Figure 2
Comparative analysis of CheY. (a) Superposition of the PhCheY pseudomonomer (reconstituted from chains A and A′) with M. maripaludis CheY (PDB entries 6ekg and 6ekh; Quax, Altegoer et al., 2018 ). Views and arrangement are as in Fig. 1 (c). Superpositions were calculated with the LSQ tool (least-squares fit) in Coot (Emsley et al., 2010 ). PhCheY is in magenta/cyan and BeF3−/NaF-activated and non-activated M. maripaludis CheY are in orange and yellow, respectively. The gray background refers to (b). (b) Enlargement of the CheY structures in the orientations indicated in (a). Residues Asp53/Asp57 (P. horikoshi/M. maripaludis numbering), Tyr100/Tyr104 and Thr81/Thr84 are shown in stick representation using the color code in (a). (c) Qualitative surface electrostatic representation of CheY from P. horikoshi, M. maripaludis and T. maritima (PDB entry 1tmy; Usher et al., 1998 ) calculated with the vacuum electrostatics function in PyMOL (https://www.pymol.org) and shown in default coloring with positive potentials depicted in blue and negative potentials in red. The α4 helices including the positions of Gln85 and Glu86 (P. horikoshi numbering; Glu89 and Gln90 in M. maripaludis) are circled in yellow. (d) Sequence alignment in P. horikoshi numbering generated with Clustal Omega (Thompson et al., 1997 ) and rendered in Jalview (Waterhouse et al., 2009 ). |