ArticleJournal of biochemistry2011
Substrate specificity of SpoIIGA, a signal-transducing aspartic protease in Bacilli.
Article in Journal of biochemistry, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Intercellular signal transduction within the mother cell compartment during Bacillus subtilis sporulation.FEMS microbiology letters · 2026Article
- Quantification and isolation of Bacillus subtilis spores using cell sorting and automated gating.PloS one · 2019Article
- Deleting multiple lytic genes enhances biomass yield and production of recombinant proteins by Bacillus subtilis.Microbial cell factories · 2014Article
- Regulated proteolysis in bacterial development.FEMS microbiology reviews · 2014Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
SpoIIGA is a novel type of membrane-associated aspartic protease that responds to a signal from the forespore by cleaving Pro-σ(E) in the mother cell during sporulation of Bacillus subtilis. Very little is known about how SpoIIGA recognizes Pro-σ(E). By co-expressing proteins in Escherichia coli, it was shown that charge reversal substitutions for acidic residues 24 and 25 of Pro-σ(E), and for basic residues 245 and 284 of SpoIIGA, impaired cleavage. These results are consistent with a model predicting possible electrostatic interactions between these residues; however, no charge reversal substitution for residue 245 or residue 284 of SpoIIGA restored cleavage of Pro-σ(E) with a charge reversal substitution for residue 24 or residue 25. Bacillus subtilis SpoIIGA cleaved Pro-σ(E) orthologs from Bacillus licheniformis and Bacillus halodurans, but not from Bacillus cereus. A triple substitution in the pro-sequence of B. cereus Pro-σ(E) allowed cleavage by B. subtilis SpoIIGA, indicating that residues distal from the cleavage site contribute to substrate specificity. Co-expression of SpoIIGA and Pro-σ(E) orthologs in different combinations suggested that B. licheniformis SpoIIGA has a relatively narrow substrate specificity as compared with B. subtilis SpoIIGA, whereas B. cereus SpoIIGA and B. halodurans SpoIIGA appear to have broader substrate specificity.
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.