| Literature DB >> 25938298 |
Appu Kumar Singh1, Babu Manjasetty2, G L Balasubramani1, Sukirte Koul1, Abhishek Kaushik1, Mary Krishna Ekka1, Vijay Singh1, S Kumaran1.
Abstract
Fad35R from Mycobacterium tuberculosis binds to the promoter site of Fad35 operon and its DNA binding activities are reduced in the presence of tetracycline and palmitoyl-CoA. We resolved the crystal structure of Fad35R using single-wavelength anomalous diffraction method (SAD). Fad35R comprises canonical DNA binding domain (DBD) and ligand binding domain (LBD), but displays several distinct structural features. Two recognition helices of two monomers in the homodimer are separated by ~ 48 Å and two core triangle-shaped ligand binding cavities are well exposed to solvent. Structural comparison with DesT and QacR structures suggests that ligand binding-induced movement of α7, which adopts a straight conformation in the Fad35R, may be crucial to switch the conformational states between repressive and derepressive forms. Two DBDs are packed asymmetrically, creating an alternative dimer interface which coincides with the possible tetramer interface that connects the two canonical dimers. Quaternary state of alternative dimer mimics a closed-state structure in which two recognition helices are distanced at ~ 35 Å and ligand binding pockets are inaccessible. Results of biophysical studies indicate that Fad35R has the propensity to oligomerize in solution in the presence of tetracycline. We present the first structure of a FadR homologue from mycobacterium and the structure reveals DNA and ligand binding features of Fad35R and also provides a view on alternative quaternary states that mimic open and closed forms of the regulator.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2015 PMID: 25938298 PMCID: PMC4418694 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0124333
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Data collection and refinement statistics.
| Dataset | Fad35R |
|---|---|
|
| |
| Wavelength | 0.9775 |
| Space group | P212121 |
| Unit cell dimensions | |
|
| 76.84, 83.21, 95.33 |
|
| 90 |
| Resolutions (Å) | 50–3.44 (3.56–3.43) |
| Total Reflections | 67789 |
| Unique Reflections | 15712 (818) |
| Completeness (%) | 95 |
| Redundancy | 2.9 (2.0) |
| Rmerge (%) | 12.2 (52.9) |
| I/σ | 12.4 (2.54) |
| ShelxD | 4 |
| Correlation coffefficient CC) all/weak | 53.81/27.55 |
| Combined figure of merit (CFOM) | 81.4 |
| PAT figure of merit (FOM) | 15.01 |
|
| |
| No. of reflections, work/free | 7538/944 |
| Rwork (%) | 20.8 (27.3) |
| Rfree (%) | 25.6 (38.58) |
| Root-mean-square deviation for bonds (Å) | 0.005 |
| Root-mean-square deviation for angle (deg) | 0.862 |
| No. of protein molecules | 2 |
| No. of atoms in protein molecules | 2851 |
| Ligand | 12 |
| Water | 0 |
| Average | 75.10 |
|
| |
| Favored regions | 91.2 |
| Allowed regions | 8.8 |
| Generously allowed regions | 0.0 |
| Outliers | 0.0 |
| PDB entry | 4G12 |
Data completeness treats Bijvoët mates independently.
Statistics for the highest resolution bin are given in parentheses.
R = ∑ ∑ |I(hkl) |−< I(hkl) >|/∑ ∑ < I(hkl) >.
Substructure determination parameters are from ShelxD.
R = ∑ ||F (hkl)|−k|F (hkl)||/∑ |F (hkl)|, where F and F are observed and calculated structure factors.