4.5 Article

Structural comparison of the cytochrome P450 enzymes CYP106A1 and CYP106A2 provides insight into their differences in steroid conversion

Journal

FEBS LETTERS
Volume 596, Issue 24, Pages 3133-3144

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/1873-3468.14502

Keywords

crystal structure; Cytochrome P450; docking; oxidoreductase; steroid conversion

Funding

  1. DFG [INST 256/275-1 FUGG, INST 256/299-1 FUGG]
  2. Staatskanzlei des Saarlandes
  3. Landesforschungsforderungsprogramm des Saarlandes (LFFP) [11/02, 15/04]
  4. Projekt DEAL

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study revealed the crystal structure of cytochrome P450 CYP106A1 from Priestia megaterium, which shows a rare sixth beta-sheet. Comparison with the previously studied CYP106A2 and docking studies with the substrate cortisol revealed a different orientation of the steroid molecule in the active sites, explaining the observed differences in substrate conversion and product formation by the two enzymes.
Understanding the structural basis of the selectivity of steroid hydroxylation requires detailed structural and functional investigations on various steroid hydroxylases with different selectivities, such as the bacterial cytochrome P450 enzymes. Here, the crystal structure of the cytochrome P450 CYP106A1 from Priestia megaterium was solved. CYP106A1 exhibits a rare additional structural motif of a cytochrome P450, a sixth beta-sheet. The protein was found in different unusual conformations corresponding to both open and closed forms even when crystallized without any known substrate. The structural comparison of CYP106A1 with the previously investigated CYP106A2, including docking studies for both isoforms with the substrate cortisol, reveals a completely different orientation of the steroid molecule in the active sites. This distinction convincingly explains the experimentally observed differences in substrate conversion and product formation by the two enzymes.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available