Nature Publishing Group, publisher of Nature, and other science journals and reference works
Nature
my account e-alerts subscribe register
   
Tuesday 24 November 2009
Journal Home
Current Issue
AOP
Archive
Download PDF
References
Export citation
Export references
Send to a friend
More articles like this

Letters
Nature 281, 80 - 82 (06 September 1979); doi:10.1038/281080a0

Energy dependence and reversibility of membrane alterations induced by polyene macrolide antibiotics in Chlorella vulgaris

Barbara Malewicz & Edward Borowski

Department of Pharmaceutical Technology and Biochemistry, Technical University, Gdan acutesk and Institute of Oceanology, Polish Academy of Science, Poland

The requirement of metabolic energy for the interaction of polyene macrolide antibiotics with eukaryotic organisms remains a controversial subject (for review see ref. 1). It has been claimed that the lethal binding of these antibiotics to the sterol target component of the hydrophobic core of the membrane, in accordance with the model of de Kruijff and Demel2, is an energy-dependent process. When energy production is reduced by removal of all metabolisable substrates or by adding metabolic inhibitors, polyene binding and antifungal effects are also reduced. Metabolic energy may be required to maintain binding site accessibility or to move antibiotic molecules to the active site. The interaction is also restricted at low temperatures, possibly because of the reduced thermal mobilities of the groups concerned with antibiotic uptake. However, it should be emphasised that the interaction of polyene macrolides with artificial lipid membranes is a purely physicochemical process, although the type of permeability pathways induced are similar to those observed in natural membranes1. Using Chlorella vulgaris as a model organism, we demonstrate here that the interaction of polyene macrolides with sensitive cells and the induction of lethal membrane permeability changes are energy-dependent processes or purely physicochemical phenomena, depending on the structure of the antibiotic used.

------------------

References
1. Hammond, S. M. Prog. med. Chem. 14, 105–179 (1977).
2. de Kruijff, B. & Demel, R. A. Biochim. biophys. Acta 339, 57–70 (1974).
3. Schaedle, M. & Jacobson, L. Pl. Physiol. 40, 214–220 (1965).
4. Patterson, G. W. Pl. Physiol. 42, 1457–1459 (1967).
5. Lampen, J. O. & Arnow, P. W. J. Bact. 82, 247–251 (1961).
6. Malewicz, B. & Borowski, E. J. gen. Microbiol. (in the press).
7. Borowski, E. & Cybulska, B. Nature 213, 1034–1035 (1967).
8. Lambert, P. A. & Hammond, S. M. Biochem. biophys. Res. Commun. 54, 796–799 (1973).
9. Pandey, R. C. & Rinehart, K. L. J. Antibiotics 23, 414–417 (1970).
10. Borowski, E. et al. Tetrahëdron Lett. 8, 685–690 (1971).
11. Schaffner, C. P. & Borowski, E. Antibiotics Chemother. 11, 724–732 (1961).
12. Kolodziejczyk, P. et al. Tetrahedron Lett. 40, 3603–3606 (1976).



© 1979 Nature Publishing Group
Privacy Policy