Advertisement

Journal of Computer-Aided Molecular Design

, Volume 20, Issue 10–11, pp 621–628 | Cite as

Molecular modeling and bioinformatical analysis of the antibacterial target enzyme MurA from a drug design perspective

  • Christian D. KleinEmail author
  • Anke Bachelier
ORIGINAL PAPER

Abstract

The enzyme MurA (UDP-N-acetylglucosamine enolpyruvyl transferase) catalyzes the first cytoplasmatic step in the synthesis of murein precursors. This function is of vital relevance for bacteria, and the enzyme therefore represents an important target protein for the development of novel antibacterial compounds. Several X-ray structures of liganded and un-liganded MurA have been published, which may be used for rational drug design. MurA, however, contains a highly flexible surface loop, which is involved in substrate and inhibitor binding. In the available X-ray structures, the conformation of this surface loop varies, depending on the presence or absence of ligands or substrate and probably also on the crystal packing. The uncertainty of the low-energy, or “resting state” conformation of this surface loop hampers the application of rational drug design to this class of enzymes. We have therefore performed an extensive molecular dynamics study of the enzyme in order to identify one or several low-energy conformers. The results indicate that, at least in some of the X-ray structures, the conformation of the flexible surface loop is influenced by crystallographic contacts. Furthermore, three partially helical foldamers of the surface loop are identified which may resemble the resting states of the enzyme or intermediate states that are “traversed” during the substrate binding process. Another, very important aspect for the development of novel antibacterial compounds is the inter- and intra-species variability of the target structure. We present a comparison of MurA sequences from 163 organisms which were analyzed under the aspects of enzyme mechanism, structure and drug design. The results allow us to identify the most promising binding sites for inhibitor interaction, which are present in MurA enzymes of most species and are expected to be insusceptible to resistance-inducing mutations.

Keywords

Antibiotics Drug design Enzyme inhibition Molecular dynamics simulation Multiple sequence alignment MurA EC 2.5.1.7 

Abbreviations

MurA

UDP-N-acetylglucosamine enolpyruvyl transferase

UNAG

UDP-N-acetylglucosamine

PEP

phosphoenolpyruvate

RMSD

root-mean-square deviation

MD

molecular dynamics

Notes

Acknowledgements

The work has been performed under the Project HPC-EUROPA (RII3-CT-2003-506079), with the support of the European Community—Research Infrastructure Action under the FP6 “Structuring the European Research Area” Programme. This project was supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (KL 1356) and the Fonds der Chemischen Industrie. We thank Professor R. Hartmann for his continued support of our work.

References

  1. 1.
    Brown ED, Vivas EI, Walsh CT, Kolter R (1995) J Bacteriol 177:4194Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Skarzynski T, Mistry A, Wonacott A, Hutchinson SE, Kelly VA, Duncan K (1996) Structure 4:1465CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Schonbrunn E, Sack S, Eschenburg S, Perrakis A, Krekel F, Amrhein N, Mandelkow E (1996) Structure 4:1065CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kahan F, Kahan J, Cassidy P, Kropp H (1974) Ann NY Acad Sci 235:364CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Schonbrunn E, Eschenburg S, Luger K, Kabsch W, Amrhein N (2000) Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 97:6345CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Eschenburg S, Schonbrunn E (2000) Proteins 40:290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Skarzynski T, Kim DH, Lees WJ, Walsh CT, Duncan K (1998) Biochemistry 37:2572CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Eschenburg S, Kabsch W, Healy ML, Schonbrunn E (2003) J Biol Chem 278:49215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Eschenburg S, Priestman M, Schonbrunn E (2005) J Biol Chem 280:3757CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Schonbrunn E, Eschenburg S, Krekel F, Luger K, Amrhein N (2000) Biochemistry 39:2164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Eschenburg S, Priestman MA, Abdul-Latif FA, Delachaume C, Fassy F, Schonbrunn E (2005) J Biol Chem 280:14070CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Thomas AM, Ginj C, Jelesarov I, Amrhein N, Macheroux P (2004) Eur J Biochem 271:2682CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Guex N, Peitsch MC (1997) Electrophoresis 18:2714CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Weiner PK, Kollman PA (1981) J Comput Chem 2:287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Cornell WD, Cieplak P, Bayly CI, Gould IR, Merz KM, Ferguson DM, Spellmeyer DC, Fox T, Caldwell JW, Kollman PA (1995) J Am Chem Soc 117:5179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Tsui V, Case DA (2001) Biopolymers 56:275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Berendsen HJC, Postma JPM, van Gunsteren WF, DiNola A, Haak JR (1984) J Chem Phys 81:3684CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Humphrey W, Dalke A, Schulten K (1996) J Mol Graphics 14:33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lindahl E, Hess B, van der Spoel D (2001) J Mol Mod 7:306Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Thompson JD, Higgins DG, Gibson TJ (1994) Nucleic Acids Res 22:4673Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hall TA (1999) Nucl Acids Symp Ser 41:95Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Pharmazeutische und Medizinische ChemieSaarland University FR 8.2SaarbrückenGermany

Personalised recommendations