Advertisement
JBC

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


     

Originally published In Press as doi:10.1074/jbc.M507295200 on August 22, 2005

J. Biol. Chem., Vol. 280, Issue 43, 36206-36213, October 28, 2005
This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
280/43/36206    most recent
M507295200v1
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 HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Hou, Z.
Right arrow Articles by Matherly, L. H.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Hou, Z.
Right arrow Articles by Matherly, L. H.
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?

Localization of a Substrate Binding Domain of the Human Reduced Folate Carrier to Transmembrane Domain 11 by Radioaffinity Labeling and Cysteine-substituted Accessibility Methods*

Zhanjun Hou{ddagger}, Sarah E. Stapels§, Christina L. Haska{ddagger}, and Larry H. Matherly{ddagger}§1

From the {ddagger}Developmental Therapeutics Program, Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Institute and the §Cancer Biology Program and Department of Pharmacology, Wayne State University School of Medicine, Detroit, Michigan 48201

Received for publication, July 5, 2005 , and in revised form, August 16, 2005.


   ABSTRACT
TOP
 ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
The human reduced folate carrier (hRFC) mediates the membrane transport of reduced folates and classical anti-folates into mammalian cells. RFC is characterized by 12 transmembrane domains (TMDs), internally oriented N and C termini, and a large central linker connecting TMDs 1–6 and 7–12. By co-expression and N-hydroxysuccinimide methotrexate (Mtx) radioaffinity labeling of hRFC TMD 1–6 and TMD 7–12 half-molecules, combined with endoproteinase GluC digestion, a substrate binding domain was previously localized to within TMDs 8–12 (Witt, T. L., Stapels, S. E., and Matherly, L. H. (2004) J. Biol. Chem. 279, 46755–46763). In this report, this region was further refined to TMDs 11–12 by digestion with 2-nitro-5-thiocyanatobenzoic acid. A transportcompetent cysteine-less hRFC was used as a template to prepare single cysteine-replacement mutant constructs in which each residue from Glu-394 to Asp-420 of TMD 11 and Tyr-435 to His-457 of TMD 12 was replaced individually by a cysteine. The mutant constructs were transfected into hRFC-null HeLa cells. Most of the 50 single cysteine-substituted constructs were expressed at high levels on Western blots. With the exception of G401C hRFC, all mutants were active for Mtx transport. Treatment with sodium (2-sulfonatoethyl) methanethiosulfonate (MTSES) had no effect on hRFC activity for all of the cysteine mutants within TMD 12 and for the majority of the cysteine mutants within TMD 11. However, MTSES inhibited Mtx uptake by the T404C, A407C, T408C, T412C, F416C, I417C, V418C, and S419C mutants by 25–65%. Losses of activity by MTSES treatment for T404C, A407C, T412C, and I417C hRFCs were appreciably reversed in the presence of excess leucovorin, a hRFC substrate. Our results strongly suggest that residues within TMD 11 are likely critical structural and/or functional components of the putative hRFC transmembrane channel for anionic folate and anti-folate substrates.


   INTRODUCTION
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
The natural folates are water-soluble members of the B-class of vitamins. They act as one-carbon carriers in a series of metabolic reactions leading to the biosynthesis of purines, thymidylate, methionine, histidine, and serine (1). Thus, folates are essential for cell proliferation and tissue regeneration (1). Because folates cannot be synthesized de novo in mammalian cells, external dietary sources are required. Several pathophysiological states are associated with folate deficiency, ranging from cardiovascular disease to neural tube defects and cancer (2, 3).

As hydrophilic anionic molecules, natural folates show only minimal capacities to cross biological membranes by diffusion alone. Accordingly, sophisticated membrane transport systems have evolved to facilitate membrane translocation of these essential cofactors (4). The reduced folate carrier (RFC)2 is expressed ubiquitously in tissues and tumors (5) and has long been recognized as the major membrane transporter for uptake of reduced folates in mammalian cells and tissues (4). RFC levels are also critical determinants of the anti-tumor activities of anti-folate drugs such as methotrexate (Mtx) and Pemetrexed (Alimta), and impaired transport is a frequent mechanism of anti-folate resistance (6, 7).

RFC cDNAs were first cloned in 1994 and 1995 (8–13). Hydropathy analyses of the amino acid sequences for both the rodent and human RFCs predict an integral membrane protein with up to 12 transmembrane domains (TMDs), internally oriented N and C termini, and a large central linker connecting TMDs 1–6 and 7–12 (see Fig. 1). Much of this topology has now been experimentally confirmed (14–16).

Despite extensive studies to characterize the functional properties of the RFC protein, remarkably little is known about the amino acid residues or domains that are important to binding and/or membrane translocation of anionic folate and anti-folate substrates. However, from mutant studies, several amino acids including Gly-44, Glu-45, Ser-46, Ile-48, Asp-88, Val-106, Trp-107, Ser-127, Ala-132, Arg-133, Ser-313, Arg-373, and Lys-411 (Fig. 1; numbers refer to the human RFC (hRFC)) have been implicated as functionally or structurally important, including several located in the TMDs (17–27). We recently used co-expression and N-hydroxysuccinimide (NHS) Mtx radioaffinity labeling of hRFC TMD 1–6 and TMD 7–12 half-molecules, combined with endoproteinase GluC digestions, to localize a substrate binding domain to within TMDs 8–12 (28).

"Scanning cysteine accessibility methods" or SCAM is now the method of choice for characterizing membrane topologies and substrate binding sites in polytopic membrane proteins (29–33). Typically cysteines are inserted into a "cysteine-less" template and functional cysteine mutants are expressed in a suitable cell model. Substrate binding domains within the aqueous accessible membrane "channel" can identified from the loss of activity upon treatment with membrane impermeable hydrophilic alkylthiosulfonates (32), and surface accessibilities can be established by reactivities with impermeable maleimides (34). Recent hRFC studies with SCAM have corroborated findings of mutant studies that implicated amino acids flanking TMD 1 (e.g. Gly-44, Ile-48) as functionally important and established the membrane topology for TMDs 9–12 (16, 35, 36).



