Advertisement
JBC

HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

Originally published In Press as doi:10.1074/jbc.M413551200 on January 7, 2005

J. Biol. Chem., Vol. 280, Issue 13, 12630-12636, April 1, 2005
This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
280/13/12630    most recent
M413551200v1
Right arrow Submit a Letter to Editor
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Perbandt, M.
Right arrow Articles by Liebau, E.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Perbandt, M.
Right arrow Articles by Liebau, E.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?

Structure of the Major Cytosolic Glutathione S-Transferase from the Parasitic Nematode Onchocerca volvulus*

Markus Perbandt{ddagger}§, Jana Höppner¶, Christian Betzel{ddagger}, Rolf D. Walter¶, and Eva Liebau¶

From the {ddagger}Institute of Biochemistry and Foodchemistry, Department of Biochemistry and Molecularbiology, University of Hamburg, Martin Luther King Platz 6, 20146 Hamburg, Germany, and Department of Biochemistry, Bernhard Nocht Institute for Tropical Medicine, Bernhard-Nocht-Strasse 74, 20359 Hamburg, Germany

Received for publication, December 2, 2004


   ABSTRACT
TOP
 ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
 EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
Onchocerciasis is a debilitating parasitic disease caused by the filarial worm Onchocerca volvulus. Similar to other helminth parasites, O. volvulus is capable of evading the host's immune responses by a variety of defense mechanisms, including the detoxification activities of the glutathione S-transferases (GSTs). Additionally, in response to drug treatment, helminth GSTs are highly up-regulated, making them tempting targets both for chemotherapy and for vaccine development. We analyzed the three-dimensional x-ray structure of the major cytosolic GST from O. volvulus (Ov-GST2) in complex with its natural substrate glutathione and its competitive inhibitor S-hexylglutathione at 1.5 and 1.8 Å resolution, respectively. From the perspective of the biochemical classification, the Ov-GST2 seems to be related to {pi}-class GSTs. However, in comparison to other {pi}-class GSTs, in particular to the host's counterpart, the Ov-GST2 reveals significant and unusual differences in the sequence and overall structure. Major differences can be found in helix {alpha}-2, an important region for substrate recognition. Moreover, the binding site for the electrophilic co-substrate is spatially increased and more solvent-accessible. These structural alterations are responsible for different substrate specificities and will form the basis of parasite-specific structure-based drug design investigations.


   INTRODUCTION
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
Onchocerciasis is a parasitic disease caused by the filarial worm Onchocerca volvulus. It is often called river blindness because of its most extreme manifestation and because the blackflies that transmit the disease breed in fast flowing waters. It is the world's second leading infectious cause of blindness. About 18 million people are infected with O. volvulus in Africa, the Arabian Peninsula, and Central and South America. Moreover, roughly 50 million individuals are at risk of acquiring the parasite. Onchocerciasis causes chronic suffering and severe disability. Furthermore, it significantly impedes the socio-economic development in affected communities (www.who.int/tdr/index.html).

Chemotherapeutic approaches to control parasite transmission and to treat onchocerciasis rely on drugs that only kill microfilariae and infectious larvae but not the adult parasites. So far this necessitates the continuous use of these microfilaricides until the adult worms die. Therefore, the development of drugs that also effectively kill the adult worms would greatly support the control and treatment of O. volvulus infections (1). Furthermore, the potential development of drug-resistant strains of the nematode also demands the identification of alternative drug candidates to control the disease (2).

O. volvulus, similar to other parasitic organisms, is capable of surviving in an immunologically competent host by employing a variety of immune evasion strategies and defense mechanisms, including the detoxification and the repair mechanisms of glutathione S-transferases (GSTs1; EC 2.5.1.18 [EC] ). GSTs are an ancient and diverse superfamily of multifunctional proteins represented by a number of species-independent gene classes. They play prominent roles in detoxification metabolism by catalyzing the nucleophilic addition of reduced glutathione (GSH) to numerous endobiotic and xenobiotic electrophilic substrates, usually promoting their inactivation, degradation, and excretion (3). GSTs participate in the complex network of catalytic functions that protect tissue against oxidative damage by detoxifying hydroperoxides of phospholipids, fatty acids, and DNA before they become engaged in free radical propagation reactions that can ultimately lead to the destruction of intracellular macromolecules (4). Furthermore, a potential modulating activity, mediated through protein interactions, on oxidative stress responsive cascades has been proposed (5). Several additional functions attributed to GSTs include the binding, transport, and storage of hydrophobic ligands (6), the isomerization of maleylacetoacetate, and the regulation of stress kinases and apoptosis (7–9). The importance of GSTs as a promising therapeutic target is underlined by their significant role in a variety of clinically relevant processes, such as susceptibility to disease and drug resistance (10). In a parasitic context, it is especially important to consider their function in the regulation of oxidative stress response, in drug resistance, and possibly in the modulation of the host immune defense mechanisms.

