Publications

• Mechanism of the citrate transporters in carbohydrate and citrate cometabolism in Lactococcus and Leuconostoc species.

  Bandell M., Lhotte M.E., Marty-Teysset C., Veyrat A., Prevost H., Dartois V., Divies C., Konings W.N., Lolkema J.S.

  Citrate metabolism in the lactic acid bacterium Leuconostoc mesenteroides generates an electrochemical proton gradient across the membrane by a secondary mechanism (C. Marty-Teysset, C. Posthuma, J. S. Lolkema, P. Schmitt, C. Divies, and W. N. Konings, J. Bacteriol. 178:2178-2185, 1996). Reports o ... >> More

  Citrate metabolism in the lactic acid bacterium Leuconostoc mesenteroides generates an electrochemical proton gradient across the membrane by a secondary mechanism (C. Marty-Teysset, C. Posthuma, J. S. Lolkema, P. Schmitt, C. Divies, and W. N. Konings, J. Bacteriol. 178:2178-2185, 1996). Reports on the energetics of citrate metabolism in the related organism Lactococcus lactis are contradictory, and this study was performed to clarify this issue. Cloning of the membrane potential-generating citrate transporter (CitP) of Leuconostoc mesenteroides revealed an amino acid sequence that is almost identical to the known sequence of the CitP of Lactococcus lactis. The cloned gene was expressed in a Lactococcus lactis Cit-strain, and the gene product was functionally characterized in membrane vesicles. Uptake of citrate was counteracted by the membrane potential, and the transporter efficiently catalyzed heterologous citrate-lactate exchange. These properties are essential for generation of a membrane potential under physiological conditions and show that the Leuconostoc CitP retains its properties when it is embedded in the cytoplasmic membrane of Lactococcus lactis. Furthermore, using the same criteria and experimental approach, we demonstrated that the endogenous CitP of Lactococcus lactis has the same properties, showing that the few differences in the amino acid sequences of the CitPs of members of the two genera do not result in different catalytic mechanisms. The results strongly suggest that the energetics of citrate degradation in Lactococcus lactis and Leuconostoc mesenteroides are the same; i.e., citrate metabolism in Lactococcus lactis is a proton motive force-generating process. << Less

  Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 64:1594-1600(1998) [PubMed] [EuropePMC]

• Stereoselectivity of the membrane potential-generating citrate and malate transporters of lactic acid bacteria.

  Bandell M., Lolkema J.S.

  The citrate transporter of Leuconostoc mesenteroides (CitP) and the malate transporter of Lactococcus lactis (MleP) are homologous proteins that catalyze citrate-lactate and malate-lactate exchange, respectively. Both transporters transport a range of substrates that contain the 2-hydroxycarboxyla ... >> More

  The citrate transporter of Leuconostoc mesenteroides (CitP) and the malate transporter of Lactococcus lactis (MleP) are homologous proteins that catalyze citrate-lactate and malate-lactate exchange, respectively. Both transporters transport a range of substrates that contain the 2-hydroxycarboxylate motif, HO-CR(2)-COO(-) [Bandell, M., et al. (1997) J. Biol. Chem. 272, 18140-18146]. In this study, we have analyzed binding and translocation properties of CitP and MleP for a wide variety of substrates and substrate analogues. Modification of the OH or the COO(-) groups of the 2-hydroxycarboxylate motif drastically reduced the affinity of the transporters for the substrates, indicating their relevance in substrate recognition. Both CitP and MleP were strictly stereoselective when the R group contained a second carboxylate group; the S-enantiomers were efficiently bound and translocated, while the transporters had no affinity for the R-enantiomers. The affinity of the S-enantiomers, and of citrate, was at least 1 order of magnitude higher than for lactate and other substrates with uncharged R groups, indicating a specific interaction between the second carboxylate group and the protein that is responsible for high-affinity binding. MleP was not stereoselective in binding when the R groups are hydrophobic and as large as a benzyl group. However, only the S-enantiomers were translocated by MleP. CitP had a strong preference for binding and translocating the R-enantiomers of substrates with large hydrophobic R groups. These differences between CitP and MleP explain why citrate is a substrate of CitP and not of MleP. The results are discussed in the context of a model for the interaction between sites on the protein and functional groups on the substrates in the binding pockets of the two proteins. << Less

  Biochemistry 38:10352-10360(1999) [PubMed] [EuropePMC]

  This publication is cited by 4 other entries.