View larger version (56K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		FIGURE 1.
Schematic of hRFC topology. Topology model for hRFC, depicting 12 TMDs, internally oriented N and C termini, an externally orientated N-glycosylation site at N58 and a cytosolic loop connecting TMDs 6 and 7. Conserved amino acids are designated as black circles. Structurally or functionally important amino acids, as determined from published mutagenesis studies (17–27), are shown as red circles.

 
In this report, we expand upon our recent studies of hRFC structure and function (16, 28, 35) and use radioaffinity labeling of hRFC half-molecules with 2-nitro-5-thiocyanatobenzoic acid (NTCB) digestions, and SCAM with sodium (2-sulfonatoethyl) methanethiosulfonate (MTSES) treatments, to localize a critical substrate binding domain to within TMD 11. This is the first report to definitively localize a substrate-binding region within a specific TMD segment of the hRFC molecule.


   MATERIALS AND METHODS
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
Reagents—[3',5',7-3H]Mtx (20 Ci/mmol) was purchased from Moravek Biochemicals (Brea, CA). Unlabeled Mtx and (6-R,S)-5-CHOH4PteGlu (leucovorin) were provided by the Drug Development Branch, NCI, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD. Both labeled and unlabeled Mtx were purified by high pressure liquid chromatography prior to use (37). Synthetic oligonucleotides were obtained from Invitrogen. Tissue culture reagents and supplies were purchased from assorted vendors with the exception of fetal bovine serum, which was purchased from Hyclone Technologies (Logan, UT). MTSES was purchased from Toronto Research Chemicals (Toronto, ON, Canada). 3-(N-maleimidylpropionyl)-biocytin (referred to hereafter as biotin maleimide (BM)) and 4-acetamido-4'-maleimidylstilbene-2,2'-disulfonic acid (referred to hereafter as stilbenedisulfonate maleimide (SM)) were purchased from Molecular Probes (Eugene, OR). Protein G-plusagarose beads were purchased from Roche Diagnostics.

Mutagenesis—Single cysteine-substituted hRFC mutants were generated by site-directed mutagenesis using the QuikChangeTM kit (Stratagene). Primers for generating Cys substitutions were designed on the Stratagene web site. Sequences for the mutation primers are available upon request. hRFCmyc-his6 Cys-less in pcDNA3.1 (35) was used as template to generate the single cysteine-replacement mutant constructs in which each residue from Glu-394 to Asp-420 of TMD 11 and Tyr-435 to His-457 of TMD 12 was replaced individually by a cysteine residue. All mutations were confirmed by DNA sequencing.

Cell Culture— hRFC-null K562 cells, expressing hRFC half-molecule constructs encoding TMDs 1–6 (designated hRFC-TMD1–6HA, composed of 238 amino acids spanning TMDs1–6 and a 13 amino acid HA epitope insertion at Glu-226) and TMDs 7–12 (hRFC-TMD7–12Myc-His10, composed of 308 amino acids from Gly-230 to Leu-537 of hRFC and including an identical 5'-untranslated region and 18 N-terminal amino acids to the full-length hRFC and with a Myc-His10 epitope at the C terminus), were generated as previously reported (28). Cells were maintained in complete RPMI 1640 medium (Sigma-Al-drich), containing 10% iron-supplemented calf serum, 2 mM L-glutamine, 100 units/ml penicillin, and 100 µg/ml streptomycin, plus 1 mg/ml G418, in a humidified atmosphere at 37 °C in the presence of 5% CO2. Transport-defective Mtx-resistant HeLa cells, designated R5 (38), were a gift of Dr. I. David Goldman (Bronx, New York). R5 cells were maintained in RPMI 1640, supplemented with 10% fetal bovine serum, 2 mM L-glutamine, penicillin (100 units/ml), and streptomycin (100 µg/ml) in a humidified atmosphere at 37 °C in the presence of 5% CO2.

hRFCmyc-his6 Cys-less and the single cysteine-substituted hRFCmyc-his6 constructs (see below) were transfected into transport-defective R5 cells with Lipofectamine Plus reagent (Invitrogen). Typically, R5 cells (2.2 x 106) were plated in 100-mm dishes, in Dulbecco's modified Eagle's medium (Invitrogen) with 10% fetal bovine serum 24 h prior to transfection. Cells were transfected with 15.6 µg of plasmid DNA, per the manufacturer's instruction. Cells were harvested after 48 h for the preparation of plasma membranes and Western blotting. For other experiments (MTSES treatments, transport assays), cultures were split 24 h after transfection and assayed after an additional 24 h.

Western Analysis of Mutant hRFC Transfectants—Plasma membranes were prepared by differential centrifugation (39). For standard Western blotting, membrane proteins were electrophoresed on 7.5% polyacrylamide gels in the presence of SDS (40) and electroblotted onto polyvinylidene difluoride membranes (Pierce) (41). hRFC proteins were detected with Myc monoclonal antibody (Covance, Berkeley, CA) and IRDyeTM 800 conjugated goat anti-mouse IgG (Rockland, Gilbertsville, PA). The membranes were scanned with an Odyssey® Infrared Imaging System (LI-COR, Lincoln, NE).

Membrane Transport Assays, MTSES Treatment, and Leucovorin Protection—The uptake of [3H]Mtx (0.5 µM) was measured over 2 min at 37 °C in 60-mm dishes in an anion-free buffer (20 mM Hepes, 235 mM sucrose, pH 7.3). The uptake of [3H]Mtx was quenched with ice-cold Dulbecco's phosphate buffered saline (PBS). Cells were washed with ice-cold PBS (3x) and solubilized with 0.5 N NaOH. Levels of intracellular radioactivity were expressed as pmol/mg of protein, calculated from direct measurements of radioactivity and protein contents of cell homogenates. Protein assays were based on the method of Lowry et al. (42).