In previous studies, we have characterized three different GSTs from O. volvulus (Ov-GST1–3) that demonstrate different physiological functions within the parasite. The extracellular glycosylated Ov-GST1 is located directly at the parasite-host interface and has GSH-dependent prostaglandin D synthase activity. It therefore has the potential to participate in the modulation of immune cell functions by contributing to the production of parasite-derived prostanoids. On the basis of gene structure, amino acid sequence, and immunological and kinetic properties, it was possible to place the Ov-GST1 in close vicinity to the {sigma}-class (11, 12). The Ov-GST3 belongs to the {omega}-class and represents a highly stress-responsive GST that is up-regulated in response to oxidative stress, presumably providing a defense against immune-initiated peroxidation of parasite membranes (13). The Ov-GST2 is the major cytosolic GST in O. volvulus, in which the intracellular amount estimated constitutes about 0.1% of the total protein content in adult filarial worms. The general distribution of the highly abundant enzyme in all tissues and life stages of the parasite indicates its essential function. We propose that one of the biological functions of the Ov-GST2 is to neutralize, via GSH conjugation, glutathione peroxidase activity, or passive binding, the cytotoxic lipid peroxidation products arising from immune-initiated attack on parasitic membranes (14, 15). Representative crystal structures of {pi}-class GSTs from different mammalian hosts, such as bovine (16), murine (17), porcine (18), and human (19–21) are available and can be used for structural comparisons. Homology modeling and sequence alignment predicted the Ov-GST2 to be topologically related to the mammalian {pi}-class GSTs, and it was suspected that the hydrophobic substrate-binding site of the parasitic enzyme is more solvent-accessible than the typical {pi}-class enzyme of the host (13). Only a few crystal structures of GSTs from endoparasites are known, namely those from Schistosoma japonica (22) and Schistosoma hematobium (23), the liver fluke Fasciola hepatica (24), and the malarial parasite Plasmodium falciparum (25, 26). The essential role of Ov-GST2 in detoxification emphasizes this protein as a viable drug target against filarial parasites.


   EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
Heterologous expression of the Ov-GST2 in Escherichia coli, purification, and crystallization were performed as described previously (27).

Diffraction data were collected with synchrotron radiation at the consortium beamline X13 (Hamburger Synchrotron Laboratory/Deutsches Elektronen-Synchrotron). The programs DENZO and SCALE-PACK (28) were used for data analysis and reduction. Further calculations were performed applying the CCP4 program suite (29).

For crystals of the Ov-GST2·GSH complex, the space group was assigned to be P21 with cell dimensions of a = 51.6, b = 82.3, c = 56.7 Å, and {beta} = 95.9°. The asymmetric unit contains one dimer, resulting in a Matthew's coefficient of 2.49 Å3/Da (30) and a corresponding solvent content of 50.3%. For crystals of the Ov-GST2·S-hexylglutathione complex, the space group was also assigned to be P21 but with cell dimensions of a = 51.9, b = 82.0, c = 107.11 Å, and {beta} = 91.2°, with a c-axis almost twice as long as that for crystals of the Ov-GST2·GSH complex. Accordingly, the asymmetric unit contains two dimers, resulting in a Matthew's coefficient of 2.36 Å3/Da (30) and a corresponding solvent content of 47.5%. Statistics for the datasets are summarized in Table I.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		TABLE I
Summary of the refinement statistics

 
The structure of the Ov-GST2·GSH complex was determined by molecular replacement, using the program package AMoRe (31). A {pi}-class GST dimer from human placenta (Protein Data Bank entry code 1AQW [PDB] ) was used as a search model. All data within the resolution range of 10–4 Å were used for the calculations, revealing the position of the dimer in the asymmetric unit. A rigid body refinement of the initial model reduced the R-factor from 45.2 to 39.7% for all data in the resolution range of 20–3 Å The structure of the Ov-GST2·S-hexylglutathione complex was also solved by molecular replacement later on using the refined structure of the Ov-GST2 as a search model. Two dimers were positioned in the asymmetric unit. All non-conserved residues in the search model were replaced by alanines. Insertions and deletions were not included in the first refinement cycle. Both complex structures were refined using similar protocols. The refinement was performed by program REFMAC5 (32), and the progress was monitored by the continuous decrease of the free R-value (33). Because the asymmetric unit contained two GST monomers, use was made of non-crystallographic symmetry restraints for all non-hydrogen atoms throughout the course of refinement. The CCP4 program suite (29) and the program TURBO-FRODO (34) were used for calculations and model building, respectively. The ligands were identified by difference Fourier techniques in all G-sites of the molecules in the asymmetric unit. Solvent molecules were automatically added at the end of the refinement process using the program wARP (35) and checked for chemically reasonable positions where difference density exceeded 3{sigma}. The quality of the final models was verified using the program PROCHECK (36). A summary of the refinement statistics is shown in Table I.


