Search

Cytidine triphosphate synthetases (CTPSs) synthesize CTP and regulate its intracellular concentration through direct interactions with the four ribonucleotide triphosphates. In particular, CTP product is a feedback inhibitor that competes with UTP substrate. Selected CTPS mutations that impart resistance to pyrimidine antimetabolite inhibitors also relieve CTP inhibition and cause a dramatic increase in intracellular CTP concentration, indicating that the drugs act by binding to the CTP inhibitory site. Resistance mutations map to a pocket that, although adjacent, does not coincide with the expected UTP binding site in apo Escherichia coli CTPS [EcCTPS; Endrizzi, J. A., et al. (2004) Biochemistry 43, 6447-6463], suggesting allosteric rather than competitive inhibition. Here, bound CTP and ADP were visualized in catalytically active EcCTPS crystals soaked in either ATP and UTP substrates or ADP and CTP products. The CTP cytosine ring resides in the pocket predicted by the resistance mutations, while the triphosphate moiety overlaps the putative UTP triphosphate binding site, explaining how CTP competes with UTP while CTP resistance mutations are acquired without loss of catalytic efficiency. Extensive complementarity and interaction networks at the interfacial binding sites provide the high specificity for pyrimidine triphosphates and mediate nucleotide-dependent tetramer formation. Overall, these results depict a novel product inhibition strategy in which shared substrate and product moieties bind to a single subsite while specificity is conferred by separate subsites. This arrangement allows for independent adaptation of UTP and CTP binding affinities while efficiently utilizing the enzyme surface.

Cytidine triphosphate synthetases (CTPSs) produce CTP from UTP and glutamine, and regulate intracellular CTP levels through interactions with the four ribonucleotide triphosphates. We solved the 2.3-A resolution crystal structure of Escherichia coli CTPS using Hg-MAD phasing. The structure reveals a nearly symmetric 222 tetramer, in which each bifunctional monomer contains a dethiobiotin synthetase-like amidoligase N-terminal domain and a Type 1 glutamine amidotransferase C-terminal domain. For each amidoligase active site, essential ATP- and UTP-binding surfaces are contributed by three monomers, suggesting that activity requires tetramer formation, and that a nucleotide-dependent dimer-tetramer equilibrium contributes to the observed positive cooperativity. A gated channel that spans 25 A between the glutamine hydrolysis and amidoligase active sites provides a path for ammonia diffusion. The channel is accessible to solvent at the base of a cleft adjoining the glutamine hydrolysis active site, providing an entry point for exogenous ammonia. Guanine nucleotide binding sites of structurally related GTPases superimpose on this cleft, providing insights into allosteric regulation by GTP. Mutations that confer nucleoside drug resistance and release CTP inhibition map to a pocket that neighbors the UTP-binding site and can accommodate a pyrimidine ring. Its location suggests that competitive feedback inhibition is affected via a distinct product/drug binding site that overlaps the substrate triphosphate binding site. Overall, the E. coli structure provides a framework for homology modeling of other CTPSs and structure-based design of anti-CTPS therapeutics.

Human glucose-6-phosphatase plays a vital role in blood glucose homeostasis and holds promise as a therapeutic target for diabetes. Expression of its catalytic subunit gene 1 (G6PC1) is tightly regulated by metabolic-response transcription factors such as FoxO1 and CREB. Although at least three potential FoxO1 binding sites (insulin response elements, IREs) and one CREB binding site (cAMP response element, CRE) within the proximal region of the G6PC1 promoter have been identified, the interplay between FoxO1 and CREB and between FoxO1 bound at multiple IREs has not been well characterized. Here we present the crystal structures of the FoxO1 DNA binding domain in complex with the G6PC1 promoter. These complexes reveal the presence of a new non-consensus FoxO1 binding site that overlaps the CRE, suggesting a mutual exclusion mechanism for FoxO1 and CREB binding at the G6PC1 promoter. Additional findings include (i) non-canonical FoxO1 recognition sites, (ii) incomplete FoxO1 occupancies at the available IRE sites, and (iii) FoxO1 dimeric interactions that may play a role in stabilizing DNA looping. These findings provide insight into the regulation of G6PC1 gene transcription by FoxO1, and demonstrate a high versatility of target gene recognition by FoxO1 that correlates with its diverse roles in biology. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]