4.6 Article

Origin of Initial Burst in Activity for Trichoderma reesei endo-Glucanases Hydrolyzing Insoluble Cellulose

期刊

JOURNAL OF BIOLOGICAL CHEMISTRY
卷 287, 期 2, 页码 1252-1260

出版社

AMER SOC BIOCHEMISTRY MOLECULAR BIOLOGY INC
DOI: 10.1074/jbc.M111.276485

关键词

-

资金

  1. Danish Agency for Science, Technology, and Innovation [2104-07-0028]
  2. Carlsberg Foundation
  3. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [23760746] Funding Source: KAKEN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The kinetics of cellulose hydrolysis have longbeen described by an initial fast hydrolysis rate, tapering rapidly off, leading to a process that takes days rather than hours to complete. This behavior has been mainly attributed to the action of cellobiohydrolases and often linked to the processive mechanism of this exo-acting group of enzymes. The initial kinetics of endo-glucanases (EGs) is far less investigated, partly due to a limited availability of quantitative assay technologies. We have used isothermal calorimetry to monitor the early time course of the hydrolysis of insoluble cellulose by the three main EGs from Trichoderma reesei (Tr): TrCel7B (formerly EG I), TrCel5A (EG II), and TrCel12A (EG III). These endo-glucanases show a distinctive initial burst with a maximal rate that is about 5-fold higher than the rate after 5 min of hydrolysis. The burst is particularly conspicuous for TrCel7B, which reaches a maximal turnover of about 20 s(-1) at 30 degrees C and conducts about 1200 catalytic cycles per enzyme molecule in the initial fast phase. For TrCel5A and TrCel12A the extent of the burst is 2-300 cycles per enzyme molecule. The availability of continuous data on EG activity allows an analysis of the mechanisms underlying the initial kinetics, and it is suggested that the slowdown is linked to transient inactivation of enzyme on the cellulose surface. We propose, therefore, that the frequency of structures on the substrate surface that cause transient inactivation determine the extent of the burst phase.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据