Cited by 23Alzheimer's disease research and treatmentsProtein Structure and DynamicsLipid Membrane Structure and Behavior

Atomistic Insights into Structural Differences between E3 and E4 Isoforms of Apolipoprotein E

Open access
Ray, Angana, Ahalawat, Navjeet, Mondal, Jagannath·2017·Biophysical Journal

Abstract

Among various isoforms of Apolipoprotein E (ApoE), the E4 isoform (ApoE4) is considered to be the strongest risk factor for Alzheimer's disease, whereas the E3 isoform (ApoE3) is neutral to the disease. Interestingly, the sequence of ApoE4 differs from its wild-type ApoE3 by a single amino acid C112R in the 299-amino-acid-long sequence. Hence, the puzzle remains: how a single-amino-acid difference between the ApoE3 and ApoE4 sequences can give rise to structural dissimilarities between the two isoforms, which can potentially lead to functional differences with significant pathological consequences. The major obstacle in addressing this question has been the lack of a 3D atomistic structure of ApoE4 to date. In this work, we resolve the issue by computationally modeling a plausible atomistic 3D structure of ApoE4. Our microsecond-long atomistic simulations elucidate key structural differences between monomeric ApoE3 and ApoE4, which renders ApoE4 thermodynamically less stable, less structured, and topologically less rigid compared to ApoE3. Consistent with an experimental report of the molten globule state of ApoE4, simulations identify multiple partially folded intermediates for ApoE4, which are implicated in the stronger aggregation propensity of ApoE4.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.bpj.2017.10.006

Cites

14 of 14 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ray, A., Ahalawat, N., & Mondal, J.
Affiliations
Tata Institute of Fundamental Research (IN)
Corresponding author
Mondal, Jagannath
Venue
Biophysical Journal
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2017-12
Volume
113
Issue
12
Pages
2682-2694
ISSN
0006-3495 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2780241272
Cited by
23
References
14
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 1
FWCI
1.42
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Biophysical Journal (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Tata Institute of Fundamental Research Hyderabad (CIS/TIFR-H)
  • Department of Science and Technology (DST) Science and Engineering Research Board (ECR/2016/000672)
  • Science and Engineering Research Board (SERB) (PDF/2016/002712)
  • Tata Institute of Fundamental Research
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Alzheimer's disease research and treatments
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Protein Structure and Dynamics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Lipid Membrane Structure and Behavior
Keywords
apolipoprotein E, APOE ε4, APOE3, Alzheimer's disease risk, protein structure, protein stability, molten globule, folding intermediates, protein aggregation, monomeric protein, atomistic simulation
MeSH terms
Protein Domains, Hydrogen Bonding, Markov Chains, Mutation, Temperature, Protein Structure, Secondary, Nuclear Magnetic Resonance, Biomolecular, Protein Isoforms, Apolipoprotein E3, Apolipoprotein E4, Protein Stability, Molecular Dynamics Simulation

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review