4.7 Article

Copper-Binding Properties and Structures of Methanobactins from Methylosinus trichosporium OB3b

期刊

INORGANIC CHEMISTRY
卷 50, 期 4, 页码 1378-1391

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/ic101965j

关键词

-

资金

  1. NERC [NE/F0060-8X/1]
  2. Natural Environment Research Council [NE/F00608X/1, NE/G01003X/1] Funding Source: researchfish
  3. NERC [NE/G01003X/1, NE/F00608X/1] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Methanobactins (mbs) are a class of copper-binding peptides produced by aerobic methane oxidizing bacteria (methanotrophs) that have been linked to the substantial copper needs of these environmentally important microorganisms. The only characterized mbs are those from Methylosinus trichosporium OB3b and Methylocystis strain SB2. M. trichosporium OB3b produces a second mb (mb-Met), which is missing the C-terminal Met residue from the full-length form (FL-mb). The as-isolated copper-loaded mbs bind Cu(I). The absence of the Met has little influence on the structure of the Cu(I) site, and both molecules mediate switchover from the soluble iron methane monooxygenase to the particulate copper-containing enzyme in M. trichosporium OB3b cells. Cu(II) is reduced in the presence of the mbs under our experimental conditions, and the disulfide plays no role in this process. The Cu(I) affinities of these molecules are extremely high with values of (6-7) x 10(20) M-1 determined at pH >= 8.0. The affinity for Cu(I) is 1 order of magnitude lower at pH 6.0. The reduction potentials of copper-loaded FL-mb and mb-Met are 640 and 590 mV respectively, highlighting the strong preference for Cu(I) and indicating different Cu(II) affinities for the two forms. Cleavage of the disulfide bridge results in a decrease in the Cu(I) affinity to similar to 9 x 10(18) M-1 at pH 7.5. The two thiolates can also bind Cu(I), albeit with much lower affinity (similar to 3 x 10(15) M-1 at pH 7.5). The high affinity of mbs for Cu(I) is consistent with a physiological role in copper uptake and protection.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据