   RESULTS
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
 RESULTS
DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
The structures of Ov-GST2 in complex with the physiological substrate GSH and the competitive inhibitor S-hexylglutathione were determined independently to characterize the substrate binding site (G-site) and the electrophilic binding site (H-site) of the enzyme. Both complexes have been crystallized under identical conditions, and the space group was assigned to be P21. Interestingly, although crystals of Ov-GST2 in complex with GSH reveal one dimer/asymmetric unit, crystals of Ov-GST2 in complex with S-hexylglutathione reveal two dimers/asymmetric unit. The structure of the Ov-GST2·GSH complex was refined to a resolution of 1.5 Å (r = 15.0%, Rfree = 17.6%) and of the Ov-GST2·S-hexylglutathione complex to 1.8 Å (r = 19.9%, Rfree = 22.3%). No significant changes in the tertiary structure of both complexes were observed. The root mean square (r.m.s.) deviation of the C{alpha} atoms is within the range of deviations calculated between each monomer of one structure. The superimposed monomers merely show a r.m.s. deviation in the range of 0.3–0.4 Å for all C{alpha} atoms. The G-site seems to be relatively rigid, and the overall structure is not notably affected by different ligands. The bound ligands do not affect the crystal packing, as they are not involved in any crystal contacts. Similar effects are also observed for the human {pi}-class (19) and {alpha}-class (37) enzyme. The high resolution obtained facilitates the determination of solvent molecules with high accuracy. Both structures are well ordered, and the final models include all residues of the enzyme. The positions of the ligands are clearly defined by the electron density. The statistics of the model quality are summarized in Table I. The overall fold of Ov-GST2 shows that it is clearly related to {pi}-class GSTs with secondary elements given in Figs. 1 and 2. The monomers consist of two domains linked by a loop between the helices {alpha}-3 and {alpha}-4. Domain 1 (residues 1–74) is built from a four-stranded mixed {beta}-sheet that is surrounded by 3 {alpha}-helices ({beta}{alpha}{beta}{alpha}{beta}{beta}{alpha} motif). Domain 2 (residues 82–208) is largely {alpha}-helical. The typical {alpha}-class extra helix {alpha}-9, the most important structural feature to distinguish between {alpha}- and {pi}-class enzymes, is not present in this structure.



View larger version (37K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		FIG. 1.
Sequence alignment of Ov-GST2 from O. volvulus and the human (hu) placenta {pi}-class GST. Residues of the G-site are colored in red, and residues of the H-site are in blue. The secondary structure elements are indicated accordingly. The * marks sequence identities, and: marks sequence homologies.

 



View larger version (48K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		FIG. 2.
Ribbon diagram of Ov-GST2. The Ov-GST2 monomer emphasizing the secondary structural elements. Helices are colored light blue, {beta}-strands are green, and the 310 helices are dark blue. The S-hexylglutathione molecule bound to the active site is shown in ball-and-stick representation. The program RIBBONS (67) was used to produce the figure. N, N terminus.

 
There are two residues that adopt cis-conformation. One is a characteristic proline residue (Pro51), found to be highly conserved in all GSTs, which is located in the loop that connects {alpha}-2 to {beta}-3. The other residue, Leu50, is a G-site residue that has two hydrogen bonds to GSH and S-hexylgutathione and also adopts a cis-configuration in both complexes.

In their biologically active form, cytosolic GSTs are dimers, and Ov-GST2 conforms to that rule. The dimeric structure is stable, with molecular recognition at the subunit interface being class-specific. Intersubunit contacts are mediated by hydrophobic contacts as well as by hydrogen bonds. Intersubunit hydrogen bonds and salt links between the monomers within 3.5 Å are: Phe47A–Lys127B, Arg68A–Asp88B, Arg72A–Glu81B, and Arg72A–Thr85B. All contacts are related by local symmetry. Particularly, the side-chain of residue Arg68 (helix {alpha}-3) serves as a hydrophilic anchor and forms two hydrogen bridges to the side-chain of residue Asp88 (helix {alpha}-4) from the other subunit of the homodimer. This arginine-mediated intersubunit contact is very specific for {alpha}- and {pi}-class enzymes (38).

In a classical {pi}-class enzyme, Tyr49 acts as a hydrophobic "key." However, for Ov-GST2, Phe47 (corresponds to Tyr49 in the human {pi}-GST) (Fig. 1) acts as the hydrophobic key extending from the loop preceding {beta}-3, which fits into the hydrophobic "lock" provided by the residues Gly93, Leu131, Lys127, and Phe128 of the other subunit. This lock is located between helices {alpha}-4 and {alpha}-5. Comparison of the Ov-GST2 structure with the human {pi}-class enzyme yields an overall r.m.s. value on C{alpha} atoms of 1.5 Å (Fig. 3a), which is significantly higher than expected for members within the same class (<0.7 Å). With regard to sequence identity, this result is consistent with the low level of only 42% versus an expected sequence identity of >75%. In comparison with that, the human, pig, and mouse {pi}-class GSTs can be superpositioned with r.m.s. values of 0.5–0.6 Å. The most significant differences observed between the human {pi}-class enzyme and the Ov-GST2 occur in the regions of residues 29–42, 124–146, and 192–201 (Fig. 3). Region 29–42 includes strand {beta}-2 and helix {alpha}-2, with a two-residue insertion (40 and 41) in the human enzyme (Fig. 1) leading to a bent helical structure. It is highly remarkable that this region also involves a G-site residue, Phe38, which is replaced by Trp in the human, mouse, and pig enzyme. The largest deviation, however, is placed at the end of helix {alpha}-8 (residues 192–201). The sequence is not conserved, and the human enzyme reveals a distorted helix instead of a regular helix in Ov-GST2 in this region (Fig. 3).



