4.6 Article

Protonation equilibria and pore-opening structure of the dual-histidine influenza B virus M2 transmembrane proton channel from solid-state NMR

期刊

JOURNAL OF BIOLOGICAL CHEMISTRY
卷 292, 期 43, 页码 17876-17884

出版社

AMER SOC BIOCHEMISTRY MOLECULAR BIOLOGY INC
DOI: 10.1074/jbc.M117.813998

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health [GM088204]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The influenza A and B viruses are the primary cause of seasonal flu epidemics. Common to both viruses is the M2 protein, a homotetrameric transmembrane proton channel that acidifies the virion after endocytosis. Although influenza A M2 (AM2) and B M2 (BM2) are functional analogs, they have little sequence homology, except for a conserved HXXXW motif, which is responsible for proton selectivity and channel gating. Importantly, BM2contains a second titratable histidine, His-27, in the tetrameric transmembrane domain that forms a reverse WXXXH motif with the gating tryptophan. To understand how His-27 affects the proton conduction property of BM2, we have used solid-state NMR to characterize the pH-dependent structure and dynamics of His-27. In cholesterol-containing lipid membranes mimicking the virus envelope, N-15 NMR spectra show that the His-27 tetrad protonates with higher pKa values than His-19, indicating that the solvent-accessible His-27 facilitates proton conduction of the channel by increasing the proton dissociation rates of His-19. AM2is inhibited by the amantadine class of antiviral drugs, whereas BM2 has no known inhibitors. Wemeasured the N-terminal interhelical separation of the BM2 channel using fluorinated Phe-5. The interhelical F-19-F-19 distances show a bimodal distribution of a short distance of 7 angstrom and a long distance of 15-20 angstrom, indicating that the phenylene rings do not block small-molecule entry into the channel pore. These results give insights into the lack of amantadine inhibition of BM2 and reveal structural diversities in this family of viral proton channels.

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