4.8 Article

Iron enzyme ribulose-5-phosphate 3-epimerase in Escherichia coli is rapidly damaged by hydrogen peroxide but can be protected by manganese

出版社

NATL ACAD SCIENCES
DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1100410108

关键词

hydroxyl radical; MntH; oxidative damage; OxyR

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health [GM049640]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

H2O2 is commonly generated in biological habitats by environmental chemistry and by cellular immune responses. H2O2 penetrates cells, disrupts metabolism, and blocks growth; it therefore is of interest to identify the major cellular molecules that H2O2 damages and the strategies by which cells protect themselves from it. We used a strain of Escherichia coli that lacks catalases and peroxidases to impose protracted low-grade H2O2 stress. Physiological analysis indicated that the pentose-phosphate pathway, in particular, was poisoned by submicromolar intracellular H2O2. Assays determined that ribulose-5-phosphate 3-epimerase (Rpe) was specifically inactivated. In vitro studies demonstrated that Rpe employs a ferrous iron atom as a solvent-exposed cofactor and that H2O2 rapidly oxidizes this metal in a Fenton reaction. The oxidized iron is released immediately, causing a loss of activity. Most Rpe proteins could be reactivated by remetallation; however, a small fraction of proteins were irreversibly damaged by each oxidation cycle, and so repeated cycles of oxidation and remetallation progressively led to permanent inactivation of the entire Rpe pool. Manganese import and iron sequestration are key elements of the H2O2 stress response, and we found that manganese can activate Rpe in vitro in place of iron, converting the enzyme to a form that is unaffected by H2O2. Indeed, the provision of manganese to H2O2-stressed cells protected Rpe and enabled the pentose-phosphate pathway to retain function. These data indicate that mononuclear iron enzymes can be primary targets of H2O2 stress and that cells adapt by shifting from iron-to manganese-centered metabolism.

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