|
Originally published In Press as doi:10.1074/jbc.M105984200 on December 27, 2001
J. Biol. Chem., Vol. 277, Issue 10, 8466-8473, March 8, 2002
Identification of Fructose 6-Phosphate- and Fructose
1-Phosphate-binding Residues in the Regulatory Protein of
Glucokinase*
Maria
Veiga-da-Cunha and
Emile
Van Schaftingen
From the Laboratory of Physiological Chemistry, University of
Louvain and Christian de Duve Institute of Cellular Pathology,
B-1200 Brussels, Belgium
Received for publication, June 27, 2001, and in revised form, December 7, 2001
 |
ABSTRACT |
Glucokinase is inhibited in the liver by a
regulatory protein (GKRP) whose effects are increased by Fru-6-P and
suppressed by Fru-1-P. To identify the binding site of these phosphate
esters, we took advantage of the homology of GKRP to the isomerase
domain of GlmS (glucosamine-6-phosphate
synthase) and created 12 different mutants of rat GKRP.
Mutations of three residues predicted to bind to Fru-6-P resulted in
proteins that were ~5-fold (S110A) and 50-fold (S179A and K514A) less
potent as inhibitors of glucokinase and had an at least 100-fold
reduced affinity for the effectors. Mutation of another residue of the
putative binding site (T109A) resulted in a 10-fold decrease in the
inhibitory power and an inversion of the effect of sorbitol-6-P, a
Fru-6-P analog. The replacement of Gly107, a residue
close to the binding site, by cysteine (as in GlmS and
Xenopus GKRP) resulted in a protein that had 20 times more affinity for Fru-6-P and 30 times less affinity for Fru-1-P. These results are consistent with GKRP having one single binding site for
phosphate esters. They also show that a missense mutation of GKRP can
lead to a gain of function.
 |
INTRODUCTION |
Glucokinase is the main enzyme responsible for the phosphorylation
of glucose in liver cells and in pancreatic beta cells and, as such,
plays a major role in the control of blood glucose concentration
(reviewed in Refs. 1-4). This role is best illustrated by the fact
that mutations that make glucokinase less active or less stable cause
maturity onset diabetes of the young type 2 (MODY2), a form of
dominantly inherited diabetes (5, 6).
In hepatocytes, glucokinase activity is acutely regulated by a
glucokinase regulatory protein
(GKRP),1 which binds to this
enzyme and inhibits it competitively with respect to glucose (7-10).
Physiologically, the interaction between glucokinase and GKRP is
modulated by Fru-6-P, which binds to GKRP, promoting the association of
the two proteins, and by Fru-1-P, a metabolite of fructose that
promotes the dissociation of the complex (11). Through this mechanism,
fructose, which is converted to Fru-1-P, stimulates glucose
phosphorylation in the liver (8, 12-14). It is thought that Fru-6-P
(as well as its more powerful analog, sorbitol-6-P) and Fru-1-P act
by inducing different conformational changes in GKRP (15). Both
phosphate esters bind competitively to the protein, but it is not yet
clear, despite studies with analogs, if they bind to a common site or
to two distinct sites that cannot be occupied simultaneously (15). GKRP
is mainly located in the nucleus, whereas glucokinase is mainly present in the nucleus at low glucose concentrations and in the absence of
fructose, but moves to the cytoplasm upon addition of fructose or of
elevated concentrations of glucose (16-22).
Due to the ability of GKRP to inhibit glucokinase, it has been
postulated that mutations in the gene encoding this protein may cause
diabetes if such mutations increase the inhibition, e.g. by
suppressing the "de-inhibitory" effect of Fru-1-P (1, 23-25). It
is therefore of interest to determine whether there are one or two
binding sites for the phosphate esters in GKRP and which residues
interact with these effectors.
To guide such studies, two different observations can be exploited. The
first one is that GKRP found in lower vertebrates, unlike its mammalian
counterpart, is insensitive to Fru-6-P and Fru-1-P, inhibiting the
enzyme even in the absence of these phosphate esters (26). The cDNA
encoding Xenopus GKRP has been cloned and shown to encode a
protein with 58% identity to rat liver GKRP (27). A comparison of the
sequences of these two proteins may therefore allow identification of
residues that potentially interact with Fru-6-P and Fru-1-P.
The second observation of interest is that GKRPs (whether the fructose
phosphate-sensitive or -insensitive forms) are homologous to bacterial
open reading frames of unknown function (Yfeu) as well as to a number
of other proteins, including the isomerase domain of GlmS
(glucosamine-6-phosphate synthase)
(28). This enzyme converts Fru-6-P into GlcN-6-P or Glu-6-P depending
on the presence or absence of glutamine (29). The crystal structure of
the isomerase domain of GlmS is known (30), and the residues that
interact with the substrate Fru-6-P have been identified. They lie at
the interface of two subdomains with similar topology, known as SIS
(sugar isomerase) domains (31).
The objective of this work was to identify the regions in GKRP that are
responsible for its interaction with Fru-6-P and Fru-1-P. For this
purpose, we mutated residues that potentially interact with Fru-6-P
based on the homology of Yfeu to GKRPs and GlmS or on the sequence
comparison between Fru-6-P-sensitive and -insensitive GKRPs.
 |
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES |
Materials--
The sources of materials were as previously
reported (32, 33). Recombinant human islet glucokinase was expressed
and purified as described (34).
