INTRODUCTION .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 DOMAIN ORGANIZATION: The Typical ABC Transporter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 THE TRANSMEMBRANE DOMAINS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 The "Two-Times-Six" Helix Paradigm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 Sequence Similarities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78 THE ATP-BINDING DOMAINS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 PERIPLASMIC-BINDING PROTEINS ... . 84 SUBSTRATE SPECIFICITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86 THE ROLE OF ATP : Coupling Energy to Transport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . " . . . . . 88 COVALENT MODIFICATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 CELLULAR FUNCTIONS OF ABC TRANSPORTERS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 1 Nutrient Uptake . . . . . . . . . . . . ....... . 9 1 Protein Export ....... . .... . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . ......... . ...... . ... . .. 93 Intracellular Membranes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93 Regulation of ABC Transporters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94 Regulation by ABC Transporters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95 Drug and Antibiotic Resistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95 Channel Functions: CFTR and P-glycoprotein . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97 MECHANISMS OF SOLUTE TRANSLOCATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 Structure of the Transmembrane Complex . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99 Channels and Transporters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 0 I Energy Coupling andlor Gating . 102 CONCLUDING REMARKS . 103

ABC Transporters: From Microorganisms to Man

Protein phosphorylation and regulation of adaptive responses in bacteria.

Some species of bacteria have low-permeability membrane barriers and are thereby "intrinsically" resistant to many antibiotics; they are selected out in the multitude of antibiotics present in the hospital environment and thus cause many hospital-acquired infections. Some strains of originally antibiotic-susceptible species may also acquire resistance through decreases in the permeability of membrane barriers. Another mechanism for preventing access of drugs to targets is the membrane-associated energy-driven efflux, which plays a major role in drug resistance, especially in combination with the permeation barrier. Recent results indicate the existence of bacterial efflux systems of extremely broad substrate specificity, in many ways reminiscent of the multidrug resistance pump of mammalian cells. One such system seems to play a major role in the intrinsic resistance of Pseudomonas aeruginosa, a common opportunistic pathogen. As the pharmaceutical industry succeeds in producing agents that can overcome specific mechanisms of bacterial resistance, less specific resistance mechanisms such as permeability barriers and multidrug active efflux may become increasingly significant in the clinical setting.

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/sci/264/5157/382.full.pdf

Prevention of drug access to bacterial targets: permeability barriers and active efflux

Antibiotics--compounds that are literally 'against life'--are typically antibacterial drugs, interfering with some structure or process that is essential to bacterial growth or survival without harm to the eukaryotic host harbouring the infecting bacteria. We live in an era when antibiotic resistance has spread at an alarming rate and when dire predictions concerning the lack of effective antibacterial drugs occur with increasing frequency. In this context it is apposite to ask a few simple questions about these life-saving molecules. What are antibiotics? Where do they come from? How do they work? Why do they stop being effective? How do we find new antibiotics? And can we slow down the development of antibiotic-resistant superbugs?

Molecular mechanisms that confer antibacterial drug resistance

The discovery, commercialization, and routine administration of antimicrobial compounds to treat infections revolutionized modern medicine and changed the therapeutic paradigm. Indeed, antibiotics have become one of the most important medical interventions needed for the development of complex medical approaches such as cutting-edge surgical procedures, solid organ transplantation, and management of patients with cancer, among others. Unfortunately, the marked increase in antimicrobial resistance among common bacterial pathogens is now threatening this therapeutic accomplishment, jeopardizing the successful outcomes of critically ill patients. In fact, the World Health Organization has named antibiotic resistance as one of the three most important public health threats of the 21st century (
1
).

Mechanisms of Antibiotic Resistance

Summary

A Staphylococcus epidermidis plasmid conferring inducible resistance to 14-membered ring macrolides and type B streptogramins has been analysed and the DNA sequence of the gene responsible for resistance determined. A single open reading frame of 1.464kbp, preceded by a complex control region containing a promoter and two ribosomal binding sites, was identified. The deduced sequence of the 488-amino-acid protein (MsrA) revealed the presence of two ATP-binding motifs homologous to those of a family of transport-related proteins from Gram-negative bacteria and eukaryotic cells, including the P-glycoprotein responsible for multidrug resistance. In MsrA, but not these other proteins, the two potential ATP-binding domains are separated by a Q-linker of exceptional length. Q-linkers comprise a class of flexible inter-domain fusion junctions that are typically rich in glutamine and other hydrophilic amino acids and have a characteristic spacing of hydrophobic amino acids, as found in the MsrA sequence. Unlike the other transport-related proteins, which act in concert with one or more hydrophobic membrane proteins, MsrA appears to function independently when cloned in a heterologous host (Staphylococcus aureus RN4220). MsrA might, therefore, interact with and confer antibiotic specificity upon other transmembrane efflux complexes of staphylococcal cells. The active efflux of [14C]-erythromycin from cells of S. aureus RN4220 containing msrA has been demonstrated.

Inducible erythromycin resistance in staphlyococci is encoded by a member of the ATP‐binding transport super‐gene family

Summary
We present the nucleotide sequence of K. pneumoniae nifL, which negatively regulates nif transcription in response to oxygen and fixed nitrogen. It shows partial sequence homology to the general nitrogen regulatory proteins NtrB of K. pneumoniae and Bradyrhizobium parasponiae. This homology is weaker than that shown between the NifA and NtrC activator components of the nif and general nitrogen control systems. The N-terminal section of the NifL protein includes a structural duplication sharing sequence homology with part of NtrB, and a region containing a cysteine pair which might be implicated in redox control. Unlike NtrB, NifL appears to lack a DNA-binding motif, consistent with evidence that NifL represses by interacting directiy with NifA. The C-terminal section of NifL shows clear homology to NtrB and to a family of proteins involved in transcriptional control or chemotaxis, each of which probably interacts with a member of the family of regulatory proteins showing homology to NtrC.

Sequence of nifL from Klebsiella pneumoniae: mode of action and relationship to two families of regulatory proteins.

Summary
nodD of Rhizobium leguminosarum has two regulatory properties: it autoregulates and, in cells grown with specific flavonoids, activates other nod genes. We isolated mutations in nodD affecting one or both properties. Those abolishing autoregulation and nod gene induction were at the 5′ end of nodD, as were those which only affected autoregulation. Mutations affecting nod gene activation are at the 3’end of nodD. Eleven mutations in this region of nodD were isolated: some had little effect on the regulatory properties; others reduced activation of other nod genes. 265 bps were removed from the 3’end of nodD: this abolished nodD function. Doubly mutant derivatives of nodD were constructed by making nodD genes with a mutation that conferred the ability to activate transcription of nod genes in the absence of inducers (class IV) plus another that abolished autoregulation and/or flavonoid-dependent nod gene activation. The behaviour of such double mutants was complex; e.g. in one case, a doubly mutant nodD gene containing the class IV mutation, coupled to one of those that (alone) abolished autoregulation and nod gene induction, was similar in behaviour to the wild type. In other cases, double mutants were similar to one of the parentals.

J. C. Wootton

Papers

Inducible erythromycin resistance in staphlyococci is encoded by a member of the ATP‐binding transport super‐gene family

Sequence of nifL from Klebsiella pneumoniae: mode of action and relationship to two families of regulatory proteins.

Single and multiple mutations affecting properties of the regulatory gene nodD of Rhizobium.