HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

J. Biol. Chem., Vol. 276, Issue 27, 25230-25235, July 6, 2001

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) All Versions of this Article: 276/27/25230    most recent M102099200v1 Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by van Roosmalen, M. L. Articles by van Dijl, J. M. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by van Roosmalen, M. L. Articles by van Dijl, J. M. Social Bookmarking                      What's this?

Distinction between Major and Minor Bacillus Signal Peptidases Based on Phylogenetic and Structural Criteria^*

Maarten L. van Roosmalen^§, Jan D. H. Jongbloed^§, Jean-Yves F. Dubois^¶, Gerard Venema, Sierd Bron, and Jan Maarten van Dijl^¶

From the  Department of Genetics, Groningen Biomolecular Sciences and Biotechnology Institute, University of Groningen, Kerklaan 30, 9751 NN Haren, The Netherlands, and the ^¶ Department of Pharmaceutical Biology, University of Groningen, Antonius Deusinglaan 1, 9713 AV Groningen, The Netherlands

The processing of secretory preproteins by signal peptidases (SPases) is essential for cell viability. As previously shown for Bacillus subtilis, only certain SPases of organisms containing multiple paralogous SPases are essential. This allows a distinction between SPases that are of major and minor importance for cell viability. Notably, the functional difference between major and minor SPases is not reflected clearly in sequence alignments. Here, we have successfully used molecular phylogeny to predict major and minor SPases. The results were verified with SPases from various bacilli. As predicted, the latter enzymes behaved as major or minor SPases when expressed in B. subtilis. Strikingly, molecular modeling indicated that the active site geometry is not a critical parameter for the classification of major and minor Bacillus SPases. Even though the substrate binding site of the minor SPase SipV is smaller than that of other known SPases, SipV could be converted into a major SPase without changing this site. Instead, replacement of amino-terminal residues of SipV with corresponding residues of the major SPase SipS was sufficient for conversion of SipV into a major SPase. This suggests that differences between major and minor SPases are based on activities other than substrate cleavage site selection.

CiteULike

Complore

Connotea

Del.icio.us

Digg

Reddit

Technorati

This article has been cited by other articles:

				M. J. J. B. Sibbald, A. K. Ziebandt, S. Engelmann, M. Hecker, A. de Jong, H. J. M. Harmsen, G. C. Raangs, I. Stokroos, J. P. Arends, J. Y. F. Dubois, et al. Mapping the Pathways to Staphylococcal Pathogenesis by Comparative Secretomics Microbiol. Mol. Biol. Rev., September 1, 2006; 70(3): 755 - 788. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				C. Raynaud and A. Charbit Regulation of expression of type I signal peptidases in Listeria monocytogenes Microbiology, November 1, 2005; 151(11): 3769 - 3776. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				S. Stephenson, C. Mueller, M. Jiang, and M. Perego Molecular Analysis of Phr Peptide Processing in Bacillus subtilis J. Bacteriol., August 15, 2003; 185(16): 4861 - 4871. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				R. Venema, H. Tjalsma, J. M. van Dijl, A. de Jong, K. Leenhouts, G. Buist, and G. Venema Active Lipoprotein Precursors in the Gram-positive Eubacterium Lactococcus lactis J. Biol. Chem., April 18, 2003; 278(17): 14739 - 14746. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]