journal article·2025-05-21Open access

Unravelling Protein–Fungal Hyphae Interactions at the Nanoscale

Mary C. Okeudo-Cogan, Brent S. Murray, Rammile Ettelaie, Simon D. Connell, Michelle Peckham, Ruth E. Hughes, Martin J. G. Fuller, Stewart J. Radford, Anwesha Sarkar

ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces· Volume 17· Issue 20

Abstract

High Resolution Image Download MS PowerPoint Slide Fungal hyphae have demonstrated their importance in developing environmentally friendly, multiscale, composite assemblies where animal-derived proteins have been predominantly used as binders. Now, an ongoing challenge is to replace those high-performance animal protein binders with ecofriendly, plant-based alternatives. While the majority of studies have focused on the binding implied by rheological observations, relatively little is known about how such animal proteins bind to hyphal surfaces at nanometric length scales, and this knowledge is required to replace animal-derived binders with plant protein alternatives. Here, we decode intermolecular interactions of plant protein-based binders such as potato protein ( PoP) to fungal ( Fusarium venenatum ) hyphae in comparison to a classic animal protein-based binder (egg white protein, EWP ) using a suite of theoretical and experimental approaches. Self-consistent field calculations modeling fungal hyphae as weakly hydrophobic, parallel cylinders predicted differences in the interaction potentials between the model protein layers, showing that EWP had an attractive potential across a broad range of conditions, in contrast to PoP that was mainly repulsive. Stimulated emission depletion (STED) microscopy of protein-coated fungal hyphae confirmed that EWP delivers a uniform and complete coverage, while PoP naturally aggregates, resulting in more patchy coverage. Experimental interaction forces were measured using colloidal probe atomic force microscopy, confirming the influence of non-Coulombic forces particularly dominating in PoP, and attractive forces in EWP, further differentiating their respective binding mechanisms. Collectively, this multimethodological study provides a first-hand molecular explanation of the weaker hyphal-binding properties of aggregated plant proteins at the nanoscale, consistent with the previously reported macroscale observations.
Source: openalex_inverted_index · Quality: baseline

Research context

OpenAlex topics: Biochemical and Structural Characterization · Monoclonal and Polyclonal Antibodies Research · Cell Image Analysis Techniques

SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.

Affiliations

School of Chemical and Process Engineering

University of Leeds

Food Colloids and Bioprocessing Group, School of Food Science and Nutrition

School of Physics and Astronomy

Faculty of Biological Sciences

Quorn Foods, Station Road, Stokesley, North Yorkshire TS9 7AB, U.K.

Funding

Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council · Innovate UK · Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council · Quorn Foods, UK

References (50)

Show source-provided references
1. Khan A. · 2023 · 5 · 48110.1016/B978-0-323-91149-8.00008-9 ↗
2. 10.1016/j.stress.2023.10028310.1016/j.stress.2023.100283 ↗
3. 10.5114/bta.2023.12720910.5114/bta.2023.127209 ↗
4. García-Garibay M. · 2003 · 527710.1016/B0-12-227055-X/01088-9 ↗
5. Finnigan T. J. A. · 2011 · 33510.1533/9780857093639.335 ↗
6. 10.1016/j.foodhyd.2023.10860610.1016/j.foodhyd.2023.108606 ↗
7. Finnigan T. · 2017 · 30510.1016/B978-0-12-802778-3.00019-6 ↗
8. 10.1016/j.foodhyd.2023.10907710.1016/j.foodhyd.2023.109077 ↗
9. 10.1016/j.foodhyd.2023.10956910.1016/j.foodhyd.2023.109569 ↗
10. 10.1111/ijfs.1719210.1111/ijfs.17192 ↗
11. 10.1039/D3SM00855J10.1039/D3SM00855J ↗
12. 10.1016/j.foodhyd.2012.09.00610.1016/j.foodhyd.2012.09.006 ↗
13. 10.1039/A608417F10.1039/A608417F ↗
14. 10.1021/j100475a01210.1021/j100475a012 ↗
15. 10.1021/j100439a01110.1021/j100439a011 ↗
16. 10.1021/bm800771t10.1021/bm800771t ↗
17. 10.1006/jcis.1996.016610.1006/jcis.1996.0166 ↗
18. 10.1111/j.1432-1033.1981.tb05165.x10.1111/j.1432-1033.1981.tb05165.x ↗
19. 10.1071/BI978044310.1071/BI9780443 ↗
20. 10.1093/nar/14.11.462510.1093/nar/14.11.4625 ↗
21. 10.1080/00071668.2021.193440010.1080/00071668.2021.1934400 ↗
22. 10.1016/S0008-6215(00)80944-110.1016/S0008-6215(00)80944-1 ↗
23. 10.1007/BF0039368710.1007/BF00393687 ↗
24. 10.1074/jbc.M80967420010.1074/jbc.M809674200 ↗
25. 10.1016/S0001-8686(00)00036-110.1016/S0001-8686(00)00036-1 ↗
26. 10.1016/j.colsurfa.2024.13431910.1016/j.colsurfa.2024.134319 ↗
27. 10.1083/jcb.9.2.40910.1083/jcb.9.2.409 ↗
28. 10.1083/jcb.17.1.20810.1083/jcb.17.1.208 ↗
29. 10.1038/nmeth.201910.1038/nmeth.2019 ↗
30. 10.1021/jp309249510.1021/jp3092495 ↗
31. 10.1016/j.foodhyd.2016.03.00410.1016/j.foodhyd.2016.03.004 ↗
32. 10.1110/ps.0468820410.1110/ps.04688204 ↗
33. 10.1039/D2NA00696K10.1039/D2NA00696K ↗
34. 10.1016/j.cis.2003.08.00310.1016/j.cis.2003.08.003 ↗
35. 10.1016/j.foodhyd.2010.12.00110.1016/j.foodhyd.2010.12.001 ↗
36. 10.1016/j.foodres.2024.11465810.1016/j.foodres.2024.114658 ↗
37. Pots, A. M. Physico-Chemical Properties and Thermal Aggregation of Patatin, the Major Potato Tuber Protein S.l. 1999 https://edepot.wur.nl/196586.
38. 10.1016/j.foodhyd.2021.10669610.1016/j.foodhyd.2021.106696 ↗
39. 10.1021/jf990191t10.1021/jf990191t ↗
40. 10.1016/j.foodchem.2022.13311410.1016/j.foodchem.2022.133114 ↗
41. 10.3390/foods1004079610.3390/foods10040796 ↗
42. 10.1271/bbb.68.246610.1271/bbb.68.2466 ↗
43. 10.1039/D1CP01573G10.1039/D1CP01573G ↗
44. 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0290(19980105)57:110.1002/(SICI)1097-0290(19980105)57:1 ↗
45. 10.1021/acs.jafc.8b0390510.1021/acs.jafc.8b03905 ↗
46. 10.1111/1750-3841.1565110.1111/1750-3841.15651 ↗
47. 10.1021/la00021a02410.1021/la00021a024 ↗
48. 10.1021/la900123710.1021/la9001237 ↗
49. Hunter R. J. · 2000
50. 10.1016/S0927-7765(01)00304-610.1016/S0927-7765(01)00304-6 ↗