4.4 Article

A comparison of methionine, histidine and cysteine in copper(I)-binding peptides reveals differences relevant to copper uptake by organisms in diverse environments

Journal

METALLOMICS
Volume 3, Issue 1, Pages 61-73

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1039/c0mt00044b

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. National Science Foundation [0449699]
  2. National Center for Research Resources at the National Institutes of Health [P20 RR-016461]
  3. Sloan Foundation
  4. Department of Energy, Office of Biological and Environmental Research
  5. National Institutes of Health, National Center for Research Resources

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The N-terminal, extracellular regions of eukaryotic high affinity copper transport (Ctr) proteins vary in composition of the Cu(I) binding amino acids: methionine, histidine, and cysteine. To examine why certain amino acids are exploited over others in Ctrs from different organisms, the relative Cu(I) binding affinity and the dependence of binding on pH were examined for 3 peptides of the sequence MG(2)XG(2)MK, where X is either Met, His, or Cys. Cu(I) affinity was examined using an ascorbic acid oxidation assay, an electrospray ionization mass spectrometry technique, and spectrophotometric titration with a competitive Cu(I) chelator. The relative affinities of the peptides with Cu(I) reveal a trend whereby Cys > His > Met at pH 7.4 and Cys > Met > His at pH 4.5. Ligand geometry and metric parameters were determined with X-ray absorption spectroscopy. Susceptibility of the peptides to oxidation by hydrogen peroxide and copper-catalyzed oxidative conditions was evaluated by mass spectrometry. These results support hypotheses as to why certain Cu(I) binding amino acids are preferred over others in proteins expressed at different pH and exposed to oxidative environments. The results also have implications for interpreting site-directed mutagenesis studies aimed at identifying copper binding amino acids in copper trafficking proteins.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available