Skip to main content
PLOS ONE logoLink to PLOS ONE
. 2022 Oct 20;17(10):e0275023. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0275023

Structure of Klebsiella pneumoniae adenosine monophosphate nucleosidase

Brian C Richardson 1, Roger Shek 2, Wesley C Van Voorhis 2, Jarrod B French 1,*
Editor: Janesh Kumar3
PMCID: PMC9584410  PMID: 36264993

Abstract

Klebsiella pneumoniae is a bacterial pathogen that is increasingly responsible for hospital-acquired pneumonia and sepsis. Progressive development of antibiotic resistance has led to higher mortality rates and creates a need for novel treatments. Because of the essential role that nucleotides play in many bacterial processes, enzymes involved in purine and pyrimidine metabolism and transport are ideal targets for the development of novel antibiotics. Herein we describe the structure of K. pneumoniae adenosine monophosphate nucleosidase (KpAmn), a purine salvage enzyme unique to bacteria, as determined by cryoelectron microscopy. The data detail a well conserved fold with a hexameric overall structure and clear density for the putative active site residues. Comparison to the crystal structures of homologous prokaryotic proteins confirms the presence of many of the conserved structural features of this protein yet reveals differences in distal loops in the absence of crystal contacts. This first cryo-EM structure of an Amn enzyme provides a basis for future structure-guided drug development and extends the accuracy of structural characterization of this family of proteins beyond this clinically relevant organism.

Introduction

The gram-negative bacterium Klebsiella pneumoniae is an opportunistic pathogen. Natively found on human mucosal surfaces, it is a frequent cause of nosocomial pneumonia and sepsis due in large part to its protective capsule and ability to form robust biofilms on medical equipment [1]. In the past two decades, K. pneumoniae has garnered greater concern due to its increasing resistance to beta-lactam antibiotics, including the ability to inactivate carbapenems typically resistant to extended-spectrum beta-lactamases [2]. As such, it is recognized as one of the six pathogens of greatest concern in nosocomial infection known as the ESKAPE pathogens after their genera: Enterococcus faecium, Staphylococcus aureus, Klebsiella pneumoniae, Acetobacter baumannii, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and Enterobacter spp. [3]. Thus, as with Pseudomonas aeruginosa [4] and Staphylococcus aureus [5] among the other ESKAPE pathogens, the need for novel antibiotics targeting K. pneumoniae is pressing.

The ideal antibiotic is highly deleterious to pathogenic bacteria but lacking in similar effects on the host cells. For instance, beta-lactams act on bacterial peptidoglycans [6,7], a structure not found in eukaryotes, and are better tolerated than antibiotics such as chloramphenicol which can cross-react with mitochondrial protein synthesis as well as their target bacterial ribosomes [8,9]. The preferred targets of novel antibiotics are therefore pathways unique to bacteria.

Biochemical studies of nucleotide processing pathways in Azotobacter vinelandii and Escherichia coli (E. coli) identified a key difference between prokaryotes and eukaryotes in their regulation of the levels of adenosine monophosphate (AMP), an essential component of both RNA synthesis and energy storage [10]. Whereas eukaryotes can deaminate AMP to inosine monophosphate, prokaryotes cleave the adenine base from the ribose 5-phosphate moiety via AMP nucleosidase (Amn, EC 3.2.2.4), additionally salvaging adenine (Fig 1). Adenosine analogs including formycins and pyrazofurins demonstrate strong antibiotic ability, but also cross-react considerably with mammalian biology [11,12]; structure-based modification for specificity against prokaryotic reactions, including that of Amn, has been proposed as a means of developing these agents into viable therapeutic treatments [13,14].

Fig 1. K. pneumoniae AMP nucleosidase chemistry.

Fig 1

In K. pneumoniae, AMP is broken down into adenine and ribose 5-phosphate by the enzyme AMP nucleosidase (Amn). In many other organisms, including mammals, AMP is deaminated by AMP deaminase (AD) to generate inosine monophosphate.

Toward this goal, crystal structures have been determined of both E. coli [14] and Salmonella typhimurium [15] Amn. However, development of antibiotics toward a broad spectrum of infectious agents benefits from a similarly broad assessment of variability in the target molecular structures. Furthermore, the remarkable power of X-ray crystallography in determining protein structure can be limited by the distortions caused by crystal contacts [16], as well as the non-native solution conditions typically required to crystallize and cryoprotect the proteins [17]. Using cryo-EM, the structure of K. pneumoniae Amn was determined independent of these protein crystallization considerations [18].

