Background:
Protein covalent binding by reactive metabolites of drugs, chemicals and natural products can lead to acute cytotoxicity. Recent rapid progress in reactive metabolite target protein identification has shown that adduction is surprisingly selective and inspired the hope that analysis of target proteins might reveal protein factors that differentiate target- vs. non-target proteins and illuminate mechanisms connecting covalent binding to cytotoxicity.
Results:
Sorting 171 known reactive metabolite target proteins revealed a number of GO categories and KEGG pathways to be significantly enriched in targets, but in most cases the classes were too large, and the "percent coverage" too small, to allow meaningful conclusions about mechanisms of toxicity. However, a similar analysis of the directlyinteracting partners of 28 common targets of multiple reactive metabolites revealed highly significant enrichments in terms likely to be highly relevant to cytotoxicity (e.g., MAP kinase pathways, apoptosis, response to unfolded protein). Machine learning was used to rank the contribution of 211 computed protein features to determining protein susceptibility to adduction. Protein lysine (but not cysteine) content and protein instability index (i.e., rate of turnover in vivo) were among the features most important to determining susceptibility.
Conclusion:
As yet there is no good explanation for why some low-abundance proteins become heavily adducted while some abundant proteins become only lightly adducted in vivo. Analyzing the directly interacting partners of target proteins appears to yield greater insight into mechanisms of toxicity than analyzing target proteins per se. The insights provided can readily be formulated as hypotheses to test in future experimental studies.

source

• Share:
• Bookmark on Delicious
• Digg this
• Share on Reddit
• Share with Stumblers
• Tweet this

Background:
Bacteriocin production in the lactic acid bacterium Lactobacillus plantarum C11 is regulated through a quorum sensing based pathway involving two highly homologous response regulators (59% identity and 76% similarity), PlnC as a transcriptional activator and PlnD as a repressor. Previous in vitro studies have shown that both regulators bind, as homodimers, to the same DNA regulatory repeats to exert their regulatory functions. As the genes for these two proteins are located on the same auto-regulatory operon, hence being co-expressed upon gene activation, it is plausible that their opposite functions must somehow be differentially regulated, either in terms of timing and/or binding kinetics, so that their activities do not impair each other in an uncontrolled manner. To understand the nature behind this potential differentiation, we have studied the binding kinetics of the two regulators on five target promoters (PplnA, PplnM, PplnJ, PplnE and PplnG) from the bacteriocin regulon of L. plantarum C11.
Results:
By using surface plasmon resonance spectroscopy we obtained parameters such as association rates, dissociation rates and dissociation constants, showing that the two regulators indeed differ greatly from each other in terms of cooperative binding and binding strength to the different promoters. For instance, cooperativity is very strong for PlnC binding to the promoter of the regulatory operon (PplnA), but not to the promoter of the transport operon (PplnG), while the opposite is seen for PlnD binding to these two promoters. The estimated affinity constants indicate that PlnC can bind to PplnA to activate transcription of the key regulatory operon plnABCD without much interference from PlnD, and that the repressive function of PlnD might act through a different mechanism than repression of the regulatory operon.
Conclusion:
We have characterised the DNA binding kinetics of the two regulators PlnC and PlnD from the bacteriocin locus in L. plantarum C11. Our data show that PlnC and PlnD, despite their strong homology to each other, differ greatly from each other in terms of binding affinity and cooperativity to the different promoters of the pln regulon.

source

• Share:
• Bookmark on Delicious
• Digg this
• Share on Reddit
• Share with Stumblers
• Tweet this

Background:
Mycobacterium tuberculosis DNA topoisomerase I is an attractive target for discovery of novel TB drugs that act by enhancing the accumulation of the topoisomerase-DNA cleavage product. It shares a common transesterification domain with other type IA DNA topoisomerases. There is, however, no homology between the C-terminal DNA binding domains of Escherichia coli and M. tuberculosis DNA topoisomerase I proteins.
Results:
A new protocol for expression and purification of recombinant M. tuberculosis DNA topoisomerase I (MtTOP) has been developed to produce enzyme of much higher specific activity than previously characterized recombinant enzyme. MtTOP was found to be less efficient than E. coli DNA topoisomerase I (EcTOP) in removal of remaining negative supercoils from partially relaxed DNA. DNA cleavage by MtTOP was characterized for the first time. Comparison of DNA cleavage site selectivity with EcTOP showed differences in cleavage site preferences, but the preferred sites of both enzymes have a C nucleotide in the -4 position.
Conclusion:
Recombinant M. tuberculosis DNA topoisomerase I can be expressed as a soluble protein and purified in high yield from E. coli host with a new protocol. Analysis of DNA cleavage with M. tuberculosis DNA substrate showed that the preferred DNA cleavage sites have a C nucleotide in the -4 position.

source

• Share:
• Bookmark on Delicious
• Digg this
• Share on Reddit
• Share with Stumblers
• Tweet this

Background:
Escherichia coli MutY (EcMutY) reduces mutagenesis by removing adenines paired with guanines or 7,8-dihydro-8-oxo-guanines (8-oxoG). V45 and Q182 of EcMutY are considered to be the key determinants of adenine specificity. Both residues are spatially close to each other in the active site and are conserved in MutY family proteins but not in Methanobacterium thermoautotrophicum Mig.MthI T/G mismatch DNA glycosylase (A50 and L187 at the corresponding respective positions).
Results:
Targeted mutagenesis study was performed to determine the substrate specificities of V45A, Q182L, and V45A/Q182L double mutant of EcMutY. All three mutants had significantly lower binding and glycosylase activities for A/G and A/8-oxoG mismatches than the wild-type enzyme. The double mutant exhibited an additive reduction in binding to both the A/G and A/GO in comparison to the single mutants. These mutants were also tested for binding and glycosylase activities with T/G- or T/8-oxoG-containing DNA. Both V45A and Q182L mutants had substantially increased affinities towards T/G, however, they did not exhibit any T/G or T/8-oxoG glycosylase activity. Surprisingly, the V45A/Q182L double mutant had similar binding affinities to T/G as the wild-type EcMutY. V45A, Q182L, and V45A/Q182L EcMutY mutants could not reduce the G:C to T:A mutation frequency of a mutY mutant. Expression of the V45A mutant protein caused a dominant negative phenotype with an increased G:C to A:T mutation frequency.
Conclusion:
The substrate specificities are altered in V45A, Q182L, and V45A/Q182L EcMutY mutants. V45A and Q182L mutants had reduced binding and glycosylase activities for A/G and A/8-oxoG mismatches and increased affinities towards T/G mismatch. However, in contrast to a previous report that Mig.MthI thymine DNA glycosylase can be converted to a MutY-like adenine glycosylase by replacing two residues (A50V and L187Q), both V45A and Q182L EcMutY mutants did not exhibit any T/G or T/8-oxoG glycosylase activity. The dominant negative phenotype of V45A EcMutY mutant protein is probably caused by its increased binding affinity to T/G mismatch and thus inhibiting other repair pathways.

source

• Share:
• Bookmark on Delicious
• Digg this
• Share on Reddit
• Share with Stumblers
• Tweet this