Abstract
Ammonia conductance is highly regulated. A PII signal transduction protein, GlnK, is the final regulator of transmembrane ammonia conductance by the ammonia channel AmtB in Escherichia coli. The complex formed between AmtB and inhibitory GlnK at 1.96-Å resolution shows that the trimeric channel is blocked directly by GlnK and how, in response to intracellular nitrogen status, the ability of GlnK to block the channel is regulated by uridylylation/deuridylylation at Y51. ATP and Mg2+ augment the interaction of GlnK. The hydrolyzed product, adenosine 5′-diphosphate orients the surface of GlnK for AmtB blockade. 2-Oxoglutarate diminishes AmtB/GlnK association, and sites for 2-oxoglutarate are evaluated.
Keywords: membrane, regulation, structure, allosteric, dinucleotide
Transport of ammonia across biological membranes is a key physiological process throughout all kingdoms of life (1–4). Most species have multiple different integral transmembrane proteins of the ammonia transporter (Amt) family, each with different “affinities” for passage of ammonia, underlining the importance of their roles in biology. In yeast, these include multiple methyl ammonia/ammonia permeases, whereas in eukaryotes, the closely related Rh proteins are in the same family. At cytotosolic pH, ammonium (NH4+) is more abundant than the uncharged ammonia (NH3) in an equilibrium that depends on a pKa of 9.25. Although NH3 or NH4+ (together termed Am) is highly toxic to animals (5), it is the preferred source of nitrogen for most microorganisms. Once inside the cell, Am is directed to glutamine synthetase that uses NH3 as substrate to synthesize the amino acid glutamine (6), maintaining an inward gradient of the substrate Am.
In most bacteria, Amt genes are induced in response to nitrogen limitation and ultimately activated by the gene activator protein, NtrC. In Escherichia coli, the sole ammonia transport protein AmtB acts as a channel that is selective for transport of the uncharged NH3 in a mechanism that “recruits” an ammonium ion and reduces its pKa to allow passage of the uncharged substrate NH3 (7, 8).
Proteins of the PII signal transduction class also serve to tightly regulate nitrogen assimilation. In almost all bacteria, the amtB gene is linked to glnK (9). The PII-like protein GlnK is a soluble trimeric protein that binds to the AmtB trimer and blocks conduction directly (10, 11). Its ability to inhibit AmtB is augmented by ATP and abrogated by uridylylation/deuridylylation of GlnK at Y51, mediated by the uridylyl transferase GlnD (12, 13).
Each of three PII-like protein encoding genes, paralogs glnB, glnK (GlnK1 and GlnK2), and glnY are found in close association with amtB, and each plays a pivotal role in controlling the assimilation of nitrogen. The PII proteins are almost uniformly modulated in their activity by binding the metabolite 2-oxoglutarate (2-KG), whose concentration rises as the cell becomes more nitrogen-limited. In the case of GlnK in the presence of ATP and Mg2+, binding 2-KG tends to dissociate the complex with AmtB, opening the channel for increased nitrogen assimilation as nitrogen becomes more limited.
In the absence of metabolites, GlnK also forms an inhibitory complex with glutamine synthetase (GlnA), downstream from AmtB, which inhibits its ability to use assimilated NH3. In the methanogen Methanosarcini mazei, the metabolite 2-KG overcomes the inhibitory effects of GlnK on GlnA activity but not by preventing GlnK–GlnA complex formation. Thus, in response to nitrogen limitation, increasing concentrations of 2-KG activate GlnA, which minimizes the inhibition of GlnA by GlnK. After a period of nitrogen limitation, return to nitrogen sufficiency leads to a decrease in 2-KG, which better allows GlnK inhibition to guard against overproduction of glutamine (14). Thus, in response to changing nitrogen status, 2-KG and GlnK separately regulate both the ammonia channel AmtB and the downstream activity of glutamine synthetase, the enzyme that incorporates assimilated NH3 into glutamine.
