Sandbox Reserved 993: Difference between revisions
From Proteopedia
Jump to navigationJump to search
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
A model for the active site of ''Photinus pyralis'' luciferase was proposed by Branchini and colleagues in 1998 and has held up to more recent data.<ref name=Zako2003>Zako T., Ayabe K., Aburatani T., Kamiya N., Kitayama A., Ueda H., and Nagamune T. (2003) "Luminescent and substrate binding activities of firefly luciferase N-terminal domain", 1649(2): 183-189. doi: 10.1016/S1570-9639(03)00179-1</ref> In this model, the enzyme contains a binding pocket for ATP as well as a binding pocket for luciferin. The binding pocket for ATP is formed by the residues 316GAP318, 339GYGL342, and V362, and binds to the adenine ring.<ref name=Branchini1998>Branchini B.R., Magyar R.A., Murtiashaw M.H., Anderson S.M., and Zimmer M. (1998) "Site-directed mutagenesis of Histidine 245 in firefly luciferase: a proposed model of the active site", Biochemistry 37(44): 15311-15319. doi: 10.1021/bi981150d</ref> The luciferin binding pocket is comprised of the residues 341GLT343, 346TSA348, 245HHGFGMT251 (helix), 315GGA317 (loop), and R218.<ref name=Branchini1998 /> A model of the active site with a bound luciferase inhibitor (PTC128) is shown <scene name='69/691535/Active_site_structure/2'>here</scene> (blue=ATP binding pocket, purple=luciferin binding pocket, and green=residues shared by binding pockets). The S314-L319 loop and Q338-A348 region were found to be in different positions when substrates were bound.<ref name=Branchini1998 /> Since the loop blocks both of the binding pockets when in the unbound state, it makes sense that a conformational change in the loop must occur.<ref name=Branchini1998 /> | A model for the active site of ''Photinus pyralis'' luciferase was proposed by Branchini and colleagues in 1998 and has held up to more recent data.<ref name=Zako2003>Zako T., Ayabe K., Aburatani T., Kamiya N., Kitayama A., Ueda H., and Nagamune T. (2003) "Luminescent and substrate binding activities of firefly luciferase N-terminal domain", 1649(2): 183-189. doi: 10.1016/S1570-9639(03)00179-1</ref> In this model, the enzyme contains a binding pocket for ATP as well as a binding pocket for luciferin. The binding pocket for ATP is formed by the residues 316GAP318, 339GYGL342, and V362, and binds to the adenine ring.<ref name=Branchini1998>Branchini B.R., Magyar R.A., Murtiashaw M.H., Anderson S.M., and Zimmer M. (1998) "Site-directed mutagenesis of Histidine 245 in firefly luciferase: a proposed model of the active site", Biochemistry 37(44): 15311-15319. doi: 10.1021/bi981150d</ref> The luciferin binding pocket is comprised of the residues 341GLT343, 346TSA348, 245HHGFGMT251 (helix), 315GGA317 (loop), and R218.<ref name=Branchini1998 /> A model of the active site with a bound luciferase inhibitor (PTC128) is shown <scene name='69/691535/Active_site_structure/2'>here</scene> (blue=ATP binding pocket, purple=luciferin binding pocket, and green=residues shared by binding pockets). The S314-L319 loop and Q338-A348 region were found to be in different positions when substrates were bound.<ref name=Branchini1998 /> Since the loop blocks both of the binding pockets when in the unbound state, it makes sense that a conformational change in the loop must occur.<ref name=Branchini1998 /> | ||
== Mechanism == | == Mechanism == | ||
It was believed that the chemically produced excited states stemmed from dioxetanone. This idea was proposed based on a common type of chemiluminescence which required O<sub>2</sub> at certain points in which dioxetanone is a precursor to the excited state. De Luca and colleagues did a study that proposed that the dioxetanone mechanism for bio- and chemiluminescence were false. Their experiment used oxygen isotopes and concluded that the oxygen atoms that the produced carbon dioxide consisted of did not stem from the consumed oxygen. This study, however, has been analyzed and several flaws have been discovered such as, incomplete chain of events and no proof of CO<sub>2</sub> collection from the reaction was obtainable. It was stated that the CO<sub>2</sub> produced was pumped directly out of the reaction. This was not possible due to the high reaction rate of CO<sub>2</sub>and tert-butoxide ion and the stability of monoalkyl carbonates. Johnson and Shimomura determined that an oxygen atom that makes up the CO<sub>2</sub> does indeed stem from the O<sub>2</sub> consumed by the reaction in firefly bioluminescence. De Luca and colleagues reevaluated their work and their results agreed with Johnson and Shimomura. Therefore, the dioxetane-dioxetanone mechanism for firefly bioluminescence and chemiluminescence is supported.<ref name=White1980>White, E. H., Steinmetz, M. G., Miano, J. D., Wildes, P. D. and Morland, R. (1980) "Chemi- and bioluminescence of firefly luciferin", J. Am. Chem. Soc. 102(9): 3199-3208.</ref> | It was believed that the chemically produced excited states stemmed from dioxetanone. This idea was proposed based on a common type of chemiluminescence which required O<sub>2</sub> at certain points in which dioxetanone is a precursor to the excited state. De Luca and colleagues did a study that proposed that the dioxetanone mechanism for bio- and chemiluminescence were false. Their experiment used oxygen isotopes and concluded that the oxygen atoms that the produced carbon dioxide consisted of did not stem from the consumed oxygen. This study, however, has been analyzed and several flaws have been discovered such as, incomplete chain of events and no proof of CO<sub>2</sub> collection from the reaction was obtainable. It was stated that the CO<sub>2</sub> produced was pumped directly out of the reaction. This was not possible due to the high reaction rate of CO<sub>2</sub> and tert-butoxide ion and the stability of monoalkyl carbonates. Johnson and Shimomura determined that an oxygen atom that makes up the CO<sub>2</sub> does indeed stem from the O<sub>2</sub> consumed by the reaction in firefly bioluminescence. De Luca and colleagues reevaluated their work and their results agreed with Johnson and Shimomura. Therefore, the dioxetane-dioxetanone mechanism for firefly bioluminescence and chemiluminescence is supported.<ref name=White1980>White, E. H., Steinmetz, M. G., Miano, J. D., Wildes, P. D. and Morland, R. (1980) "Chemi- and bioluminescence of firefly luciferin", J. Am. Chem. Soc. 102(9): 3199-3208.</ref> | ||
Step one: In the photinus pyralis, the reaction begins with luciferin. Luciferase catalyzes ATP and magnesium ion to produce luciferyl AMP from luciferin. | Step one: In the photinus pyralis, the reaction begins with luciferin. Luciferase catalyzes ATP and magnesium ion to produce luciferyl AMP from luciferin. | ||
Revision as of 22:06, 8 March 2015
| This Sandbox is Reserved from 20/01/2015, through 30/04/2016 for use in the course "CHM 463" taught by Mary Karpen at the Grand Valley State University. This reservation includes Sandbox Reserved 987 through Sandbox Reserved 996. |
To get started:
More help: Help:Editing |
| ||||||||||||