4.4 Article

Substrate Specificity Combined with Stereopromiscuity in Glutathione Transferase A4-4-Dependent Metabolism of 4-Hydroxynonenal

期刊

BIOCHEMISTRY
卷 49, 期 7, 页码 1541-1548

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/bi902038u

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health [GM62284, GM32165]
  2. Swedish Research Council
  3. Department of Energy
  4. Office of Biological and Environmental Research
  5. National Institutes of Health
  6. National Center for Research Resources
  7. Biomedical Technology Program

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Conjugation to glutathione (GSH) by glutathione transferase A4-4 (GSTA4-4) is a major route of elimination for the lipid peroxidation product 4-hydroxynonenal (HNE), a toxic compound that contributes to numerous diseases. Both enantiomers of HNE are presumed to be toxic, and GSTA4-4 has negligible stereoselectivity toward them, despite its high catalytic chemospecificity for alkenals. In contrast to the highly flexible, and substrate promiscuous, GSTA1-1 isoform that has poor catalytic efficiency with HNE, GSTA4-4 has been postulated to be a rigid template that is preorganized for HNE metabolism. However, the combination of high substrate chemoselectivity and low substrate stereoselectivity is intriguing. The mechanism by which GSTA4-4 achieves this combination is important, because it must metabolize both enantiomers of HNE to efficiently detoxify the biologically formed mixture. The crystal structures of GSTA4-4 and ail engineered variant of GSTA1-1 with high catalytic efficiency toward HNE, cocrystallized with a GSH-HNE conjugate analogue, demonstrate that GSTA4-4 undergoes no enantiospecific induced fit; instead, the active site residue Arg15 is ideally located to interact with the 4-hydroxyl group of either HNE enantiomer. The results reveal an evolutionary strategy for achieving biologically useful stereopromiscuity toward a toxic racemate, concomitant with high catalytic efficiency and substrate specificity toward ail endogenously formed toxin.

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