A, hydropathy profile calculated according to Kyte and Doolittle (52) with a window size of 19 residues. Increasing hydropathy is upward, and the six potential transmembrane segments are indicated by horizontal bars and lettered A–F. B, summary of hBest1 modifications. Top, MTSET modification of endogenous and introduced cysteines. Endogenous cysteine 69 and cysteine substitutions at positions 78, 79, 80, 83, 84, 87, 90, 99, 223, and 226 showed clear alterations in membrane current following exposure to MTSET; these positions are represented by bars above the horizontal line. Cysteine substitutions at positions 12, 16, 60, 71, 74, 86, 95, 108, 133, 169, 185, 225, 231, 268, and 293 produced whole-cell currents that were unaffected or minimally affected by exposure to MTSET; these are represented by bars below the horizontal line. Cysteine substitutions that produced little or no measurable whole-cell current are not shown. Center, N-glycosylation site insertions. Insertions after positions 60, 63, 212, 218, 223, 227, 261, 264, and 267 were glycosylated and are therefore presumed to face the vesicle lumen, topologically equivalent to the outside of the cell; these are represented by bars above the horizontal line. Insertions after positions 10, 14, 56, 98, 154, 166, 177, 180, 193, 197, 326, 333, 427, and 576 were not glycosylated and are represented by shorter bars below the horizontal line. Bottom, TEVP cleavage site insertions. Insertions after positions 10, 154, 323, 355, 416, and 498 showed moderate or strong TEVP cleavage in the absence of added detergent and are therefore presumed to face the cytosol; they are represented by bars below the horizontal line, with bar height correlating with cleavage efficiency. Insertions after positions 63 and 261 showed enhanced TEVP cleavage in the presence of added detergent and are therefore presumed to face the vesicle lumen; these are represented by bars with circles above the horizontal line. Insertions that show very weak cleavage are represented by the smallest bars (positions 56, 60, 118, and 218) and were not incorporated into the transmembrane topography model. C, comparison of five models of hBest1 transmembrane topography. The four models on the left represent the most favored predictions based only on the hydropathy profile (see “Discussion”). The fifth model (right) accounts for the experimental data presented here. It is decorated with the locations of informative insertions of glycosylation sites (schematic sugar chains on the outer face of the protein), TEVP cleavage sites (scissors on the inner face of the protein), and the sites of cysteine modification by MTSET (solid circles).