Modulation of Substrate Efflux in Bacterial Small Multidrug Resistance Proteins by Mutations at the Dimer Interface
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Bacteria evade the effects of cytotoxic compounds through the efflux activity of membrane-bound transporters such as the small multidrug resistance (SMR) proteins. Consisting typically of ca. 110 residues with four transmembrane (TM) α-helices, crystallographic studies have shown that TM helix 1 (TM1) through TM helix 3 (TM3) of each monomer create a substrate binding "pocket" within the membrane bilayer, while a TM4-TM4 interaction accounts for the primary dimer formation. Previous work from our lab has characterized a highly conserved small-residue heptad motif in the Halobacterium salinarum transporter Hsmr as (90)GLXLIXXGV(98) that lies along the TM4-TM4 dimer interface of SMR proteins as required for function. Focusing on conserved positions 91, 93, 94, and 98, we substituted the naturally occurring Hsmr residue for Ala, Phe, Ile, Leu, Met, and Val at each position in the Hsmr TM4-TM4 interface. Large-residue replacements were studied for their ability to dimerize on SDS-polyacrylamide gels, to bind the cytotoxic compound ethidium bromide, and to confer resistance by efflux. Although the relative activity of mutants did not correlate with dimer strength for all mutants, all functional mutants lay within 10% of dimerization relative to the wild type (WT), suggesting that the optimal dimer strength at TM4 is required for proper efflux. Furthermore, nonfunctional substitutions at the center of the dimerization interface that do not alter dimer strength suggest a dynamic TM4-TM4 "pivot point" that responds to the efflux requirements of different substrates. This functionally critical region represents a potential target for inhibiting the ability of bacteria to evade the effects of cytotoxic compounds.
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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".