Site-directed Mutagenesis of GKRP--
Mutants of rat liver GKRP
were prepared with a PCR-based technique using back-to-back primers
(32) and Pwo polymerase, an enzyme with proofreading
activity. PCR was performed with the primers shown in Table
I using the expression vector of
rat liver GKRP (pET-GKRP) as a template. This plasmid, derived from
pET3a (35), contains the entire coding sequence of wild-type rat liver GKRP flanked at its 5'-end by an NdeI site (containing the
initiator ATG) and at its 3'-end by a BamHI site. The
reaction was carried out in the presence of 1.3% Me2SO and
with an elongation time of 6 min at 72 °C to increase the yield of
the PCR product with the expected size ( 6.5 kb). After PCR
amplification, the linear plasmids were phosphorylated, recircularized,
and cloned in Escherichia coli JM109. Plasmids that had
incorporated the desired mutation could be distinguished from the
wild-type plasmid by restriction analysis (Table I); they were further
sequenced to rule out any PCR errors. The mutant plasmids were used to
transform E. coli BL21(DE3) pLysS for expression of the
recombinant proteins (35).
View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Table I
Primers used for the site-directed mutagenesis of rat liver GKRP
Mutated nucleotides are underlined. The diagnostic restriction sites
are also shown.
|
|
Expression and Purification of GKRP--
For the expression of
both wild-type and mutant GKRPs, 40-ml precultures of the bacteria
bearing the appropriate plasmids were grown overnight at 37 °C in LB
medium containing 0.1 mg/ml ampicillin and 0.03 mg/ml chloramphenicol.
The precultures were then used to inoculate 1 liter of M9 salts medium
containing 1% glucose, 0.1 mg/ml ampicillin, and 0.03 mg/ml
chloramphenicol. The cultures were incubated in an orbital shaker at
37 °C until A600 = 0.6 and then chilled on
ice before addition of the inducer isopropyl-1-thio- -D-galactopyranoside (0.4 mM). After a further incubation of 60 h at 18 °C in
an orbital shaker, the bacteria were isolated by centrifugation, and
extracts (50 ml) were prepared (27). For the purification of
recombinant GKRPs, polyethylene glycol 6000 was added to a final
concentration of 22%. After gentle mixing for 20 min at 4 °C, the
preparation was centrifuged at 4 °C for 10 min at 12,000 × g, and the clear supernatant was eliminated. The pellet was
dissolved in 15 ml of buffer A (25 mM Hepes (pH 7.1), 1 mM dithiothreitol, and 1 µg/ml each antipain and
leupeptin) and chromatographed on a 1.6 × 13-cm DEAE-Sepharose
column equilibrated with the same buffer. The column was washed with
100 ml of buffer A, and the proteins retained were eluted with a 0-0.5
M NaCl gradient (in 2× 100 ml of buffer A). The fractions
collected (2.5 ml) were tested for their ability to inhibit recombinant
human liver glucokinase in the presence of 5 mM glucose and
200 µM Fru-6-P (7) and analyzed by SDS-PAGE and Coomassie
Blue staining. Total protein was measured according to Bradford (36)
using bovine -globulin as a standard.
The chromatographic step allowed the separation of GKRP from enzymes
that interfered in the assay by causing a high "blank" value. As a
rule, only the three fractions ( 7 ml) that were the richest in GKRP
(identified through its inhibitory effect and/or by the presence of an
68-kDa polypeptide) were pooled and used for further studies. For
most of the proteins, this pool contained 1-2.5 mg/ml GKRP (depending
on the amount of soluble GKRP expressed). The DEAE-Sepharose pools
from mutants S179A and K499A were concentrated by ~3-fold in an
Amicon pressure cell equipped with a YM-10 membrane to obtain a
preparation with a similar GKRP concentration. The purity of GKRP in
the DEAE pools was estimated to be between 60 and 90% by densitometric
analysis of SDS-polyacrylamide gels (performed with the NIH Image
program).2 The concentration
of GKRP was calculated by multiplying the total concentration of
protein by this purity factor.
Assays of GKRP and Determination of Kinetic Constants--
GKRP
was assayed by its ability to inhibit glucokinase in the presence of 5 mM glucose and the indicated concentrations of Fru-6-P,
sorbitol-6-P, or Fru-1-P using a pyruvate kinase/lactate dehydrogenase-coupled assay (8). Recombinant human liver glucokinase was used instead of rat liver glucokinase because both proteins have
virtually identical properties, including their affinity for GKRP (33).
The dissociation constants for the complexes formed between GKRP and
Fru-6-P or sorbitol-6-P were derived from plots (15) relating the
effect of these phosphate esters on the activity of glucokinase in the
presence of GKRP. The dissociation constants for the GKRP·Fru-1-P
complexes were computed from saturation curves describing the effect of
Fru-1-P on the activity of glucokinase in the presence of Fru-6-P and
GKRP, taking into account the dissociation constant of the
GKRP·Fru-6-P complex (15).
Cloning, Expression, and Purification of Yfeu--
The coding
sequence of Hemophilus influenzae Yfeu was amplified by PCR
using Pwo polymerase and a plasmid (GHIDB10)
containing the appropriate region of the genome (kindly provided by
The Institute of Genomic Research, Rockville, MD) as a template.