MTSES treatments were performed as described previously (35). Briefly, transfected R5 cells in 60-mm dishes were washed (3x) with PBS and then treated with 10 mM MTSES at 37 °C for 15 min. Reactions were quenched by a quick wash with 2-mercaptoethanol (14 mM in PBS), followed by two additional PBS washes and a single wash with anion-free buffer (see above). [3H]Mtx uptake was assayed as described above. To assess the protective effects of a hRFC substrate from MTSES inhibition, leucovorin (300 µM final concentration) was added 5 min before adding the MTSES reagent.

Detection of the TMD 11-Loop Boundary with BM/SM—Thiol-reactive reagents were used for mapping the TMD 11-loop boundary region facing the extracellular side. R5 cells, grown in 60-mm dishes expressing hRFCmyc-his6 Cys-less and the F416C, I417C, V418C, S419C, D420C, V421C, R422C, and G423C single cysteine-substituted hRFCmyc-his6 mutants were treated with 200 µM SM (in PBS) at room temperature (25 °C) for 30 min followed by treatment with 200 µM BM (in PBS), or BM alone at room temperature for 30 min. The cells were briefly treated with 14 mM 2-mercaptoethanol to remove excess reagent and then washed three times with PBS. Cells were harvested, and the plasma membranes were prepared, as described above. For immunoprecipitations, membrane proteins were solubilized in 1 ml of cell lysis buffer A (50 mM Tris (pH 7.5), 150 mM NaCl, 1% Nonidet P40, 0.5% sodium deoxycholate). The insoluble material was pelleted (12,000 rpm, 10 min) and the supernatant was precleared for 4 h with protein G-plus-agarose beads. The beads were pelleted (12,000 rpm, 30 s) and the supernatant was incubated with anti-myc antibody and fresh protein G-plus-agarose beads overnight at 4 °C. The beads were washed twice with lysis buffer A, twice with lysis buffer B (50 mM Tris (pH 7.5), 500 mM NaCl, 0.1% Nonidet P40, 0.05% sodium deoxycholate), and once with lysis buffer C (50 mM Tris (pH 7.5), 0.1% Nonidet P40, 0.05% sodium deoxycholate). The immunoprecipitated proteins were eluted with 70 µl of 3x Laemmli sample buffer (containing 2% (w/v) SDS and 2 M 2-mercaptoethanol). Immunodetection of biotinylated hRFC was with peroxidaselinked streptavidin and Lumi-LightPLUS substrate (Roche Diagnostics), whereas total immunoprecipitated hRFC was detected using hRFC-specific antibody (21) and standard Lumi-Light substrate. Images were recorded on x-ray film with multiple exposures.



View larger version (13K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		FIGURE 2.
NTCB cleavage of NHS-[3H]Mtx-labeled hRFC-TMD1–6HA/TMD7-HAMyc-His10 transfectants. Cells were treated with NHS-[3H]Mtx (700 nM). Membranes were prepared and proteins (150 µg) were treated with NTCB, fractionated on an 18% polyacrylamide gel with glycerol and Tris-Tricine buffer. Undigested (open circles) and NTCB-treated (closed circles) proteins were fractionated for 28 h. The gels were sliced into 2-mm segments, and the radioactivity was extracted and directly counted. Positions of molecular mass standards (in kDa), along with the sizes of the major radioactive proteins are indicated. The dye front migrates at fraction 45.

 
Affinity Labeling of hRFC with NHS-Mtx Ester—Radiolabeled NHS-Mtx was prepared as described previously (28, 39, 43). The radiospecific activity of the NHS-[3H]Mtx was 28 Ci/mmol. Cells were treated with NHS-[3H]Mtx (700 nM) as described previously (28, 39). Plasma membranes were prepared, and membrane pellets were solubilized in 1% SDS. Aliquots of the radioaffinity-labeled membrane proteins (150 µg) were treated with 7.5 M guanidine HCl for 2 h and then digested with 10 mM of NTCB (Sigma) at pH 9 (pH adjusted with 1 M Tris-HCl, pH 11) for 72 h at 37 °C. The NTCB treated samples were dialyzed against 1 M Tris-HCl, pH 8, overnight at 4 °C.

Undigested and digested NTCB-treated proteins were fractionated for 28 h on 18% polyacrylamide gels with Tris-Tricine buffer (44). The gels were sliced into 2-mm segments, and the pieces were suspended into 1 ml of Soluene-350 (PerkinElmer Life Science) overnight at room temperature followed by 5 ml of Ready-value scintillation mixture (Beckman-Coulter). Radioactivity was detected on a Model 6500 Beckman liquid scintillation counter.

Confocal Microscopy—Confocal microscopy was performed as described previously (28, 35). Briefly, cells were fixed with 3.3% paraformaldehyde/PBS, permeabilized with 0.1% Triton X-100, and stained with anti-myc antibody, followed by goat anti-mouse IgG conjugated with Alexa Fluor 488 (Molecular Probes). Fluorescence staining was observed with a Zeiss laser-scanning microscope 310 using a 63x water immersion lens.



View larger version (15K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		FIGURE 3.
Expression and transport of hRFCmyc-his6wt and hRFCmyc-his6Cys-less in R5 cells. A, hRFC expression on a Western blot of membrane proteins (2.5 µg) from R5 cells, and from R5 transfectants expressing hRFCmyc-his6wt and hRFCmyc-his6Cys-less proteins is shown. Detection involved anti-myc antibody and IRDye800 conjugated secondary antibody with a LI-COR® Odyssey infrared imaging system. B, results are shown for levels of [3H]Mtx uptake in R5 cells and in R5 transfectants expressing hRFCmyc-his6wt and hRFCmyc-his6Cys-less.[3H]Mtx (0.5 µM) uptakes were measured for 2 min at 37 °C. Transport results are expressed as the averages ± range for 2 duplicate experiments. C: R5 cells and R5 transfectants expressing hRFCmyc-his6wt and hRFCmyc-his6Cys-less were fixed with 3.3% paraformaldehyde, permeabilized with 0.1% Triton X-100, incubated with mouse anti-myc primary antibody followed by anti-mouse IgG-Alexa Fluor 488-conjugated secondary antibody, and spun onto microscope slides. Slides were visualized with a Zeiss laser-scanning microscope 310 using a 63x water immersion lens.

