Structure–function studies of the C3/C5 epimerases and C4 reductases of the Campylobacter jejuni capsular heptose modification pathways
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many bacteria produce polysaccharide-based capsules that protect them from environmental insults and play a role in virulence, host invasion, and other functions. Understanding how the polysaccharide components are synthesized could provide new means to combat bacterial infections. We have previously characterized two pairs of homologous enzymes involved in the biosynthesis of capsular sugar precursors GDP-6-deoxy-D-altro-heptose and GDP-6-OMe-L-gluco-heptose in Campylobacter jejuni. However, the substrate specificity and mechanism of action of these enzymes-C3 and/or C5 epimerases DdahB and MlghB and C4 reductases DdahC and MlghC-are unknown. Here, we demonstrate that these enzymes are highly specific for heptose substrates, using mannose substrates inefficiently with the exception of MlghB. We show that DdahB and MlghB feature a jellyroll fold typical of cupins, which possess a range of activities including epimerizations, GDP occupying a similar position as in cupins. DdahC and MlghC contain a Rossman fold, a catalytic triad, and a small C-terminal domain typical of short-chain dehydratase reductase enzymes. Integrating structural information with site-directed mutagenesis allowed us to identify features unique to each enzyme and provide mechanistic insight. In the epimerases, mutagenesis of H67, D173, N121, Y134, and Y132 suggested the presence of alternative catalytic residues. We showed that the reductases could reduce GDP-4-keto-6-deoxy-mannulose without prior epimerization although DdahC preferred the pre-epimerized substrate and identified T110 and H180 as important for substrate specificity and catalytic efficacy. This information can be exploited to identify inhibitors for therapeutic applications or to tailor these enzymes to synthesize novel sugars useful as glycobiology tools.
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) | 0.001 | 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".