To determine how GlnK–AmtB association prevents Am conduction, we determined the structure of the complex formed between AmtB in presence of substrate Am and GlnK with ATP. The structure of the complex reveals direct interactions between the T-loop of the signal transduction protein GlnK and the cytosolic vestibule of the ammonia channel. It explains how posttranslational uridylylation at Y51 in bacteria or phosphorylation at S49 in cyanobacteria prevents inhibition to balance the delivery of Am to the need for nitrogen in the cell. The structure also instructs as to the roles of ATP/ADP and 2-KG in the regulation.
Results and Discussion
Trimer-to-Trimer Interaction.
The complex crystallized as the physiological association of the trimer of AmtB, with the trimer of GlnK, related by crystallographic threefold symmetry (Fig. 1). Each AmtB monomer consists of a central hydrophobic channel surrounded by a right-handed helical bundle of 11 transmembrane α-helices (7, 8). Within the bundle, there are two five-helix motifs that are similar in structure but of opposite polarity with respect to the membrane. The first five helices begin on the outside of the cell membrane and end on the cytoplasmic side, whereas the next five begin on the cytoplasmic side and return to the outside. This structural organization reflects an early gene duplication event that lead to the duplication of these motifs and results in a quasi-twofold symmetry in the membrane plane and perpendicular to the threefold axis of the trimer. This duplication thus generates quasisymmetric vestibules on opposite ends of the channel (Fig. 2A). However, the vestibules have diverged significantly in response to their different functions, which now include binding of GlnK on the cytoplasmic surface. The entry and exit from water-filled vestibules to the central hydrophobic channel are both narrow hydrophobic portals. The external portal must undergo dynamic opening to “select” for passage of the neutral NH3; however, the inside portal is more open and open enough to accept the arginine side chain R41 of GlnK.
Fig. 1.
Physiological complex of AmtB and GlnK. (A) View from the cytoplasmic side down the threefold symmetry axis. (B) View within the plane of the membrane, 90° rotated about the horizontal with respect to A. The molecular surface of GlnK (red) and AmtB (blue) are displayed with different shades for each monomer of the two-trimer complex. Detergent molecules (yellow) are shown as sticks; atoms of partially ordered detergent are represented as spheres.
Fig. 2.
Monomer to monomer AmtB/Glnk interaction and comparison to uncomplexed structures. (A) Stereoview of a single inhibitory interaction (one asymmetric unit) between GlnK and AmtB. A ribbon diagram of AmtB (blue) and GlnK (red) is oriented identically to the matching colored monomers in Fig. 1. ADP bound to GlnK is shown in stick representation. (B) An overlay of the backbone of AmtB (blue) and GlnK (red) in the complex, compared with structures of the uncomplexed proteins [AmtB, 1U7G (black) and Amt1, 2B2H (green)]. Two loops of AmtB on the cytoplasmic side in the shaded region i are arranged differently from uncomplexed AmtB, with corresponding differences in 21 residues at the C terminus (dashed region ii). The complexed form of the AmtB C terminus is the same as that in uncomplexed Amt1. The T-loop of GlnK becomes highly ordered in the ADP-bound inhibitory complex vs. disordered in uncomplexed ATP-bound GlnK [2GNK (orange), dotted region iii].
The central region of GlnK consists of a four-stranded β-sheet that forms the interfaces between monomers of the GlnK trimer and supports two α-helices that form the outer surface of the trimer (15). The T- (residues 35–56) and B-loops (residues 81–89) extend from GlnK toward AmtB. On the opposite side, a β-strand, turn and 310 helix extend to the C terminus to comprise the C-loop. The initial portion of the T-loop, the entire B-loop, and the C-loop from an adjacent monomer form the nucleotide-binding site. The basis of the interaction with AmtB is an intimate association of the T-loop of GlnK with the cytoplasmic vestibule of AmtB. The remainder of the interface between the two trimers is highly hydrated, with many ordered water molecules, as is the vestibule of AmtB itself (Fig. 3Left Inset).
Fig. 3.