Results

Cryo-EM structure of K. pneumoniae Amn

The cryo-EM map of K. pneumoniae Amn was determined from images collected on a Titan Krios equipped with a Falcon III detector to an estimated resolution of 3.03 Å (Fig 2C). Ab initio models confirmed the D3 symmetry expected from the homologous crystal structures, and all further refinement and model building enforced this symmetry in the interest of improving resolution and mitigating the moderate orientation bias of the sample (Fig 2D). The resulting map proved suitable for modeling the protein, and KpAmn was built into it using the homologous crystal structures as an initial model followed by manual rebuilding (Fig 2A). The map lacks density for the first seven residues of the protein, as well as presumptive loops at residues 61–79, 156–166, 362–365, and 468–478, but otherwise possesses the features expected at the estimated resolution, including clear density for side chains (S1 Fig). The protein comprises a well-resolved C-terminal hexameric core consisting of an extensive β-sheet structure surrounded by α-helices, and a somewhat less ordered ancillary N-terminal domain, dominated by a long α-helix,forming trimeric layers on each side of the core (Fig 2A and 2B).

Fig 2. Structure of K. pneumoniae Amn.

Fig 2

KpAmn has an overall hexameric structure with D3 symmetry (A, shown colored by chain). The sharpened electron density map (B), colored by local resolution (CryoSPARC at FSC = 0.143 and contoured at 3σ = 0.604V) reveals the well-defined features of the secondary structure. The resolution of the structure was calculated to be 3.01 Å using the gold standard Fourier shell correlation (GFSC, C). The particles used to generate the final model had a reasonably broad angular distribution (D).

In keeping with the prior E. coli structures, no significant ligand density is evident at the active sites. Comparison to the presumed active site that binds the formycin inhibitor in PDB entry 1T8S shows similar side chain orientations in the KpAmn structure and the corresponding PDB entry 1T8R apo structure (Fig 3). The active site is composed of residues from two chains; a cleft of conserved residues in one chain binds the nucleobase and sugar of the adenosine analog, with H188 and Y189 of the apposed chain contributing to stabilize the charged phosphate group. In the apo structure as determined, the core residues expected to stabilize the nucleobase and sugar (N205, W383, M404, E405, and D428) are well positioned to do so, whereas R381 and K436 are in alternative conformations in the absence of the interacting phosphate. The surrounding residues are well resolved; weak density outward from the active site is interpreted as residues 435–443, possibly stabilizing the apo protein while remaining flexible enough to permit AMP access.

Fig 3. Active site of KpAmn.

Fig 3

Presumed active site of KpAmn based on superposition with E. coli Amn (Protein Data Bank (PDB) entry 1T8S). Residues from two chains (A and B) make up the active site and are colored with green carbon atoms and yellow carbon atoms, respectively. The inhibitor formycin is shown with cyan carbon atoms and was positioned by superimposing the structure of PDB entry 1T8S over the solved structure of KpAmn. In these ball-and-stick models, oxygen atoms are shown in red, nitrogen atoms are shown in blue, sulfur atoms are shown in yellow, and the phosphate atoms are shown in orange. In panel A, the electron density is from a sharpened map and is contoured at 3σ. In panel B, the corresponding E. coli residues are show as sticks only in teal (without ligand) and green (with ligand).

Comparison to Amn homologs

As expected, a structure-based search of the PDB using the DALI server [19] identified the E. coli Amn structure family alongside weaker hits for other purine-binding enzymes (Table 1). The crystal structures of the E. coli Amn homolog have been determined with and without substrates bound [14], while the unpublished structure of Salmonella typhimurium Amn (PDB entry 2GUW) [15] was determined only in an unliganded state. Several other, considerably more distant sequence homologs that lack the N-terminal domain are also available in the PDB (Table 1); consistent with the variation in annotated function, conservation in the Amn active site is limited to residues M404, E405, and D428 interacting with the purine base and sugar (S2 Fig). The cryo-EM structure of K. pneumoniae Amn primarily differs from the apo homologs in its loop regions away from the active site (Fig 4A), either by lacking density for the loop entirely or being in a clearly different conformation. As these loops are those that form presumptively physiologically irrelevant crystal contacts in the crystal structure, the cryo-EM model of K. pneumoniae Amn, lacking such interactions, is likely to better reflect the protein’s conformation in solution.

Table 1. Structure comparison results.

Pairwise structure comparison of KpAmn to all structures in the Protein Data Bank as of March 2022 (the top 10 of 43 total results are given). Further alignment details are provided in S2 Fig.

PDB IDa Z-scoreb RMSDc No. Res.d % IDe Description Species
1T8R 46.9 1.2 463 90 Amp Nucleosidase Escherichia coli
4LDN 24.2 2.8 244 12 Purine Nucleoside Phosphorylase Aliivibrio fischeri
3MB8 23.7 2.7 239 20 Purine Nucleoside Phosphorylase Toxoplasma gondii
3QPB 22.9 2.6 231 18 Uridine Phosphorylase Streptococcus pyogenes
3BJE 22.2 2.6 239 13 Putative Nucleoside Phosphorylase Trypanosoma brucei
2QSU 17.9 2.6 208 18 5′-Methylthioadenosine Nucleosidase Arabidopsis thaliana
4QAS 13.3 2.9 176 10 CT263 Chlamydia trachomatis
4PR3 13.0 3.0 174 16 5′-Methylthioadenosine Nucleosidase Brucella melitensis
2GFQ 10.3 3.1 166 8 UPF0204 Protein PH00006 Pyrococcus horikoshii
3VR0 10.2 3.4 163 8 Uncharacterized Protein Pyrococcus furiosus

a Protein Data Bank Identifier.

b The calculated Z-score for the alignment [19].

c Root means square deviation for the alignment.

d Number of residues in structure being compared.

e Percentage sequence identity.

