4.6 Article

The Bam complex catalyzes efficient insertion of bacterial outer membrane proteins into membrane vesicles of variable lipid composition

期刊

JOURNAL OF BIOLOGICAL CHEMISTRY
卷 293, 期 8, 页码 2959-2973

出版社

AMER SOC BIOCHEMISTRY MOLECULAR BIOLOGY INC
DOI: 10.1074/jbc.RA117.000349

关键词

-

资金

  1. Intramural Research Program of NIDDK, National Institutes of Health
  2. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF DIABETES AND DIGESTIVE AND KIDNEY DISEASES [ZIADK052037] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Most proteins that reside in the bacterial outer membrane (OM) have a distinctive beta-barrel architecture, but the assembly of these proteins is poorly understood. The spontaneous assembly of OM proteins (OMPs) into pure lipid vesicles has been studied extensively but often requires non-physiological conditions and time scales and is strongly influenced by properties of the lipid bilayer, including surface charge, thickness, and fluidity. Furthermore, the membrane insertion of OMPs in vivo is catalyzed by a heterooligomer called the beta-barrel assembly machinery (Bam) complex. To determine the role of lipids in the assembly of OMPs under more physiological conditions, we exploited an assay in which the Bam complex mediates their insertion into membrane vesicles. After reconstituting the Bam complex into vesicles that contain a variety of different synthetic lipids, we found that two model OMPs, EspP and OmpA, folded efficiently regardless of the lipid composition. Most notably, both proteins folded into membranes composed of a gel-phase lipid that mimics the rigid bacterial OM. Interestingly, we found that EspP, OmpA, and another model protein (OmpG) folded at significantly different rates and that an alpha-helix embedded inside the EspP beta-barrel accelerates folding. Our results show that the Bam complex largely overcomes effects that lipids exert on OMP assembly and suggest that specific interactions between the Bam complex and an OMP influence its rate of folding.

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

4.6
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