 

   RESULTS
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
NTCB Digestion of Affinity-labeled hRFC TMD7–12Myc-His10 with NHS-[3H]Mtx—We previously expressed hRFC from separate TMD1–6 and TMD7–12 hRFC half-molecule constructs, each with a unique epitope tag, in hRFC-null K562 cells to restore transport activity (28). Restored transport exhibited characteristic transport kinetics for Mtx, a capacity for trans-stimulation by pretreatment with leucovorin, and inhibition by NHS-Mtx, a documented affinity inhibitor of RFC. By coexpression and NHS-[3 H]Mtx radioaffinity labeling of hRFC TMD1–6 and TMD7–12 half-molecules, combined with GluC digestions, a critical substrate binding domain was localized to within TMDs 8–12 (28).

To further refine the region covalently modified with NHS-[3H]Mtx, plasma membranes from hRFC-TMD1–6HA /TMD7–12Myc-His10-transfected cells were digested with NTCB, followed by electrophoresis on Tris-Tricine gels. NTCB is a cysteine cutter, which selectively cleaves peptide bonds N-terminal to cysteine residues. For the TMD7–12 halfmolecule, up to five theoretical cuts are predicted, generating a range of fragments from 32 to 117 amino acids and molecular masses of 3,177–12,428 Daltons (TABLE ONE). As shown in Fig. 2, NTCB digestions resulted in a reproducible shift of the 40 kDa hRFC-TMD7–12Myc-His10 half-molecule to ~7 kDa. This species could only have arisen from the 396–457 peptide, which includes TMDs 11 and 12 of hRFC (Fig. 1).


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		TABLE ONE
Predicted peptides in TMD7–12Myc-His10 half-molecule following digestions with NTCB

NTCB cleavage sites were determined from the web site www.us.expasy.org/tools/peptidecutter. The numbering for the cleavage positions for the hRFC-TMD7-12Myc-His10 protein (28) is shown. The cleavage positions are based on the complete primary sequence for the 591 amino acid full-length hRFC protein and are shown in parentheses.

 
hRFCmyc-his6 wt and hRFCmyc-his6 Cys-less Exhibit Normal Membrane Targeting and Transport myc-his6 Function in hRFC-null R5 HeLa Cells—A functional hRFCmyc-his6 Cys-less construct was previously prepared and found to restore transport to RFC-null MTXRIIOuaR2–4 Chinese hamster ovary (CHO) cells (35). However, the CHO model was restrictive in that it was necessary to isolate stable transfectants over several weeks and, even then, net hRFC expression levels and transport activities were modest (35). For the present study, wild type hRFCmyc-his6wt and hRFCmyc-his6Cys-less constructs were transiently expressed in hRFC-null R5 HeLa cells (38), whereupon they were detected at high levels and were efficiently targeted to the cell surface to restore transport activity (Fig. 3). On Western blots, the expressed proteins migrated at ~58–80 kDa, similar to results with ectopically expressed hRFCmyc-his6Cys-less and hRFCmyc-his6 wt proteins in CHO cells (35). Expression of the hRFCmyc-his6Cys-less protein was ~60% of that for the wild type protein; transport was 51% of the wild type. Thus, R5 HeLa cells represent a new high throughput cell model that affords us a means to efficiently expand the scope of our SCAM experiments to probe hRFC ligand binding domains.

Expression and Function of Single Cysteine-substituted hRFC Mutants of TMDs 11 and 12—Based on the finding that cleavage of the radioaffinity-labeled hRFC-TMD7–12Myc-His10 NTCB half-molecule localized substrate binding to within TMDs 11 and 12 (Fig. 2), we used the hRFCmyc-his6 Cys-less construct as a template to prepare consecutive single Cys-substituted mutants from Glu-394 to Asp-420 in TMD 11 and from Tyr-435 to His-457 in TMD 12. The single Cys-substituted mutant hRFC constructs were transiently transfected into transport-impaired R5 cells. A representative Western blot of plasma membrane proteins from the 50 mutant transfectants, along with proteins from hRFCmyc-his6 Cys-less transfected and untransfected R5 cells, is shown in Fig. 4, A and B. With only a few exceptions (e.g. F416C), all of the single Cys-substituted constructs of hRFC TMDs 11 and12 were expressed in R5 cells within a 2–3-fold range. Although the migrations of 49 of the hRFC mutants were nearly identical to that for hRFCmyc-his6 Cys-less, for D420C, high molecular mass bands, presumably corresponding to aggregated hRFC, were reproducibly seen.

To assess the effects of the cysteine substitutions in TMDs 11 and 12 on hRFC function, [3 H]Mtx uptake was measured for 2 min for each hRFCmyc-his6 Cys mutant. Results are shown in Fig. 4, C and D and are expressed as a percentage of the uptake for hRFCmyc-his6Cys-less, for comparison with R5 cells. Most of the cysteine substitutions were remarkably well tolerated, as reflected by the significantly increased Mtx uptake over the low residual level for the R5 subline. Indeed, of the 27 mutant constructs for TMD 11 and the 23 mutants for TMD 12, only G401C-hRFCmyc-his6 was completely inactive despite a high level of expression on Western blots. This implies that Gly-401 may be structurally or functionally important to hRFC transport. Interestingly, our data also suggest that Cys substitutions may be somewhat better tolerated in TMD 12 than in TMD 11, as reflected in the relative transport activities of the Cys mutants compared with that of the Cys-less hRFC for each of these regions (i.e. nearly half of the TMD 11 mutants were no more than 50% as active as hRFCmyc-his6 Cys-less).



