4.6 Article

Binding of copper(I) by the Wilson disease protein and its copper chaperone

期刊

JOURNAL OF BIOLOGICAL CHEMISTRY
卷 279, 期 13, 页码 12269-12276

出版社

AMER SOC BIOCHEMISTRY MOLECULAR BIOLOGY INC
DOI: 10.1074/jbc.M311213200

关键词

-

资金

  1. NIGMS NIH HHS [GM 008061, GM 58518] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The Wilson disease protein (WND) is a transport ATPase involved in copper delivery to the secretory pathway. Mutations in WND and its homolog, the Menkes protein, lead to genetic disorders of copper metabolism. The WND and Menkes proteins are distinguished from other P-type ATPases by the presence of six soluble N-terminal metal-binding domains containing a conserved CXXC metal-binding motif. The exact roles of these domains are not well established, but possible functions include exchanging copper with the metallochaperone Atox1 and mediating copper-responsive cellular relocalization. Although all six domains can bind copper, genetic and biochemical studies indicate that the domains are not functionally equivalent. One way the domains could be tuned to perform different functions is by having different affinities for Cu(I). We have used isothermal titration calorimetry to measure the association constant (K-a) and stoichiometry (n) values of Cu(I) binding to the WND metal-binding domains and to their metallochaperone Atox1. The association constants for both the chaperone and target domains are similar to10(5) to 10(6) M-1, suggesting that the handling of copper by Atox1 and copper transfer between Atox1 and WND are under kinetic rather than thermodynamic control. Although some differences in both n and K-a values are observed for variant proteins containing less than the full complement of six metal-binding domains, the data for domains 1-6 were best fitted with a single site model. Thus, the individual functions of the six WND metal-binding domains are not conferred by different Cu(I) affinities but instead by fold and electrostatic surface properties.

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