These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: High-affinity binding of Escherichia coli SecB to the signal sequence region of a presecretory protein.
    Author: Watanabe M, Blobel G.
    Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A; 1995 Oct 24; 92(22):10133-6. PubMed ID: 7479740.
    Abstract:
    The Escherichia coli cytosolic homotetrameric protein SecB is known to be involved in protein export across the plasma membrane. A currently prevalent view holds that SecB functions exclusively as a chaperone interacting nonspecifically with unfolded proteins, not necessarily exported proteins, whereas a contrary view holds that SecB functions primarily as a specific signal-recognition factor--i.e., in binding to the signal sequence region of exported proteins. To experimentally resolve these differences we assayed for binding between chemically pure SecB and chemically pure precursor (p) form (containing a signal sequence) and mature (m) form (lacking a signal sequence) of a model secretory protein (maltose binding protein, MBP) that was C-terminally truncated. Because of the C-terminal truncation, neither p nor m was able to fold. We found that SecB bound with 100-fold higher affinity to p (Kd 0.8 nM) than it bound to m (Kd 80 nM). As the presence of the signal sequence in p is the only feature that distinguished p from m, these data strongly suggest that the high-affinity binding of SecB is to the signal sequence region and not the mature region of p. Consistent with this conclusion, we found that a wild-type signal peptide, but not an export-incompetent mutant signal peptide of another exported protein (LamB), competed for binding to p. Moreover, the high-affinity binding of SecB to p was resistant to 1 M salt, whereas the low-affinity binding of SecB to m was not. These qualitative differences suggested that SecB binding to m was primarily by electrostatic interactions, whereas SecB binding to p was primarily via hydrophobic interactions, presumably with the hydrophobic core of the signal sequence. Taken together our data strongly support the notion that SecB is primarily a specific signal-recognition factor.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]