In 1902, Emil Fischer and Franz Hofmeister independently concluded that proteins were chains of covalently linked amino acids (Haschemeyer & Haschemeyer, 1973) but deeper understanding of protein structure and conformational change was hindered because of the difficulty in finding conditions for solubilization. Chick and Martin (191 1) were the first to discover the process of denaturation and to distinguish it from the process of aggregation. By 1925, the denaturation process was considered to be either hydrolysis of the peptide bond (Wu & Wu, 1925; Anson & Mirsky, 1925) or dehydration of the protein (Robertson, 1918). The view that protein denaturation was an unfolding process was

/pdf/dominant-forces-in-protein-folding-42bjzlldw4.pdf

Dominant forces in protein folding

A densimetric investigation of the interactions between solvent components in glycerol-water mixtures (between 10 and 40 vol % glycerol) and seven proteins have been carried out in the acid pH region. All the proteins were found to be preferentially hydrated at all conditions used, i.e., addition of the proteins to the mixed solvent results in an increase in the chemical potential of glycerol. It is considered that this thermodynamically unfavorable interaction should tend to minimize the surface of contact between proteins and glycerol and in this way stabilize the native structure of globular proteins.

Mechanism of protein stabilization by glycerol: preferential hydration in glycerol-water mixtures

The stabilization of proteins by sucrose.

CONTENTS PERSPECTIVES AND OVERVIEW •.........•..•• 67 THERMODYNAMIC CONTROL OF EQUILIBRIA BY COSOLVENTS .. ... ... 70 RELATION BETWEEN PREFERENTIAL INTERACTIONS AND MOLECULAR CONTACTS ....•.•..... 76 EXPERIMENTAL OBSERVATIONS; APPLICATIONS 81 Denaturants. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82 Stabilization: Salting-Out . .... .. 84 Sources of Preferential Exclusions: Stabilization or Not? ....... ... ..... . . . .. .. ... . .. . . . . . . . . ... .. 85 BALANCE BETWEEN COSOLVENT BINDING AND EXCLUSION .... .... ..... . . . . . ... . . . ... ......... 89 COMPENSATION, OSMOLYTES 92 CONCLUSIONS . . . .. . .... ... . 94

The control of protein stability and association by weak interactions with water: how do solvents affect these processes?

The preferential interaction of proteins with solvent components was measured in aqueous lactose and glucose systems by using a high precision densimeter. In all cases, the protein was preferentially hydrated; i.e., addition of these sugars to an aqueous solution of the protein resulted in an unfavorable free-energy change. This effect was shown to increase with an increase in protein surface area, explaining the protein stabilizing action of these sugars and their enhancing effect of protein associations. Correlation of the preferential interaction parameter with the effect of the sugars on the surface tension of water, i.e., their positive surface tension increment, has led to the conclusion that the surface free energy perturbation by sugars plays a predominant role in their preferential interaction with proteins. Other contributing factors are the exclusion volume of the sugars and the chemical nature of the protein surface.

Serge N. Timasheff

Papers

Mechanism of protein stabilization by glycerol: preferential hydration in glycerol-water mixtures

The stabilization of proteins by sucrose.

The control of protein stability and association by weak interactions with water: how do solvents affect these processes?

Stabilization of protein structure by sugars.

The stabilization of proteins by osmolytes.