Phosphocreatine Interacts with Phospholipids, Affects Membrane Properties and Exerts Membrane-Protective Effects
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A broad spectrum of beneficial effects has been ascribed to creatine (Cr), phosphocreatine (PCr) and their cyclic analogues cyclo-(cCr) and phospho-cyclocreatine (PcCr). Cr is widely used as nutritional supplement in sports and increasingly also as adjuvant treatment for pathologies such as myopathies and a plethora of neurodegenerative diseases. Additionally, Cr and its cyclic analogues have been proposed for anti-cancer treatment. The mechanisms involved in these pleiotropic effects are still controversial and far from being understood. The reversible conversion of Cr and ATP into PCr and ADP by creatine kinase, generating highly diffusible PCr energy reserves, is certainly an important element. However, some protective effects of Cr and analogues cannot be satisfactorily explained solely by effects on the cellular energy state. Here we used mainly liposome model systems to provide evidence for interaction of PCr and PcCr with different zwitterionic phospholipids by applying four independent, complementary biochemical and biophysical assays: (i) chemical binding assay, (ii) surface plasmon resonance spectroscopy (SPR), (iii) solid-state (31)P-NMR, and (iv) differential scanning calorimetry (DSC). SPR revealed low affinity PCr/phospholipid interaction that additionally induced changes in liposome shape as indicated by NMR and SPR. Additionally, DSC revealed evidence for membrane packing effects by PCr, as seen by altered lipid phase transition. Finally, PCr efficiently protected against membrane permeabilization in two different model systems: liposome-permeabilization by the membrane-active peptide melittin, and erythrocyte hemolysis by the oxidative drug doxorubicin, hypoosmotic stress or the mild detergent saponin. These findings suggest a new molecular basis for non-energy related functions of PCr and its cyclic analogue. PCr/phospholipid interaction and alteration of membrane structure may not only protect cellular membranes against various insults, but could have more general implications for many physiological membrane-related functions that are relevant for health and disease.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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 teacher head, 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".