Barley lipid-transfer protein complexed with palmitoyl CoA: the structure reveals a hydrophobic binding site that can expand to fit both large and small.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Volume 11, Issue 8, Pages (August 2003)
Advertisements

Volume 6, Issue 5, Pages (May 1998)
Volume 7, Issue 12, Pages (January 1999)
The loop E–loop D region of Escherichia coli 5S rRNA: the solution structure reveals an unusual loop that may be important for binding ribosomal proteins 
Volume 12, Issue 12, Pages (December 2004)
Volume 8, Issue 7, Pages (July 2000)
Volume 6, Issue 7, Pages (July 1998)
Volume 105, Issue 4, Pages (May 2001)
Moses Prabu-Jeyabalan, Ellen Nalivaika, Celia A. Schiffer  Structure 
Volume 6, Issue 10, Pages (October 1998)
Transmembrane Signaling across the Ligand-Gated FhuA Receptor
Solution Structure of the U11-48K CHHC Zinc-Finger Domain that Specifically Binds the 5′ Splice Site of U12-Type Introns  Henning Tidow, Antonina Andreeva,
R. Elliot Murphy, Alexandra B. Samal, Jiri Vlach, Jamil S. Saad 
Molecular Basis of Box C/D RNA-Protein Interactions
Volume 11, Issue 8, Pages (August 2003)
Yvonne Groemping, Karine Lapouge, Stephen J. Smerdon, Katrin Rittinger 
Volume 10, Issue 12, Pages (December 2002)
Volume 6, Issue 8, Pages (August 1998)
Structure of a putative ancestral protein encoded by a single sequence repeat from a multidomain proteinase inhibitor gene fromNicotiana alata  Martin.
Volume 8, Issue 8, Pages (August 2000)
Hydration and DNA Recognition by Homeodomains
Volume 8, Issue 7, Pages (July 2000)
Volume 15, Issue 1, Pages (January 2007)
Structure and RNA Interactions of the N-Terminal RRM Domains of PTB
Volume 8, Issue 4, Pages (April 2000)
James J Chou, Honglin Li, Guy S Salvesen, Junying Yuan, Gerhard Wagner 
Crystal Structure of the MHC Class I Homolog MIC-A, a γδ T Cell Ligand
Volume 4, Issue 5, Pages (November 1999)
Volume 16, Issue 10, Pages (October 2008)
Leonardus M.I. Koharudin, Angela M. Gronenborn  Structure 
Solution Structure of a Telomeric DNA Complex of Human TRF1
Structure of Bax  Motoshi Suzuki, Richard J. Youle, Nico Tjandra  Cell 
Volume 21, Issue 10, Pages (October 2013)
Volume 82, Issue 2, Pages (February 2002)
Nicholas J Skelton, Cliff Quan, Dorothea Reilly, Henry Lowman 
G. Fiorin, A. Pastore, P. Carloni, M. Parrinello  Biophysical Journal 
Volume 10, Issue 2, Pages (February 2002)
Crystal Structure of Recombinant Human Interleukin-22
Structural Analysis of Ligand Stimulation of the Histidine Kinase NarX
Hongwei Wu, Mark W. Maciejewski, Sachiko Takebe, Stephen M. King 
Volume 8, Issue 7, Pages (July 2000)
Volume 21, Issue 6, Pages (June 2013)
Solution Structure of the RAIDD CARD and Model for CARD/CARD Interaction in Caspase-2 and Caspase-9 Recruitment  James J Chou, Hiroshi Matsuo, Hanjun.
Solution Structure of the Cyclotide Palicourein
Volume 95, Issue 7, Pages (December 1998)
Volume 13, Issue 2, Pages (February 2005)
Structural Basis for the Recognition of Methylated Histone H3K36 by the Eaf3 Subunit of Histone Deacetylase Complex Rpd3S  Chao Xu, Gaofeng Cui, Maria.
Volume 10, Issue 6, Pages (June 2002)
The basis for K-Ras4B binding specificity to protein farnesyl-transferase revealed by 2 Å resolution ternary complex structures  Stephen B Long, Patrick.
Volume 20, Issue 6, Pages (June 2012)
Volume 10, Issue 2, Pages (February 2002)
Volume 15, Issue 6, Pages (December 2001)
Volume 24, Issue 8, Pages (August 2016)
Min Wang, Mary Prorok, Francis J. Castellino  Biophysical Journal 
Solution Structure of a TBP–TAFII230 Complex
Unmasking the Annexin I Interaction from the Structure of Apo-S100A11
Volume 19, Issue 7, Pages (July 2011)
Volume 6, Issue 5, Pages (May 1998)
Volume 4, Issue 2, Pages (February 1996)
Volume 8, Issue 7, Pages (July 2000)
Volume 5, Issue 12, Pages (December 1997)
The 2.0 å structure of a cross-linked complex between snowdrop lectin and a branched mannopentaose: evidence for two unique binding modes  Christine Schubert.
Volume 5, Issue 3, Pages (March 1997)
Jia-Wei Wu, Amy E. Cocina, Jijie Chai, Bruce A. Hay, Yigong Shi 
Volume 18, Issue 9, Pages (September 2010)
Structure of a HoxB1–Pbx1 Heterodimer Bound to DNA
Peter König, Rafael Giraldo, Lynda Chapman, Daniela Rhodes  Cell 
Volume 13, Issue 6, Pages (June 2006)
Volume 17, Issue 2, Pages (February 2009)
Tertiary structure of an immunoglobulin-like domain from the giant muscle protein titin: a new member of the I set  Mark Pfuhl, Annalisa Pastore  Structure 
Presentation transcript:

Barley lipid-transfer protein complexed with palmitoyl CoA: the structure reveals a hydrophobic binding site that can expand to fit both large and small lipid-like ligands  Mathilde H Lerche, Birthe B Kragelund, Lene M Bech, Flemming M Poulsen  Structure  Volume 5, Issue 2, Pages 291-306 (February 1997) DOI: 10.1016/S0969-2126(97)00186-X

Figure 1 Summary of the information applied in the sequential assignment and in the secondary structure analysis. The amino acid sequence is shown at the top. The framed regions of the sequence show the helices. The intensities of the sequential NOEs are categorized as either strong, medium or weak and shown accordingly by the thickness of the lines. The 3JHNHα coupling constants are accurate within ± 1 Hz. Structure 1997 5, 291-306DOI: (10.1016/S0969-2126(97)00186-X)

Figure 2 Assessment and summary of structural restraints. (a) The distribution of intra NOEs in bLTP; intraresidual NOEs (black), sequential NOEs (red), medium range NOEs (green), and long range NOEs (blue). Boxes indicate the positions of α helical areas. (b) The distribution of intraligand NOEs. Residues 1 to 5 are adenosine-3′-phosphate, pyrophosphate, pantothenic acid, cysteamine and the palmitoyl chain, respectively. (c) The distribution of interprotein–ligand NOEs: NOEs from the pantothenic acid moiety to the protein (dark blue), NOEs from cysteamine (cyan), NOEs from the palmitoyl chain (magenta). (d) Average φ, ψ and χ1 angles extracted from the structures; boxes indicate the restraints applied. (e) The root mean square deviations (rmsds) for the protein and the five residues of the ligand. The top figure represents all the heavy-atom rmsds for both the protein and the ligand, and the bottom figure shows the backbone rmsds for the protein. Structure 1997 5, 291-306DOI: (10.1016/S0969-2126(97)00186-X)

Figure 3 NMR bundle of bLTP–PCoA structures. (a) Stereoview of the peptide backbone of 20 superimposed PCoA-bound bLTP structures. The structures are fitted to the backbone of the four α helices, and the C, N, Cα and O atoms of all residues are displayed; the residues which begin and end the helices are labelled. (b) Stereoview of all heavy atoms in the 20 structures of the bound ligand, PCoA, aligned with respect to the α-helical areas in the complexed bLTP. The adenosine-3′-phosphate and pyrophosphate moieties are drawn with thick lines. Structure 1997 5, 291-306DOI: (10.1016/S0969-2126(97)00186-X)

Figure 4 The bLTP–PCoA complex shown as van der Waals surfaces. Residues that form the hydrophobic cavity are coloured blue and the rest of the protein is coloured red. The ligand is coloured according to atom type; atoms are in standard colours. Adenosine-3′-phosphate, pyrophosphate and part of the pantothenic acid residues of the ligand are solvent exposed, whereas the palmitoyl chain and cysteamine residues are completely embedded in the structure. Structure 1997 5, 291-306DOI: (10.1016/S0969-2126(97)00186-X)

Figure 5 The bLTP–PCoA complex. The protein is shown as a ribbon structure with the four α helices coloured: red (HA), orange (HB), blue (HC) and green (HD). The ligand is shown in CPK representation: the CoA moiety is coloured yellow and the palmitoyl moiety is coloured green. The key residues in interaction with the palmitoyl chain, Met10 and Tyr79, are shown in cyan. Structure 1997 5, 291-306DOI: (10.1016/S0969-2126(97)00186-X)

Figure 6 NOE and chemical-shift differences in liganded and unliganded bLTP. (a) Above diagonal: changes in the Cα–Cα distance between PCoA-bound and free bLTP. The comparison was performed using the minimized average structures, calculated from the two sets of structures. Red circles indicate negative distance changes, whereas blue circles indicate positive distance changes. The circles are increasing in size representing distance changes from ± 2 Å to ± 8 Å. Below diagonal: NOEs applied in the structure calculations of the free and the PCoA-bound bLTP. NOEs applied in the calculation of the free bLTP are represented as cyan filled circles and those applied in the calculation of the bLTP–PCoA complex are shown as black open squares. Boxes indicate sites for potential helix–helix interactions. (b) Chemical-shift differences between unliganded and liganded bLTP, determined at pH 7.2. The colour code is as follows: black (HN), yellow (Hα) and cyan (sidechain). Structure 1997 5, 291-306DOI: (10.1016/S0969-2126(97)00186-X)

Figure 7 A comparison of the minimized, lowest energy structures of (a) liganded and (b) unliganded bLTP. The α helices are coloured: red (HA), orange (HB), blue (HC) and green (HD). Structure 1997 5, 291-306DOI: (10.1016/S0969-2126(97)00186-X)

Figure 8 Interprotein–ligand contacts in the PCoA–bLTP complex. (a) HSQC-NOE spectrum. Diagnostic interprotein–ligand NOEs between the two assigned ends of the palmitoyl chain (Pal) and four protein residues. Sequential NOEs between cysteamine and Pal are also shown. (b) Interprotein–ligand contacts. The figure shows a selection of distances (Å) between assigned ligand protons (black) and the four protein residues presented in (a). Structure 1997 5, 291-306DOI: (10.1016/S0969-2126(97)00186-X)

Figure 8 Interprotein–ligand contacts in the PCoA–bLTP complex. (a) HSQC-NOE spectrum. Diagnostic interprotein–ligand NOEs between the two assigned ends of the palmitoyl chain (Pal) and four protein residues. Sequential NOEs between cysteamine and Pal are also shown. (b) Interprotein–ligand contacts. The figure shows a selection of distances (Å) between assigned ligand protons (black) and the four protein residues presented in (a). Structure 1997 5, 291-306DOI: (10.1016/S0969-2126(97)00186-X)