ApoA-I Mimetic Peptides with Differing Ability to Inhibit Atherosclerosis Also Exhibit Differences in Their Interactions with Membrane Bilayers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Two homologous apoA-I mimetic peptides, 3F-2 and 3F(14), differ in their in vitro antiatherogenic properties (Epand, R. M., Epand, R. F., Sayer, B. G., Datta, G., Chaddha, M., and Anantharamaiah, G. M. (2004) J. Biol. Chem. 279, 51404-51414). In the present work, we demonstrate that the peptide 3F-2, which has more potent anti-inflammatory activity in vitro when administered intraperitoneally to female apoE null mice (20 microg/mouse/day) for 6 weeks, inhibits atherosclerosis (lesion area 15,800 +/- 1000 microm(2), n = 29), whereas 3F(14) does not (lesion area 20,400 +/- 1000 microm(2), n = 26) compared with control saline administered (19,900 +/- 1400 microm(2), n = 22). Plasma distribution of the peptides differs in that 3F-2 preferentially associates with high density lipoprotein, whereas 3F(14) preferentially associates with apoB-containing particles. After intraperitoneal injection of (14)C-labeled peptides, 3F(14) reaches a higher maximal concentration and has a longer half-time of elimination than 3F-2. A study of the effect of these peptides on the motional and organizational properties of phospholipid bilayers, using several NMR methods, demonstrates that the two peptides insert to different extents into membranes. 3F-2 with aromatic residues at the center of the nonpolar face partitions closer to the phospholipid head group compared with 3F(14). In contrast, only 3F(14) affects the terminal methyl group of the acyl chain, decreasing the (2)H order parameter and at the same time also decreasing the molecular motion of this methyl group. This dual effect of 3F(14) can be explained in terms of the cross-sectional shape of the amphipathic helix. These results support the proposal that the molecular basis for the difference in the biological activities of the two peptides lies with their different interactions with membranes.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".