4.8 Article

Cofactor mobility determines reaction outcome in the IMPDH and GMPR (β-α)8 barrel enzymes

期刊

NATURE CHEMICAL BIOLOGY
卷 7, 期 12, 页码 950-958

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/NCHEMBIO.693

关键词

-

资金

  1. US National Institutes of Health (NIH) [GM54403, P41 RR001081]
  2. Swedish Research Council
  3. Swedish Cancer Society
  4. Wenner-Gren Foundations
  5. Swedish Foundation for Strategic Research
  6. National Science Foundation, Division of Biological Infrastructure [DBI-0100085]
  7. Canadian Institutes for Health Research
  8. Canadian Foundation for Innovation, Genome Canada through the Ontario Genomics Institute
  9. GlaxoSmithKline
  10. Karolinska Institutet
  11. Knut and Alice Wallenberg Foundation
  12. Ontario Innovation Trust
  13. Ontario Ministry for Research and Innovation
  14. Merck Co., Inc.
  15. Novartis Research Foundation
  16. Swedish Agency for Innovation Systems
  17. Wellcome Trust

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Inosine monophosphate dehydrogenase (IMPDH) and guanosine monophosphate reductase (GMPR) belong to the same structural family, share a common set of catalytic residues and bind the same ligands. The structural and mechanistic features that determine reaction outcome in the IMPDH and GMPR family have not been identified. Here we show that the GMPR reaction uses the same intermediate E-XMP star as IMPDH, but in this reaction the intermediate reacts with ammonia instead of water. A single crystal structure of human GMPR type 2 with IMP and NADPH fortuitously captures three different states, each of which mimics a distinct step in the catalytic cycle of GMPR. The cofactor is found in two conformations: an 'in' conformation poised for hydride transfer and an 'out' conformation in which the cofactor is 6 angstrom from IMP. Mutagenesis along with substrate and cofactor analog experiments demonstrate that the out conformation is required for the deamination of GMP. Remarkably, the cofactor is part of the catalytic machinery that activates ammonia.

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