4.7 Article

SecB-Mediated Protein Export Need Not Occur via Kinetic Partitioning

Journal

JOURNAL OF MOLECULAR BIOLOGY
Volume 385, Issue 4, Pages 1243-1256

Publisher

ACADEMIC PRESS LTD- ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jmb.2008.10.094

Keywords

protein translocation; folding kinetics; chaperones; maltose-binding protein

Funding

  1. Department of Biotechnology and the Department of Science and Technology, Government of India

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In Escherichia coli, the cytosolic chaperone SecB is responsible for the selective entry of a subset of precursor proteins into the Sec pathway. In vitro, SecB binds to a variety of unfolded substrates without apparent sequence specificity, but not native proteins. Selectivity has therefore been suggested to occur by kinetic partitioning of substrates between protein SecB association. Evidence for kinetic partitioning is based on earlier observations that SecB blocks the refolding of the precursor form of maltose-binding protein (preMBP)(5) and slow-folding maltose-binding protein (MBP) mutants, but not faster-folding mature wild-type MBP. In order to quantitatively validate the kinetic partitioning model, we have independently measured each of the rate constants involved in the interaction of SecB with refolding preMBP (a physiological substrate of SecB) and mature MBP. The measured rate constants correctly predict substrate folding kinetics over a wide range of SecB, MBP, and preMBP concentrations. Analysis of the data reveals that, for many substrates, kinetic partitioning is unlikely to be responsible for SecB-mediated protein export. Instead, the ability of SecB-bound substrates to continue folding while bound to SecB and their ability to interact with other components of the secretory machinery such as SecA may be key opposing determinants that inhibit and promote protein export, respectively. (C) 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available