View larger version (17K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		FIG. 3.
Superposition of Ov-GST2 and human {pi}-class GST. a, high deviations of corresponding C{alpha} positions can be observed in regions 29–42, 124–146, and 192–201. The overall r.m.s. deviation on C{alpha} carbon atoms is 1.5 Å. b, regions with largest deviations are colored in yellow. Other regions of human {pi}-class GST are colored in light blue, and Ov-GST2 is in red. The program MOLSCRIPT (68) was used to produce the figure.

 
The G-site part of the active site is formed by helix {alpha}-2, by residues connecting helix {alpha}-2 and strand {beta}-3, and by a segment connecting strand {beta}-4 to helix {alpha}-3. The overall geometry is similar but not identical to that of the human {pi}-class GST. The H-site is formed by the loop connecting strand {beta}-1 and helix {alpha}-1, by the C-terminal part of helix {alpha}-4, and by residues of the C terminus following helix {alpha}-8. Residues in contact with GSH and the GSH part of S-hexylglutathione are Tyr7, Phe8, Leu13, Phe38, Gln49, Leu50, Ser63, Arg95, and Asp96 (from the other monomer) as summerized in Table II.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		TABLE II
Intermolecular contacts between Ov-GST2 and S-hexylglutathione

 
In Ov-GST2, the {alpha}-carbonyl group of the {gamma}-glutamyl moiety is aligned by two hydrogen bonds of Ser63 and one hydrogen bond of Arg95 (Fig. 4), which is a remarkable difference to the situation found in the human {pi}-class GST. Here, Gln64 takes over the task of Arg95. The {alpha}-amino group interacts with Asp96 from the other monomer, and the backbone of the {gamma}-glutamyl moiety is stabilized by van der Waals contacts to Leu13. In the human counterpart, Leu13 is exchanged by Arg (Figs. 1 and 5). This exchange is the most drastic change, influencing the active site geometry and resulting in a reduction of the volume of the H-site binding pocket (Fig. 5). The backbone of the Cys moiety of GSH forms two hydrogen bonds with Leu50, a residue in cis-conformation. The Gly moiety is bound by Gln49, the backbone being further stabilized by van der Waals contacts to Phe8 and Phe38. The third amino acid exchange in the G-site is Phe38 against Trp in the human enzyme. In Ov-GST2, Phe38 is only involved in van der Waals contacts, whereas in the human enzyme Trp forms a hydrogen bond to the Gly moiety. When comparing the Ov-GST2·GSH complex with the Ov-GST2·S-hexylglutathione complex, there are no differences in the positions of residues participating in the G-site (Fig. 4). A similar positioning of the sulfur atom has been observed in {pi}-class enzymes from pig (38), mouse (17), and human (19–21). It is generally accepted that GSH predominantly reacts as the anionic thiolate and that, in the {pi}-class, a network of hydrogen bonds may be responsible for the activation of the GSH sulfur. Already, it has been shown for the human {pi}-class enzyme that Tyr7 stays in the identical position in both the apo- and the GSH-complexed structures (21). This observation supports the proposal that Tyr7 will not be ionized in the reaction mechanism (39). This situation is also observed for the Ov-GST2 structure with Tyr7 in hydrogen bonding distance to the sulfur atom of GSH and to the amide nitrogen of Leu13.



View larger version (27K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		FIG. 4.
Schematic drawing of residues interacting with the inhibitor S-hexylglutathione. These interactions are identical for the native substrate GSH; however, for S-hexylglutathione there are additional hydrophobic interactions mediated by Gly204 and Ile10. The key to the figure is part of the drawing. The program LIGPLOT (69) was used to produce the figure.

 



View larger version (62K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		FIG. 5.
Surface presentation of the active site from the human placenta {pi}-class GST with bound S-hexylglutathione shown as sticks (a) and the corresponding region of the O. volvulus GST2 (b). Here most of the H-site residues are exchanged, leading to a more solvent-accessible H-site. The program GRASP (61) was used to prepare the figure.