The 5'-end primer (CATATGGATGACATTATATTA)
contained the ATG codon (boldface) in an NdeI restriction
site (underlined), and the 3'-end primer
(GGATCCTTATTTAGAAAGCGCATTTCT) contained the stop codon (boldface) flanked by a BamHI restriction site
(underlined). The 0.93-kb amplification product was first ligated in
the EcoRV restriction site of pBluescript, sequenced to
confirm the nucleotide sequence, and cloned in the NdeI and
BamHI restriction sites of the expression vector pET3a
(pET-Yfeu). Recombinant Yfeu was expressed at 22 °C in E. coli BL21(DE3) pLysS cells harboring pET-Yfeu as described above
for GKRP. The presence of a soluble and abundant polypeptide with a
molecular mass of 31 kDa was detected on SDS-polyacrylamide gels
only in the bacteria that harbored pET-Yfeu. SDS-PAGE was therefore
used to identify Yfeu in the course of the purification. Yfeu was
purified by polyethylene glycol 6000 precipitation (which was carried
out at pH 6.7 to facilitate precipitation) and DEAE-Sepharose chromatography as described for GKRP. Four fractions (10 ml) containing Yfeu were pooled, concentrated by ~4-fold in an Amicon pressure cell
equipped with a YM-10 membrane, and applied to a Sephacryl S-200 column
(1.6 × 50 cm) equilibrated in buffer A containing 100 mM NaCl. The collected fractions (3 ml) were analyzed by
SDS-PAGE, and Yfeu was judged to be >90% pure in the eight fractions
that were pooled. From 1 liter of culture, we purified ~70 mg of Yfeu.
Determination of the Molecular Mass of Yfeu--
For
determination of the molecular mass, 0.5 mg of purified Yfeu was
applied to the Sephacryl S-200 column together with aldolase (160 kDa),
phosphoglucose isomerase (110 kDa), glycerol-3-phosphate dehydrogenase
(68 kDa), and cytochrome c (13.5 kDa). The dimerization of
Yfeu was confirmed using the glutaraldehyde/NaBH4
cross-linking method as described by White et al. (37). For
these experiments, 10, 30, and 50 µg of purified Yfeu were added to
0.5 ml of Hepes (pH 7.1) containing 1 mM dithiothreitol.
After cross-linking, the proteins were precipitated with
trichloroacetic acid in the presence of deoxycholate, resuspended in
electrophoresis loading buffer, and subjected to SDS-PAGE.
 |
RESULTS |
Sequence Comparisons--
Fig. 1
shows the alignment of rat, human, and Xenopus GKRPs with
bacterial proteins of the Yfeu family. These bacterial proteins contain
conserved motifs that align better either with the amino- or
carboxyl-terminal half of GKRPs. For instance, the sequence GXGTSGR (residues 75-81 in Yfeu) is conserved in the
amino-terminal half, whereas the motif
D(A/G)XECXXT(Y/F) (residues 86-94 in Yfeu) is
conserved in the carboxyl-terminal half. Similarly, the motif GPEXX(S/T)GS(S/T)RXK (residues 191-202 in Yfeu)
is conserved in the amino-terminal half of GKRP, whereas the
neighboring motif GKXXXNXM(V/L)DXXXXNXKL
(residues 223-240) is conserved in the carboxyl-terminal half. This
alternation in the conservation of the motifs is in agreement with
the fact that the identity between the amino- and carboxyl-terminal
halves of GKRPs is very low.

View larger version (78K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 1.
Alignment of GKRPs with bacterial homologs
and with the substrate-binding motifs in the isomerase domain of
GlmS. The following sequences are shown: rat (R), human
(H), and Xenopus (X) GKRPs; H. influenzae Yfeu (Hin-yfeu); Bacillus
subtilis YbbI (Bsu-ybbI); and E. coli
(Ec) and human (Homo sapiens (Hs))
GlmS. Residues that are conserved in Yfeu and in the amino- and
carboxyl-terminal halves of GKRPs are shown in
boldface. Residues of rat GKRP that have been mutated
in this study are underlined. The amino acids in GlmS that
were shown to interact with Fru-6-P (30) either through their main
chains (m) or through their side chains (s) are
also indicated.
|
|
Psi-Blast searches (38) indicated that Yfeu is homologous to the
isomerase domain of GlmS (28), which, like GKRP, binds Fru-6-P. The
crystal structure of this enzyme (29, 30) reveals that it contains two
SIS subdomains (31), each of which has an  -structure consisting
of a five-stranded parallel -sheet with connecting -helices
(schematized in Fig. 2; see also Fig. 2 of Ref. 30). The binding site for the Hex-6-P substrate lies at the
interface of the two subdomains and is made up of six peptide segments:
three (motifs A-C in Fig. 2) in SIS domain 1, one (motif D) in SIS
domain 2, and one (motif E) in the carboxyl-terminal loop; because GlmS
is a dimeric protein, the sixth peptide segment (a KHG motif) (30) is
contributed by the other subunit (not shown in Fig. 2). These peptide
segments are, as expected, extremely conserved in the GlmS
proteins, and we have tried to align them with well conserved
motifs in GKRPs and Yfeu (Fig. 1). For motifs A-C, these alignments
are based on Psi-Blast searches with Yfeu, and for motifs A and E, on
the MatchBox algorithm (39). Motif D is tentatively aligned with a well
conserved region in Yfeu and in the carboxyl-terminal half of GKRP. No
candidate was found for the sixth motif (KHG), in relation to the fact
that GKRP is a monomeric protein.

View larger version (29K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 2.