Fig 4. Comparison of Amn between species.

Fig 4

All PDB structures identified by BLAST as close Amn homologs were aligned to Amn in UCSF Chimera (A). Color and ribbon width indicate the all-atom spatial distance RMSD of each residue from that of KpAmn; a thin line represents absence of the corresponding loop. Ligands bound by PDB entries 1T8R and 1T8Y are shown as spheres. ConSurf-derived conservation of Amn (B), ranging from low (teal) to high (magenta). The alignment is detailed in S3 Fig.

A broader comparison of K. pneumoniae Amn to its homologs can be assessed by considering sequence conservation without restriction to those with known structures. Scoring by ConSURF [20] indicates the expected strong conservation at the active site and the protein assembly surfaces, with more variability observed in residues on the outside of the complex and in the N-terminal domain overall (Figs 4B and S3 Fig). The loops distorted by crystal contacts are not well conserved. Notably, the loop covering the active site is strongly conserved, suggesting an important role in protein activity, ligand gating or structural stabilization, despite its weak density.

Catalytic activity of K. pneumoniae Amn

As a final confirmation that the purified KpAmn was correctly folded and that its sequence-based identification was correct, the protein’s catalytic activity was characterized spectrophotometrically using a coupled assay (Fig 5). The determined KM of 390 μM and Vmax of 50 nmol/min/mg are comparable to those previously reported for E. coli (120 μM and 16 nmol/min/mg) and A. vinelandii (80 μM and 25 nmol/min/mg) homologs [2124].

Fig 5. Catalytic activity of K. pneumoniae Amn.

Fig 5

The activity of KpAmn was measured by quantifying the generation of the product, adenine. The initial rate data at varying concentrations of AMP was fit by the Michaelis-Menten equation to yield the kinetic constants shown.

Discussion

Among the most common criticisms of structures determined by X-ray crystallography is that their conformation in the crystal lattice may not reflect their conformation in solution, and indeed significant differences have been observed in multidomain proteins when analyzed by solution techniques such as nuclear magnetic resonance or small-angle X-ray scattering [16,2527]. Conversely, crystallography remains the standard for the high-resolution atomic structures required for analysis of small-molecule ligand binding despite the recent progress made in cryo-EM technology, and these differences in structure are frequently restricted to less conserved surface sequences [28]. In either case, the full determination of a protein’s range of conformations beyond modeling via B-factors greatly benefits from the use of multiple complementary techniques.

Comparing the cryo-EM structure of KpAmn to the crystal structures of E. coli Amn provides such a determination for this enzyme. This high level of structural conservation in the active site implies that inhibitors that target Amn enzymes may have broad applicability across species. The KpAMn structure, and analysis herein, provides a foundational resource for the structure-guided development of such Amn-targeted therapies.

More generally, the determination of the KpAmn structure addresses limitations of the prior structures with respect to their utility in systematic analysis, including structural validation and prediction tools. The E. coli structures, though certainly correct, pre-date the advent of mandatory structure factor submission and therefore cannot be compared to the experimental electron density map. Conversely, while the S. typhimurium structure does not have such an issue, the structural statistics suggest that the model as submitted may benefit from further refinement.

In conclusion, the determination of the first cryo-EM structure of an Amn protein provides a refinement of its unperturbed structure, as well as a model of its molecular structure of potential relevance to the antibiotic arms race underway against K. pneumoniae.

Materials and methods

Expression and purification of K. pneumoniae Amn

KpAmn was cloned, expressed, and purified using standard SSGCID protocols. Briefly, the gene was cloned into a pET-14b derived vector and expressed in E. coli BL-21(DE3) R3 Rosetta cells in 2 L autoinduction media using a LEX Bioreactor. The culture was harvested and stored at -80°C until purification. The cell pellet was resuspended in buffer containing 25 mM HEPES pH 7.0, 500 mM NaCl, 5% glycerol, 30 mM imidazole, 0.025% sodium azide, 0.5% CHAPS, 10 mM MgCl2, 1 mM TCEP, 250 μg/mL AEBSF, 0.05 μg/mL lysozyme, and 25 U/mL benzonase, lysed by sonication, and then clarified by centrifugation at 26000 g for 45 min at 4°C. The soluble supernatant was loaded onto a HisTrap FF 5 mL (GE Healthcare, New Jersey, USA), washed with wash buffer (25 mM HEPES pH 7.0, 500 mM NaCl, 5% glycerol, 30 mM imidazole, 0.025% sodium azide) and eluted from the column by wash buffer supplemented with 350 mM imidazole. The eluted protein was further purified by gel-filtration on a Superdex 200 26/600 size-exclusion chromatography column (GE Healthcare) in 25 mM HEPES pH 7.0, 500 mM NaCl, 5% Glycerol, 2 mM DTT, and 0.025% sodium azide. Fractions were visualized using SDS-PAGE and the fractions containing the purified protein were pooled and concentrated using Amicon Ultra centrifugal filters, flash frozen in liquid nitrogen, and stored at -80°C.