View larger version (52K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		FIGURE 4.
Expression and transport function of single cysteine-substituted hRFCmyc-his6 mutants of TMDs 11 and 12. A and B, hRFC expression is shown on a Western blot of plasma membrane proteins (2.5 µg) from R5 cells, R5 transfectants expressing hRFCmyc-his6Cys-less, and single Cys-substituted hRFCmyc-his6 mutants spanning TMD 11 (A) and TMD 12 (B). Detection of immunoreactive hRFC was with anti-myc antibody and IRDye800 conjugated secondary antibody with an Odyssey® Infrared Imaging System. Densitometry was done with the Odyssey software (v 1.2) and results are reported as the numbers listed below each lane relative to the value for hRFCmyc-his6Cys-less. C and D, results are shown for levels of [3H]Mtx uptake in R5 cells and R5 transfectants expressing hRFCmyc-his6Cys-less, and single Cys-substituted hRFCmyc-his6 mutants for TMD 11 (C) and TMD 12 (D). [3H]Mtx (0.5 µM) uptakes were measured for 2 min at 37 °C. Transport results are expressed relative to the level for hRFCmyc-his6Cys-less as the averages ± range for two separate experiments.

 



View larger version (51K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		FIGURE 5.
Effects of MTSES treatment on the Mtx uptake by single cysteine-substituted hRFCmyc-his6 mutants of TMDs 11 and 12. R5 cells expressing hRFCmyc-his6Cys-less and single cysteine-substituted hRFCmyc-his6 mutants were preincubated with and without 10 mM MTSES for 15 min at 37 °C. Cells were washed, and 0.5 µM[3H]Mtx uptake was assayed at 37 °C for 2 min. For each mutant, uptake is presented as a percentage of the level measured in the absence of MTSES. All transport results are expressed as the average values ± range for two separate experiments. Inhibitions of at least 25% are noted with an asterisk. ND, not detected. A, results are shown for single cysteine-substituted hRFCmyc-his6 mutants spanning TMD 11. B, results are shown for single cysteine-substituted hRFCmyc-his6 mutants spanning TMD 12.

 
Modification of Transport Activity of Cys-substituted hRFC Mutants of TMDs 11 and 12 by MTSES—The effects of the small, water-soluble thiol-reactive alkylthiosulfonate agent, MTSES, on Mtx transport by the hRFCmyc-his6 cysteine mutants should provide an excellent gauge of the aqueous accessibilities of the cysteine substitutions in TMDs 11 and 12 (32–35). Fig. 5 shows the effects of treating the 50 single Cys-substituted hRFCmyc-his6 transfectants for TMDs 11 and 12 with MTSES under optimized conditions (37 °C, 15 min, 10 mM MTSES) on 0.5 µM [3H]Mtx uptake over 2 min. hRFCmyc-his6Cys-less was included as a negative control. Among the 27 single Cys mutants in TMD 11, eight (T404C-, A407C-, T408C-, T412C-, F416C-, I417C-, V418C-, and S419C-hRFCs) showed appreciable (25–65%) losses of transport activity resulting from MTSES treatment (Fig. 5A). Conversely, there were no adverse effects from treating the 23 single Cys-substituted hRFCmyc-his6 transfectants in TMD 12 with MTSES (Fig. 5B).

Although MTSES inhibition establishes aqueous accessibilities of reactive thiols, evidence for participation of this region in substrate binding involves protection from MTSES inhibition by excess transport substrate. Accordingly, for the T404C, A407C, T408C, T412C, F416C, I417C, V418C, S419C-hRFCmyc-his6 transfectants, the MTSES treatments were repeated in the presence of 300 µM leucovorin, an established transport substrate for the carrier. As illustrated in Fig. 6, marked (at least 1.6-fold) protection from MTSES was measured for the T404C, A407C, T412C, and I417C hRFCmyc-his6 mutants. A lower level of protection (~15%) by leucovorin from MTSES inhibition was also seen for the F416C hRFCmyc-his6 mutant. These results strongly suggest that amino acids localized to TMD 11 contribute to the substrate-binding pocket in hRFC.

Mapping the TMD 11 Extracellular Boundary with BM and SM—R5 cells expressing hRFCmyc-his6 Cys-less and cysteine-substituted hRFCmyc-his6 proteins spanning the predicted TMD 11 extracellular boundary (i.e. F416C, I417C, V418C, S419C, D420C, V421C, R422C, and G423C; Fig. 1) were treated with the surface-labeling reagent BM, with and without the membrane-impermeable blocking agent SM (45), to map the extracellular boundary for TMD 11. S301C, in which the cysteine substitution is located in the connecting loop between TMDs 7 and 8 (16), was included as a positive control. After the treatments, hRFCmyc-his6 proteins were immunoprecipitated with anti-myc antibody and resolved by SDS gels, with detection of surface-biotinylated thiols by peroxidase-linked streptavidin. Although all hRFCmyc-his6 proteins, including both the cysteine-less and cysteine insertion mutants, were effectively immunoprecipitated (as reflected in the patterns of hRFC immunoreactivity in Fig. 7B), only the S419C, D420C, V421C, R422C, G423C, and S301C mutants were appreciably labeled with BM, and biotinylation was significantly blocked by SM (Fig. 7A). This establishes the extracellular localizations for positions 419–423. Conversely, no labeling was detected with BM for hRFCmyc-his6Cys-less and the F416C, I417C, and V418C mutants (Fig. 7A), showing these three residues to be buried in the plasma membrane. Based on the patterns of BM reactivity and protection by SM, the TMD 11 extracellular boundary lies between positions 418 and 419.



View larger version (19K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		FIGURE 6.
Protection by leucovorin of T404C-, A407C-, T408C-, T412C-, F416C-, I417C-, V418C- and S419C-hRFCmyc-his6 mutants from MTSES inhibition. R5 cells expressing hRFCmyc-his6Cys-less and MTSES-sensitive Cys-substituted mutants from TMD 11 (Fig. 5) were treated with 10 mM MTSES in the presence or absence of 300 µM leucovorin before the transport assay. Controls were incubated under identical conditions without MTSES. Cells were washed and [3H]Mtx (0.5 µM) uptake was assayed at 37 °C for 2 min. For each mutant, the uptake is presented as a percentage of the level measured in the absence of MTSES (± leucovorin). Results are expressed as average values ± range for two separate experiments. Protection of at least 1.6-fold by leucovorin is noted with an asterisk.