Channel inhibition and ammonia conductance pathway. Blockade of the ammonia conduction pathway by R47 of GlnK (red) is in context (Center) and in detail (Left). The surface of AmtB (blue) is shown with residues 211–270 as a tubular backbone trace to reveal the hydrophobic channel behind (Right). Side chains of residues in AmtB along the conduction pathway (F107, F215,H168, and H318) and residues that interact with R47 (S263, D313, and carbonyl of C312) are in ball-and-stick representation with nitrogen (dark blue) and oxygen (light red) shown. The location of L259 (blue sphere on the tubular trace) and V299 that forms part of the surface is indicated. Ammonia positions (Am2, Am3, and Am4) seen only in uncomplexed AmtB are indicated as yellow spheres. In the complex, there are only two water/NH3 sites within the channel (Am6 and Am5). Waters within 6 Å of the channel and hydrophobic portals are shown as green spheres. A molecule of Tris (a quaternary ammonium cation, C+) displaced NH4+ at the periplasmic “recruitment site” (top right).
R47 of GlnK Blocks the Channel of AmtB.
The extended T-loops of the GlnK monomers allow R47 of each GlnK to insert deeply into the cytoplasmic vestibule of successive monomers of the AmtB channel. (Fig. 3). The cleft in the cytosolic vestibule is preformed in uncomplexed AmtB. The buried guanidinium cation makes five donor hydrogen bonds inside the channel, completely pairing all five potential hydrogen bond donors with acceptors. The NεH and Nη2H1 of R47 are both hydrogen bond donors to the lone pair of electrons of the hydroxyl of S263 in the cytoplasmic vestibule, which in turn donates its hydrogen to the carbonyl of L259. The Nη2H2 of R47 also donates a hydrogen bond to a water molecule within the channel, termed Am6. The R47 Nη1H1 donates a hydrogen bond to the carbonyl of AmtB C312 and Nη1H2 to a water in the cytosolic vestibule, which is hydrogen-bonded to D313, a counter ion to the guanidinium of R47. The carbonyl of C312 is also a hydrogen bond acceptor from the channel water Am6. Van der Waals contacts between R47 Cγ and L259 of AmtB and between R47 Cβ and V299 of AmtB may also serve to stabilize this conformation of R47. The effective coordination of R47 completely occludes any NH3 or water from passage through the cytosolic portal.
Although roles for PII proteins as regulators of ammonia channels have not been established outside of bacteria, the conservation of these key residues of AmtB that coordinate R47 of GlnK in prokaryotes and yeast suggests there may be a common mechanism for blocking the channel in yeast. S263 and D313 are strictly conserved in bacterial and fungal Amts [see supporting information (SI) Fig. 7]. β-branched residues are conserved at the hydrophobic contact positions 259 and 299 in prokaryotic ammonia channels. Although plants have PII transduction proteins, they have different roles (16). Correspondingly, these AmtB residues are not conserved in plants. This, therefore, suggests that conservation at these sites is a diagnostic for possible PII regulation of ammonia channels.
T-Loop Interaction with AmtB.
The total interaction surface area between the two protein trimers is 5,389 Å2, of which the T-loop (residues 36–55 of GlnK) accounts for ≈77%. Of the total, 47% consists of polar interactions involving 27 hydrogen bonds and 18 salt bridges. Side chains account for 87% of the interaction. The total, polar, and nonpolar surface areas per monomer are within the normal distribution for physiological heterooligomeric complexes. Because there are three such interfaces, the buried surface area is three times larger and so accounts for higher avidity (17). The T-loop sequence of GlnK and GlnB from E. coli is highly homologous throughout those residues involved in the interaction with AmtB, which suggests common types of interactions.
Regulation by Uridylylation.
Uridylylation of Y51 on GlnK abrogates binding to AmtB. We mutated Y51 to phenylalanine (Y51F) to ensure homogeneity. The aromatic ring of F51 was stacked on the aliphatic chain of K194 and has additional hydrophobic contacts with A192. Modeling the hydroxyl of Y51 onto F51 shows that in the native complex, it would be hydrogen-bonded to the backbone NH of AmtB F193. Therefore, uridylylation would sterically block the T-loop region from interacting with AmtB (Fig. 4).
Fig. 4.
Specific interaction of the GlnK T-loop (red stick representation colored by atom) with AmtB (blue semitransparent surface and underlying sticks) is illustrated. The hydrogen bonds (black dashed lines) and geometry constitute a specific interface between channel and inhibitor. The sites that are subject to posttranslational modification in PII proteins at Y51 or at S49 in cyanobacteria are each found in pockets, such that when modified, they would displace the T-loop because of steric interference.
