Reformulation of an extant ATPase active site to mimic ancestral GTPase activity reveals a nucleotide base requirement for function.
B. subtilis
MreB
SpoVM
actin
cell biology
infectious disease
microbiology
ppGpp
septins
tubulin
Journal
eLife
ISSN: 2050-084X
Titre abrégé: Elife
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101579614
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
11 03 2021
11 03 2021
Historique:
received:
16
12
2020
accepted:
05
02
2021
entrez:
11
3
2021
pubmed:
12
3
2021
medline:
15
12
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Hydrolysis of nucleoside triphosphates releases similar amounts of energy. However, ATP hydrolysis is typically used for energy-intensive reactions, whereas GTP hydrolysis typically functions as a switch. SpoIVA is a bacterial cytoskeletal protein that hydrolyzes ATP to polymerize irreversibly during Living organisms need energy to stay alive; in cells, this energy is supplied in the form of a small molecule called adenosine triphosphate, or ATP, a nucleotide that stores energy in the bonds between its three phosphate groups. ATP is present in all living cells and is often referred to as the energy currency of the cell, because it can be easily stored and transported to where it is needed. However, it is unknown why cells rely so heavily on ATP when a highly similar nucleotide called guanosine triphosphate, or GTP, could also act as an energy currency. There are several examples of proteins that originally used GTP and have since evolved to use ATP, but it is not clear why this switch occurred. One suggestion is that ATP is the more readily available nucleotide in the cell. To test this hypothesis, Updegrove, Harke et al. studied a protein that helps bacteria transition into spores, which are hardier and can survive in extreme environments until conditions become favorable for bacteria to grow again. In modern bacteria, this protein uses ATP to provide energy, but it evolved from an ancestral protein that used GTP instead. First, Updegrove, Harke et al. engineered the protein so that it became more similar to the ancestral protein and used GTP instead of ATP. When this was done, the protein gained the ability to break down GTP and release energy from it, but it no longer performed its enzymatic function. This suggests that both the energy released and the source of that energy are important for a protein’s activity. Further analysis showed that the modern version of the protein has evolved to briefly hold on to ATP after releasing its energy, which did not happen with GTP in the modified protein. Updegrove, Harke et al. also discovered that the levels of GTP in a bacterial cell fall as it transforms into a spore, while ATP levels remain relatively high. This suggests that ATP may indeed have become the source of energy of choice because it was more available. These findings provide insights into how ATP became the energy currency in cells, and suggest that how ATP is bound by proteins can impact a protein’s activity. Additionally, these experiments could help inform the development of drugs targeting proteins that bind nucleotides: it may be essential to consider the entirety of the binding event, and not just the release of energy.
Autres résumés
Type: plain-language-summary
(eng)
Living organisms need energy to stay alive; in cells, this energy is supplied in the form of a small molecule called adenosine triphosphate, or ATP, a nucleotide that stores energy in the bonds between its three phosphate groups. ATP is present in all living cells and is often referred to as the energy currency of the cell, because it can be easily stored and transported to where it is needed. However, it is unknown why cells rely so heavily on ATP when a highly similar nucleotide called guanosine triphosphate, or GTP, could also act as an energy currency. There are several examples of proteins that originally used GTP and have since evolved to use ATP, but it is not clear why this switch occurred. One suggestion is that ATP is the more readily available nucleotide in the cell. To test this hypothesis, Updegrove, Harke et al. studied a protein that helps bacteria transition into spores, which are hardier and can survive in extreme environments until conditions become favorable for bacteria to grow again. In modern bacteria, this protein uses ATP to provide energy, but it evolved from an ancestral protein that used GTP instead. First, Updegrove, Harke et al. engineered the protein so that it became more similar to the ancestral protein and used GTP instead of ATP. When this was done, the protein gained the ability to break down GTP and release energy from it, but it no longer performed its enzymatic function. This suggests that both the energy released and the source of that energy are important for a protein’s activity. Further analysis showed that the modern version of the protein has evolved to briefly hold on to ATP after releasing its energy, which did not happen with GTP in the modified protein. Updegrove, Harke et al. also discovered that the levels of GTP in a bacterial cell fall as it transforms into a spore, while ATP levels remain relatively high. This suggests that ATP may indeed have become the source of energy of choice because it was more available. These findings provide insights into how ATP became the energy currency in cells, and suggest that how ATP is bound by proteins can impact a protein’s activity. Additionally, these experiments could help inform the development of drugs targeting proteins that bind nucleotides: it may be essential to consider the entirety of the binding event, and not just the release of energy.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33704064
doi: 10.7554/eLife.65845
pii: 65845
pmc: PMC7952092
doi:
pii:
Substances chimiques
Bacterial Proteins
0
spore-specific proteins, Bacillus
0
Guanosine Triphosphate
86-01-1
Adenosine Triphosphate
8L70Q75FXE
Adenosine Triphosphatases
EC 3.6.1.-
GTP Phosphohydrolases
EC 3.6.1.-
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural
Research Support, N.I.H., Intramural
Research Support, U.S. Gov't, Non-P.H.S.
