4.6 Article

Identification by site-directed mutagenesis and chemical modification of three vicinal cysteine residues in rat mitochondrial carnitine/acylcarnitine transporter

期刊

JOURNAL OF BIOLOGICAL CHEMISTRY
卷 280, 期 20, 页码 19607-19612

出版社

AMER SOC BIOCHEMISTRY MOLECULAR BIOLOGY INC
DOI: 10.1074/jbc.M411181200

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The proximity of the Cys residues present in the mitochondrial rat carnitine/acylcarnitine carrier (CAC) primary structure was studied by using site-directed mutagenesis in combination with chemical modification. CAC mutants, in which one or more Cys residues had been replaced with Ser, were overexpressed in Escherichia coli and reconstituted into liposomes. The effect of SH oxidizing, cross-linking, and coordinating reagents was evaluated on the carnitine/carnitine exchange catalyzed by the recombinant reconstituted CAC proteins. All the tested reagents efficiently inhibited the wild-type CAC. The inhibitory effect of diamide, Cu2+-phenanthroline, or phenylarsine oxide was largely reduced or abolished by the double substitutions C136S/C155S, C58S/C136S, and C58S/C155S. The decrease in sensitivity to these reagents was much lower in double mutants in which Cys(23) was substituted with Cys(136) or Cys(155). No decrease in inhibition was found when Cys(89) and/or Cys(283) were replaced with Ser. Sb3+, which coordinates three cysteines, inhibited only the Cys replacement mutants containing cysteines 58, 136, and 155 of the six native cysteines. In addition, the mutant C23S/C89S/C155S/C283S, in which double tandem fXa recognition sites were inserted in positions 65-72, i.e. between Cys(58) and Cys(136), was not cleaved into two fragments by fXa protease after treatment with diamide. These results are interpreted in light of the homology model of CAC based on the available x-ray structure of the ADP/ATP carrier. They indicate that Cys(58), Cys(136), and Cys(155) become close in the tertiary structure of the CAC during its catalytic cycle.

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