Cryo-EM data collection and molecular modeling of K. pneumoniae Amn

3 μL of purified KpAmn was applied to a 300 mesh copper C-flat grid with a hole size of 1.2 μm and hole spacing of 1.3 μm (Electron Microscopy Sciences), blotted and vitrified with a Vitrobot Mark IV (Thermo Fisher) with a blotting time of 6 s and blotting force of 0 under >90% humidity at 4°C. Images were collected on a 300 kV Titan Krios equipped with a Falcon 3EC direct electron detector. Automated data collection was carried out using the EPU 2.8.01256REL software (Thermo Fisher Scientific) at a nominal magnification of 96000 x corresponding to a calibrated pixel size of 0.8891 Å with a defocus range from 1.0 to 2.6 μm. Image stacks comprising 45 frames were recorded at an estimated total dose of 60 electrons/Å2.

An initial 3D map was determined in RELION [29] by picking ~1 million particles from 2237 motion- and CTF-corrected micrographs by Laplacian of Gaussian, then removing junk particles with several rounds of 2D classification. Following ab initio 3D model construction and further refinement, the resulting 3.5 Å map was used to create a template for particle picking in cryoSPARC [30].

To obtain the best final map in cryoSPARC, ~1.5 million particles were picked and extracted in 300x300 pixel boxes, and filtered by 2D classification first after downscaling to 72x72 resolution and then at full resolution to yield 566,674 final particles. These were used to refine the input map in D3 symmetry to a gold-standard FSC = 0.173 estimated resolution of 3.08Å. Applying a sharpening B-factor of -160Å2 produced the final map used for refinement.

Working from an initial model of EcAmn (PDB code 1T8R) mutated appropriately and fit into the sharpened cryo-EM map as a rigid body, adjustments were made in Coot [31] and refined in PHENIX [32], with enforced symmetry. Visualization of the resulting structure was performed in UCSF Chimera [33]. Data collection and refinement parameters are summarized in Table 2.

Table 2. Cryo-EM data collection and refinement parameters.

PDB code 7UWQ
EMD code EMD-26838
Number of grids used 1
Grid type C-flat gold
Microscope Titan Krios
Detector Falcon III
Voltage (kV) 300
Magnification 96000
Spherical aberration (mm) 2.7
Exposure (e-2) 60
Defocus (μm) -1.0 to -2.6
Pixel size (Å) 0.8891
Frames/movie 40
Number of micrographs used 679
Number of particles used 114781
Map resolution (Å) (.143 FSC) 3.01
Map sharpening B-factor (Å2) -100
Mask-model CC 0.86
Non-hydrogen atoms 20538
Protein residues 2598
Bond length RMSD (Å) 0.005
Bond angle RMSD (Å) 0.559
MolProbity score [34] 1.30
Clash score 3.23
Ramachandran outliers (%) 0
Ramachandran allowed (%) 3.07
Ramachandran favored (%) 96.93
CaBLAM outliers (%) 0.73
Rotamer outliers (%) 0
EMRinger score [35] 3.23

Nucleosidase activity assay

The activity of KpAmn was measured spectrophotometrically by determining the rate of production of the product, adenine. The production of adenine was quantified by using an established adenine deaminase assay [36], in which the deamination of adenine is coupled to the NADPH-dependent production of glutamate by the enzyme glutamate dehydrogenase. The assay was run in a 96-well plate (100 μL total volume) at 25°C in 20 mM HEPES, pH 7.5, 100 mM NaCl, 0.4 mM NADH, 1 mM α-ketoglutarate, 1 mM MnCl2, 4 units of glutamate dehydrogenase (Sigma), varying concentrations of AMP, and 10 μg of E. coli adenine deaminase [36]. Control reactions were conducted with ammonium sulfate and adenine, prior to measuring KpAmn kinetics, to ensure that neither the glutamate dehydrogenase-catalyzed reaction nor the deaminase reaction, respectively, were rate limiting. The reaction was initiated by adding 20 μg of KpAmn and monitored at 340 nm. The initial rate, before the reaction had reached 10% completion, was calculated and plotted against the AMP concentration. A fit to this data, using the Michaelis-Menten equation, was employed to derive the kinetic parameters of the enzyme.

