ArticleThe Journal of biological chemistry2010
Regulation of response regulator autophosphorylation through interdomain contacts.
Article in The Journal of biological chemistry, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 47 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
47 citing papers in PubMed, 70 citations in OpenAlex.
- The response regulator BqsR/CarR controls FeNature communications · 2026Article
- Article
- Residue coevolution and mutational landscape for OmpR and NarL response regulator subfamilies.Biophysical journal · 2024Article
- Structure of phosphorylated-like RssB, the adaptor delivering σThe Journal of biological chemistry · 2023Article
- A sporulation signature protease is required for assembly of the spore surface layers, germination and host colonization in Clostridioides difficile.PLoS pathogens · 2023Article
- Nutrient Limitation SensitizesACS infectious diseases · 2023Article
- Structural insights into the transcription activation mechanism of the global regulator GlnR from actinobacteria.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2023Article
- Distribution of two-component signal transduction systems BlpRH and ComDE across streptococcal species.Frontiers in microbiology · 2022Review
- Allostery and protein plasticity: the keystones for bacterial signaling and regulation.Biophysical reviews · 2021Review
- Directed evolution reveals the mechanism of HitRS signaling transduction in Bacillus anthracis.PLoS pathogens · 2020Article
- Modulation of Response Regulator CheY Reaction Kinetics by Two Variable Residues That Affect Conformation.Journal of bacteriology · 2020Article
- Epistatic Effect of Regulators to the Adaptive Growth of Escherichia coli.Scientific reports · 2020Article
- Deciphering the activation and recognition mechanisms of Staphylococcus aureus response regulator ArlR.Nucleic acids research · 2019Article
- The Structure of the Biofilm-controlling Response Regulator BfmR from Acinetobacter baumannii Reveals Details of Its DNA-binding Mechanism.Journal of molecular biology · 2018Article
- Allosteric control of a bacterial stress response system by an anti-σ factor.Molecular microbiology · 2018Article
- Conformational dynamics are a key factor in signaling mediated by the receiver domain of a sensor histidine kinase fromThe Journal of biological chemistry · 2017Article
- A Variable Active Site Residue Influences the Kinetics of Response Regulator Phosphorylation and Dephosphorylation.Biochemistry · 2016Article
- Basis of Mutual Domain Inhibition in a Bacterial Response Regulator.Cell chemical biology · 2016Article
- Article
- In Vivo Characterization of the Activation and Interaction of the VanR-VanS Two-Component Regulatory System Controlling Glycopeptide Antibiotic Resistance in Two Related Streptomyces Species.Antimicrobial agents and chemotherapy · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
DNA-binding response regulators (RRs) of the OmpR/PhoB subfamily alternate between inactive and active conformational states, with the latter having enhanced DNA-binding affinity. Phosphorylation of an aspartate residue in the receiver domain, usually via phosphotransfer from a cognate histidine kinase, stabilizes the active conformation. Many of the available structures of inactive OmpR/PhoB family proteins exhibit extensive interfaces between the N-terminal receiver and C-terminal DNA-binding domains. These interfaces invariably involve the α4-β5-α5 face of the receiver domain, the locus of the largest differences between inactive and active conformations and the surface that mediates dimerization of receiver domains in the active state. Structures of receiver domain dimers of DrrB, DrrD, and MtrA have been determined, and phosphorylation kinetics were analyzed. Analysis of phosphotransfer from small molecule phosphodonors has revealed large differences in autophosphorylation rates among OmpR/PhoB RRs. RRs with substantial domain interfaces exhibit slow rates of phosphorylation. Rates are greatly increased in isolated receiver domain constructs. Such differences are not observed between autophosphorylation rates of full-length and isolated receiver domains of a RR that lacks interdomain interfaces, and they are not observed in histidine kinase-mediated phosphotransfer. These findings suggest that domain interfaces restrict receiver domain conformational dynamics, stabilizing an inactive conformation that is catalytically incompetent for phosphotransfer from small molecule phosphodonors. Inhibition of phosphotransfer by domain interfaces provides an explanation for the observation that some RRs cannot be phosphorylated by small molecule phosphodonors in vitro and provides a potential mechanism for insulating some RRs from small molecule-mediated phosphorylation in vivo.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.