4.6 Article

Characterization of the Two Neurospora crassa Cellobiose Dehydrogenases and Their Connection to Oxidative Cellulose Degradation

Journal

APPLIED AND ENVIRONMENTAL MICROBIOLOGY
Volume 78, Issue 17, Pages 6161-6171

Publisher

AMER SOC MICROBIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1128/AEM.01503-12

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Austrian Science Fund (FWF) [FWF-W1224]
  2. [L395-B11]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The genome of Neurospora crassa encodes two different cellobiose dehydrogenases (CDHs) with a sequence identity of only 53%. So far, only CDH IIA, which is induced during growth on cellulose and features a C-terminal carbohydrate binding module (CBM), was detected in the secretome of N. crassa and preliminarily characterized. CDH IIB is not significantly upregulated during growth on cellulosic material and lacks a CBM. Since CDH IIB could not be identified in the secretome, both CDHs were recombinantly produced in Pichia pastoris. With the cytochrome domain-dependent one-electron acceptor cytochrome c, CDH HA has a narrower and more acidic pH optimum than CDH IIB. Interestingly, the catalytic efficiencies of both CDHs for carbohydrates are rather similar, but CDH IIA exhibits 4- to 5-times-higher apparent catalytic constants (k(cat) and K-m values) than CDH IIB for most tested carbohydrates. A third major difference is the 65-mV-lower redox potential of the heme b cofactor in the cytochrome domain of CDH IIA than CDH IIB. To study the interaction with a member of the glycoside hydrolase 61 family, the copper-dependent polysaccharide monooxygenase GH61-3 (NCUO2916) from N. crassa was expressed in P. pastoris. A pH-dependent electron transfer from both CDHs via their cytochrome domains to GH61-3 was observed. The different properties of CDH IIA and CDH IIB and their effect on interactions with GH61-3 are discussed in regard to the proposed in vivo function of the CDH/GH61 enzyme system in oxidative cellulose hydrolysis.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available