Supporting information

S1 Fig. Model quality assessment.

Three randomly selected motion-corrected micrographs with suitable CTF resolution estimates are shown (A). The final density map was obtained from particles in the 2D classes identified by a green border (B). Clear and appropriate density for side chains was evident in both lower (C, residues 8–38) and higher (D, residues 284–294) resolution regions; density is contoured to just above the local noise threshold within 2.4Å of any displayed atom. No KpAmn (blue model) density is observed for the residues corresponding to loops implicated in the E. coli structures’ crystal contacts (green and magenta) (E).

(TIF)

S2 Fig. Alignment of KpAmn to known protein structures.

Structural matches to KpAmn identified by DALI were aligned using MUSCLE [37], generating a phylogenetic tree (A) and residue alignment (B). Active site residues are marked with boxes.

(TIF)

S3 Fig. Conservation of KpAmn by residue.

The 150-sequence alignment generated by ConSurf is represented in logo format using WebLogo [38], in which letter height corresponds to strength of individual residue conservation. The N-terminal unresolved residues and C-terminal five residues following a series of unresolved residues are omitted. Active site residues are marked with boxes.

(TIF)

Acknowledgments

We thank Janarjan Bhandari for cryo-EM data collection. We would like to thank the entire SSGCID team for their support, especially the cloning and protein-production group at the University of Washington.

Data Availability

Structural data are available under PDB code 7UWQ and EMBD code EMD-26838.