Although there is currently no evidence of posttranslational modification of GlnK Y46 in E. coli, this tyrosine is also in the T-loop, which is highly mobile in uncomplexed trimeric GlnK and would be similarly accessible for modification. In complex with AmtB, the side chain of Y46 is fixed in a pocket, with its OH hydrogen-bonded to AmtB, suggesting that any posttranslational modification of it would also inhibit AmtB binding. In view of the flexibility of the uncomplexed T-loop, the urydyl transferase GlnD is presumably quite sequence-specific, targeting only Y51.
In cyanobacteria, S49, also on the T-loop, is substituted for A49 of E. coli GlnK and becomes the site for posttranslational regulation, in this case by phosphorylation (18, 19). A49 is positioned in a cleft on AmtB, suggesting that this posttranslational modification in cyanobacteria would also sterically inhibit binding of the T-loop to AmtB.
The Role of Nucleotide Binding to GlnK.
ATP enhances the binding of GlnK to AmtB (12, 20). However, our complex incubated in 2 mM ATP shows it is ADP rather than ATP-bound. ATP hydrolysis may have been the result of a trace ATPase contaminant. However, the proximity of the ADP terminal phosphate to side chains of three arginines, a lysine, and a highly coordinated buried water in GlnK suggests this site might itself serve to catalyze ATP hydrolysis.
The nucleotide-binding site lies in the interface between two monomers of GlnK, as is seen in the ATP-bound structure of GlnK alone (ref. 15; see also Fig. 5). However, unlike the ATP-bound structures, the β-phosphate end of the ADP is buried due to interactions with the main-chain N-Hs of residues 38 and 39 at the base of the T-loop. These residues are part of a tight turn that may be induced by ADP to position the T-loop for the interaction with AmtB. The β-phosphate of ADP is very close to the position of the γ-phosphate of ATP in the ATP-GlnK structure in the absence of AmtB. It is yet undefined whether binding of GlnK to AmtB is influenced by hydrolysis of ATP or by the ADP concentration. The T-loop and ADP-binding regions of GlnK are highly conserved across known PII proteins, suggesting a common ATP/ADP-dependent mechanism (see SI Fig. 8).
Fig. 5.
The ADP site between GlnK monomers. Residues are numbered with those of the second monomer labeled (†). (A) A cartoon of GlnK residues and bridging waters that support ADP. All dashed lines indicate hydrogen bonds with distances in the range 2.7–3.2 Å. (B) Stereoview of the electron density around the ADP site (σ-weighted 2Fo−Fc map contoured at 1.0 σ). Labeled residues and colors are as in A.
Regulation by 2-KG.
The AmtB/GlnK complex reveals two pockets in contact with the base of the T-loop in GlnK and a third in the interface between the T-loop and the vestibule, that present as plausible 2-KG-binding sites (Fig. 6). To test these sites, we ran flexible docking using DOCK6 (21). The two sites on GlnK (2KG1 and 2KG2) achieved docking poses that had complementary shape and charge. Binding of 2-KG at either of these locations could alter conformation at the base of the T-loop and so affect the ability of GlnK to bind to AmtB. The 2KG2 site, previously proposed to be a possible 2-KG site based on the GlnK structure alone (15), is in close proximity to the ADP site. Thus a counter ion such as Mg2+ may be necessary to augment binding of 2-KG to ADP at this location. This would be consistent with the inhibition of AmtB/GlnK complexation by 2-KG in the presence of ATP and Mg2+ and weaker inhibition if Mg2+ is absent (12). The interstitial site (2KG3) had compatible shape but suboptimal electrostatic potential. The nature of the site suggests that another small-molecule effector could potentially modulate AmtB/GlnK association by binding at this allosteric site. For example, glutamate has been shown to affect GlnB interaction with uridylyltransferase (20). It is possible that 2KG3 could act as an allosteric binding site for another metabolite, such as glutamate.
Fig. 6.
Docking of 2-oxoglutarate to pockets within GlnK (2KG1 and 2KG2) and in the interface with AmtB (2KG3). The electrostatic potential is shown on the solvent-accessible surface of the complex with a stick model of GlnK under the surface. 2-KG molecules (ball and stick, with carbons in yellow) as docked into the proposed 2-KG sites using DOCK6, are surrounded by positive electrostatic potential (blue). The 2KG1 and 2KG2 sites on GlnK are both adjacent to the T-loop and could account for disruption of the AmtB/GlnK complex by distorting the base of the T-loop. The proximity of the 2KG2 site to negatively charged ADP (ball and stick, carbons in black below the surface and directly behind the molecule in 2KG2) is consistent with the effect of Mg2+ as a counter ion.
Bound-State Conformational Changes.
The loops and the C-terminal residues on the cytosolic face of AmtB are rearranged and ordered with respect to previous AmtB structures (refs. 7 and 8; Fig. 2B, region i). Portions of the C-terminal region of AmtB interact with the T-loop of GlnK and may account for increased order in the C terminus as compared with the prior AmtB structures [Protein Data Bank (PDB) identifiers 1U7G and 1XQF]. The C-terminal conformation is now helical and similar to the C terminus conformation of Amt1 from Archaeoglobus fulgidus (ref. 22; Fig. 2B, region ii), suggesting that the primary change in our structure is due to the different interactions with the C terminus. This also suggests that the PII regulator, GlnB-1 in A. fulgidus, probably interacts with Amt1 in a similar manner. The conformations of loops from residues 301–316 and 181–195 in our structure of AmtB were already different from in the other Amt structures, suggesting they are somewhat flexible and easily reordered in the complex.
Comparison of GlnK in this complex to previous GlnK and other PII proteins revealed very high structural similarity throughout, except in the T-loop region (residues 36–55). The T-loop has various different conformations in previous structures of GlnK alone (refs. 15 and 23–26; see also Fig. 2B, region iii). In the three known PII protein structures with an occupied nucleotide-binding site (PDB ID codes 2GNK, 1V3S, and 1V9O; refs. 15 and 25), this T-loop region is disordered. Thus, before complexation, the T-loop is loosely structured, and it becomes ordered in the physiological complex, as is seen here.
Periplasmic Ammonium Ion Recruitment.
The periplasmic vestibule of AmtB contains many carbonyl oxygens and is highly hydrated, with ≈30 ordered water sites. Three aromatic side chains form a favorable π-cation interaction with methyl ammonium ions and may aid in the recruitment of ammonium ions right at the entrance to the hydrophobic channel (7, 8). The AmtB/GlnK complex bound two quaternary ammonium-containing Tris molecules [2-amino-2-(hydroxymethyl) propane-1,3 diol] in the vestibule, of which one occupies the π-cation ammonium ion-stabilizing site. The two quaternary ammonium cations are coordinated by polar and van der Waals interactions in pockets of the vestibule. Otherwise, the structure of the periplasmic face is virtually identical to the prior AmtB structure. The sequence of AmtB used here has the sequence of the K12 strain throughout.
Two hydrophobic residues form the narrow portal that selects a nonpolar NH3 substrate, F215 and F107 (ref. 7; see also Fig. 3 Right Inset). Within the channel, the H168 and H318 appear to be the critical, but weak C-H hydrogen bond donors facilitate the passage of the ammonia molecules through an otherwise hydrophobic central channel. The hydrogen bonding between N-H to N: of the two coplanar histidines is unambiguous. The hydroxyl of T273 donates a hydrogen bond to the carbonyl of L269 and accepts a hydrogen bond from the protonated Nε of H168. The unprotonated Nδ1 of H168 accepts a hydrogen bond from the protonated Nδ1 of H318. In our structure of AmtB (7), three ammonia molecules were defined based on electron density and hydrogen bonding (Am2–4). Two of these sites were confirmed to be on the hydrophobic ammonia pathway by Xe substitution in the structure of Amt1 (22). In the structure of the AmtB/GlnK complex, these ammonia molecules are not present, but two waters seen in the native Amt1 are conserved. The positions of these molecules are likely to be on the ammonia conduction pathway and are more probably water in our complex. They are labeled as Am5 and Am6 to reflect this.
