4.6 Article

Scrambled isomers as key intermediates in the oxidative folding of ligand binding module 5 of the low density lipoprotein receptor

期刊

JOURNAL OF BIOLOGICAL CHEMISTRY
卷 283, 期 20, 页码 13627-13637

出版社

AMER SOC BIOCHEMISTRY MOLECULAR BIOLOGY INC
DOI: 10.1074/jbc.M800755200

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The ligand binding module five (LA5) of the low density lipoprotein receptor is a small, single-domain protein of 40 residues and three disulfide bonds with a calcium binding motif that is essential for its structure and function. Several mutations in LA5 have been reported to cause familial hypercholesterolemia by impairing a proper folding of the module. The current study reports the oxidative folding and reductive unfolding pathways of wild type and mutant LA5 modules through kinetic and structural analysis of the trapped intermediates. Wild type LA5 folding involves an initial phase of nonspecific packing where the sequential oxidation of its cysteines gives rise to complex equilibrated populations of intermediates. In the presence of calcium, the attainment of a coordination-competent conformation becomes the rate-limiting step of folding while binding of the ion funnels both thermodynamically and kinetically the folding reaction toward the native state. In the absence of calcium, a scrambled isomer (termed Xa) constitutes the global free energy minimum of the folding process. Xa and the native form are stable, inter-convertible species whose relative populations at equilibrium appear displaced in disease-linked mutants toward the scrambled form. Because stable scrambled isomers such as Xa avoid the exposition of reactive cysteines in misfolded modules, they might constitute a strategy to prevent wrong interactions with other domains during folding of the receptor. Comparison of the folding pathways of wild type and mutant LA5 provides the molecular basis to understand how LA modules fold into a functional conformation or upon mutation misfold and lead to disease.

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

4.6
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