Cloning, structure and expression of a pea cDNA clone coding for a photosynthetic fructose-1,6-bisphosphatase with some features different from those of the leaf chloroplast enzyme

Publisher Website
Google Scholar
Abstract
A positive clone against pea (Pisum sativum L.) chloroplast fructose-1,6-bisphosphatase (FBPase; EC 3.1.3.11) antibodies was obtained from a copy DNA (cDNA) library in λgt11. The insert was 1261 nucleotides long, and had an open reading frame of 1143 base pairs with coding capability for the whole FBPase subunit and a fragment of a putative processing peptide. An additional 115 base pairs corresponding to a 3′-untranslated region coding for an mRNA poly(A)+ tail were also found in the clone. The deduced sequence for the FBPase subunit was a 357-amino-acid protein of molecular mass 39253 daltons (Da), showing 82–88% absolute homology with four chloroplastic FBPases sequenced earlier. The 3.1-kilobase (kb)KpnI-SacI fragment of the λgt11 derivative was subcloned between theKpnI-SacI restriction sites of pTZ18R to yield plasmid pAMC100. Lysates ofEscherichia coli (pAMC100) showed FBPase activity; this was purified as a 170-kDa protein which, upon sodium dodecyl sulfate-polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis, displayed a 44-kDa band. As occurs with native FBPases, this indicates a homotetrameric structure for the expressed FBPase. When assayed under excess Mg2+ (10 mM), the expressed enzyme had a higher affinity for the substrate than the native pea leaf FBPase; this parameter appears to be substantiated by a tenfold higher specific activity than that of the native enzyme. However, when activated with dithiothreitol plus saturating concentrations of pea thioredoxin (Td) f, both FBPase had similar activities, with a 4:1 Td f-FBPase stoichiometry. In contrast to the native pea chloroplast FBPase, theE. coli-expressed enzyme did not react with the monoclonal antibody GR-PB5. It also had a higher heat sensitivity, with 42% residual activity after heating for 30 min at 60°C, conditions which preserved the native enzyme in a fully active state. These results show the existence of some difference(s) in the conformation of the two FBPases; this could be a consequence of a different expression of the genomic and cDNA clones, or be due to the need for some factor for the correct assembly of the oligomeric structure of the native chloroplast enzyme.