4.6 Article

Dissociation of human copper-zinc superoxide dismutase dimers using chaotrope and reductant - Insights into the molecular basis for dimer stability

期刊

JOURNAL OF BIOLOGICAL CHEMISTRY
卷 279, 期 52, 页码 54558-54566

出版社

AMER SOC BIOCHEMISTRY MOLECULAR BIOLOGY INC
DOI: 10.1074/jbc.M409744200

关键词

-

资金

  1. NIGMS NIH HHS [GM28222] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NINDS NIH HHS [NS39112, R01 NS039112] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The dissociation of apo- and metal-bound human copper-zinc superoxide dismutase (SOD1) dimers induced by the chaotrope guanidine hydrochloride (GdnHCl) or the reductant Tris(2-carboxyethyl) phosphine ( TCEP) has been analyzed using analytical ultracentrifugation. Global fitting of sedimentation equilibrium data under native solution conditions ( without GdnHCl or TCEP) demonstrate that both the apo- and metal-bound forms of SOD1 are stable dimers. Sedimentation velocity experiments show that apo- SOD1 dimers dissociate cooperatively over the range 0.5-1.0 M GdnHCl. In contrast, metal-bound SOD1 dimers possess a more compact shape and dissociate at significantly higher GdnHCl concentrations (2.0-3.0 M). Reduction of the intrasubunit disulfide bond within each SOD1 subunit by 5-10 mM TCEP promotes dissociation of apo- SOD1 dimers, whereas the metal-bound enzyme remains a stable dimer under these conditions. The Cys-57 --> Ser mutant of SOD1, a protein incapable of forming the intrasubunit disulfide bond, sediments as a monomer in the absence of metal ions and as a dimer when metals are bound. Taken together, these data indicate that the stability imparted to the human SOD1 dimer by metal binding and the formation of the intrasubunit disulfide bond are mediated by independent molecular mechanisms. By combining the sedimentation data with previous crystallographic results, a molecular explanation is provided for the existence of different SOD1 macromolecular shapes and multiple SOD1 dimeric species with different stabilities.

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