Funding Statement

This project has been funded in part with Federal funds from the National Institute of General Medical Science and National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services, under grant number R35GM124898 and contract No. HHSN272201700059C, respectively. The funding agencies that supported this work had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Paczosa MK, Mecsas J. Klebsiella pneumoniae: Going on the Offense with a Strong Defense. Microbiol Mol Biol Rev. 80: 629–661. doi: 10.1128/MMBR.00078-15 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Lee C-R, Lee JH, Park KS, Kim YB, Jeong BC, Lee SH. Global Dissemination of Carbapenemase-Producing Klebsiella pneumoniae: Epidemiology, Genetic Context, Treatment Options, and Detection Methods. Front Microbiol. 2016;7. Available: https://www.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fmicb.2016.00895. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Mulani MS, Kamble EE, Kumkar SN, Tawre MS, Pardesi KR. Emerging Strategies to Combat ESKAPE Pathogens in the Era of Antimicrobial Resistance: A Review. Front Microbiol. 2019;10. Available: https://www.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fmicb.2019.00539. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2019.00539 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Pang Z, Raudonis R, Glick BR, Lin T-J, Cheng Z. Antibiotic resistance in Pseudomonas aeruginosa: mechanisms and alternative therapeutic strategies. Biotechnol Adv. 2019;37: 177–192. doi: 10.1016/j.biotechadv.2018.11.013 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Guo Y, Song G, Sun M, Wang J, Wang Y. Prevalence and Therapies of Antibiotic-Resistance in Staphylococcus aureus. Front Cell Infect Microbiol. 2020;10. Available: https://www.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fcimb.2020.00107. doi: 10.3389/fcimb.2020.00107 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Yocum RR, Waxman DJ, Rasmussen JR, Strominger JL. Mechanism of penicillin action: penicillin and substrate bind covalently to the same active site serine in two bacterial D-alanine carboxypeptidases. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 1979;76: 2730–2734. doi: 10.1073/pnas.76.6.2730 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Cloud-Hansen KA, Peterson SB, Stabb EV, Goldman WE, McFall-Ngai MJ, Handelsman J. Breaching the great wall: peptidoglycan and microbial interactions. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2006;4: 710–716. doi: 10.1038/nrmicro1486 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Cannon M. The Puromycin Reaction and its Inhibition by Chloramphenicol. Eur J Biochem. 1968;7: 137–145. doi: 10.1111/j.1432-1033.1968.tb19584.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Li C-H, Cheng Y-W, Liao P-L, Yang Y-T, Kang J-J. Chloramphenicol Causes Mitochondrial Stress, Decreases ATP Biosynthesis, Induces Matrix Metalloproteinase-13 Expression, and Solid-Tumor Cell Invasion. Toxicol Sci. 2010;116: 140–150. doi: 10.1093/toxsci/kfq085 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Leung HB, Schramm VL. Adenylate degradation in Escherichia coli. The role of AMP nucleosidase and properties of the purified enzyme. J Biol Chem. 1980;255: 10867–10874. doi: 10.1016/S0021-9258(19)70387-1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Bzowska A, Kulikowska E, Shugar D. Formycins A and B and some analogues: selective inhibitors of bacterial (Escherichia coli) purine nucleoside phosphorylase. Biochim Biophys Acta BBA—Protein Struct Mol Enzymol. 1992;1120: 239–247. doi: 10.1016/0167-4838(92)90243-7 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Ohnuma T, Roboz J, Shapiro ML, Holland JF. Pharmacological and Biochemical Effects of Pyrazofurin in Humans1. Cancer Res. 1977;37: 2043–2049. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Zhang M, Kong L, Gong R, Iorio M, Donadio S, Deng Z, et al. Biosynthesis of C-nucleoside antibiotics in actinobacteria: recent advances and future developments. Microb Cell Factories. 2022;21: 2. doi: 10.1186/s12934-021-01722-z [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Zhang Y, Cottet SE, Ealick SE. Structure of Escherichia coli AMP Nucleosidase Reveals Similarity to Nucleoside Phosphorylases. Structure. 2004;12: 1383–1394. doi: 10.1016/j.str.2004.05.015 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Rao KN, Swaminathan S, Burkey SK. Crystal structure of AMP Nucleosidase from Salmonella typhimurium LT2. 2006. Available: 10.2210/pdb2guw/pdb. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Eyal E, Gerzon S, Potapov V, Edelman M, Sobolev V. The Limit of Accuracy of Protein Modeling: Influence of Crystal Packing on Protein Structure. J Mol Biol. 2005;351: 431–442. doi: 10.1016/j.jmb.2005.05.066 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Dym O, Song W, Felder C, Roth E, Shnyrov V, Ashani Y, et al. The impact of crystallization conditions on structure-based drug design: A case study on the methylene blue/acetylcholinesterase complex. Protein Sci. 2016;25: 1096–1114. doi: 10.1002/pro.2923 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Weissenberger G, Henderikx RJM, Peters PJ. Understanding the invisible hands of sample preparation for cryo-EM. Nat Methods. 2021;18: 463–471. doi: 10.1038/s41592-021-01130-6 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Holm L. Using Dali for Protein Structure Comparison. In: Gáspári Z, editor. Structural Bioinformatics: Methods and Protocols. New York, NY: Springer US; 2020. pp. 29–42. doi: 10.1007/978-1-0716-0270-6_3 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Ashkenazy H, Abadi S, Martz E, Chay O, Mayrose I, Pupko T, et al. ConSurf 2016: an improved methodology to estimate and visualize evolutionary conservation in macromolecules. Nucleic Acids Res. 2016;44: W344–W350. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkw408 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Schramm VL, Leung HB. [33] Adenosine monophosphate nucleosidase from Azotobacter vinelandii and Escherichia coli. Methods in Enzymology. Academic Press; 1978. pp. 263–271. doi: 10.1016/S0076-6879(78)51035-5 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Schramm VL, Hochstein LI. Stabilization of allosteric adenosine monophosphate nucleosidase by inorganic salts, substrate, and essential activator. Biochemistry. 1971;10: 3411–3417. doi: 10.1021/bi00794a015 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Leung HB, Schramm VL. The structural gene for AMP nucleosidase. Mapping, cloning, and overproduction of the enzyme. J Biol Chem. 1984;259: 6972–6978. doi: 10.1016/S0021-9258(17)39824-1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Skoog MT. Mechanism and activation for allosteric adenosine 5‘-monophosphate nucleosidase. Kinetic alpha-deuterium isotope effects for the enzyme-catalyzed hydrolysis of adenosine 5‘-monophosphate and nicotinamide mononucleotide. J Biol Chem. 1986;261: 4451–4459. doi: 10.1016/S0021-9258(17)38521-6 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Ravikumar A, Gopnarayan MN, Subramaniam S, Srinivasan N. Comparison of side-chain dispersion in protein structures determined by cryo-EM and X-ray crystallography. IUCrJ. 2022;9: 98–103. doi: 10.1107/S2052252521011945 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.García-Nafría J, Tate CG. Structure determination of GPCRs: cryo-EM compared with X-ray crystallography. Biochem Soc Trans. 2021;49: 2345–2355. doi: 10.1042/BST20210431 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Hura GL, Hodge CD, Rosenberg D, Guzenko D, Duarte JM, Monastyrskyy B, et al. Small angle X-ray scattering-assisted protein structure prediction in CASP13 and emergence of solution structure differences. Proteins. 2019;87: 1298–1314. doi: 10.1002/prot.25827 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Luo J, Liu Z, Guo Y, Li M. A structural dissection of large protein-protein crystal packing contacts. Sci Rep. 2015;5: 14214. doi: 10.1038/srep14214 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Scheres SHW. RELION: Implementation of a Bayesian approach to cryo-EM structure determination. J Struct Biol. 2012;180: 519–530. doi: 10.1016/j.jsb.2012.09.006 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Punjani A, Rubinstein JL, Fleet DJ, Brubaker MA. cryoSPARC: algorithms for rapid unsupervised cryo-EM structure determination. Nat Methods. 2017;14: 290–296. doi: 10.1038/nmeth.4169 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Emsley P, Lohkamp B, Scott WG, Cowtan K. Features and development of Coot. Acta Crystallogr D Biol Crystallogr. 2010;66: 486–501. doi: 10.1107/S0907444910007493 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Liebschner D, Afonine PV, Baker ML, Bunkóczi G, Chen VB, Croll TI, et al. Macromolecular structure determination using X-rays, neutrons and electrons: recent developments in Phenix. Acta Crystallogr Sect Struct Biol. 2019;75: 861–877. doi: 10.1107/S2059798319011471 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Pettersen EF, Goddard TD, Huang CC, Couch GS, Greenblatt DM, Meng EC, et al. UCSF Chimera—a visualization system for exploratory research and analysis. J Comput Chem. 2004;25: 1605–1612. doi: 10.1002/jcc.20084 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Williams CJ, Headd JJ, Moriarty NW, Prisant MG, Videau LL, Deis LN, et al. MolProbity: More and better reference data for improved all-atom structure validation. Protein Sci. 2018;27: 293–315. doi: 10.1002/pro.3330 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Barad BA, Echols N, Wang RY-R, Cheng Y, DiMaio F, Adams PD, et al. EMRinger: side chain–directed model and map validation for 3D cryo-electron microscopy. Nat Methods. 2015;12: 943–946. doi: 10.1038/nmeth.3541 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Shek R, Hilaire T, Sim J, French JB. Structural Determinants for Substrate Selectivity in Guanine Deaminase Enzymes of the Amidohydrolase Superfamily. Biochemistry. 2019;58: 3280–3292. doi: 10.1021/acs.biochem.9b00341 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Edgar RC. MUSCLE: multiple sequence alignment with high accuracy and high throughput. Nucleic Acids Res. 2004;32: 1792–1797. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkh340 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Crooks GE, Hon G, Chandonia J-M, Brenner SE. WebLogo: A Sequence Logo Generator. Genome Res. 2004;14: 1188–1190. doi: 10.1101/gr.849004 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Janesh Kumar