Schematic topology of the two SIS subdomains
in the isomerase domain of GlmS. Shown is a scheme of the
three-dimensional rendering of the isomerase domain of E. coli GlmS (see Fig. 2 of Ref. 30). -Strands (arrows)
and -helices (boxes) are numbered as done by
Teplyakov et al. (30) according to their position in
the amino- or carboxyl-terminal subdomain. Some of the structure
elements amino-terminal to the first SIS subdomain (e.g.
helices NA-NC) or between the two SIS subdomains are not shown for
sake of clarity. The two SIS subdomains are arranged in such a way that
helix ND is parallel and juxtaposed to helix CD, and motif D is close
to motifs A-C and E. Motifs A to E correspond to regions of the
polypeptide chain that line the binding site for Fru-6-P (blue
disc). They correspond to loops N1 (motif A), N3 (motif B), and N5
(motif C); to a glutamate residue in helix CD (motif D); and to the
carboxyl-terminal loop (motif E). Mutations in motifs A, B, and E that
greatly affect the properties of GKRP are indicated.
|
|
Choice of Mutations--
These alignments allowed us to predict
residues of rat GKRP that could potentially interact through their side
chain with Fru-6-P and other ligands. Some of these
(Thr109, Ser110, Ser179, and
Lys514) were mutated to alanine. We mutated also to alanine
other well conserved residues that were not expected to bind directly
to Fru-6-P; these residues are either inside (Asp507) or
outside (Thr337, Thr411, and
Lys499) these motifs. Furthermore, the alignments allowed
us to identify a few residues that are conserved in mammalian GKRPs as
well as in Yfeu, but that are different in Xenopus GKRP
(which is not sensitive to phosphate esters). These were mutated to the
corresponding residues in the Xenopus protein (mutations
G99D/G100S, G107C, and V180C).
Effect of the Mutations in GKRP--
All mutant proteins, as well
as wild-type rat GKRP, were produced in E. coli strain
BL21(DE3) pLysS. Under the conditions used for expression, all mutant
GKRPs were at least partially soluble. The amount of soluble
recombinant GKRP present in the bacterial lysates averaged 10 mg/liter
of culture, but some mutations increased (G107C, T109A, and S110A) or
decreased (S179A, K499A, and D507A) this yield by 2-3-fold. The
proteins were purified, and the following properties were investigated:
1) ability to inhibit glucokinase in the presence of a saturating
concentration of Fru-6-P (Fig.
3), 2) sensitivity to Fru-6-P (Fig.
4) and to sorbitol-6-P in the presence of
a fixed concentration of GKRP, and 3) sensitivity to Fru-1-P in the
presence of a fixed concentration of GKRP and Fru-6-P (Fig.
5). Kd values for
Fru-6-P and Fru-1-P were calculated according to Ref. 15; these values
are independent of the GKRP concentration and, in the case of the Kd for Fru-1-P, also independent of the Fru-6-P
concentration. A summary of these data is shown in Table
II.

View larger version (17K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 3.
Effect of the concentration of wild-type and
mutant GKRPs on the activity of human liver glucokinase.
Glucokinase (GK) activity was measured in the presence of
the indicated concentrations of GKRP, 5 mM glucose, and 200 µM Fru-6-P. A, wild-type GKRP ( ),
G99D/G100S ( ), G107C ( ), T109A ( ), S110A ( ), S179A ( ),
V180C ( ), and G107C/V180C ( ). B, wild-type GKRP
( ), T337A ( ), T411A ( ), K499A ( ), D507A ( ), and K514A
( ).
|
|

View larger version (27K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 4.
Effect of Fru-6-P on the activity of
glucokinase in the presence of wild-type and mutant GKRPs.
Glucokinase (GK) activity was measured in the presence of 5 µg/ml GKRP, 5 mM glucose, and the indicated
concentrations of Fru-6-P. A, wild-type GKRP (WT;
), G99D/G100S ( ), G107C ( ), T109A ( ), S110A ( ), S179A
( ), V180C ( ). B, wild-type GKRP ( ), T337A ( ),
T411A ( ), K499A ( ), D507A ( ), and K514A ( ).
|
|

View larger version (23K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 5.
Effect of Fru-1-P on the activity of
glucokinase in the presence of wild-type, G107C, and S110A GKRPs.
Glucokinase (GK) activity was measured in the presence of 10 µg/ml wild-type (WT) or G107C GKRP or 20 µg/ml S110A
GKRP, 5 mM glucose, and the indicated concentrations of
Fru-6-P (F6P) and Fru-1-P. Despite the use of lower
concentrations of Fru-6-P, the apparent affinity for Fru-1-P was lower
for the two mutants than for wild-type GKRP.
|
|
View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Table II
Summary of the effects of the mutations in rat liver GKRP
The fourth column lists the atoms of GlcN-6-P that interact through
hydrogen bonds either with the side chains (s) or main chains (m) of
the indicated amino acids. F6P, Fru-6-P; S6P, sorbitol-6-P; F1P,
Fru-1-P.
|
|
The three mutations made in motif A (G107C, T109A, and S110A), one of
the two mutations made in motif B (S179A), and the two mutations made
in motif E (K499A and D507A) dramatically affected the properties of
GKRP. For the alanine substitutions, these effects consisted of
a 5-fold (S110A and D507A), 10-fold (T109A), or 50-fold (S179A and
K514A) decrease in the affinity for glucokinase (Fig. 3), combined with
a complete (K514A) or partial (S110A, S179A, and D507A) loss of effect
of Fru-6-P, a decrease in the apparent affinity for this phosphate
ester (T109A, S110A, and S179A), and an increase in the effect of GKRP
in the absence of Fru-6-P in the case of mutant S110A (Fig. 4 and Table
II). The decrease in the apparent affinity for Fru-6-P observed with
mutants S110A, S179A, and K514A was paralleled by similar changes in
the affinity for sorbitol-6-P and Fru-1-P (Fig. 5 and Table II).
