Differences in Protonation of Ubiquinone and Menaquinone in Fumarate Reductase from Escherichia coli
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Escherichia coli quinol-fumarate reductase operates with both natural quinones, ubiquinone (UQ) and menaquinone (MQ), at a single quinone binding site. We have utilized a combination of mutagenesis, kinetic, EPR, and Fourier transform infrared methods to study the role of two residues, Lys-B228 and Glu-C29, at the quinol-fumarate reductase quinone binding site in reactions with MQ and UQ. The data demonstrate that Lys-B228 provides a strong hydrogen bond to MQ and is essential for reactions with both quinone types. Substitution of Glu-C29 with Leu and Phe caused a dramatic decrease in enzymatic reactions with MQ in agreement with previous studies, however, the succinate-UQ reductase reaction remains unaffected. Elimination of a negative charge in Glu-C29 mutant enzymes resulted in significantly increased stabilization of both UQ-* and MQ-* semiquinones. The data presented here suggest similar hydrogen bonding of the C1 carbonyl of both MQ and UQ, whereas there is different hydrogen bonding for their C4 carbonyls. The differences are shown by a single point mutation of Glu-C29, which transforms the enzyme from one that is predominantly a menaquinol-fumarate reductase to one that is essentially only functional as a succinate-ubiquinone reductase. These findings represent an example of how enzymes that are designed to accommodate either UQ or MQ at a single Q binding site may nevertheless develop sufficient plasticity at the binding pocket to react differently with MQ and UQ.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".