24 Jun 2022

PONE-D-22-14060Structure of Klebsiella Pneumoniae Adenosine Monophosphate NucleosidasePLOS ONE

Dear Dr. French,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Manuscript has been seen by 4 reviewers, two with cryoEM expertise and two being subject experts. Please address all the concerns.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Aug 08 2022 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Janesh Kumar, Oh.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf.

2. We note that you have stated that you will provide repository information for your data at acceptance. Should your manuscript be accepted for publication, we will hold it until you provide the relevant accession numbers or DOIs necessary to access your data. If you wish to make changes to your Data Availability statement, please describe these changes in your cover letter and we will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide.

Additional Editor Comments:

Please address all the concerns raised by the reviewers.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Partly

Reviewer #3: Partly

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: I Don't Know

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The article reports the first cryo-EM structure of an Amn enzyme except no additional structural information is provided by the authors. The authors did not provide any CryoEM micrographs, images, 2D classification images or 3D reconstruction details.

As described by authors the EM structure is not providing any new information regarding the KpAmn structure only physiologically irrelevant different loop conformations due crystal contacts in the crystal structure.

The authors either rewrite the manuscript in terms of methodology to describe Cryo-EM technique.

Reviewer #2: This paper by Richardson et al. describes the cryo- EM structure of adenosine monophosphate nucleosidase (Amn) from a pathogenic bacteria, Klebsiella pneumoniae, which causes hospital-acquired pneumonia and sepsis. Here are the points for revision.

Major points

This manuscript suffers from poor data analysis, the author says in the result, “The cryo-EM structure of K. pneumoniae Amn primarily differs from the apo homologs in its loop regions away from the active site (Figure 4A), either by lacking density for the loop entirely or being in a clearly different conformation”

-In case of lacking density, how the model was built for this region? I do not see any disconnect, missing segment, in Figure 4a.

Figure 4a does not reflect differences clearly, and a magnified view of the loop region would be needed to see the actual conformation differences.

At 3.1 Å resolution, the difference for side-chain residues should be clear. A picture showing side-chain confirmation would be helpful to reach this conclusion.

In catalytic activity, the Km and Vmax for the other two species were performed in different experiments, not at the same time and in the same setup. Reaching a conclusion may not be appropriate. Some unnecessary statement “though the --------- intervening decades”, is not required.

In figure 2B, I don’t see high-resolution features such as density for bulky side chain residues, particularly in a helix. That should be evident at this 3.1 Å resolution, and it looks overall like a low-resolution map. To gain readers’ confidence, detailed cryo-EM data processing information, including representative micrographs, 2D class, 3D class, and final post processed is required.

Minor point

In introduction; The acronym ESKAPE in the introduction needs expansion.

In result; the Figure 2 parts are not in order e.g. Figure 2C comes first in the text.

In result; ‘mixed secondary structure’ is not correct, needs to explain in terms of the secondary structure topology or domain. Same in Figure 2 legend also.

1T8S is a PDB id, it should be written as PDB ID; 1T8S, throughout the text.

In table 1; add one more column for the name of the organism for the source of the protein.

