PubMed · 5700746
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
L Csokonay. 1968-05-26. [Screening test for SGOT].. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/5700746/
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
The partially homologous mitochondrial (mAAT) and cytosolic (cAAT) aspartate aminotransferase have nearly identical three-dimensional structures but differ in their folding rates in cell-free extracts and in their affinity for binding to molecular chaperones. In its native state, each isozyme is protease-resistant. Using limited proteolysis as an index of their conformational states, we have characterized these proteins (a) during the early stages of spontaneous refolding; (b) as species trapped in stable complexes with the chaperonin GroEL; or (c) as newly translated polypeptides in cell-free extracts. Treatment of the refolding proteins with trypsin generates reproducible patterns of large proteolytic fragments that are consistent with the formation of defined folding domains soon after initiating refolding. Binding to GroEL affords considerable protection to both isozymes against proteolysis. The tryptic fragments are similar in size for both isozymes, suggesting a common distribution of compact and flexible regions in their folding intermediates. cAAT synthesized in cell-free extracts becomes protease-resistant almost instantaneously, whereas trypsin digestion of the mAAT translation product produces a pattern of fragments qualitatively akin to that observed with the protein refolding in buffer. Analysis of the large tryptic peptides obtained with the GroEL-bound proteins reveals that the cleavage sites are located in analogous regions of the N-terminal portion of each isozyme. These results suggest that (a) binding to GroEL does not cause unfolding of AAT, at least to an extent detectable by proteolysis; (b) the compact folding domains identified in AAT bound to GroEL (or in mAAT fresh translation product) are already present at the early stages of refolding of the proteins in buffer alone; and (c) the two isozymes seem to bind in a similar fashion to GroEL, with the more compact C-terminal portion completely protected and the more flexible N-terminal first 100 residues still partially accessible to proteolysis.
Recombinant aspartate aminotransferase from an extremely thermophilic bacterium, Thermus thermophilus HB8, has been crystallized in two different crystal forms. The crystals of both forms are orthorhombic and belong to space group P212121 with cell dimensions a = 124.3, b = 113.6 and c = 61.6 A for form I and a = 197.3, b = 109.7 and c = 80.3 A for form II. The crystals of form I and II diffract to 2.1 and 2.5 A resolution, respectively, on a conventional laboratory rotating-anode source. Two heavy-atom derivatives have been identified for form I.
Aromatic amino acid aminotransferase (AroAT) and aspartate aminotransferase (AspAT) are known as dual-substrate enzymes, which can bind acidic and hydrophobic substrates in the same pocket (Kawaguchi, S., Nobe, Y., Yasuoka, J., Wakamiya, T., Kusumoto, S., and Kuramitsu, S. (1997) J. Biochem. (Tokyo) 122, 55-63). In order to elucidate the mechanism of hydrophobic substrate recognition, kinetic and thermodynamic analyses using substrates with different hydrophobicities were performed. They revealed that 1) amino acid substrate specificity (kmax/Kd) depended on the affinity for the substrate (1/Kd) and 2) binding of the hydrophobic side chain was enthalpy-driven, suggesting that van der Waals interactions between the substrate-binding pocket and hydrophobic substrate predominated. Three-dimensional structures of AspAT and AroAT bound to alpha-aminoheptanoic acid were built using the homology modeling method. A molecular dynamic simulation study suggested that the outward-facing position of the Arg292 side chain was the preferred state to a greater extent in AroAT than AspAT, which would make the hydrophobic substrate bound state of the former more stable. Furthermore, AroAT appeared to have a more flexible conformation than AspAT. Such flexibility would be expected to reduce the energetic cost of conformational rearrangement induced by substrate binding. These two mechanisms (positional preference of Arg and flexible conformation) may account for the high activity of AroAT toward hydrophobic substrates.