Remarkably, mutation T109A caused an inversion of the effect of
sorbitol-6-P, which no longer reinforced the inhibition exerted by
GKRP, but quite to the contrary, suppressed it (Fig.
6). No such effect was observed with
other mutants.

View larger version (18K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 6.
Inversion of the effect of sorbitol-6-P on
mutant T109A. Glucokinase (GK) activity was measured in
the presence of 10 µg/ml wild-type (WT) or T109A GKRP, 5 mM glucose, 0 or 200 µM Fru-6-P
(F6P), and the indicated concentrations of
sorbitol-6-P.
|
|
Mutation G107C (a "Xenopus " mutation) in motif A did
not affect the affinity of GKRP for glucokinase, but caused a marked increase in the affinity for Fru-6-P and sorbitol-6-P and a marked decrease in the affinity for Fru-1-P (Figs. 4 and 5). Other
mutations (G99D/G100S, V180C, T411A, and K499A) had little effect, with the exception of T337A (close to, but outside motif D), which most increased the inhibition exerted by GKRP in the absence of Fru-6-P while decreasing by 1.6-5-fold the affinity for the
investigated phosphate esters (Fig. 4). V180C decreased the affinity
for Fru-1-P by ~3-fold, whereas the double mutant G107C/V180C had
properties similar to those of the single mutant G107C (Table II).
Dimeric Structure of Yfeu--
Because the bacterial homolog of
GKRP contains only one SIS domain and two such domains are needed to
form a binding site, it was of interest to determine the subunit
composition of this protein. Yfeu, the H. influenzae homolog
of GKRP, was expressed in E. coli and purified by
polyethylene glycol 6000 precipitation and DEAE-Sepharose
chromatography to near homogeneity. The molecular size of the purified
protein was determined by gel filtration on Sephacryl S-200. As shown
in Fig. 7, the protein almost coeluted with glycerol-3-phosphate dehydrogenase, indicating a molecular mass of
68 kDa and therefore a dimeric structure. This dimeric structure
was confirmed by cross-linking experiments using glutaraldehyde, followed by reduction with sodium borohydride and analysis by SDS-PAGE
(data not shown).

View larger version (25K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 7.
Gel filtration of Yfeu and marker proteins on
Sephacryl S-200. Fractions of 1.1 ml were collected.
PGI, phosphoglucose isomerase; Gly-3-P-DH,
glycerol-3-phosphate dehydrogenase; Cyt. c, cytochrome
c.
|
|
 |
DISCUSSION |
GKRP as a Member of the SIS Protein Family--
Sequence
comparisons indicate that GKRP belongs to the SIS protein family,
as does GlmS, a protein for which the three-dimensional structure is known. Based on this distant homology, we have tried to
identify residues in GKRP that bind Fru-6-P and other phosphate esters.
Replacement of four residues predicted to interact with Fru-6-P through
their side chains (T109A, S110A, S179A, and K514A) resulted in a marked
decrease in the ability of the resultant proteins to inhibit
glucokinase. For three of them (S110A, S179A, and K514A), this change
was accompanied by a large decrease in the affinity for Fru-6-P, which
may account for the decreased inhibition of glucokinase. By comparison,
smaller effects, if any, were observed with other mutants (with the
exception of mutant T337A; see below). These data therefore confirm
that GKRP belongs to the SIS protein family and that the binding site
for phosphate esters lies at the interface of the two SIS domains, as
in GlmS.
Although the closest homolog of GKRP contains only one SIS domain per
polypeptide chain, its dimeric structure (indicated by gel filtration
and cross-linking experiments) suggests that it has two binding sites
for its physiological ligand(s), each consisting of motifs A-C in one
subunit and motifs D and E in the other one. Such architecture accounts
for the fact that the five conserved motifs that are distributed
between the two SIS subdomains of GKRP are present in one single SIS
domain in the case of Yfeu.
Mechanism for the Action and Regulation of
GKRP--
Fru-6-P and Fru-1-P act in a competitive manner on mammalian
GKRP (7, 15). Kinetic experiments using analogs of both compounds did
not allow discrimination between models with one or two binding sites
for these phosphate esters (15). The presence of one single binding
site is now supported by the finding of a significant structural
homology between GKRP and GlmS and by the fact that most mutations
affect the affinity for Fru-6-P, sorbitol-6-P, and Fru-1-P in parallel.
It is also consistent with the fact that sorbitol-6-P behaves like
Fru-6-P with wild-type GKRP and most mutants, but like Fru-1-P in the
case of mutant T109A.
It has been postulated that Fru-6-P and Fru-1-P bind to two
different conformations of GKRP, only one of which is able to form a
heterodimer with glucokinase. The position of the binding site for
these phosphate esters at the interface between the two SIS subdomains
suggests that the two conformations could differ from each other by the
relative disposition of the two SIS subdomains. This hypothesis is
consistent with the effect of mutation T337A, which increased the
effect of GKRP in the absence of Fru-6-P, presumably by favoring the
conformation of GKRP able to bind to glucokinase.
Thr337 is predicted to be in helix CD (see Figs. 1 and 2),
which is at the interface with the other SIS subdomain (30). The
mechanism proposed above implies that there are two binding sites for
glucokinase on GKRP, one per SIS subdomain. This is consistent with
site-directed mutagenesis studies of glucokinase indicating that this
enzyme binds to GKRP through two distinct regions located on the tip of
the smaller domain and on the hinge region (32, 34).
