Reconstructing the transport cycle in the sugar porter superfamily using coevolution-powered machine learning
Open accessPublished version of a preprint
Abstract
Sugar porters (SPs) represent the largest group of secondary-active transporters. Some members, such as the glucose transporters (GLUTs), are well known for their role in maintaining blood glucose homeostasis in mammals, with their expression upregulated in many types of cancers. Because only a few sugar porter structures have been determined, mechanistic models have been constructed by piecing together structural states of distantly related proteins. Current GLUT transport models are predominantly descriptive and oversimplified. Here, we have combined coevolution analysis and comparative modeling, to predict structures of the entire sugar porter superfamily in each state of the transport cycle. We have analyzed the state-specific contacts inferred from coevolving residue pairs and shown how this information can be used to rapidly generate free-energy landscapes consistent with experimental estimates, as illustrated here for the mammalian fructose transporter GLUT5. By comparing many different sugar porter models and scrutinizing their sequence, we have been able to define the molecular determinants of the transport cycle, which are conserved throughout the sugar porter superfamily. We have also been able to highlight differences leading to the emergence of proton-coupling, validating, and extending the previously proposed latch mechanism. Our computational approach is transferable to any transporter, and to other protein families in general.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
Highly accurate protein structure prediction with AlphaFold
Jumper, J., Evans, R., Pritzel, A., Green, T., Figurnov, M., Ronneberger, O., Tunyasuvunakool, K., Bates, R., Žídek, A., Potapenko, A., et al. (2021) · Nature · doi:10.1038/s41586-021-03819-2 · Cited by 43,764 · see citing works
Hawkins, D. M. (2004) · Journal of Chemical Information and Computer Sciences · doi:10.1021/ci0342472 · Cited by 2,522 · see citing works
Morcos, F., Pagnani, A., Lunt, B., Bertolino, A., Marks, D. S., Sander, C., Zecchina, R., Onuchic, J. N., Hwa, T., & Weigt, M. (2011) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1111471108 · Cited by 1,434 · see citing works
Sampling alternative conformational states of transporters and receptors with AlphaFold2
del Alamo, D., Sala, D., Mchaourab, H. S., & Meiler, J. (2022) · eLife · doi:10.7554/elife.75751 · Cited by 511 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Molecular basis of proton sensing by G protein-coupled receptors
Howard, M. K., Hoppe, N., Huang, X.-P., Mitrovic, D., Billesbølle, C. B., Macdonald, C. B., Mehrotra, E., Rockefeller Grimes, P., Trinidad, D. D., Delemotte, L., et al. (2025) · Cell · doi:10.1016/j.cell.2024.11.036 · Cited by 77 · see citing works
Self-citationOhnuki, J., Jaunet-Lahary, T., Yamashita, A., & Okazaki, K.-I. (2024) · The Journal of Physical Chemistry Letters · doi:10.1021/acs.jpclett.3c03052 · Cited by 14 · see citing works
- Authors
- Mitrovic, D., McComas, S. E., Alleva, C., Bonaccorsi, M., Drew, D., & Delemotte, L.
- Affiliations
- Science for Life Laboratory (SE)
- Stockholm University (SE)
- Corresponding author
- Delemotte, Lucie
- Venue
- eLife
- Publisher
- eLife Sciences Publications, Ltd
- Published
- 2023-07-05
- Volume
- 12
- ISSN
- 2050-084X (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC10322152
- OpenAlex
- W4383186916
- Cited by
- 31
- References
- 4
- Citations by year
- 2026: 8 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 1
- FWCI
- 2.66
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- eLife (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) (acceptedVersion, cc-by-nc)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Funders
- Knut och Alice Wallenbergs Stiftelse
- Science for Life Laboratory
- Gustafsson Foundation
- Vetenskapsrådet (2019-02433)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Protein Structure and Dynamics
- Physical Sciences › Materials Science › Materials Chemistry › Enzyme Structure and Function
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Drug Transport and Resistance Mechanisms
- Keywords
- GLUT5, fructose transporter, transport cycle, comparative protein modeling, free energy landscape, latching mechanism, proton-coupled transport, secondary active transporters, glucose transporters, cancer
- MeSH terms
- Sugars, Animals, Biological Transport, Glucose, Mammals, Membrane Transport Proteins, Glucose Transport Proteins, Facilitative
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review