 
The entrance of the H-site can be described as a pocket with side walls formed by Phe8 and Tyr108. The bottom is formed by Lys35, Ile10, and Gly204 and the deep end by Leu13, Thr102, and Val99 (Fig. 5b). The S-hexyl-moiety of S-hexylglutathione is sandwiched between the aromatic rings of Phe8 and Tyr108 and is kept in place by Ile10 and Gly204. Phe8, Ile10, and Gly204 are in van der Waals contacts within the range of 3.7–3.8 Å (Figs. 4 and 5). Tyr108 has been shown to enhance Michael additions of GSH to electrophilic substrates (21, 40). This residue is strictly conserved in all {pi}-class GSTs and hydrogen bonding interaction between the hydroxyl group of Tyr108, and the amide nitrogen of Gly204 has also been observed in mouse, pig, and human {pi}-class structures (17, 21, 38). Even though mammalian {pi}-class GSTs share high levels of sequence identity, they can display large variations in their specific activities toward various substrates (41, 42). These variations can be attributed to rather small differences in the H-sites of each enzyme. Direct comparison of Ov-GST2 with the host's counterpart reveals that only Phe8, Tyr106, and Gly204 are conserved; all other H-site residues are exchanged, resulting in a different binding environment for potential co-substrates (Figs. 1 and 5). As already mentioned, the most crucial difference is probably the exchange of Leu13 against Arg in the human enzyme. In the human enzyme, Arg13 and Glu97 form two hydrogen bridges. Because of the Leu-Arg exchange, more space of ~40 Å3 is available for an electrophilic co-substrate in the region between Leu13, Thr102, Val99, and Arg95 (Fig. 5, a and b). Moreover, the exchange of Thr102 against Ile increases the H-site by 20 Å3 once again.


   DISCUSSION
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
REFERENCES
 
The Ov-GST2 is structurally related to the {pi}-class GSTs. This GST class plays an important part in the detoxification of mutagens and toxins and is implicated in neoplastic development and drug resistance. High levels of {pi}-class GST expression have been shown to be directly associated with tumor drug resistance; however, the precise role played by the enzyme remains ill defined (10, 43–46). One possibility is direct detoxification of the chemotherapy agent; alternatively, but not to the contrary, it may be the ability to interact with c-Jun N-terminal kinase (JNK) through direct protein-protein interaction that protects the cell against toxic metabolites. Here, the {pi}-class GST acts as a direct endogenous inhibitory regulator but also has a role in regulating the constitutive expression of specific phase II detoxification enzymes and antioxidant proteins that are downstream molecular targets of the JNK signaling pathway (10). Moreover, activation of the antioxidant enzyme 1-CYS peroxiredoxin by glutathionylation is mediated by the heterodimerization with {pi}-class GST (47). Interestingly, in response to drug treatment or exposure to pro-oxidants, helminth GSTs are highly up-regulated. Furthermore, overexpression of GSTs has been correlated to the ability of the helminth to detoxify immune-initiated cytotoxic products and has been associated with drug resistance (48–50). Moreover, GST levels have been shown to increase in parasitic helminths during chronic infection, emphasizing the reliance of the parasite on this detoxification system (51, 52).

Even though the overall structure of Ov-GST2 reveals major characteristic points of similarity toward the {pi}-class GSTs, there are some crucial points of differences. Although the G-site is structurally very similar to the human counterpart, its H-site differs significantly, explaining the observed differences in the specificity toward the same substrate. In previous experiments, a series of {beta}-carbonyl-substituted GSH conjugates was evaluated as potential inhibitors of Ov-GST2. Their specificity for the parasite-derived protein was assessed through comparison with their inhibition of human {pi}-class GST. Selective inhibition of Ov-GST2 has been demonstrated at low micromolar concentrations of {beta}-carbonyl GSH conjugates. Selectivity for Ov-GST2 over human {pi}-class of >25-fold was generated through appropriate substitutions of the conjugate moiety. Aryl and long chain or bulky alkyl groups enhance Ov-GST2 selectivity (13). This is in accordance with the expectations of a more open active site in parasitic enzymes (53). Our x-ray structures prove that the H-site of Ov-GST2 is spatially increased in comparison to the host enzyme, and this is also in good agreement with the results discussed above. Only three residues of the H-site are conserved in comparison with the human counterpart, and we can use these structural differences to design specific inhibitors.

The human {pi}-class GST recognizes GSH by an induced-fit mechanism (54) and in the apoenzyme helix {alpha}-2 was especially identified as being rather flexible (55). Because we did not investigate the apo-form of the Ov-GST2, we cannot confirm this finding or refute it. However, it is noteworthy that the identified {pi}-class key residues for this induced-fit mechanism, Tyr49 and Cys47, are not conserved in Ov-GST2 and are replaced by Phe (Fig. 1).

Oxidation of the human {pi}-class GST leads to the formation of an intramonomer disulfide bond between Cys47 and Cys101, with subsequent inactivation of the enzyme (56–58). Both sulfur atoms of these residues show a distance of >18 Å in the active enzyme, again indicating the high flexibility of helix {alpha}-2. In Ov-GST2, however, the second Cys (Cys101) residue is replaced by Val, making it debatable whether Ov-GST2 can be inactivated by oxidation at all. An exchange of Cys47 to Ala made the human enzyme more resistant toward irreversible inactivation by 0.1 mM N-ethylmaleimide. Furthermore, the mutant Ala47 was also more resistant to inactivation by the physiological disulfides, cystamine or cystine, which cause mixed disulfide and/or intra- or intersubunit disulfide bond formation (58).

