4.6 Article

Crystal structure of enoyl-acyl carrier protein reductase (FabK) from Streptococcus pneumoniae reveals the binding mode of an inhibitor

期刊

PROTEIN SCIENCE
卷 17, 期 4, 页码 691-699

出版社

COLD SPRING HARBOR LAB PRESS, PUBLICATIONS DEPT
DOI: 10.1110/ps.073288808

关键词

FabK; enoyl-acyl carrier protein reductase; fatty acid biosynthesis; antibiotics; inhibitor

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Enoyl-acyl carrier protein (ACP) reductases are critical for bacterial type II fatty acid biosynthesis and thus are attractive targets for developing novel antibiotics. We determined the crystal structure of enoyl ACP reductase (FabK) from Streptococcus pneumoniae at 1.7 angstrom resolution. There was one dimer per asymmetric unit. Each subunit formed a triose phosphate isomerase (TIM) barrel structure, and flavin mononucleotide (FMN) was bound as a cofactor in the active site. The overall structure was similar to the enoyl-ACP reductase (ER) of fungal fatty acid synthase and to 2-nitropropane dioxygenase (2-ND) from Pseudomonas aeruginosa, although there were some differences among these structures. We determined the crystal structure of FabK in complex with a phenylimidazole derivative inhibitor to envision the binding site interactions. The crystal structure reveals that the inhibitor binds to a hydrophobic pocket in the active site of FabK, and this is accompanied by induced-fit movements of two loop regions. The thiazole ring and part of the ureido moiety of the inhibitor are involved in a face-to-face pi-pi stacking interaction with the isoalloxazine ring of FMN. The side-chain conformation of the proposed catalytic residue, His144, changes upon complex formation. Lineweaver-Burk plots indicate that the inhibitor binds competitively with respect to NADH, and uncompetitively with respect to crotonoyl coenzyme A. We propose that the primary basis of the inhibitory activity is competition with NADH for binding to FabK, which is the first step of the two-step ping-pong catalytic mechanism.

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