This study did not allow us to identify the GKRP residues
that directly interact with glucokinase. However, using a phage display
approach, Baltrusch et al. (40) recently identified a
peptide that binds glucokinase with high affinity. This peptide shares
with GKRP an LSAXXVAG motif, which is conserved in rat, human, and Xenopus GKRPs (residues 182-189), but not in
Yfeu and other bacterial homologs. This putative binding site is next
to motif B, in a region corresponding to the first residues of helix NF
in the three-dimensional structure of GlmS.
Identification of a Mutation Reinforcing the Inhibitory
Effect--
While trying to identify the residues that make
Xenopus GKRP insensitive to phosphate esters, we have
created a mutation (G107C) that causes a marked increase in the
affinity for Fru-6-P and sorbitol-6-P while decreasing the affinity for
Fru-1-P. The equivalent residue in GlmS is an extremely conserved
cysteine, which interacts with the substrate through main-chain atoms
(see Table II). The G107C mutation could act in GKRP by narrowing the
phosphate ester-binding site, thereby decreasing the affinity for the
ligand with the bulkier conformation ( -pyranose in Fru-1-P) while
increasing the affinity for the ligands with more compact (furanose in
Fru-6-P) or more flexible (sorbitol-6-P) conformations. Combining the
G107C mutation with another Xenopus mutation (V180C)
introducing a cysteine residue in the neighborhood of
Cys107 did not result in a loss of sensitivity to Fru-6-P
and Fru-1-P. The insensitivity of Xenopus GKRP to phosphate
esters must therefore be due to other amino acid changes.
Mutation G107C leads to a protein that could behave in vivo
as a super-inhibitor of glucokinase because it is much more sensitive to the physiological ligand (Fru-6-P) that increases its affinity for
glucokinase and much less sensitive to the ligand (Fru-1-P) that
decreases its affinity for glucokinase. This mutation (or any mutation
with similar effects) could result in some degree of glucose
intolerance due to increased inhibition of liver glucokinase, an enzyme
known to play an important role in blood glucose homeostasis. Overexpression of glucokinase in the liver in transgenic mouse models
(41, 42) or through adenovirus-mediated gene transfer (43) results in
decreased blood glucose and insulin concentrations and improves glucose
tolerance. Furthermore, mice that lack glucokinase only in the liver
are mildly hyperglycemic and display pronounced defects in both
glycogen synthesis and glucose turnover rates during a hyperglycemic
clamp (44).
However, the effect of a mutation that reinforces the
inhibition exerted by GKRP is difficult to predict. Mouse GKRP-null mutants have a decreased level of glucokinase without
significant change in the mRNA encoding this protein (45, 46). The
mechanism of this effect is not well understood, although it appears
that GKRP may stabilize glucokinase by sequestering it in the nucleus. A mutation that reinforces the effect of GKRP could therefore result in
a compensatory increase in the amount of glucokinase without
significant perturbation or even with a slight improvement of
glucose tolerance. Accordingly, adenovirus-mediated overexpression of
GKRP was recently shown to improve glucose tolerance in a mouse model of type II diabetes (47). The mutants that we have produced may
be helpful to understand the effect of GKRP on glucokinase expression,
most particularly to determine whether the interaction between
glucokinase and GKRP is essential for this effect.
 |
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS |
We thank Kate Peel for the skilled technical
help provided during this study and Dr. Jean-François Collet for
help with the sequence comparisons.
 |
FOOTNOTES |
*
This work was supported by the Actions de Recherche
Concertées; the Belgian Federal Service for Scientific,
Technical, and Cultural Affairs; the Fonds National de la Recherche
Scientifique; and the Juvenile Diabetes Foundation International.The costs of publication of this
article were defrayed in part by the
payment of page charges. The article
must therefore be hereby marked
"advertisement" in
accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section
1734 solely to indicate this fact.
"Chercheur qualifié" of the Fonds National de la
Recherche Scientifique. To whom correspondence should be addressed:
Lab. Physiological Chemistry, Christian de Duve Inst. of Cellular
Pathology, 75, Av. Hippocrate, B-1200 Brussels, Belgium. Tel.:
32-2764-7559; Fax: 32-2764-7598; E-mail:
veigadacunha@bchm.ucl.ac.be.
Published, JBC Papers in Press, December 27, 2001, DOI 10.1074/jbc.M105984200
2
Available at rsb.info.nih.gov/nih-image/.
 |
ABBREVIATIONS |
The abbreviation used is:
GKRP, glucokinase
regulatory protein.
 |
REFERENCES |
| 1.
|
Randle, P. J.
(1993)
Diabetologia
36,
269-275[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 2.
|
Iynedjian, P. B.
(1993)
Biochem. J.
293,
1-13
|
| 3.
|
Cardenas, M. L.
(1995)
"Glucokinase": Its Regulation and Role in Liver Metabolism
, R. G. Landes Co., Austin, TX and Springer Verlag, New York
|
| 4.
|
Matschinsky, F. M.
(1996)
Diabetes
45,
223-241[Abstract]
|
| 5.
|
Vionnet, N.,
Stoffel, M.,
Takeda, J.,
Yasuda, K.,
Bell, G. I.,
Zouali, H.,
Lesage, S.,
Velho, G.,
Iris, F.,
Passa, P.,
Froguel, P.,
and Cohen, D.
(1992)
Nature
356,
721-722[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 6.
|
Velho, G.,
Froguel, P.,
Clement, K.,
Pueyo, M. E.,
Rakotoambinina, B.,
Zouali, H.,
Passa, P.,
Cohen, D.,
and Robert, J. J.
