4.7 Article

Systematic Analysis of Metallo-β-Lactamases Using an Automated Database

期刊

ANTIMICROBIAL AGENTS AND CHEMOTHERAPY
卷 56, 期 7, 页码 3481-3491

出版社

AMER SOC MICROBIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1128/AAC.00255-12

关键词

-

资金

  1. Federal Ministry of Education and Research of Germany [VNB 04/B12, FKZ 0315406]
  2. Research Corporation for Science Advancement [10493]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Metallo-beta-lactamases (MBLs) are enzymes that hydrolyze beta-lactam antibiotics, resulting in bacterial resistance to these drugs. These proteins have caused concerns due to their facile transference, broad substrate spectra, and the absence of clinically useful inhibitors. To facilitate the classification, nomenclature, and analysis of MBLs, an automated database system was developed, the Metallo-beta-Lactamase Engineering Database (MBLED) (http://www.mbled.uni-stuttgart.de). It contains information on MBLs retrieved from the NCBI peptide database while strictly following the nomenclature by Jacoby and Bush (http://www.lahey.org/Studies/) and the generally accepted class B beta-lactamase (BBL) standard numbering scheme for MBLs. The database comprises 597 MBL protein sequences and enables systematic analyses of these sequences. A systematic analysis employing the database resulted in the generation of mutation profiles of assigned IMP- and VIM-type MBLs, the identification of five MBL protein entries from the NCBI peptide database that were inconsistent with the Jacoby and Bush nomenclature, and the identification of 15 new IMP candidates and 9 new VIM candidates. Furthermore, the database was used to identify residues with high mutation frequencies and variability (mutation hot spots) that were unexpectedly distant from the active site located in the beta beta sandwich: positions 208 and 266 in the IMP family and positions 215 and 258 in the VIM family. We expect that the MBLED will be a valuable tool for systematically cataloguing and analyzing the increasing number of MBLs being reported.

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

4.7
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