Mechanism of homotropic control to coordinate hydrolysis in a hexameric AAA+ ring ATPase.

Division of Biology, Imperial College London, London SW7 2AZ, UK.
Journal of Molecular Biology (Impact Factor: 3.91). 09/2008; 381(1):1-12. DOI: 10.1016/j.jmb.2008.05.075
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT AAA(+) proteins are ubiquitous mechanochemical ATPases that use energy from ATP hydrolysis to remodel their versatile substrates. The AAA(+) characteristic hexameric ring assemblies raise important questions about if and how six often identical subunits coordinate hydrolysis and associated motions. The PspF AAA(+) domain, PspF(1-275), remodels the bacterial sigma(54)-RNA polymerase to activate transcription. Analysis of ATP substrate inhibition kinetics on ATP hydrolysis in hexameric PspF(1-275) indicates negative homotropic effects between subunits. Functional determinants required for allosteric control identify: (i) an important link between the ATP bound ribose moiety and the SensorII motif that would allow nucleotide-dependent *-helical */beta subdomain dynamics; and (ii) establishes a novel regulatory role for the SensorII helix in PspF, which may apply to other AAA(+) proteins. Consistent with functional data, homotropic control appears to depend on nucleotide state-dependent subdomain angles imposing dynamic symmetry constraints in the AAA(+) ring. Homotropic coordination is functionally important to remodel the sigma(54) promoter. We propose a structural symmetry-based model for homotropic control in the AAA(+) characteristic ring architecture.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: It is largely unknown how the typical homomeric ring geometry of ATPases associated with various cellular activities enables them to perform mechanical work. Small-angle solution X-ray scattering, crystallography, and electron microscopy (EM) reconstructions revealed that partial ATP occupancy caused the heptameric closed ring of the bacterial enhancer-binding protein (bEBP) NtrC1 to rearrange into a hexameric split ring of striking asymmetry. The highly conserved and functionally crucial GAFTGA loops responsible for interacting with σ54-RNA polymerase formed a spiral staircase. We propose that splitting of the ensemble directs ATP hydrolysis within the oligomer, and the ring's asymmetry guides interaction between ATPase and the complex of σ54 and promoter DNA. Similarity between the structure of the transcriptional activator NtrC1 and those of distantly related helicases Rho and E1 reveals a general mechanism in homomeric ATPases whereby complex allostery within the ring geometry forms asymmetric functional states that allow these biological motors to exert directional forces on their target macromolecules.
    Genes & development 11/2013; 27(22):2500-11. · 12.08 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Bacterial enhancer binding proteins (bEBPs) are transcriptional activators that assemble as hexameric rings in their active forms and utilize ATP hydrolysis to remodel the conformation of RNA polymerase containing the alternative sigma factor σ54. We present a comprehensive and detailed summary of recent advances in our understanding of how these specialized molecular machines function. The review is structured by introducing each of the three domains in turn: the central catalytic domain, the N-terminal regulatory domain, and the C-terminal DNA binding domain. The role of the central catalytic domain is presented with particular reference to (i) oligomerization, (ii) ATP hydrolysis, and (iii) the key GAFTGA motif that contacts σ54 for remodeling. Each of these functions forms a potential target of the signal-sensing N-terminal regulatory domain, which can act either positively or negatively to control the activation of σ54-dependent transcription. Finally, we focus on the DNA binding function of the C-terminal domain and the enhancer sites to which it binds. Particular attention is paid to the importance of σ54 to the bacterial cell and its unique role in regulating transcription.
    Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews 09/2012; 76(3):497-529. · 16.42 Impact Factor
  • Revista Espa de Cardiologia 04/2009; 62(4):459-461. · 3.20 Impact Factor


Available from
May 27, 2014