(1992)
Lancet
340,
444-448[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 7.
|
Van Schaftingen, E.
(1989)
Eur. J. Biochem.
179,
179-184[Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 8.
|
Vandercammen, A.,
and Van Schaftingen, E.
(1990)
Eur. J. Biochem.
191,
483-489[Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 9.
|
Van Schaftingen, E.
(1994)
Diabetologia
37,
S43-S47
|
| 10.
|
Van Schaftingen, E.,
Detheux, M.,
and Veiga-da-Cunha, M.
(1994)
FASEB J.
8,
414-419[Abstract]
|
| 11.
|
Vandercammen, A.,
Detheux, M.,
and Van Schaftingen, E.
(1992)
Biochem. J.
286,
253-256
|
| 12.
|
Clark, D. G.,
Filsell, O. H.,
and Topping, D. L.
(1979)
Biochem. J.
184,
501-507[Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 13.
|
Davies, D. R.,
Detheux, M.,
and Van Schaftingen, E.
(1990)
Eur. J. Biochem.
192,
283-289[Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 14.
|
Van Schaftingen, E.
(1995)
Biochem. J.
308,
23-29
|
| 15.
|
Detheux, M.,
Vandercammen, A.,
and Van Schaftingen, E.
(1991)
Eur. J. Biochem.
200,
553-561[Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 16.
|
Agius, L.,
and Peak, M.
(1993)
Biochem. J.
296,
785-796
|
| 17.
|
Toyoda, Y.,
Miwa, I.,
Kamiya, M.,
Ogiso, S.,
Nonogaki, T.,
Aoki, S.,
and Okuda, J.
(1994)
Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun.
204,
252-256[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 18.
|
Agius, L.,
Peak, M.,
and Van Schaftingen, E.
(1995)
Biochem. J.
309,
711-713
|
| 19.
|
Brown, K. S.,
Kalinowski, S. S.,
Megill, J. R.,
Durham, S. K.,
and Mookhtiar, K. A.
(1997)
Diabetes
46,
179-186[Abstract]
|
| 20.
|
Niculescu, L.,
Veiga-da-Cunha, M.,
and Van Schaftingen, E.
(1997)
Biochem. J.
321,
239-246
|
| 21.
|
de la Iglesia, N.,
Veiga-da-Cunha, M.,
Van Schaftingen, E.,
Guinovart, J. J.,
and Ferrer, J. C.
(1999)
FEBS Lett.
456,
332-338[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 22.
|
Fernandez-Novell, J. M.,
Castel, S.,
Bellido, D.,
Ferrer, J. C.,
Vilaro, S.,
and Guinovart, J. J.
(1999)
FEBS Lett.
459,
211-214[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 23.
|
Van Schaftingen, E.
(1993)
Diabetologia
36,
581-588[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 24.
|
Vaxillaire, M.,
Vionnet, N.,
Vigouroux, C.,
Sun, F.,
Espinosa, R., III,
Lebeau, M. M.,
Stoffel, M.,
Lehto, M.,
Beckmann, J. S.,
Detheux, M.,
Passa, P.,
Cohen, D.,
Van Schaftingen, E.,
Velho, G.,
Bell, I. G.,
and Froguel, P.
(1994)
Diabetes
43,
389-395[Abstract]
|
| 25.
|
de la Iglesia, N.,
Mukhtar, M.,
Seoane, J.,
Guinovart, J. J.,
and Agius, L.
(2000)
J. Biol. Chem.
275,
10597-10603[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 26.
|
Vandercammen, A.,
and Van Schaftingen, E.
(1993)
Biochem. J.
294,
551-556
|
| 27.
|
Veiga-da-Cunha, M.,
Detheux, M.,
Watelet, N.,
and Van Schaftingen, E.
(1994)
Eur. J. Biochem.
225,
43-51[Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 28.
|
Van Schaftingen, E.,
Veiga-da-Cunha, M.,
and Niculescu, L.
(1997)
Biochem. Soc. Trans.
25,
136-140[Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 29.
|
Teplyakov, A.,
Obmolova, G.,
Badet-Denisot, M. A.,
and Badet, B.
(1999)
Protein Sci.
8,
596-602[Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 30.
|
Teplyakov, A.,
Obmolova, G.,
Badet-Denisot, M. A.,
Badet, B.,
and Polikarpov, I.
(1998)
Structure
6,
1047-1055[Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 31.
|
Bateman, A.
(1999)
Trends Biochem. Sci.
24,
94-95[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 32.
|
Veiga-da-Cunha, M.,
Courtois, S.,
Michel, A.,
Gosselain, E.,
and Van Schaftingen, E.
(1996)
J. Biol. Chem.
271,
6292-6297[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 33.
|
Veiga-da-Cunha, M., Xu, L. Z.,
Lee, Y. H.,
Marotta, D.,
Pilkis, S. J.,
and Van Schaftingen, E.
(1996)
Diabetologia
39,
1173-1179[Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 34.
|
Moukil, M. A.,
Veiga-da-Cunha, M.,
and Van Schaftingen, E.
(2000)
Diabetes
49,
195-201[Abstract]
|
| 35.
|
Studier, F. W.,
and Moffat, B. A.
(1986)
J. Mol. Biol.
189,
113-130[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 36.
|
Bradford, M. M.
(1976)
Anal. Biochem.
72,
248-254[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 37.
|
White, M. F.,
Fothergill-Gilmore, L. A,
Kelly, S. M.,
and Price, N. C.
(1993)
Biochem. J.
