4.8 Article

Crystal structures of the CusA efflux pump suggest methionine-mediated metal transport

期刊

NATURE
卷 467, 期 7314, 页码 484-U140

出版社

NATURE RESEARCH
DOI: 10.1038/nature09395

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health (NIH), National Center for Research Resources [RR-15301]
  2. US Department of Energy, Office of Basic Energy Sciences [DE-AC02-06CH11357]
  3. NIH [GM074027, GM086431, GM081680, GM072014]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Gram-negative bacteria, such as Escherichia coli, frequently use tripartite efflux complexes in the resistance-nodulation-cell division (RND) family to expel various toxic compounds from the cell(1,2). The efflux system CusCBA is responsible for extruding biocidal Cu(I) and Ag(I) ions(3,4). No previous structural information was available for the heavy-metal efflux (HME) subfamily of the RND efflux pumps. Here we describe the crystal structures of the inner-membrane transporter CusA in the absence and presence of bound Cu(I) or Ag(I). These CusA structures provide new structural information about the HME subfamily of RND efflux pumps. The structures suggest that the metal-binding sites, formed by a three-methionine cluster, are located within the cleft region of the periplasmic domain. This cleft is closed in the apo-CusA form but open in the CusA-Cu(I) and CusA-Ag(I) structures, which directly suggests a plausible pathway for ion export. Binding of Cu(I) and Ag(I) triggers significant conformational changes in both the periplasmic and transmembrane domains. The crystal structure indicates that CusA has, in addition to the three-methionine metal-binding site, four methionine pairs-three located in the transmembrane region and one in the periplasmic domain. Genetic analysis and transport assays suggest that CusA is capable of actively picking up metal ions from the cytosol, using these methionine pairs or clusters to bind and export metal ions. These structures suggest a stepwise shuttle mechanism for transport between these sites.

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

4.8
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