In silico characterization of residues essential for substrate binding of human cystine transporter, xCT
xCT is a sodium-independent amino acid antiporter that imports L-cystine and exports L-glutamate in a 1:1 ratio. It is a component of heterodimeric amino acid transporter system Xc- working at the cross-roads of maintaining neurological processes and regulating antioxidant defense. The transporter has 12 transmembrane domains with intracellular N- and C-termini, and like other transporter proteins can undergo various conformational changes while switching the ligand accessibilities from intracellular to extracellular site. In the present study, we generated two homology models of human xCT in two distinct conformations: inward-facing occluded state and outward-facing open state. Our results indicated the substrate translocation channel composed of transmembrane helices TMs 1, 3, 6, 8, and 10. We docked anionic L-cystine and L-glutamate within the cavities to assess the two distinct binding scenarios for xCT as antiporter. We also assessed the interactions between the ligands and transporter and observed that ligands bind to similar residues within the channel. Using MM-PBSA/MM-GBSA approach, we computed the binding energies of these ligands to different conformational states. Cystine and glutamate bind xCT with favorable binding energies, with more favorable binding observed in inward occluded state than in outward open state. We further computed the residue-wise decomposition of these binding energies and identified the residues as essential for substrate binding/permeation. Filtering the residues that form favorable energetic contributions to the ligand binding in both the states, our studies suggest T56, A60, R135, A138, V141, Y244, A247, F250, S330, L392, and R396 as critical residues for ligand binding as well as ligand transport for any conformational state adopted by xCT during its transport cycle.
KeywordsHuman cystine transporter Homology modeling Binding energies Transmembrane proteins
MS thanks the Department of Science and Technology (DST), India, for INSPIRE Award and research grant (IFA14-CH-165).
M.S. conceived, designed, and performed the experiments. A.C.R performed initial experiments. M.S. analyzed the data and wrote the paper. M.S. and A.C.R contributed the literature materials and reviewed the manuscript.
Compliance with ethical standards
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
- 15.Lin C-H, Lin P-P, Lin C-Y et al (2016) Decreased mRNA expression for the two subunits of system xc(-), SLC3A2 and SLC7A11, in WBC in patients with schizophrenia: evidence in support of the hypo-glutamatergic hypothesis of schizophrenia. J Psychiatr Res 72:58–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpsychires.2015.10.007 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 26.Dai L, Noverr MC, Parsons C, et al (2015) xCT, not just an amino-acid transporter: a multi-functional regulator of microbial infection and associated diseases. Front Microbiol 6:. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2015.00120
- 33.Dai L, Noverr MC, Parsons C, et al (2015) xCT, not just an amino-acid transporter: a multi-functional regulator of microbial infection and associated diseases. Front Microbiol 6:. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2015.00120
- 41.Jiménez-Vidal M, Gasol E, Zorzano A et al (2004) Thiol modification of cysteine 327 in the eighth transmembrane domain of the light subunit xCT of the heteromeric cystine/glutamate antiporter suggests close proximity to the substrate binding site/permeation pathway. J Biol Chem 279:11214–11221. https://doi.org/10.1074/jbc.M309866200 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 44.Drew D, Boudker O (2016) Shared molecular mechanisms of membrane transporters. Annu Rev Biochem 85:543–572. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-biochem-060815-014520 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 49.Palmgren MG, Nissen P (2011) P-type ATPases. Annu Rev Biophys 40:243–266. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.biophys.093008.131331 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 52.Yan N (2015) Structural biology of the major facilitator superfamily transporters. Annu Rev Biophys 44:257–283. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-biophys-060414-033901 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 56.Dror RO, Dirks RM, Grossman JP et al (2012) Biomolecular simulation: a computational microscope for molecular biology. Annu Rev Biophys 41:429–452. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-biophys-042910-155245 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 79.Humphrey W, Dalke A, Schulten K (1996) VMD: visual molecular dynamics. J Mol Graph 14(33–38):27–28Google Scholar