 

   DISCUSSION
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
REFERENCES
 
The present report continues our systematic characterization of the structure and function of hRFC, a physiologically important transporter and a member of the Major Facilitator Superfamily of transporters (46). Major Facilitator Superfamily proteins are represented in animals, plants, fungi, lower eukaryotes, bacteria, and eukaryotic organelles and transport a diverse range of substrates in a uniport, symport, or antiport fashion, including amino acids, neurotransmitters, sugars, vitamins, nucleosides, and organic phosphates (46). They typically contain 400–600 amino acids and a structural motif composed of two halves, each including of six transmembrane {alpha} helices connected by a large hydrophilic loop, with cytosolic N and C termini.



View larger version (24K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		FIGURE 7.
Mapping the TMD 11 junction with biotin maleimide and stibenedisulfonate maleimide. R5 cells expressing single cysteine-substituted hRFCmyc-his6 and hRFCmyc-his6Cys-less proteins were treated with 200 µM BM with or without pretreatment with 200 µM SM. Membrane proteins were immunoprecipitated by anti-myc antibody and Protein G-plus-agarose beads, followed by Western blotting. Detection of immunoprecipitated proteins was done with streptavidin peroxidase conjugate (A) and hRFC-specific antibody (B), after stripping the polyvinylidene difluoride membrane with 0.2 N NaOH.

 
X-ray crystallographic structures of the Major Facilitator Superfamily proteins, lactose/proton symporter (LacY) (47) and the inorganic phosphate/glycerol 3-phosphate antiporter (GlpT) (48), were recently reported at resolutions of 3.5 and 3.3 Å, respectively. Comparison of LacY and GlpT identified highly similar structures, although the sequence identity between GlpT and LacY is only 21% (49). By comparative modeling, this structure is highly conserved among other Major Facilitator Superfamily family members (49). In both the GlpT and LacY structures, hydrophilic cavities accommodate the substrate binding sites formed by helices I, IV, and V of the N-terminal domain, and helices VII and XI of the C-terminal domain (47, 48).

Although amino acids localized to TMDs 1, 2, 3, 4, 8, 10, and 11 have been implicated as functionally or structurally important from mutant studies (17–27), it is difficult to separate direct effects of amino acid substitutions on substrate binding and membrane translocation from indirect effects of charge interactions and altered protein conformation. Most recently, by co-expression and NHS-Mtx radioaffinity labeling of hRFC TMD1–6 and TMD7–12 half-molecules, a substrate binding domain was definitively localized to TMDs 7–12 (28). With endoproteinase GluC digestions, it was possible to localize NHS-Mtx labeling to a ~20-kDa region, corresponding to amino acids 295–477, including TMDs 8–12.

In this report, we further refined this labeled region to between amino acids 394 and 457, corresponding to TMDs 11 and 12, by cleaving the radioaffinity labeled TMD7–12 polypeptide adjacent to cysteines by treatment with NTCB. To confirm the roles of TMDs 11 and 12 in substrate binding and/or translocation, we expressed single cysteine hRFC mutants, from Glu-394 to Asp-420 in TMD 11 and from Tyr-435 to His-457 in TMD 12 in a cysteine-less background, in hRFC-null R5 HeLa cells. Except for G401C, all mutants restored Mtx uptake, well in excess of the low residual level in R5 cells. The 49 functional cysteine mutants were further characterized by SCAM analysis with MTSES, to establish aqueous accessibilities and location of the Cys-substituted residues within the putative TMD-spanning channel for translocating folate substrates. Whereas MTSES had no effect on the level of Mtx uptake by the 23 Cys mutants in TMD 12, for TMD 11, Mtx uptake by 8 Cys mutants (T404C, A407C, T408C, T412C, F416C, I417C, V418C, and S419C) was markedly inhibited by MTSES. With the T404C, A407C, T412C, and I417C mutants, excess leucovorin afforded appreciable protection from the inhibitory effects of MTSES.



View larger version (18K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		FIGURE 8.
Predicted secondary structure and helical wheel analysis of TMD 11 of hRFC. Upper panel, the secondary structure of the TMD 11 peptide of hRFC from Glu-394 to Asp-420 was predicted with the PHD (Profile network prediction HeiDelberg) program (52, 53). Abbreviations are: H, helix; E, random coil. Lower panel, the helical wheel for amino acids Val-402 to Thr-415 was drawn with a web-based program.

 
For the LacY and GlpT models, the eight TMDs that form the hydrophilic cavity contain a disproportionate number of glycine and proline residues, well recognized "helix breakers" that result in "irregular" or bent {alpha} helices. These structures are believed to provide the necessary flexibilities to assume the different conformations required for substrate translocation (50). A similar consideration applies to TMD 11 of hRFC. Thus, the peptide from Val-402 to Thr-415 is predicted to assume a classical {alpha} helical secondary structure, with 3.6 residues/turn (Fig. 8). From a helical wheel model for these 14 residues, the MTSES reactive positions 404, 407, 408, and 412 are all predicted to lie on one (aqueousaccessible) face of a putative helix (Fig. 8). However, position 411, also predicted to lie on the same side of the {alpha} helix and implicated as functionally important (27), was apparently unreactive with MTSES. From the patterns of BM reactivity and SM protection, the TMD 11 extracellular boundary lies between Val-418 and Ser-419. Although positions 416–420 are predicted to exist as a random coil within the plasma membrane, the modifications of F416C, I417C, and V418C by MTSES nonetheless establish their aqueous accessibilities and contributions as structural components of the predicted hRFC transmembrane channel. Because Ser-419 is also accessible to BM and SM, the modification of S419C by MTSES must reflect its localization to the TMD 11 exofacial loop.

