4.8 Article

Investigating the Relationship between the Substrates′ Consumption and Their Abundances in a Complex Enzymatic System

Journal

ANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY
Volume 89, Issue 20, Pages 10644-10648

Publisher

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acs.analchem.7b03616

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. National Key R&D Program of China [2016YFA0501402]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [21235006, 21535008]
  3. DICP, CAS [DICP TMSR201601]
  4. National Natural Science Fund of China [21525524]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The enzymatic process involving the incubation of a library of substrates with an enzyme is the key step for a few important experiments for bioanalytical chemistry including proteomics analysis, enzymatic labeling, substrate screening, etc. The relationship between the substrates' consumption and their abundances in a complex enzymatic system with a huge number of coexisting substrates of different abundances was not well-known. In this study, we have demonstrated theoretically and experimentally that the priority of substrate consumption depended on their specificity constants but not abundances. We derived the expression between the fractions of the substrates consumed (p(i)) and their specificity constants. Using the enzymatic system of five synthetic peptide substrates of trypsin, we validated through 24 experiments that the ln(1 - p(i)) values of competing substrates have linear correlation with their specificity constants, and thus, the priority of substrate depletion has no relation with their abundances. Using a state of the art quantitative proteomics approach, we found that the In(1 - p(i)) values of 144 competing substrates between any two of four experiments have a linear relationship and the prioritization of substrates can be achieved by sorting their consumption rates in the experiment. This study will improve our understanding of the enzymatic kinetics in the complex system and will benefit the design of enzymatic analytical approaches.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available