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Subventions
Organisme : NIGMS NIH HHS
ID : R35 GM127088
Pays : United States
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
TU, JH, VA, JY, NG, DW, GP, DS, DA, JW, LA, KR No competing interests declared
Références
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2011 Jun 21;108(25):10156-61
pubmed: 21646538
Elife. 2020 Dec 15;9:
pubmed: 33319743
Mol Cell Biol. 1999 Sep;19(9):6297-305
pubmed: 10454576
Cold Spring Harb Perspect Biol. 2018 Jul 2;10(7):
pubmed: 29967009
Microbiology (Reading). 2000 May;146 ( Pt 5):1071-1083
pubmed: 10832634
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1987 Apr;84(7):1814-8
pubmed: 3104905
J Biol Chem. 1995 Apr 28;270(17):10002-7
pubmed: 7730301
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2018 Mar 20;115(12):3012-3017
pubmed: 29507216
Biochemistry. 1994 Sep 6;33(35):10711-7
pubmed: 8075071
Front Microbiol. 2020 Sep 02;11:2083
pubmed: 32983059
J Biol Chem. 2014 Mar 14;289(11):7799-811
pubmed: 24464615
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2013 Jan 8;110(2):E151-60
pubmed: 23267091
Mol Cell. 2012 Oct 26;48(2):231-41
pubmed: 22981860
Curr Opin Microbiol. 2005 Apr;8(2):203-7
pubmed: 15802253
Mol Microbiol. 2006 Dec;62(6):1547-57
pubmed: 17427285
Curr Protoc Bioinformatics. 2012 Mar;Chapter 14:Unit14.11
pubmed: 22389014
J Mol Biol. 2002 Mar 15;317(1):41-72
pubmed: 11916378
EMBO J. 1982;1(8):945-51
pubmed: 6329717
Mol Microbiol. 2012 May;84(4):682-96
pubmed: 22463703
BMC Bioinformatics. 2005 Dec 12;6:298
pubmed: 16343337
Nat Chem Biol. 2009 Aug;5(8):593-9
pubmed: 19561621
J Bacteriol. 1992 Jan;174(2):575-85
pubmed: 1729246
J Bacteriol. 1982 Aug;151(2):1062-5
pubmed: 6807955
Biochim Biophys Acta. 2001 Apr 23;1538(2-3):181-9
pubmed: 11336789
Nature. 1991 Jan 10;349(6305):117-27
pubmed: 1898771
Plasmid. 1984 Jul;12(1):1-9
pubmed: 6093169
J Biol Chem. 1994 Sep 30;269(39):24046-9
pubmed: 7929056
Annu Rev Genet. 1996;30:297-41
pubmed: 8982457
Biochim Biophys Acta. 1979 Oct 4;587(2):238-52
pubmed: 114234
J Mol Biol. 2004 Oct 8;343(1):1-28
pubmed: 15381417
Mol Cell. 2015 Feb 19;57(4):735-749
pubmed: 25661490
J Mol Biol. 1999 Apr 16;287(5):1023-40
pubmed: 10222208
J Bacteriol. 1999 Feb;181(3):781-90
pubmed: 9922240
Postepy Biochem. 2016;62(3):335-342
pubmed: 28132488
FEMS Microbiol Rev. 2012 Jan;36(1):131-48
pubmed: 22091839
Mol Cell. 2008 Aug 8;31(3):406-14
pubmed: 18691972
Nat Ecol Evol. 2017 Oct;1(10):1562-1568
pubmed: 29185504
Science. 2018 Apr 27;360(6387):423-427
pubmed: 29700264
Annu Rev Microbiol. 2007;61:555-88
pubmed: 18035610
Annu Rev Biophys. 2017 May 22;46:247-269
pubmed: 28301769
Curr Genet. 2017 Jun;63(3):417-425
pubmed: 27744611
J Bacteriol. 1981 May;146(2):605-13
pubmed: 6111556
Curr Biol. 2010 May 25;20(10):934-8
pubmed: 20451384
J Appl Microbiol. 2006 Sep;101(3):514-25
pubmed: 16907802
Dev Cell. 2015 Sep 28;34(6):682-93
pubmed: 26387458
Trends Biochem Sci. 1997 Dec;22(12):458-9
pubmed: 9433123
J Vis Exp. 2019 Jun 20;(148):
pubmed: 31282880
FEMS Microbiol Lett. 2014 Sep;358(2):145-53
pubmed: 24810258
J Biol Chem. 1981 Jul 10;256(13):6866-75
pubmed: 6113248
Nat Commun. 2015 Apr 09;6:6777
pubmed: 25854653
Nucleic Acids Res. 1997 Sep 1;25(17):3389-402
pubmed: 9254694
Methods Enzymol. 1999;308:70-92
pubmed: 10507001
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2010 Nov 23;107(47):20299-304
pubmed: 21059949
Nucleic Acids Res. 2009 Feb;37(3):858-65
pubmed: 19103665
Environ Microbiol. 2012 Nov;14(11):2870-90
pubmed: 22882546
Microbiol Spectr. 2016 Apr;4(2):
pubmed: 27227299
Mol Cell Biochem. 1994 Nov 9;140(1):1-22
pubmed: 7877593
Environ Microbiol Rep. 2014 Jun;6(3):212-25
pubmed: 24983526
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2019 Oct 22;116(43):21789-21799
pubmed: 31597735
Structure. 2007 Apr;15(4):429-40
pubmed: 17437715
Biochem J. 1969 Jun;113(1):29-37
pubmed: 4185146
Mol Microbiol. 2012 Jan;83(2):245-60
pubmed: 22171814
Structure. 2009 Feb 13;17(2):172-82
pubmed: 19217388
Nat Commun. 2020 Oct 23;11(1):5388
pubmed: 33097692
J Biol Chem. 2015 Dec 25;290(52):31025-36
pubmed: 26515069