4.4 Article

Mutational analysis of metallo-β-lactamase CcrA from Bacteroides fragilis

Journal

BIOCHEMISTRY
Volume 39, Issue 37, Pages 11330-11339

Publisher

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/bi0010524

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. NIAID NIH HHS [R29 AI40052] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In an effort to evaluate the roles of Lys184, Asn193, and Asp103 in the binding and catalysis of metallo-beta-lactamase CcrA from Bacteroides fragilis, site-directed mutants of CcrA were generated and characterized using metal analyses, CD spectroscopy, and kinetic studies. Three Lys184 mutants were generated where the lysine was replaced with alanine, leucine, and glutamate, and the analysis of these mutants indicates that Lys184 is not greatly involved in binding of cephalosporins to CcrA; however, this residue does have a significant role in binding of penicillin G. Three Asn193 mutants were generated where the asparagine was replaced with alanine, leucine, and aspartate, and these mutants exhibited <4-fold decrease in k(cat) suggesting that Asn193 does not play a large role in catalysis. However, stopped flow visible kinetic studies showed that the Asn193 mutants exhibit a slower substrate decay rate and no change in the product formation rate as compared with wild-type CcrA. These results support the proposed role of Asn193 in interacting with and activating substrate during catalysis. Two Asp103 mutants were generated where the aspartate was replaced with serine and cysteine. The D103C and D103S mutants bind the same amount of Zn(II) as wild-type CcrA and exhibited a 10(2)-fold and 10(5)-fold decrease in activity, respectively. Results from solvent isotope, proton inventory, and rapid-scanning visible studies suggest that Asp103 plays a role in generating the enzyme intermediate but does not donate a proton to the enzyme intermediate during the rate-limiting step of the catalytic mechanism.

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