4.8 Article

The isoniazid-NAD adduct is a slow, tight-binding inhibitor of InhA, the Mycobacterium tuberculosis enoyl reductase:: Adduct affinity and drug resistance

出版社

NATL ACAD SCIENCES
DOI: 10.1073/pnas.2235848100

关键词

-

资金

  1. NIAID NIH HHS [R01 AI044639, R21 AI044639, AI44639] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Isoniazid (INH), a frontline antitubercular drug, inhibits InhA, the enoyl reductase from Mycobacterium tuberculosis, by forming a covalent adduct with the INAD cofactor. Here, we report that the INH-NAD adduct is a slow, tight-binding competitive inhibitor of InhA. Demonstration that the adduct binds to WT InhA by a two-step enzyme inhibition mechanism, with initial, weak binding (K-1 = 16 +/- 11 nM) followed by slow conversion to a final inhibited complex (El*) with overall K-i = 0.75 +/- 0.08 nM, reconciles existing contradictory values for the inhibitory potency of INH-NAD for InhA. The first order rate constant for conversion of the initial El complex to EI* (k(2) = 0.13 +/- 0.01 min(-1)) is similar to the maximum rate constant observed for InhA inhibition in reaction mixtures containing InhA, INH, NADH, and the INH-activating enzyme KatG (catalase/peroxidase from M. tuberculosis), consistent with an inhibition mechanism in which the adduct forms in solution rather than on the enzyme. Importantly, three mutations that correlate with INH resistance, I21V, I47T, and S94A, have little impact on the inhibition constants. Thus, drug resistance does not result simply from a reduction in affinity of INH-NAD for pure InhA. Instead, we hypothesize that protein-protein interactions within the FASII complex are critical to the mechanism of INH action. Finally, for M161V, an InhA mutation that correlates with resistance to the common biocide triclosan in Mycobacterium smegmatis, binding to form the initial El complex is significantly weakened, explaining why this mutant inactivates more slowly than WT InhA when incubated with INH, NADH, and KatG.

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

4.8
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