4.3 Article

Unfolded, oxidized, and thermoinactivated forms of glyceraldehyde-3-phosphate dehydrogenase interact with the chaperonin GroEL in different ways

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.bbapap.2006.02.002

关键词

glyceraldehyde-3-phosphate dehydrogenase; GroEL; oxidation; protein folding

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The interaction of GroEL with different denatured forms of glyceraldehyde-3-phosphate dehydrogenase* (GAPDH) has been investigated. GroEL does not prevent thermal denaturation of GAPDH, but effectively interacts with the thermodenatured enzyme, thus preventing the aggregation of denatured molecules. Binding of the thermodenatured GAPDH shifts the T-m value of the GroEL thermodenaturation curve by 3 degrees towards higher temperatures and increases the Delta H-cal value 1.44-fold. indicating a significant increase in the thermal stability of the resulting complex. GAPDH thermodenatured in the presence of GroEL cannot be reactivated by the addition of GroES, Mg2+, and ATP. In contrast, GAPDH denatured in guanidine hydrochloride (GAPDH(den)) is reactivated in the presence of GroEL, GroES, Mg2+, and ATP, yielding 11-15% of its original activity, while the spontaneous reactivation yields only 2-3%. The oxidation of GAPDH with hydrogen peroxide in the presence of 4 M guanidine hydrochloride results in the formation of the enzyme (GAPDH(ox)) that cannot acquire its native conformation and binds to GroEL irreversibly. Binding of GAPDH(ox) to one of the GroEL rings completely inhibits the GroEL-assisted reactivation of GAPDH,,,,,, but does not affect the GroEL-assisted reactivation of lactate dehydrogenase (LDH). The data suggest that LDH can be successfully reactivated due to the binding of the denatured molecules to the apical domain of the opposite GroEL ring with their subsequent release into the Solution Without encapsulation (trans-mechanism). In contrast, GAPDH requires the hydrophilic cavity for the reactivation (cis-mechanism). (c) 2006 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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

4.3
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