3.9 Article

Structure and Function of Glycosylated Tandem Repeats from Candida albicans Als Adhesins

期刊

EUKARYOTIC CELL
卷 9, 期 3, 页码 405-414

出版社

AMER SOC MICROBIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1128/EC.00235-09

关键词

-

资金

  1. NIGMS SCORE [S06 GM 070758, SC1 GM 083756]
  2. Center for Functional Glycomics [RR 05357]
  3. NSF
  4. [GM 55230]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Tandem repeat (TR) regions are common in yeast adhesins, but their structures are unknown, and their activities are poorly understood. TR regions in Candida albicans Als proteins are conserved glycosylated 36-residue sequences with cell-cell aggregation activity (J. M. Rauceo, R. De Armond, H. Otoo, P. C. Kahn, S. A. Klotz, N. K. Gaur, and P. N. Lipke, Eukaryot. Cell 5:1664-1673, 2006). Ab initio modeling with either Rosetta or LINUS generated consistent structures of three-stranded antiparallel beta-sheet domains, whereas randomly shuffled sequences with the same composition generated various structures with consistently higher energies. O-and N-glycosylation patterns showed that each TR domain had exposed hydrophobic surfaces surrounded by glycosylation sites. These structures are consistent with domain dimensions and stability measurements by atomic force microscopy (D. Alsteen, V. Dupres, S. A. Klotz, N. K. Gaur, P. N. Lipke, and Y. F. Dufrene, ACS Nano 3:1677-1682, 2009) and with circular dichroism determination of secondary structure and thermal stability. Functional assays showed that the hydrophobic surfaces of TR domains supported binding to polystyrene surfaces and other TR domains, leading to nonsaturable homophilic binding. The domain structures are like classic subunit interaction surfaces and can explain previously observed patterns of promiscuous interactions between TR domains in any Als proteins or between TR domains and surfaces of other proteins. Together, the modeling techniques and the supporting data lead to an approach that relates structure and function in many kinds of repeat domains in fungal adhesins.

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

3.9
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