The C-terminal part of helix {alpha}-8 (residues 192–201) is a region demonstrating large structural deviations between the human and parasitic GST. Helix {alpha}-8 is neighboring the loop that connects strand {beta}-1 and helix {alpha}-1, and therefore it is in close distance to Val10 and Arg13 of the active site. Nevertheless, the distance to the H-site is >15 Å, and the biological meaning of this structural difference remains unclear.

Tyr7, one of the G-site residues, seems to be protonated, accepting a hydrogen bond from the main chain amide group of Leu13. Tyr7 does not appear to play a role as a general base in the enzymatic reaction. Similar conclusions have been reported for other mammalian {pi}-class GSTs (19, 21, 59).

In the absence of a protective vaccine, control of onchocerciasis relies on measures directed against the vector and on chemotherapy. The only available drug for mass treatment of onchocerciasis is ivermectin (60).2 Because control of the disease is at present largely dependent on ivermectin and will probably be so in the near future, it is a worrying possibility that resistance may be emerging in O. volvulus. Ivermectin resistance emerged relatively quickly in helminths of veterinary concern (62–64). Recent open case-controlled investigations, carried out in two onchocerciasis-endemic foci in Ghana, confirm the existence of populations of adult female O. volvulus that respond poorly to repeated doses of ivermectin (65, 66). As there are no practical alternative strategies for the mass control of O. volvulus, there is an urgent need for the development of new drugs, notably drugs that kill or sterilize adult worms.

Our structural analysis of the GST2 from O. volvulus shows that it is a suitable drug target for intervention in filarial infections, with the potential advantage of not compromising the human host. Knowing the three-dimensional shape and chemical nature of the Ov-GST2 binding pocket will aid in the discovery and design of novel anti-filarial compounds. We suggest that neutralization of the Ov-GST2 may tip the molecular balance in favor of the host during this characteristically chronic nematode infection.


   FOOTNOTES
 
* This work was supported by Deutscher Akademischer Austauschdienst (German Academic Exchange Service) Grant 415-probal/ale-03/17635. The costs of publication of this article were defrayed in part by the payment of page charges. This article must therefore be hereby marked "advertisement" in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1734 solely to indicate this fact.

The atomic coordinates and structure factors (codes 1TU7 and 1TU8) have been deposited in the Protein Data Bank, Research Collaboratory for Structural Bioinformatics, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ (http://www.rcsb.org/). Back

§ To whom correspondence should be addressed: Dept. of Biochemistry and Molecularbiology, Institute of Biochemistry and Foodchemistry, University of Hamburg, Martin Luther King Platz 6, 20146 Hamburg, Germany. Tel.: 49-40-89984745; Fax: 49-40-89984747; E-mail: Perbandt{at}chemie.uni-hamburg.de.

1 The abbreviations used are: GST, glutathione S-transferase; GSH, reduced glutathione; r.m.s., root mean square. Back

2 H. Ejere, E. Schwartz, and R. Wormald (2001) Cochrane Data Base Syst. Rev., accession number CD002219 [GenBank] . Back


   ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
 
We thank B. Arni for discussions.



