4.8 Article

A single intact ATPase site of the ABC transporter BtuCD drives 5% transport activity yet supports full in vivo vitamin B12 utilization

出版社

NATL ACAD SCIENCES
DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1209644110

关键词

cooperativity; membrane permeation; membrane proteins

资金

  1. Israeli Academy of Sciences
  2. Mallat Family Research Foundation
  3. European Research Council

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In all kingdoms of life, ATP binding cassette (ABC) transporters are essential to many cellular functions. In this large superfamily of proteins, two catalytic sites hydrolyze ATP to power uphill substrate translocation. A central question in the field concerns the relationship between the two ATPase catalytic sites: Are the sites independent of one another? Are both needed for function? Do they function cooperatively? These issues have been resolved for type I ABC transporters but never for a type II ABC transporter. The many mechanistic differences between type I and type II ABC transporters raise the question whether in respect to ATP hydrolysis the two subtypes are similar or different. We have addressed this question by studying the Escherichia coli vitamin B-12 type II ABC transporter BtuCD. We have constructed and purified a series of BtuCD variants where both, one, or none of the ATPase sites were rendered inactive by mutation. We find that, in a membrane environment, the ATPase sites of BtuCDare highly cooperative with a Hill coefficient of 2. We also find that, when one of the ATPase sites is inactive, ATP hydrolysis and vitamin B-12 transport by BtuCD is reduced by 95%. These exact features are also shared by the archetypical type I maltose ABC transporter. Remarkably, mutants that have lost 95% of their ATPase and transport capabilities still retain the ability to fully use vitamin B-12 in vivo. The results demonstrate that, despite the many differences between type I and type II ABC transporters, the fundamental mechanism of ATP hydrolysis remains conserved.

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