Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21990366›Full record

ArticleThe Journal of biological chemistry2011

S1 pocket of a bacterially derived subtilisin-like protease underpins effective tissue destruction.

Wilson Wong, Lakshmi C Wijeyewickrema, Ruth M Kennan, Shane B Reeve, David L Steer, Cyril Reboul, A Ian Smith, Robert N Pike, Julian I Rood, James C Whisstock and 1 more

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The Journal of biological chemistry, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 33% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed, 21 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Wilson WongAustralian Research Council Centre of Excellence in Structural and Functional Microbial Genomics, Monash University, Clayton, Victoria 3800, Australia; Departments of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Monash University, Clayton, Victoria 3800, Australia.
Lakshmi C WijeyewickremaDepartments of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Monash University, Clayton, Victoria 3800, Australia.
Ruth M KennanAustralian Research Council Centre of Excellence in Structural and Functional Microbial Genomics, Monash University, Clayton, Victoria 3800, Australia; Department of Microbiology, Monash University, Clayton, Victoria 3800, Australia.
Shane B ReeveAustralian Research Council Centre of Excellence in Structural and Functional Microbial Genomics, Monash University, Clayton, Victoria 3800, Australia; Departments of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Monash University, Clayton, Victoria 3800, Australia.
David L SteerAustralian Research Council Centre of Excellence in Structural and Functional Microbial Genomics, Monash University, Clayton, Victoria 3800, Australia; Departments of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Monash University, Clayton, Victoria 3800, Australia.
Cyril ReboulAustralian Research Council Centre of Excellence in Structural and Functional Microbial Genomics, Monash University, Clayton, Victoria 3800, Australia; Departments of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Monash University, Clayton, Victoria 3800, Australia.
A Ian SmithAustralian Research Council Centre of Excellence in Structural and Functional Microbial Genomics, Monash University, Clayton, Victoria 3800, Australia; Departments of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Monash University, Clayton, Victoria 3800, Australia.
Robert N PikeDepartments of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Monash University, Clayton, Victoria 3800, Australia.
Julian I RoodAustralian Research Council Centre of Excellence in Structural and Functional Microbial Genomics, Monash University, Clayton, Victoria 3800, Australia; Department of Microbiology, Monash University, Clayton, Victoria 3800, Australia. Electronic address: julian.rood@monash.edu.
James C WhisstockAustralian Research Council Centre of Excellence in Structural and Functional Microbial Genomics, Monash University, Clayton, Victoria 3800, Australia; Departments of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Monash University, Clayton, Victoria 3800, Australia. Electronic address: james.whisstock@monash.edu.
Corrine J PorterAustralian Research Council Centre of Excellence in Structural and Functional Microbial Genomics, Monash University, Clayton, Victoria 3800, Australia; Departments of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Monash University, Clayton, Victoria 3800, Australia.
Monash University · AUAustralian Research Council · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The ovine footrot pathogen, Dichelobacter nodosus, secretes three subtilisin-like proteases that play an important role in the pathogenesis of footrot through their ability to mediate tissue destruction. Virulent and benign strains of D. nodosus secrete the basic proteases BprV and BprB, respectively, with the catalytic domain of these enzymes having 96% sequence identity. At present, it is not known how sequence variation between these two putative virulence factors influences their respective biological activity. We have determined the high resolution crystal structures of BprV and BprB. These data reveal that that the S1 pocket of BprV is more hydrophobic but smaller than that of BprB. We show that BprV is more effective than BprB in degrading extracellular matrix components of the host tissue. Mutation of two residues around the S1 pocket of BprB to the equivalent residues in BprV dramatically enhanced its proteolytic activity against elastin substrates. Application of a novel approach for profiling substrate specificity, the Rapid Endopeptidase Profiling Library (REPLi) method, revealed that both enzymes prefer cleaving after hydrophobic residues (and in particular P1 leucine) but that BprV has more restricted primary substrate specificity than BprB. Furthermore, for P1 Leu-containing substrates we found that BprV is a significantly more efficient enzyme than BprB. Collectively, these data illuminate how subtle changes in D. nodosus proteases may significantly influence tissue destruction as part of the ovine footrot pathogenesis process.

Indexed as

Amino AcidsAnimalsBacterial ProteinsCongo RedCrystallizationCrystallography, X-RayDichelobacter nodosusFibronectinsFoot RotHumansKineticsLeucineModels, BiologicalModels, MolecularPhenylalanineProtein Structure, TertiaryAmino AcidsBacterial ProteinsCongo Redextracellular basic protease, Dichelobacter nodosusFibronectinsLeucinePhenylalanineSerine EndopeptidasesSubtilisin

Identifiers

PMID21990366
PMCPMC3234984
OpenAlexW1987180739

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.