Based on their protection by leucovorin, positions 404, 407, 412, and 417 should participate or be spatially juxtaposed to residues involved in substrate binding. Although this could also reflect indirect effects of substrate-induced conformational changes at distal binding sites, from our radioaffinity labeling results that localized binding to TMDs 11 or 12, a more likely possibility is that these four residues in TMD 11 directly or indirectly participate in substrate binding, as noted above. Of course, from the lack of leucovorin protection, it would seem that positions 408, 416, 418, and 419 do not directly participate in substrate binding and that the loss of transport activity by MTSES treatment is due to indirect (conformational) effects. However, this result could also partly reflect a loss of reduced folate binding to these mutants.

Of particular interest is Gly-401 which flanks the 402–415 helical stretch of residues and seems to function as a helix breaker (Fig. 8). By analogy with the LacY and GlpT proteins, we propose a critical transport role for Gly-401 through its capacity to facilitate dynamic conformation changes within TMD 11, a notion entirely consistent with our finding that cysteine substitution at position 401 completely abolishes hRFC transport.

In conclusion, our affinity labeling and SCAM results establish an important functional role for TMD 11 of hRFC. As noted above, Lys-411 has been implicated as functionally or structurally important in hRFC transport (27). By random chemical mutagenesis of the murine RFC, mutations of Gly-394 and Ala-400, corresponding to Gly-401 and Ala-407 in hRFC, were associated with anti-folate resistance (51). Our future studies will continue to focus on identification of critical determinants of substrate recognition and translocation for hRFC, an absolute prerequisite to understanding the molecular mechanism of folate and anti-folate membrane transport by this physiologically important transport system.


   FOOTNOTES
 
* This study was supported by Grant CA53535 from the NCI, National Institutes of Health. 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. Back

1 To whom correspondence should be addressed: Developmental Therapeutics Program, Karmanos Cancer Institute, 110 E. Warren Ave., Detroit, MI 48201. Tel.: 313-833-0715 (ext. 2407); Fax: 313-832-7294; E-mail: matherly{at}kci.wayne.edu.

2 The abbreviations used are: RFC, reduced folate carrier; Mtx, methotrexate; hRFC, human RFC; TMD, transmembrane domain; SCAM, scanning cysteine accessibility methods; NTCB, 2-nitro-5-thiocyanatobenzoic acid; MTSES, sodium (2-sulphonatoethyl) methanethiosulfonate; NHS, N-hydroxysuccinimide; leucovorin, (6R,S)-5-CHOH4PteGlu; BM, biotin maleimide; SM, stilbenedisulphonate maleimide; PBS, phosphate-buffered saline; Tricine, N-[2-hydroxy-1,1-bis(hydroxymethyl)ethyl]glycine; wt, wild type; CHO, Chinese hamster ovary. Back


   ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
 
We thank Dr. I. David Goldman for his generous gift of hRFC-null R5 HeLa cells.



