4.5 Article

Identification of persulfide-binding and disulfide-forming cysteine residues in the NifS-like domain of the molybdenum cofactor sulfurase ABA3 by cysteine-scanning mutagenesis

期刊

BIOCHEMICAL JOURNAL
卷 441, 期 -, 页码 823-832

出版社

PORTLAND PRESS LTD
DOI: 10.1042/BJ20111170

关键词

ABA3; active-site loop; Arabidopsis thaliana; molybdenum cofactor sulfurase; persulfide

资金

  1. Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) [Me 1266/21-1]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The Moco (molybdenum cofactor) sulfurase ABA3 from Arabidopsis thaliana catalyses the sulfuration of the Moco of aldehyde oxidase and xanthine oxidoreductase, which represents the final activation step of these enzymes. ABA3 consists of an N-terminal NifS-like domain that exhibits L-cysteine desulfurase activity and a C-terminal domain that binds sulfurated Moco. The strictly conserved Cys(430) in the NifS-like domain binds a persulfide intermediate, which is abstracted from the substrate L-cysteine and finally needs to be transferred to the Moco of aldehyde oxidase and xanthine oxidoreductase. In addition to Cys(430), another eight cysteine residues are located in the NifS-like domain, with two of them being highly conserved among Moco sulfurase proteins and, at the same time, being in close proximity to Cys(430). By determination of the number of surface-exposed cysteine residues and the number of persulfide-binding cysteine residues in combination with the sequential substitution of each of the nine cysteine residues, a second persulfide-binding cysteine residue, Cys(206), was identified. Furthermore, the active-site Cys(430) was found to be located on top of a loop structure, formed by the two flanking residues Cys(428) and Cys(435), which are likely to form an intramolecular disulfide bridge. These findings are confirmed by a structural model of the NifS-like domain, which indicates that Cys(428) and Cys(435) are within disulfide bond distance and that a persulfide transfer from Cys(430) to Cys(206) is indeed possible.

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

4.5
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