On searching EMD ID 26838 in EMDB shows no entry. Check this out.

Reviewer #3: The manuscript describes the structure of K. pneumoniae adenosine monophosphate nucleosidase determined by cryoelectron

microscopy and structure is compared with other known structures.

Overall manuscript is informative bur there are several concerns. The overall structure of the enzyme is not described, at least it should have been described briefly.

There are no images of EM, secondary classification, other than Figure 2B image. At least these should have been in supplementary data.

The authors describe structural differences in loops at such a low resolution. Are the lops well defines in EM structure?

Can they use this low resolution structure for drug design or inhibitor screening?

The manuscript does not describe or give the reference to the literature, explaining the importance of this enzyme. Does the importance of this enzyme shown in this organism?

Overall the authors should describe the manuscript with more information.

Reviewer #4: This paper reports the cryo-EM structure and catalytic activity of Adenosine Monophosphate Nucleosidase from Klebsiella Pneumoniae. However, the mauscript should be revised considering the following comments.

Comment 1: Page3

“Biochemical studies of nucleotide processing pathways in Azotobacter vinelandii and

Escherichia coli (E. coli) identified a key difference between prokaryotes and eukaryotes in their

regulation of the levels of adenosine monophosphate (AMP), a key component of both RNA

synthesis and energy storage.” Provide References.

Comment 2: Page 8

All PDB structures identified by BLAST as

close Amn homologs were aligned to Amn in UCSF Chimera (A)

Provide sequence comparison highlighting the conserved residues and discuss functionally significant residues.

Comment 3:

Page 8 line number 145:

“broader comparison of K. pneumoniae Amn to its homologs can be assessed by

sequence conservation”

Provide the phylogenetic relation between the available structures.

Comment 4:

Page 8 line number 149:

“the loop covering the active site is strongly conserved”

Provide the structural alignment of the active site residues.

Comment 5:

Page 10 line number 182

“while the crystal structure leads to significant underestimation of the flexibility of several N-terminal loops the catalytic core of the enzyme is effectively invariant between these species.”

Discuss any functional significance of the N-terminal loops in Amn, if not then there is no need to include this sentence.

Comment 6:

The discussion should be precise and elaborate and should only discuss their findings. The KpAmn structure should be compared with that of the other homologs in detail highlighting the functionally relevant substructures.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Dr. Ethayathulla Abdul samath

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

Reviewer #4: Yes: Pravindra Kumar

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Attachment

Submitted filename: review.docx

Decision Letter 1

Janesh Kumar

9 Sep 2022

Structure of Klebsiella Pneumoniae Adenosine Monophosphate Nucleosidase

PONE-D-22-14060R1

Dear Dr. French,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Janesh Kumar, Oh.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Please remove the older version of Fig. 3 and provide PDB/EMDB deposition details in the final version before publication.

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #4: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: N/A

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #2: The authors have addressed all the points except not shared PDB ID and EMDB ID. Please make sure the coordinate and Cryo-EM maps are available for the scientific community immediately after publication.

Reviewer #3: Almost all of our questions and observations were addressed. The present version of the manuscript can be accepted.

Reviewer #4: Authors have submitted the revised manuscript on "Structure of Klebsiella Pneumoniae Adenosine Monophosphate Nucleosidase". They have answered all the queries and comments made by me.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

Reviewer #4: No

**********

Acceptance letter

Janesh Kumar

13 Oct 2022

PONE-D-22-14060R1

Structure of Klebsiella Pneumoniae Adenosine Monophosphate Nucleosidase

Dear Dr. French:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Janesh Kumar

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Fig. Model quality assessment.

    Three randomly selected motion-corrected micrographs with suitable CTF resolution estimates are shown (A). The final density map was obtained from particles in the 2D classes identified by a green border (B). Clear and appropriate density for side chains was evident in both lower (C, residues 8–38) and higher (D, residues 284–294) resolution regions; density is contoured to just above the local noise threshold within 2.4Å of any displayed atom. No KpAmn (blue model) density is observed for the residues corresponding to loops implicated in the E. coli structures’ crystal contacts (green and magenta) (E).

    (TIF)

    S2 Fig. Alignment of KpAmn to known protein structures.

    Structural matches to KpAmn identified by DALI were aligned using MUSCLE [37], generating a phylogenetic tree (A) and residue alignment (B). Active site residues are marked with boxes.

    (TIF)

    S3 Fig. Conservation of KpAmn by residue.

    The 150-sequence alignment generated by ConSurf is represented in logo format using WebLogo [38], in which letter height corresponds to strength of individual residue conservation. The N-terminal unresolved residues and C-terminal five residues following a series of unresolved residues are omitted. Active site residues are marked with boxes.

    (TIF)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: review.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Responses to the reviewer KpAMN 8-4-22.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    Structural data are available under PDB code 7UWQ and EMBD code EMD-26838.


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES