Stereoselectivity of the membrane potential-generating citrate and malate transporters of lactic acid bacteria

Citation
M. Bandell et Js. Lolkema, Stereoselectivity of the membrane potential-generating citrate and malate transporters of lactic acid bacteria, BIOCHEM, 38(32), 1999, pp. 10352-10360
Citations number
22
Categorie Soggetti
Biochemistry & Biophysics
Journal title
BIOCHEMISTRY
ISSN journal
00062960 → ACNP
Volume
38
Issue
32
Year of publication
1999
Pages
10352 - 10360
Database
ISI
SICI code
0006-2960(19990810)38:32<10352:SOTMPC>2.0.ZU;2-K
Abstract
The citrate transporter of Leuconostoc mesenteroides (CitP) and the malate transporter of Lactococcus lactis (MleP) are homologous proteins that catal yze citrate-lactate and malate-lactate exchange, respectively. Both transpo rters transport a range of substrates that contain the 2-hydroxycarboxylate motif, HO-CR2-COO- [Bandell, M., et al. (1997) J. Biol. Chem. 272, 18140-1 8146]. In this study, we have analyzed binding and translocation properties of CitP and MleP for a wide variety of substrates and substrate analogues. Modification of the OH or the COO- groups of the 2-hydroxycarboxylate moti f drastically reduced the affinity of the transporters for the substrates, indicating their relevance in substrate recognition. Both CitP and MleP wer e strictly stereoselective when the R group contained a second carboxylate group; the S-enantiomers were efficiently bound and translocated, while the transporters had no affinity for the R-enantiomers. The affinity of the S- enantiomers, and of citrate, was at least 1 order of magnitude higher than for lactate and other substrates with uncharged R groups, indicating a spec ific interaction between the second carboxylate group and the protein that is responsible for high-affinity binding. MleP was not stereoselective in b inding when the R groups are hydrophobic and as large as a benzyl group. Ho wever, only the S-enantiomers were translocated by MleP. CitP had a strong preference for binding and translocating the R-enantiomers of substrates wi th large hydrophobic R groups. These differences between CitP and MleP expl ain why citrate is a substrate of CitP and not of MleP. The results are dis cussed in the context of a model for the interaction between sites on the p rotein and functional groups on the substrates in the binding pockets of th e two proteins.