4.8 Article

PLP and GABA trigger GabR-mediated transcription regulation in Bacillus subtilis via external aldimine formation

出版社

NATL ACAD SCIENCES
DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1703019114

关键词

MocR; GabR; PLP; external aldimine; transcription activation

资金

  1. NIH [1R15GM113229-01]
  2. Loyola University Chicago
  3. National Cancer Institute [ACB-12002]
  4. National Institute of General Medical Sciences [AGM-12006]
  5. National Institute on Drug Abuse [DA030604]
  6. US Department of Energy, Basic Energy Sciences, Office of Science [DE-AC02-06CH11357]
  7. International Institute of Nanotechnology

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The Bacillus subtilis protein regulator of the gabTD operon and its own gene (GabR) is a transcriptional activator that regulates transcription of gamma-aminobutyric acid aminotransferase (GABA-AT; GabT) upon interactions with pyridoxal-5'-phosphate (PLP) and GABA, and thereby promotes the biosynthesis of glutamate from GABA. We show here that the external aldimine formed between PLP and GABA is apparently responsible for triggering the GabR-mediated transcription activation. Details of the active site in the structure of the GabR effector-binding/oligomerization (Eb/O) domain suggest that binding a monocarboxylic.-amino acid such as GABA should be preferred over dicarboxylic acid ligands. A reactive GABA analog, (S)-4-amino-5-fluoropentanoic acid (AFPA), was used as a molecular probe to examine the reactivity of PLP in both GabR and a homologous aspartate aminotransferase (Asp-AT) from Escherichia coli as a control. A comparison between the structures of the Eb/O-PLP-AFPA complex and Asp-AT-PLP-AFPA complex revealed that GabR is incapable of facilitating further steps of the transamination reaction after the formation of the external aldimine. Results of in vitro and in vivo assays using full-length GabR support the conclusion that AFPA is an agonistic ligand capable of triggering GabR-mediated transcription activation via formation of an external aldimine with PLP.

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