4.8 Article

Identification of the protein receptor binding site of botulinum neurotoxins B and G oroves the double-receptor concept

出版社

NATL ACAD SCIENCES
DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0609713104

关键词

synaptotagmin; tetanus

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Botulinum neurotoxins (BoNTs) cause muscle paralysis by selectively cleaving core components of the vesicular fusion machinery within motoneurons. Complex gangliosides initially bind into a pocket that is conserved among the seven BoNTs and tetanus neurotoxin. Productive neurotoxin uptake also requires protein receptors. The interaction site of the protein receptor within the neurotoxin is currently unknown. We report the identification and characterization of the protein receptor binding site of BoNT/B and BoNT/G. Their protein receptors, synaptotagimins I and II, bind to a pocket at the tip of their H-cc (C-terminal domain of the C-terminal fragment of the heavy chain) that corresponds to the unique second carbohydrate binding site of tetanus neurotoxin, the sialic acid binding site. Substitution of amino acids in this region impaired binding to synaptotagmins and drastically decreased toxicity at mouse phrenic nerve preparations; CD-spectroscopic analyses evidenced that the secondary structure of the mutated neurotoxins was unaltered. Deactivation of the synaptotagmin binding site by single mutations led to virtually inactive BoNT/B and BoNT/G when assayed at phrenic nerve preparations of complex-ganglioside-deficient mice. Analogously, a BoNT B mutant with deactivated ganglioside and synaptotagmin binding sites lacked appreciable activity at wild-type mouse phrenic nerve preparations. Thus, these data exclude relevant contributions of any cell surface molecule other than one ganglioside and one protein receptor to the entry process of BoNTs, which substantiates the double-receptor concept. The molecular characterization of the synaptotagmin binding site provides the basis for designing a novel class of potent binding inhibitors.

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