4.7 Article

Comparison of Verona Integron-Borne Metallo-β-Lactamase (VIM) Variants Reveals Differences in Stability and Inhibition Profiles

期刊

ANTIMICROBIAL AGENTS AND CHEMOTHERAPY
卷 60, 期 3, 页码 1377-1384

出版社

AMER SOC MICROBIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1128/AAC.01768-15

关键词

-

资金

  1. Rhodes Trust
  2. Scientific and Technology Council of Turkey
  3. Recep Tayyip Erdogan Universitesi Research Fund [BAP-2013.102.03.13]
  4. Medical Research Council [MR/L007665/1]
  5. Medical Research Council/Canadian Grant [G1100135]
  6. Biochemical Society Krebs Memorial Award
  7. Medical Research Council [G1100135, MR/L007665/1, MR/N002679/1] Funding Source: researchfish
  8. MRC [MR/L007665/1, G1100135, MR/N002679/1] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Metallo-beta-lactamases (MBLs) are of increasing clinical significance; the development of clinically useful MBL inhibitors is challenged by the rapid evolution of variant MBLs. The Verona integron-borne metallo-beta-lactamase (VIM) enzymes are among the most widely distributed MBLs, with > 40 VIM variants having been reported. We report on the crystallographic analysis of VIM-5 and comparison of biochemical and biophysical properties of VIM-1, VIM-2, VIM-4, VIM-5, and VIM-38. Recombinant VIM variants were produced and purified, and their secondary structure and thermal stabilities were investigated by circular dichroism analyses. Steady-state kinetic analyses with a representative panel of beta-lactam substrates were carried out to compare the catalytic efficiencies of the VIM variants. Furthermore, a set of metalloenzyme inhibitors were screened to compare their effects on the different VIM variants. The results reveal only small variations in the kinetic parameters of the VIM variants but substantial differences in their thermal stabilities and inhibition profiles. Overall, these results support the proposal that protein stability may be a factor in MBL evolution and highlight the importance of screening MBL variants during inhibitor development programs.

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