Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2010 Nov 24.
Published in final edited form as: Biochemistry. 2009 Nov 24;48(46):10976–10987. doi: 10.1021/bi901291c

Table 3.

Effect of ligand binding on Cu-P(Cu (II)-1, 10-phenanthroline) stimulated disulfide bond formation1

Receptor No treatment Cu -P2 α, Cu-P3 A, Cu-P4

FT-HT-Xa 15.0 ± 4.4 12.0 ± 0.1 13.1 ± 0.2 12.2 ± 0.1

TM1 L64C 15.8 ± 0.1 11.3 ± 0.4 14.6 ± 1.0 13.6 ± 0.8
T65C 16.2 ± 0.1 14.4 ± 0.1 15.9 ± 0.3 12.8 ± 0.3
L66C 12.3 ± 0.4 11.9 ± 1.0 13.2 ± 0.4 11.9 ± 0.8
I67C 19.3 ± 4.5 17.0 ± 0.1 17.4 ± 4.1 18.0 ± 2.0
V68C 28.5 ± 3.2 99.2 ± 0.1 98.3 ± 0.8 98.8 ± 0.1
M69C 17.7 ± 6.9 14.2 ± 5.0 17.0 ± 6.4 28.9 ± 10.2

TM7 T278C 15.1 ± 0.8 65.8 ± 8.8 12.5 ± 0.1 12.4 ± 0.1
T279C 17.3 ± 0.3 10.1 ± 2.3 15.8 ± 0.2 10.9 ± 2.7
V280C 15.3 ± 2.1 14.7 ± 1.5 16.3 ± 0.6 12.4 ± 0.1
A281C 16.8 ± 0.5 11.9 ± 0.6 14.3 ± 1.5 11.3 ± 0.1
T282C 11.7 ± 0.3 15.4 ± 0.1 12.0 ± 0.8 11.7 ± 0.1
L283C 16.6 ± 0.4 15.7 ± 0.2 13.3 ± 0.1 10.7 ± 3.5
L284C 15.2 ± 0.1 12.0 ± 0.2 17.7 ± 3.0 15.3 ± 0.1
A285C 16.5 ± 0.8 53.5 ± 8.3 16.5 ± 2.1 17.7 ± 0.5
V286C 15.6 ± 0.4 17.0 ± 0.3 13.2 ± 2.0 15.9 ± 0.4
L287C 16.0 ± 0.1 14.3 ± 1.3 11.3 ± 1.7 16.0 ± 1.8
S288C 14.7 ± 1.0 14.7 ± 1.5 11.5 ± 0.6 12.6 ± 0.2
L289C 26.8 ± 2.0 61.0 ± 9.8 50.2 ± 12.9 40.9 ± 8.2
L291C 31.8 ± 0.4 66.4 ± 0.1 52.0 ± 8.8 44.5 ± 5.6
S292C 30.2 ± 8.3 82.3 ± 0.4 75.5 ± 11.4 65.9 ± 0.2
S293C 21.1 ± 0.7 70.2 ± 5.3 38.5 ± 8.3 44.0 ± 0.1
M294C 27.0 ± 7.6 75.6 ± 1.0 57.8 ± 0.7 50.8 ± 1.0
W295C 15.7 ± 0.2 95.2 ± 0.7 76.2 ± 0.6 86.3 ± 0.1
A296C 14.8 ± 2.1 91.1 ± 1.0 73.6 ± 1.5 82.1 ± 0.8
1

The intensity of the monomer and dimer signal was measured by densitometry and the ratio of the signals was determined. The percentage of dimer was calculated as [Dimer/(Dimer+Monomer) ×100].

2

Cu-P = Cu-P(Cu (II)-1, 10-phenanthroline) treatment.

3

α, Cu-P = membranes treated with alpha-factor and Cu-P(Cu (II)-1, 10-phenanthroline).

4

A,Cu-P = membranes treated with antagonist and Cu-P(Cu (II)-1, 10-phenanthroline).