PSI Structural Biology Knowledgebase

PSI | Structural Biology Knowledgebase
Header Icons
E-Collection

Related Articles
Community-Nominated Targets
July 2015
Drug Discovery: Solving the Structure of an Anti-hypertension Drug Target
July 2015
Retrospective: 7,000 Structures Closer to Understanding Biology
July 2015
Design and Evolution: Unveiling Translocator Proteins
June 2015
Signaling with DivL
May 2015
Signaling: A Platform for Opposing Functions
May 2015
Signaling: Securing Lipid-Protein Partnership
May 2015
Dynamic DnaK
March 2015
Iron-Sulfur Cluster Biosynthesis
December 2014
Mitochondrion: Flipping for UCP2
December 2014
Mitochondrion: Setting a New TRAP1
December 2014
Power in Numbers
August 2014
Quorum Sensing: A Groovy New Component
August 2014
Quorum Sensing: E. coli Gets Involved
August 2014
iTRAQing the Ubiquitinome
July 2014
Microbiome: The Dynamics of Infection
September 2013
Protein-Nucleic Acid Interaction: A Modified SAM to Modify tRNA
July 2013
Protein-Nucleic Acid Interaction: Versatile Glutamate
July 2013
PDZ Domains
April 2013
Alpha-Catenin Connections
March 2013
Cell-Cell Interaction: A FERM Connection
March 2013
Cell-Cell Interaction: Magic Structure from Microcrystals
March 2013
Cell-Cell Interaction: Modulating Self Recognition Affinity
March 2013
Bacterial Hemophores
January 2013
Archaeal Lipids
December 2012
Membrane Proteome: Capturing Multiple Conformations
December 2012
Lethal Tendencies
October 2012
Symmetry from Asymmetry
October 2012
A signal sensing switch
September 2012
Regulatory insights
September 2012
AlkB Homologs
August 2012
Budding ensemble
August 2012
Targeting Enzyme Function with Structural Genomics
July 2012
The machines behind the spindle assembly checkpoint
June 2012
Chaperone interactions
April 2012
Pilus Assembly Protein TadZ
April 2012
Revealing the Nuclear Pore Complex
March 2012
Topping off the proteasome
March 2012
Twist to open
March 2012
Disordered Proteins
February 2012
Analyzing an allergen
January 2012
Making Lipopolysaccharide
January 2012
Pulling on loose ends
January 2012
Terminal activation
December 2011
The Perils of Protein Secretion
November 2011
Bacterial Armor
October 2011
TLR4 regulation: heads or tails?
October 2011
Ribose production on demand
September 2011
Moving some metal
August 2011
Looking for lipids
July 2011
Ribofuranosyl Binding Protein
June 2011
A molecular switch for neuronal growth
May 2011
Cell wall recycler
May 2011
Added benefits
April 2011
NMR challenges current protein hydration dogma
March 2011
Nitrile Reductase QueF
March 2011
Tip formin
March 2011
Inhibiting factor
February 2011
PASK staying active
February 2011
Tryptophanyl-tRNA Synthetase
February 2011
Regulating nitrogen assimilation
January 2011
Subtle shifts
January 2011
Nitrobindin
December 2010
Function following form
October 2010
tRNA Isopentenyltransferase MiaA
August 2010
Importance of extension for integrin
June 2010
Phytochrome
April 2010
Alg13 Subunit of N-Acetylglucosamine Transferase
February 2010
Hemolysin BL
January 2010
Secretagogin
December 2009
Two-component signaling
December 2009
Network coverage
November 2009
Pseudouridine Synthase TruA
November 2009
Unusual cell division
October 2009
Toxin-antitoxin VapBC-5
September 2009
Salicylic Acid Binding Protein 2
August 2009
Proofreading RNA
July 2009
Ykul structure solves bacterial signaling puzzle
July 2009
Hda and DNA Replication
June 2009
Controlling p53
May 2009
Mitotic checkpoint control
May 2009
Ribonuclease and Ribonuclease Inhibitor
April 2009
The elusive helicase
April 2009
Aquaglyceroporin
March 2009
High-energy storage system
February 2009
A new class of bacterial E3 ubiquitination enzymes
January 2009
Poly(A) RNA recognition
January 2009
Activating BAX
December 2008
Scavenger Decapping Enzyme DcpS
November 2008
Bacteriophage Lambda cII Protein
October 2008
New metal-binding domain
October 2008
Blocking AmtB
September 2008
T-Rex
September 2008
Aspartate Dehydrogenase
August 2008
RNase T
July 2008
Chronophin
May 2008

Research Themes Cell biology

Targeting Enzyme Function with Structural Genomics

SBKB [doi:10.3942/psi_sgkb/fm_2012_7]
Featured System - July 2012
Short description: Prediction of the function of a new enzyme based only on its sequence, or even on its structure, is still a major challenge, and will be a major prize for biomedical research when effective methods are developed.

