4.7 Article

Molecular determinants of inactivation of the resuscitation promoting factor B from Mycobacterium tuberculosis

期刊

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS INC
DOI: 10.1080/07391102.2012.698243

关键词

tuberculosis; latency; crystal structure; molecular dynamics

资金

  1. Ministero Italiano dell'Istruzione, dell'Universita e della Ricerca [prot. 200993WWF9]
  2. COST BM1003 [BM1003-00772]
  3. EC-VII Framework [260872]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Inactivation of revival of Mycobacterium tuberculosis from dormancy is one of the main goals of the WHO Global Plan to stop tuberculosis (TB) 20112015, given the huge reservoir of latently infected individuals. This process requires a group of secreted proteins, denoted as resuscitation-promoting factors (Rpfs). Of these, RpfB is the sole member indispensable for resuscitation in vivo. The first class of inhibitors of RpfB was identified among 2-nitrophenylthiocyanates. However, their inactivation mechanism is hitherto not known. To gain insight into the inactivation mechanism of one of the most promising RpfB inhibitors, 4-benzoyl-2-nitrophenyl thiocyanate, NPT7, we have performed replica exchange molecular dynamics (REMD) simulations, starting from the crystal structure of RpfB catalytic domain, derived in this study. We validated our results by resuscitation experiments of M. tuberculosis cultures. The atomic resolution crystal structure of RpfB catalytic domain identified the potential of the enzyme catalytic cleft to bind benzene rings. REMD simulations, 48 replicas, identified the key interactions for the binding of NPT7 to RpfB catalytic site. Of these, an important role is played by the thiocyanate group of NPT7. Consistently, we prove that the substitution of this group implies a complete loss of RpfB inactivation. Our results provide valuable information for modifications of NPT7 structure to enhance its binding affinity to RpfB, with the final aim of developing second-generation inhibitors of therapeutic interest in TB eradication strategy.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据