   REFERENCES
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 

  1. Stokstad, E. L. R. (1990) in Folic Acid Metabolism in Health and Disease (Picciano, M. F., Stokstad, E. L. R., and Greogory, J. F., eds) pp. 1–21, Wiley-Liss, New York
  2. Lucock, M. (2000) Mol. Genet. Metabol. 71, 121–138[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  3. Bailey, L. B., Rampersaud G. C., and Kauwell, G. P. (2003) J. Nutr. 133, 1961–1968
  4. Matherly, L. H., and Goldman, I. D. (2003) Vitam. Horm. 66, 403–456[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  5. Whetstine, J. R., Flatley, R. M., and Matherly, L. H. (2002) Biochem. J. 367, 629–640[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  6. Goldman, I. D., and Matherly, L. H. (1985) Pharmacol. Ther. 28, 77–102[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  7. Goldman, I. D., and Zhao, R. (2002) Semin. Oncol. 29, 3–17[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  8. Dixon, K. H., Lanpher B. C., Chiu J., Kelley K., and Cowan K. H. (1994) J. Biol. Chem. 269, 17–20[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  9. Prasad, P. D., Ramamoorthy, S., Leibach, F. H., and Ganapathy, V. (1995) Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 206, 681–687[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  10. Williams, F. M., Murray, R. C., Underhill, T. M., and Flintoff, W. F. (1994) J. Biol. Chem. 269, 5810–5816[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  11. Moscow, J. A., Gong, M., He, R., Sgagias, M. K., Dixon, K. H., Anzick, S. L., Moltzor, P. S., and Cowan, K. H. (1995) Cancer Res. 55, 3790–3794[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  12. Williams, F. M., and Flintoff, W. F. (1995) J. Biol. Chem. 270, 2987–2992[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  13. Wong, S. C., Proefke, S. A., Bhushan, A., and Matherly, L. H. (1995) J. Biol. Chem. 270, 17468–17475[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  14. Ferguson, P. L., and Flintoff, W. F. (1999) J. Biol. Chem. 274, 16269–16278[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  15. Liu, X. Y., and Matherly, L. H. (2002) Biochim. Biophys. Acta 1564, 333–342[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  16. Cao, W., and Matherly, L. H. (2004) Biochem. J. 378, 201–206[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  17. Brigle, K. E., Spinella M. J., Sierra E. E., and Goldman I. D. (1995) J. Biol. Chem. 270, 22974–22979[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  18. Zhao, R., Assaraf, Y. G., and Goldman, I. D. (1998) J. Biol. Chem. 273, 7873–7879[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  19. Zhao, R., Assaraf, Y. G., and Goldman, I. D. (1998) J. Biol. Chem. 273, 19065–19071[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  20. Tse, A., Brigle, K., Taylor, S. M., and Moran, R. G. (1998) J. Biol. Chem. 273, 25953–25960[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  21. Wong, S. C., Zhang L., Witt T. L., Proefke S. A., Bhushan A., and Matherly L. H. (1999) J. Biol. Chem. 274, 10388–10394[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  22. Zhao, R., Gao F., and Goldman I. D. (1999) Biochem. Pharmacol. 58, 1615–1624[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  23. Zhao, R., Babani, S., Gao, F., Liu, L., and Goldman, I. D. (2000) Clin. Cancer Res. 6, 3304–3311[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  24. Liu, X. Y., and Matherly, L. H. (2001) Biochem. J. 358, 511–516[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  25. Sharina, I. G., Zhao, R., Wang, Y., Babani, S., and Goldman, I. D. (2001) Mol. Pharmacol. 59, 1022–1028[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  26. Sadlish, H., Williams, F. M., and Flintoff, W. F. (2002) J. Biol. Chem. 277, 42105–42112[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  27. Witt, T. L., and Matherly L. H. (2002) Biochim. Biophys. Acta 1567, 56–62[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  28. Witt, T. L., Stapels, S. E., and Matherly, L. H. (2004) J. Biol. Chem. 279, 46755–46763[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  29. Akabas, M., Stauffer, D., Xu, M., and Karlin, A. (1992) Science 258, 307–310[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  30. Xu, M., and Akabas, M. (1996) J. Gen. Physiol. 107, 195–205[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  31. Wilson, G., and Karlin, A. (1998) Neuron 20, 1269–1281[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  32. Karlin, A., and Akabas, M. H. (1998) Methods Enzymol. 293, 123–145[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  33. Frillingos, S., Sahin-Toth, M., Wu, J., and Kaback, H. R. (1998) FASEB J. 12, 1281–1299[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  34. Loo, T. W., and Clarke, D. M. (1999) Biochim. Biophys. Acta 1461, 315–325[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  35. Cao, W., and Matherly, L. H. (2003) Biochem. J. 374, 27–36[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  36. Flintoff, W. F., Willians, F. M. R., and Sadlish, H. (2003) J. Biol. Chem. 278, 40867–40876[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  37. Fry, D. W., Yalowich, J. C., and Goldman, I. D. (1982) J. Biol. Chem. 257, 1890–1896[Free Full Text]
  38. Zhao, R., Chattopadhyay, S., Hanscom, M., and Goldman, I. D. (2004) Clin. Cancer Res. 10, 8735–8742[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  39. Matherly, L. H., Czajkowski, C. A., and Angeles, S. M. (1991) Cancer Res. 51, 3420–3426[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  40. Laemmli, U. K. (1970) Nature 227, 680–685[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  41. Matsudaira, P. (1987) J. Biol. Chem. 262, 10035–10038[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  42. Lowry, O. H., Rosebrough, N. J., Farr, A. L., and Randall, R. J. (1951) J. Biol. Chem. 193, 265–275[Free Full Text]
  43. Henderson, G. B., and Zevely, E. M. (1984) J. Biol. Chem. 259, 4558–4562[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  44. Schagger, H., and von Jagon, G. (1987) Anal. Biochem. 166, 368–379[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  45. Loo, T. W., and Clarke, D. M. (1995) J. Biol. Chem. 270, 843–848[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  46. Pao, S. S., Paulsen, I. T., and Saier, M. H. (1998) Microbiol. Mol. Biol. Rev. 62, 1–34[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  47. Abramson, J., Smirnova, I., Kasho, V., Verner, G., Kaback, H. R., and Iwata, S. (2003) Science 301, 610–615[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  48. Huang, Y., Lemieux, M. J., Song, J., Auer, M., and Wang, D. N. (2003) Science 301, 616–620[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  49. Vardy, E., Arkin, I. T., Gottschalk, K. E., Kaback, H. R., and Schuldiner, S. (2004) Protein Sci. 13, 1832–1840[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  50. Abramson, J., Kaback, H. R., and Iwata, S. (2004) Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol. 14, 413–419[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  51. Zhao, R., Sharina, I. G., and Goldman, I. D. (1999) Mol. Pharmacol. 56, 1832–1840
  52. Rost, B., and Sander, C. (1993) J. Mol. Biol. 232, 584–599[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  53. Rost, B., and Sander, C. (1993) Proteins 19, 55–72

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 has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 J. Biol. Chem.Home page
Z. Hou and L. H. Matherly
Oligomeric Structure of the Human Reduced Folate Carrier: IDENTIFICATION OF HOMO-OLIGOMERS AND DOMINANT-NEGATIVE EFFECTS ON CARRIER EXPRESSION AND FUNCTION
J. Biol. Chem., January 30, 2009; 284(5): 3285 - 3293.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Mol. Pharmacol.Home page
Y. Deng, Z. Hou, L. Wang, C. Cherian, J. Wu, A. Gangjee, and L. H. Matherly
Role of Lysine 411 in Substrate Carboxyl Group Binding to the Human Reduced Folate Carrier, as Determined by Site-Directed Mutagenesis and Affinity Inhibition
Mol. Pharmacol., April 1, 2008; 73(4): 1274 - 1281.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Am. J. Physiol. Cell Physiol.Home page
K. Balamurugan, B. Ashokkumar, M. Moussaif, J. Y. Sze, and H. M. Said
Cloning and functional characterization of a folate transporter from the nematode Caenorhabditis elegans
Am J Physiol Cell Physiol, August 1, 2007; 293(2): C670 - C681.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J. Biol. Chem.Home page
Z. Hou, J. Ye, C. L. Haska, and L. H. Matherly
Transmembrane Domains 4, 5, 7, 8, and 10 of the Human Reduced Folate Carrier Are Important Structural or Functional Components of the Transmembrane Channel for Folate Substrates
J. Biol. Chem., November 3, 2006; 281(44): 33588 - 33596.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Am. J. Physiol. Cell Physiol.Home page
V. S. Subramanian, J. S. Marchant, and H. M. Said
Biotin-responsive basal ganglia disease-linked mutations inhibit thiamine transport via hTHTR2: biotin is not a substrate for hTHTR2
Am J Physiol Cell Physiol, November 1, 2006; 291(5): C851 - C859.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J. Biol. Chem.Home page
V. S. Subramanian, J. S. Marchant, and H. M. Said
Targeting and Trafficking of the Human Thiamine Transporter-2 in Epithelial Cells
J. Biol. Chem., February 24, 2006; 281(8): 5233 - 5245.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
280/43/36206    most recent
M507295200v1
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 HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Hou, Z.
Right arrow Articles by Matherly, L. H.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Hou, Z.
Right arrow Articles by Matherly, L. H.
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