Prediction of the function of a new enzyme based only on its sequence, or even on its structure, is still a major challenge, and will be a major prize for biomedical research when effective methods are developed. Researchers at NYSGRC, in collaboration with the Enzyme Function Initiative, are addressing this challenge by studying several classes of enzymes. They began work on two superfamilies--enolase and amidohydrolase (shown here)--and have recently expanded the study to include three additional superfamilies: glutathione transferase, haloalkanoic acid dehalogenase, and isoprenoid synthase. By focusing on these superfamilies, and solving structures of many members with very different functions but similar structures, they are able to tease out the characteristic features that define the function, and separate them from the features that are important for other aspects, such as structural stability.

Functional Folds

The enolase enzymes and the amidohydrolase enzymes share a similar fold. The bulk of the chain forms a typical alpha-beta barrel, like that first discovered in triose phosphate isomerase (shown here in green). The two ends of the chain then associate to form another domain on one side of the barrel (shown in red and blue). The active site in both cases is found at one end of the barrel, where all the loops connecting the alpha helices and the beta strands form a substrate-sized cavity. Both superfamilies capture metal ions in their active sites to assist with the reaction. Two examples studied by NYSGRC are shown here, from PDB entries 2ics and 2ozt.

Diversity and Similarity

These simple folds provide a wide range of possibilities for function. In order to study this diversity, it helps to have a large dataset of structures to compare. As part of their structural genomics effort, NYSGRC researchers have solved new structures of dozens of unique members of these two superfamilies. Several members of the amidohydrolase superfamily are shown here, from PDB entries 2paj, 2i5g, 2gok, 2q01, 2ogj and 2qs8. In these examples, a similar fold is used to build enzymes with widely different quaternary structures and entirely different functions.

Fold into Function

To discover the function of the enzymes, the Enzyme Function Initiative is attempting to predict the substrates, transition states, and products that bind to the enzyme active sites, using the structures solved by PSI researchers. They have had two early successes, using a variety of computational methods for docking small molecules and accounting for flexibility in the enzymes. Using these methods, they discovered that one of the new amidohydrolases is an adenosylhomocysteine deaminase, and one of the enolases is an N-succinyl arginine racemase. Subsequence crystallographic structures of these enzymes in complex with their substrates, shown here from PDB entries 2p8c and 2plm, confirmed the structural details of these functions.

Evolutionary Relationships

By looking at many structures from different organisms, we can discover how the different enzyme functions were evolved. Since the enzymes within each of these superfamilies share a similar sequence and similar fold, they are thought to have diverged from a common ancestor protein. Other unusual evolutionary relationships have also been found. The two enolases shown here, from PDB entries 3dg6 and 3dgb, perform a similar reaction, but do it in stereochemically opposite ways, attacking the substrate from opposite directions. This is thought to be an example of pseudoconvergent evolution, where two different enzymes in the superfamily individually evolve to use similar methods to do the same job. To take a closer look at these enolases, the JSmol tab below displays an interactive JSmol.

Pseudoconvergent Enzymes (PDB entries 3dg6 and 3dgb)

These two enzymes perform a similar reaction, but do it in stereochemically opposite ways. The crystallographic structures capture muconate lactonizing enzyme (MLE) from two different bacteria, after they have finished the reaction, shuffling around a few hydrogen atoms to form a ring and change a carbon-carbon double bond to a single bond. The catalytic amino acid is a lysine, shown here in turquoise. On the substrate, two hydrogen atoms are shown in light green and pink: in one enzyme, the pi

References

  1. Gerlt, J. A. et al. The enzyme function initiative. Biochem. 50, 9950-9962 (2011).
    Pieper, U. et al. Target selection and annotation for the structural genomics of the amidohydrolase and enolase superfamilies. J. Struct. Funct. Genomics 10, 107-125 (2009).

  2. Sakai, A. et al. Evolution of enzymatic activities in the enolase superfamily: stereochemically distinct mechanisms in two families of cis,cis-muconate lactonizing enzymes. Biochem. 48, 1455-1453 (2009).

Structural Biology Knowledgebase ISSN: 1758-1338
Funded by a grant from the National Institute of General Medical Sciences of the National Institutes of Health