The cytoplasmic portal is not comprised of aromatic side chains and is more open than on the periplasmic side. The pore conformation in the complex with GlnK is very close to that seen in the uncomplexed Amt1 structure (22), suggesting that the principal adaptation on complexation is focused on the organization of the T-loop. The mechanism of inhibition of AmtB ammonia conduction is the blockade of the cytosolic pore by R47 of GlnK and not consistent with the proposal of AmtB adopting a “closed” conformation on GlnK binding (8). The pockets on GlnK and in the interface suggest the prospect of other allosteric factors that may serve to further tune the critical balance of nitrogen supply and demand.
Materials and Methods
E. coli AmtB and GlnK were expressed and purified separately and combined before crystallization. Posttranslational modification of GlnK by uridylylation at Y51 prevents association of GlnK with AmtB. Removal of this uridylylation, either enzymatically or by mutagenesis, restores the inhibitory interaction of GlnK with AmtB (12, 13). Therefore, for homogeneity in structure, we mutated the tyrosine to phenylalanine Y51F. This eliminated urydylylation, as confirmed by MALDI-MS, confirming, therefore, that the other tyrosine in the T-loop is not susceptible. The binding of GlnK to AmtB also depends on the concentration of ATP (12, 15). Therefore, the two proteins were combined in the presence of 2 mM ATP, 25 mM AmSO4 (providing the substrate for AmtB), and 40 mM octyl-β-d glucopyranoside for crystallization. Crystals of the complex diffracted to a resolution of 1.96 Å (Table 1). Purification and crystallization are described in SI Text.
Table 1.
Crystallographic statistics
| Measurement | Value |
|---|---|
| Data collection | |
| Unit cell | |
| A=b, c, Å | 102.03, 363.85 |
| α=β, γ, ° | 90, 120 |
| Space group | R32 |
| Wavelength, Å | 1.1159 |
| Resolution, Å | 43.07 - 1.96 |
| Completeness, %*; | 97.5 (92.8) |
| Multiplicity* | 7.2 (4.2) |
| I/σ* | 41.2 (2.1) |
| Rsym, %* | 8.3 (61.1) |
| Refinement | |
| Rcryst, %* | 16.2 (20.7) |
| Rfree, %* | 19.8 (27.5) |
| Mean B factor, Å2 | 30.5 |
| rmsd bond length, Å | 0.012 |
| rmsd bond angle, ° | 1.484 |
Data were collected at the Advanced Light Source, beamline 8.3.1, with a CCD detector (ADSC Quantum 4), and integrated, scaled, and merged with Mosflm and Scala under the Elves suite. Phases were calculated by molecular replacement by using AmtB and GlnK as search models with Phaser. ARP/wARP was used for interpretation of the map and Refmac (CCP4) for refinement.
*Numbers in parentheses refer to the highest-resolution shell (2.03−1.96 Å).
Supplementary Material
Acknowledgments
This research was supported by National Institutes of Health Grant GM24485. We thank James Holton for assistance at the Advanced Light Source (ALS) beamline 8.3.1, supported by National Institutes of Health Grant GM074929 (to R.M.S). We also thank Fred Davis for assistance with PIBASE calculations and comparisons.
Abbreviations
- Am
ammonium cation and ammonia
- 2-KG
2-oxoglutarate
- Amt
ammonia transporter.
Footnotes
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Data deposition: The atomic coordinates have been deposited in the Protein Data Bank, www.pdb.org (PDB ID code 2NS1).
This article contains supporting information online at www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/0609796104/DC1.