   REFERENCES
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 

  1. Molyneux, D. H., Bradley, M., Hoerauf, A., Kyelem, D., and Taylor, M. J. (2003) Trends Parasitol. 19, 516–522[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  2. Sangster, N. (1996) Parasitology 113, (suppl.) S201–S216
  3. Coles, B. F., and Kadlubar, F. F. (2003) Biofactors 17, 115–130[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  4. Hayes, J. D., and Strange, R. C. (2000) Pharmacology 61, 154–166[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  5. Kilili, K. G., Atanassova, N., Vardanyan, A., Clatot, N., Al-Sabarna, K., Kanellopoulos, P. N., Makris, A. M., and Kampranis, S. C. (2004) J. Biol. Chem. 279, 24540–24551[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  6. Ralat, L. A., and Colman, R. F. (2004) J. Biol. Chem. 279, 50204–50213[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  7. Wilce, M. C., Feil, S. C., Board, P. G., and Parker, M. W. (1994) J. Mol. Biol. 236, 1407–1409[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  8. Salinas, A. E., and Wong, M. G. (1999) Curr. Med. Chem. 6, 279–309[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  9. Sheehan, D., Meade, G., Foley, V. M., and Dowd, C. A. (2001) Biochem. J. 360, 1–16[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  10. Townsend, D. M., and Tew, K. D. (2003) Oncogene 22, 7369–7375[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  11. Sommer, A., Nimtz, M., Conradt, H. S., Brattig, N., Boettcher, K., Fischer, P., Walter, R. D., and Liebau, E. (2001) Infect. Immun. 69, 7718–7728[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  12. Sommer, A., Rickert, R., Fischer, P., Steinhart, H., Walter, R. D., and Liebau, E. (2003) Infect. Immun. 71, 3603–3606[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  13. Brophy, P. M., Campbell, A. M., van Eldik, A. J., Teesdale-Spittle, P. H., Liebau, E., and Wang, M. F. (2000) Bioorg. Med. Chem. Lett. 10, 979–981[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  14. Liebau, E., Wildenburg, G., Brophy, P. M., Walter, R. D., and Henkle-Duhrsen, K. (1996) Mol. Biochem. Parasitol. 80, 27–39[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  15. Wildenburg, G., Liebau, E., and Henkle-Duhrsen, K. (1998) Exp. Parasitol. 88, 34–42[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  16. Schaffer, J., Gallay, O., and Ladenstein, R. (1988) J. Biol. Chem. 263, 17405–17411[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  17. Garcia-Saez, I., Parraga, A., Phillips, M. F., Mantle, T. J., and Coll, M. (1994) J. Mol. Biol. 237, 298–314[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  18. Dirr, H. W., Mann, K., Huber, R., Ladenstein, R., and Reinemer, P. (1991) Eur. J. Biochem. 196, 693–698[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  19. Prade, L., Huber, R., Manoharan, T. H., Fahl, W. E., and Reuter, W. (1997) Structure (Lond.) 5, 1287–1295[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  20. Reinemer, P., Dirr, H. W., Ladenstein, R., Huber, R., Lo Bello, M., Federici, G., and Parker, M. W. (1992) J. Mol. Biol. 227, 214–226[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  21. Oakley, A. J., Lo Bello, M., Battistoni, A., Ricci, G., Rossjohn, J., Villar, H. O., and Parker, M. W. (1997) J. Mol. Biol. 274, 84–100[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  22. McTigue, M. A., Williams, D. R., and Tainer, J. A. (1995) J. Mol. Biol. 246, 21–27[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  23. Johnson, K. A., Angelucci, F., Bellelli, A., Herve, M., Fontaine, J., Tsernoglou, D., Capron, A., Trottein, F., and Brunori, M. (2003) Biochemistry 42, 10084–10094[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  24. Rossjohn, J., Feil, S. C., Wilce, M. C., Sexton, J. L., Spithill, T. W., and Parker, M. W. (1997) J. Mol. Biol. 273, 857–872[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  25. Perbandt, M., Burmeister, C., Walter, R. D., Betzel, C., and Liebau, E. (2004) J. Biol. Chem. 279, 1336–1342[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  26. Fritz-Wolf, K., Becker, A., Rahlfs, S., Harwaldt, P., Schirmer, R. H., Kabsch, W., and Becker, K. (2003) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 100, 13821–13826[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  27. Hoppner, J., Perbandt, M., Betzel, C., Walter, R. D., and Liebau, E. (2004) Acta Crystallogr. D. Biol. Crystallogr. 60, 1496–1497[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  28. Otwinowski, Z., and Minor, W. (1997) Methods Enzymol. 276, 307–326
  29. Collaborative Computational Project, Number 4 (1994) Acta Crystallogr. D. Biol. Crystallogr. 50, 760–763[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  30. Matthews, B. W. (1968) J. Mol. Biol. 33, 491–497[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  31. Navazza, J. (1994) Acta Crystallogr. Sect. A 50, 157–163[CrossRef]
  32. Murshudov, G. N., Vagin, A. A., Lebedev, A., Wilson, K. S., and Dodson, E. J. (1999) Acta Crystallogr. D. Biol. Crystallogr. 55, 247–255[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  33. Brunger, A. T. (1993) Acta Crystallogr. D. Biol. Crystallogr. 49, 24–36[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  34. Roussell, A., and Cambillau, C. (1991) Silicon Graphics Directory, Silicon Graphics, Mountain View, CA
  35. Perrakis, A., Morris, R., and Lamzin, V. S. (1999) Nat. Struct. Biol. 6, 458–463[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  36. Laskowski, R. A., MacArthur, M. W., Moss, D. S., and Thornten, J. M. (1993) J. Appl. Crystallogr. 26, 283–291[CrossRef]
  37. Cameron, A. D., Sinning, I., L'Hermite, G., Olin, B., Board, P. G., Mannervik, B., and Jones, T. A. (1995) Structure (Lond.) 3, 717–727[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  38. Dirr, H., Reinemer, P., and Huber, R. (1994) J. Mol. Biol. 243, 72–92[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  39. Armstrong, R. N. (1997) Chem. Res. Toxicol. 10, 2–18[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  40. Lo Bello, M., Oakley, A. J., Battistoni, A., Mazzetti, A. P., Nuccetelli, M., Mazzarese, G., Rossjohn, J., Parker, M. W., and Ricci, G. (1997) Biochemistry 36, 6207–6217[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  41. Mannervik, B., and Danielson, U. H. (1988) CRC Crit. Rev. Biochem. 23, 283–337[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  42. Hayes, J. D., and Pulford, D. J. (1995) Crit. Rev. Biochem. Mol. Biol. 30, 445–600[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  43. Coles, B., and Ketterer, B. (1990) Crit. Rev. Biochem. Mol. Biol. 25, 47–70[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  44. Tsuchida, S., and Sato, K. (1992) Crit. Rev. Biochem. Mol. Biol. 27, 337–384[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  45. Hayes, J. D., and Strange, R. C. (1995) Free Radic. Res. 22, 193–207[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  46. Townsend, D., and Tew, K. (2003) Am. J. Pharmacogenomics 3, 157–172[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  47. Manevich, Y., Feinstein, S. I., and Fisher, A. B. (2004) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 101, 3780–3785[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  48. Brophy, P. M., and Pritchard, D. I. (1993) Parasitol. Today 9, 128[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  49. Vande Waa, E. A., Campbell, C. K., O'Leary, K. A., and Tracy, J. W. (1993) Arch. Biochem. Biophys. 303, 15–21[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  50. Kawalek, J. C., Rew, R. S., and Heavner, J. (1984) Int. J. Parasitol. 14, 173–175[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  51. Brophy, P. M., Ben-Smith, A., Brown, A., Behnke, J. M., and Pritchard, D. I. (1995) Int. J. Parasitol. 25, 641–645[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  52. van Rossum, A. J., Jefferies, J. R., Rijsewijk, F. A., LaCourse, E. J., Teesdale-Spittle, P., Barrett, J., Tait, A., and Brophy, P. M. (2004) Infect. Immun. 72, 2780–2790[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  53. Liebau, E., Eckelt, V. H., Wildenburg, G., Teesdale-Spittle, P., Brophy, P. M., Walter, R. D., and Henkle-Duhrsen, K. (1997) Biochem. J. 324, 659–666
  54. Oakley, A. J., Lo Bello, M., Ricci, G., Federici, G., and Parker, M. W. (1998) Biochemistry 37, 9912–9917[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  55. Stella, L., Caccuri, A. M., Rosato, N., Nicotra, M., Lo Bello, M., De Matteis, F., Mazzetti, A. P., Federici, G., and Ricci, G. (1998) J. Biol. Chem. 273, 23267–23273[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  56. Ricci, G., Del Boccio, G., Pennelli, A., Lo Bello, M., Petruzzelli, R., Caccuri, A. M., Barra, D., and Federici, G. (1991) J. Biol. Chem. 266, 21409–21415[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  57. Shen, H. X., Tamai, K., Satoh, K., Hatayama, I., Tsuchida, S., and Sato, K. (1991) Arch. Biochem. Biophys. 286, 178–182[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  58. Tamai, K., Shen, H. X., Tsuchida, S., Hatayama, I., Satoh, K., Yasui, A., Oikawa, A., and Sato, K. (1991) Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 179, 790–797[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  59. Vega, M. C., Walsh, S. B., Mantle, T. J., and Coll, M. (1998) J. Biol. Chem. 273, 2844–2850[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  60. Cupp, E. W. (1992) Parasitol. Today 8, 212–214[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  61. Honig, B., and Nicholls, A. (1995) Science 268, 1144–1149[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  62. Alka, B. T., Gopal, R. M., Sandhu, K. S., and Sidhu, P. K. (2004) Vet. Parasitol. 121, 277–283[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  63. Mortensen, L. L., Williamson, L. H., Terrill, T. H., Kircher, R. A., Larsen, M., and Kaplan, R. M. (2003) J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 223, 495–500[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  64. Harder, A. (2002) Parasitol. Res. 88, 591[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  65. Awadzi, K., Boakye, D. A., Edwards, G., Opoku, N. O., Attah, S. K., Osei-Atweneboana, M. Y., Lazdins-Helds, J. K., Ardrey, A. E., Addy, E. T., Quartey, B. T., Ahmed, K., Boatin, B. A., and Soumbey-Alley, E. W. (2004) Ann. Trop. Med. Parasitol. 98, 231–249[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  66. Awadzi, K., Attah, S. K., Addy, E. T., Opoku, N. O., Quartey, B. T., Lazdins-Helds, J. K., Ahmed, K., Boatin, B. A., Boakye, D. A., and Edwards, G. (2004) Ann. Trop. Med. Parasitol. 98, 359–370[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  67. Carson, M. (1987) J. Mol. Graph. 5, 103–106
  68. Kraulis, P. J. (1991) J. Appl. Crystallogr. 24, 946–950[CrossRef]
  69. Wallace, A. C., Laskowski, R. A., and Thornton, J. M. (1995) Protein Eng. 8, 127–134[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?



This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
280/13/12630    most recent
M413551200v1
Right arrow Submit a Letter to Editor
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Perbandt, M.
Right arrow Articles by Liebau, E.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Perbandt, M.
Right arrow Articles by Liebau, E.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?

HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 All ASBMB Journals   Molecular and Cellular Proteomics 
 Journal of Lipid Research   ASBMB Today 
Copyright © 2005 by the American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology.
Advertisement
spacer
Advertisement
Advertisement