PubMed · 3071716
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
G B Kohlhaw. 1988. Alpha-isopropylmalate synthase from yeast.. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0076-6879(88)66054-x
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
Previous studies have indicated that different species of Leptospira synthesize isoleucine via either pyruvate and/or threonine pathways. Seven epidemic Leptospira interrogans reference strains from China belonging to different serovars, together with three saprophytic strains of Leptospira biflexa and Leptospira meyeri, were analysed. The isoleucine biosynthesis properties were studied firstly by measuring the key enzymes of the two pathways, citramalate synthase (CimA, CE4.1.3.-) and threonine deaminase (IlvA, CE4.2.1.16), from cell extracts of the bacteria. Meanwhile, alpha-isopropylmalate synthase (LeuA, CE4.2.1.12), the key enzyme of leucine biosynthesis, was also measured as a control. It was found that all L. interrogans strains synthesized isoleucine via the pyruvate pathway exclusively, but L. biflexa and L. meyeri used both pathways. Dot-Blot and PCR amplification of both cimA and ilvA genes in the corresponding strains provided additional evidence consistent with the data of enzymatic assays. Although it is evident that leptospires' isoleucine biosynthesis may preferentially adapt either to the pyruvate pathway exclusively for pathogens or to the combination of both pyruvate and threonine pathways for saprophytes, broader sampling with careful genomospecies identification is needed for a solid conclusion.
Heterologous expression of the Arabidopsis (Arabidopsis thaliana) IPMS1 (At1g18500) and IPMS2 (At1g74040) cDNAs in Escherichia coli yields isopropylmalate synthases (IPMSs; EC 2.3.3.13). These enzymes catalyze the first dedicated step in leucine (Leu) biosynthesis, an aldol-type condensation of acetyl-coenzyme A (CoA) and 2-oxoisovalerate yielding isopropylmalate. Most biochemical properties of IPMS1 and IPMS2 are similar: broad pH optimum around pH 8.5, Mg2+ as cofactor, feedback inhibition by Leu, Km for 2-oxoisovalerate of approximately 300 microM, and a Vmax of approximately 2 x 10(3) micromol min(-1) g(-1). However, IPMS1 and IPMS2 differ in their Km for acetyl-CoA (45 microM and 16 microM, respectively) and apparent quaternary structure (dimer and tetramer, respectively). A knockout insertion mutant for IPMS1 showed an increase in valine content but no changes in Leu content; two insertion mutants for IPMS2 did not show any changes in soluble amino acid content. Apparently, in planta each gene can adequately compensate for the absence of the other, consistent with available microarray and reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction data that show that both genes are expressed in all organs at all developmental stages. Both encoded proteins accept 2-oxo acid substrates in vitro ranging in length from glyoxylate to 2-oxohexanoate, and catalyze at a low rate the condensation of acetyl-CoA and 4-methylthio-2-oxobutyrate, i.e. a reaction involved in glucosinolate chain elongation normally catalyzed by methylthioalkylmalate synthases. The evolutionary relationship between IPMS and methylthioalkylmalate synthase enzymes is discussed in view of their amino acid sequence identity (60%) and overlap in substrate specificity.
BACKGROUND: Effects on gene expression due to environmental or genetic changes can be easily measured using microarrays. However, indirect effects on expression can be substantial. The indirect effects of a perturbation need to be distinguished from the direct effects if we are to understand the structure and behavior of regulatory networks. RESULTS: The most direct way to perturb a transcriptional network is to alter transcription factor activity. Here, for the first time, we compare expression changes and genomic binding in a simple regulon under conditions of both low and high transcription factor activity. Specifically, we assessed the effects on expression and binding due to deletion of the yeast LEU3 transcription factor gene and effects due to elevation of Leu3 activity. Leu3 activity was elevated through overexpression and the introduction of a mutation that renders the protein constitutively active. Genes that are bound and/or regulated by Leu3 under one or both conditions were characterized in terms of their functional annotations and their predicted potential to be bound by Leu3. We also assessed the evolutionary conservation of the predicted binding potential using a novel alignment-independent method. Both perturbations yield genes that are likely to be direct targets of Leu3, including most of the classically defined targets. Additional direct targets are identified by each of the methods. However, experimental and computational criteria suggest that most genes whose expression is affected by the Leu3 genotype are unlikely to be regulated by binding of the protein. CONCLUSION: Most genes that are differentially expressed by Leu3 are not direct targets despite the exceptional simplicity of the regulon, and the unusually direct nature of the perturbations investigated. These conclusions are reached through computational analyses that support and extend chromatin immunoprecipitation data on the identities of direct targets. These results have implications for the interpretation of expression experiments, especially in cases for which chromatin immunoprecipitation data are unavailable, incomplete, or ambiguous.