Effect of Nε-acetylation on the Enzymatic Activity of  Escherichia coli  Glyceraldehyde-3-phosphate Dehydrogenase

N. S. Plekhanova; Плеханова Н. С.; I. B. Altman; Альтман И. Б.; M. S. Yurkova; Юркова М. С.; A. N. Fedorov; Федоров А. Н.

doi:10.31857/S0555109923060119

Effect of Nε-acetylation on the Enzymatic Activity of Escherichia coli Glyceraldehyde-3-phosphate Dehydrogenase

Authors: Plekhanova N.S.¹, Altman I.B.², Yurkova M.S.¹, Fedorov A.N.¹
Affiliations:
1. Federal Research Centre «Fundamentals of Biotechnology of the Russian Academy of Sciences
2. MIREA – Russian Technological University
Issue: Vol 59, No 6 (2023)
Pages: 564-572
Section: Articles
URL: https://ogarev-online.ru/0555-1099/article/view/232489
DOI: https://doi.org/10.31857/S0555109923060119
EDN: https://elibrary.ru/CWOIDD
ID: 232489

Cite item

Full Text

Open Access
Restricted Access

Access granted
Restricted Access

Subscription Access

Abstract
About the authors
References
Supplementary files
Statistics

Abstract

The regulation of cellular metabolism is a topic of interest for both fundamental and applied science, as the findings can be used in various biotechnological industries. One of the universal regulatory mechanisms that affects most cellular processes is the acetylation of lysine residues in central metabolic enzymes, such as glyceraldehyde-3-phosphate dehydrogenase. In this work, we investigated the effect of acetylation and deacetylation on the activity of both wild type and mutant E. coli glyceraldehyde-3-phosphate dehydrogenase. We found that in vitro acetylation of wild-type GAPDH by PatZ acetyltransferase increased its enzymatic activity by twofold, while subsequent deacetylation restored the activity to initial level. For mutant forms of glyceraldehyde-3-phosphate dehydrogenase, we demonstrated that the introduction of additional acetylation sites due to mutations altered the impact of acetylation/deacetylation processes on glyceraldehyde-3-phosphate dehydrogenase activity. Our data suggest a re-evaluation of the role of acetylation in regulating glyceraldehyde-3-phosphate dehydrogenase activity and its involvement in E. coli metabolism.

Keywords

glyceraldehyde-3-phosphate dehydrogenase, acetylation, acetyltransferase, deacetylase, regulation of GAPDH activity

References

Kuhn M.L., Zemaitaitis B., Hu L.I., Sahu A., Sorensen D., Minasov G. et al. //PLoS ONE. 2014. V. 9. № 4. P. e94816. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0094816
Wang Q., Zhang Y., Yang C., Xiong H., Lin Y., Yao J. et al. // Science. 2010. V. 327. P. 1004–1007.
Verdin E., Ott M. //Molecular Cell. 2013. T. 51. № 2. C. 132–134.
Slivinskaya E.A., Plekhanova N.S., Altman I.B., Yampolskaya T.A. // Microorganisms. 2022. V. 10. P. 976.https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms10050976
Schilling B., Basisty N., Christensen D.G., Sorensen D., Orr J.S., Wolfe A.J. et al. //J. Bacteriol. 2019. V. 201. № 9. https://doi.org/10.1128/JB.00768-18
Castaño-Cerezo S., Bernal V., Post H., Fuhrer T., Cappadona S., Sánchez-Díaz N.C. et al. //Molecular Systems Biology. 2014. V. 10. P. 762. https://doi.org/10.15252/msb.20145227
Sambrook J., Fritsch E.F., Maniatis T. Molecular Cloning: A Laboratory Manual. 2nd. ed. Cold Spring Harbor: Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, 1989. 1625 p.
Thomason L.C., Costantino N., Court D.L. //CP Molecular Biology. 2007. V. 79. https://doi.org/10.1002/0471142727.mb0117s79
Datsenko K.A., Wanner B.L. //Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 2000. V. 97. P. 6640–6645.
Lamed R., Zeikus J.G. // J Bacteriol. 1980. V. 141. P. 1251–1257.
Laemmli U.K. //Nature. 1970. V. 227. P. 680–685.
Song L., Wang G., Malhotra A., Deutscher M.P., Liang W. // Nucleic Acids Res. 2016. V. 44. P. 1979–1988.
Wittig I., Karas M., Schägger H. // Molecular & Cellular Proteomics. 2007. V. 6. P. 1215–1225.
Zhou X., Zheng W., Li Y., Pearce R., Zhang C., Bell E.W. et al. // Nat Protoc. 2022. V. 17. № 10. P. 2326–2353.
Brooks B.R., Bruccoleri R.E., Olafson B.D., States D.J., Swaminathan S., Karplus M. // J. Comput. Chem. 1983. V. 4. P. 187–217.
Bikadi Z., Hazai E. // J. Cheminform. 2009. V. 1. P. 15. https://doi.org/10.1186/1758-2946-1-15
Halgren T.A. // Encyclopedia of Computational Chemistry. UK: John Wiley & Sons, 2002. https://doi.org/10.1002/0470845015.cma012m
Xia L., Kong X., Song H., Han Q., Zhang S. // Plant Communications. 2022. V. 3. P. 100266. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.xplc.2021.100266
Okanishi H., Kim K., Masui R., Kuramitsu S. // J. Proteome Res. 2013. V. 12. P. 3952–3968.
Smith K., Shen F., Lee H.J., Chandrasekaran S. // iScience. 2022. V. 25. P. 103730. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.isci.2021.103730
Ketema E.B., Lopaschuk G.D. // Front. Cardiovasc. Med. 2021. V. 8. P. 723996. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcvm.2021.723996
Li T., Liu M., Feng X., Wang Z., Das I., Xu Y. et al. // J. Biol. Chem. 2014. V. 289. P. 3775–3785.
Ventura M., Mateo F., Serratosa J., Salaet I., Carujo S., Bachs O. et al. // Int. J. Biochem. Cell Biol. 2010. V. 42. P. 1672–1680.
Zhang H., Zhao Y., Zhou D.X. // Nucleic Acids Research. 2017. V. 45. P. 12241–12255.
Baba T., Ara T., Hasegawa M., Takai Y., Okumura Y., Baba M., Datsenko K.A. et al. // Molecular Systems Biology. 2006. V. 2. P. 2006. https://doi.org/10.1038/msb4100050
Crooks G.E., Hon G., Chandonia J.-M., Brenner S.E. // Genome Res. 2004. V. 14. P. 1188–1190.