henhaobio
Sign in

PLoS Computational BiologyBioinformaticsPeer-reviewed journal article

Specificity of Loxosceles α clade phospholipase D enzymes for choline-containing lipids: role of a conserved aromatic cage

Emmanuel E. MoutoussamyiD, Qaiser WaheediD, Greta J. BinfordiD, Hanif Muhammad KhaniD, Shane M. MoraniD, Anna R. EiteliD, Matthew H. J. CordesiD, Nathalie ReuteriD

PDFDOIPreprint

Abstract

Spider venom GDPD-like phospholipases D (SicTox) have been identified to be one of the major toxins in recluse spider venom. They are divided into two major clades: the clade and the {beta} clade. Most clade toxins present high activity against lipids with choline head groups such as sphingomyelin, while activities in {beta} clade toxins vary and include preference for substrates containing ethanolamine headgroups (Sicarius terrosus, St_{beta}IB1). A structural comparison of available PLDs structures reveals a conserved aromatic cage in the clade. To test the potential influence of the aromatic cage on membrane-lipid specificity we performed molecular-dynamics (MD) simulations of the binding of several PLDs onto lipid bilayers containing choline headgroups; two SicTox from the clade, Loxosceles intermedia IA1 (Li_IA) and Loxosceles laeta III1 (Ll_III1), and one from the {beta} clade, St_{beta}IB1. The simulation results reveal that the aromatic cage captures a choline-headgroup and suggest that the cage plays a major role in lipid specificity. We also simulated an engineered St_{beta}IB1, where we introduced the aromatic cage, and this led to binding with choline-containing lipids. Moreover, a multiple sequence alignment revealed the conservation of the aromatic cage among the clade PLDs. Here, we confirmed the membrane binding site of and {beta} clade PLDs on choline and ethanolamine-containing bilayers, respectively. Furthermore, our results suggest a major role in choline lipid recognition of the aromatic cage of the clade PLDs. The MD simulation results are supported by in vitro liposome binding assay experiments.

Citations
10
FWCI
1.21
Field percentile
top 24%

Reproducibility ledger

Nobody has reported trying to reproduce this paper yet. Did you replicate an experiment or run the code? Your report saves the next lab a week.

Sign in to file a reproducibility report.