References
- 1.Broach J, Neumann C, Kustu S. J Bacteriol. 1976;128:86–98. doi: 10.1128/jb.128.1.86-98.1976. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Knepper MA, Packer R, Good DW. Physiol Rev. 1989;69:179–249. doi: 10.1152/physrev.1989.69.1.179. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Saier MH, Jr, Eng BH, Fard S, Garg J, Haggerty DA, Hutchinson WJ, Jack DL, Lai EC, Liu HJ, Nusinew DP, et al. Biochim Biophys Acta. 1999;1422:1–56. doi: 10.1016/s0304-4157(98)00023-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Thomas GH, Mullins JG, Merrick M. Mol Microbiol. 2000;37:331–344. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2958.2000.01994.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Monfort P, Kosenko E, Erceg S, Canales JJ, Felipo V. Neurochem Int. 2002;41:95–102. doi: 10.1016/s0197-0186(02)00029-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Eisenberg D, Gill HS, Pfluegl GM, Rotstein SH. Biochim Biophys Acta. 2000;1477:122–145. doi: 10.1016/s0167-4838(99)00270-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Khademi S, O'Connell J, III, Remis J, Robles-Colmenares Y, Miercke LJ, Stroud RM. Science. 2004;305:1587–1594. doi: 10.1126/science.1101952. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Zheng L, Kostrewa D, Berneche S, Winkler FK, Li XD. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2004;101:17090–17095. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0406475101. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Thomas G, Coutts G, Merrick M. Trends Genet. 2000;16:11–14. doi: 10.1016/s0168-9525(99)01887-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Durand A, Merrick M. J Biol Chem. 2006;281:29558–29567. doi: 10.1074/jbc.M602477200. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Merrick M, Javelle A, Durand A, Severi E, Thornton J, Avent ND, Conroy MJ, Bullough PA. Transfus Clin Biol. 2006;13:97–102. doi: 10.1016/j.tracli.2006.02.015. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Durand A, Merrick M. J Biol Chem. 2006;281:29558–29567. doi: 10.1074/jbc.M602477200. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Javelle A, Severi E, Thornton J, Merrick M. J Biol Chem. 2004;279:8530–8538. doi: 10.1074/jbc.M312399200. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Ehlers C, Weidenbach K, Veit K, Forchhammer K, Schmitz RA. Mol Microbiol. 2005;55:1841–1854. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2958.2005.04511.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Xu Y, Cheah E, Carr PD, van Heeswijk WC, Westerhoff HV, Vasudevan SG, Ollis DL. J Mol Biol. 1998;282:149–165. doi: 10.1006/jmbi.1998.1979. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Maheswaran M, Urbanke C, Forchhammer K. J Biol Chem. 2004;279:55202–55210. doi: 10.1074/jbc.M410971200. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Davis FP, Sali A. Bioinformatics. 2005;21:1901–1907. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/bti277. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Lee HM, Flores E, Forchhammer K, Herrero A, Tandeau De Marsac N. Eur J Biochem. 2000;267:591–600. doi: 10.1046/j.1432-1327.2000.01043.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Xu Y, Carr PD, Clancy P, Garcia-Dominguez M, Forchhammer K, Florencio F, Vasudevan SG, Tandeau de Marsac N, Ollis DL. Acta Crystallogr D. 2003;59:2183–2190. doi: 10.1107/s0907444903019589. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Kamberov ES, Atkinson MR, Ninfa AJ. J Biol Chem. 1995;270:17797–17807. doi: 10.1074/jbc.270.30.17797. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Ewing TJ, Makino S, Skillman AG, Kuntz ID. J Comput-Aided Mol Des. 2001;15:411–428. doi: 10.1023/a:1011115820450. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Andrade SL, Dickmanns A, Ficner R, Einsle O. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2005;102:14994–14999. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0506254102. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Cheah E, Carr PD, Suffolk PM, Vasudevan SG, Dixon NE, Ollis DL. Structure (London) 1994;2:981–990. doi: 10.1016/s0969-2126(94)00100-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Machado Benelli E, Buck M, Polikarpov I, Maltempi de Souza E, Cruz LM, Pedrosa FO. Eur J Biochem. 2002;269:3296–3303. doi: 10.1046/j.1432-1033.2002.03011.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Sakai H, Wang H, Takemoto-Hori C, Kaminishi T, Yamaguchi H, Kamewari Y, Terada T, Kuramitsu S, Shirouzu M, Yokoyama S. J Struct Biol. 2005;149:99–110. doi: 10.1016/j.jsb.2004.08.007. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Xu Y, Carr PD, Huber T, Vasudevan SG, Ollis DL. Eur J Biochem. 2001;268:2028–2037. doi: 10.1046/j.1432-1327.2001.02074.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.






