4.4 Article Proceedings Paper

Structure, function and evolution of the Archaeal class I fructose-1,6-bisphosphate aldolase

期刊

BIOCHEMICAL SOCIETY TRANSACTIONS
卷 32, 期 -, 页码 259-263

出版社

PORTLAND PRESS LTD
DOI: 10.1042/BST0320259

关键词

Archaea; aystal structure; decanner; fructose1,6-bisphosphate aldolase (FBP aidolase); glycolysis; triosephosphate isomerase (TIM) barnel evolution

向作者/读者索取更多资源

FBPA (fructose-1,6-bisphosphate aldolase) catalyses the reversible aldol condensation of glycefaldehyde 3-phosphate and dihydroxyacetone phosphate to form fructose 1,6-bisphosphate. Two classes of FBPA, which rely on different reaction mechanisms, have so far been discovered, class I mainly found in Eucarya and class 11 mainly in Bacteria. Only recently were genes encoding proteins with FBPA activity identified in Archaea. Archaeal FBPAs do not share any significant overall sequence identity with members of the traditional classes of FBPAs, raising the interesting question of whether they have evolved independently by convergent evolution or diverged from a common ancestor. Biochemical characterization of FBPAs of the two hyperthermophilic Archaea Thermoproteus tenox and Pyrococcus furiosus showed that the enzymes use a Schiff-base mechanism and thus belong to the class I aldolases. The crystal structure of the archaeal FBPA from T. tenox revealed that the protein fold, as for the classical FBPA I and 11, is that of a parallel (betaalpha)(8) barrel. A substrate-bound crystal structure allowed detailed active-site comparisons which showed the conservation of six important catalytic and substrate-binding residues between the archaeal and the classical FBPA I. This observation provides further evidence that the two sequence families of proteins share a common evolutionary origin. Furthermore, structure and sequence analysis indicate that the class I FBPA shares a common evolutionary origin with several other enzyme superfamilies of the (betaalpha)(8) barrel fold.

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

4.4
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