291,
479-483
|
| 38.
|
Altschul, S. F.,
Madden, T. L.,
Schaffer, A. A,
Zhang, J.,
Zhang, Z.,
Miller, W.,
and Lipman, D. J.
(1997)
Nucleic Acids Res.
25,
3389-3402[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 39.
|
Depiereux, E.,
Baudoux, G.,
Briffeuil, P.,
Reginster, I., De,
Bolle, X.,
Vinals, C.,
and Feytmans, E.
(1997)
Comput. Appl. Biosci.
13,
249-256[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 40.
|
Baltrusch, S.,
Lenzen, S.,
Okar, D.,
Lange, A. J.,
and Tiedge, M.
(2001)
J. Biol. Chem.
276,
43915-43923[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 41.
|
Ferre, T.,
Riu, E.,
Bosch, F.,
and Valera, A.
(1996)
FASEB J.
10,
1213-1218[Abstract]
|
| 42.
|
Hariharan, N.,
Farrelly, D.,
Hagan, D.,
Hillyer, D.,
Arbeeny, C.,
Sabrah, T.,
Treloar, A.,
Brown, K.,
Kalinowski, S.,
and Mookhtiar, K.
(1997)
Diabetes
46,
11-16[Abstract]
|
| 43.
|
O'Doherty, R. M.,
Lehman, D. L.,
Telemaque-Potts, S.,
and Newgard, C. B.
(1999)
Diabetes
48,
2022-2027[Abstract]
|
| 44.
|
Postic, C.,
Shiota, M.,
Niswender, K. D.,
Jetton, T. L.,
Chen, Y.,
Moates, J. M.,
Shelton, K. D.,
Lindner, J.,
Cherrington, A. D.,
and Magnuson, M. A.
(1999)
J. Biol. Chem.
274,
305-315[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 45.
|
Farrelly, D.,
Brown, K. S.,
Tieman, A.,
Ren, J.,
Lira, S. A.,
Hagan, D.,
Gregg, R.,
Mookhtiar, K. A.,
and Hariharan, N.
(1999)
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A.
96,
14511-14516[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 46.
|
Grimsby, J.,
Coffey, J. W.,
Dvorozniak, M. T.,
Magram, J., Li, G.,
Matschinsky, F. M.,
Shiota, C.,
Kaur, S.,
Magnuson, M. A.,
and Grippo, J. F.
(2000)
J. Biol. Chem.
275,
7826-7831[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 47.
|
Slosberg, E. D.,
Desai, U. J.,
Fanelli, B., St.,
Denny, I.,
Connelly, S.,
Kaleko, M.,
Boettcher, B. R.,
and Caplan, S. L.
(2001)
Diabetes
50,
1813-1820[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
Copyright © 2002 by The American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Inc.

CiteULike Complore Connotea Del.icio.us Digg Reddit Technorati What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:

|
 |

|
 |
 
O. Anderka, J. Boyken, U. Aschenbach, A. Batzer, O. Boscheinen, and D. Schmoll
Biophysical Characterization of the Interaction between Hepatic Glucokinase and Its Regulatory Protein: IMPACT OF PHYSIOLOGICAL AND PHARMACOLOGICAL EFFECTORS
J. Biol. Chem.,
November 14, 2008;
283(46):
31333 - 31340.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
J.-S. Shin, T. P. Torres, R. L. Catlin, E. P. Donahue, and M. Shiota
A defect in glucose-induced dissociation of glucokinase from the regulatory protein in Zucker diabetic fatty rats in the early stage of diabetes
Am J Physiol Regulatory Integrative Comp Physiol,
April 1, 2007;
292(4):
R1381 - R1390.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
M. Futamura, H. Hosaka, A. Kadotani, H. Shimazaki, K. Sasaki, S. Ohyama, T. Nishimura, J.-i. Eiki, and Y. Nagata
An Allosteric Activator of Glucokinase Impairs the Interaction of Glucokinase and Glucokinase Regulatory Protein and Regulates Glucose Metabolism
J. Biol. Chem.,
December 8, 2006;
281(49):
37668 - 37674.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
S. Baltrusch and M. Tiedge
Glucokinase Regulatory Network in Pancreatic {beta}-Cells and Liver
Diabetes,
December 1, 2006;
55(Supplement_2):
S55 - S64.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
S. Baltrusch, F. Francini, S. Lenzen, and M. Tiedge
Interaction of Glucokinase With the Liver Regulatory Protein Is Conferred by Leucine-Asparagine Motifs of the Enzyme
Diabetes,
October 1, 2005;
54(10):
2829 - 2837.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
I. Gabriely and H. Shamoon
Fructose Normalizes Specific Counterregulatory Responses to Hypoglycemia in Patients With Type 1 Diabetes
Diabetes,
March 1, 2005;
54(3):
609 - 616.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
K. J. Brocklehurst, V. A. Payne, R. A. Davies, D. Carroll, H. L. Vertigan, H. J. Wightman, S. Aiston, I. D. Waddell, B. Leighton, M. P. Coghlan, et al.
Stimulation of Hepatocyte Glucose Metabolism by Novel Small Molecule Glucokinase Activators
Diabetes,
March 1, 2004;
53(3):
535 - 541.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
H. Al-Hasani, M. H. Tschop, and S. W. Cushman
Two Birds with One Stone: Novel Glucokinase Activator Stimulates Glucose-Induced Pancreatic Insulin Secretion and Augments Hepatic Glucose Metabolism
Mol. Interv.,
October 1, 2003;
3(7):
367 - 370.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|
Copyright © 2002 by the American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology.
|
Advertisement
Advertisement
|