4.6 Article

Discovery of a linoleate 9S-dioxygenase and an allene oxide synthase in a fusion protein of Fusarium oxysporum

期刊

JOURNAL OF LIPID RESEARCH
卷 54, 期 12, 页码 3471-3480

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1194/jlr.M044347

关键词

cytochrome P450 class III; heme peroxidase; linoleate diol synthase; mutagenesis site-specific; oxylipin biosynthesis; oxygenation mechanism

资金

  1. Swedish Research Council [03X-06523]
  2. Knut and Alice Wallenberg Foundation [KAW 2004.123]
  3. Uppsala University

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Fusarium oxysporum is a devastating plant pathogen that oxidizes C-18 fatty acids sequentially to jasmonates. The genome codes for putative dioxygenase (DOX)-cytochrome P450 (CYP) fusion proteins homologous to linoleate diol synthases (LDSs) and the allene oxide synthase (AOS) of Aspergillus terreus, e. g., FOXB_01332. Recombinant FOXB_01332 oxidized 18:2n-6 to 9S-hydroperoxy-10(E), 12(Z)-octadecadienoic acid by hydrogen abstraction and antarafacial insertion of molecular oxygen and sequentially to an allene oxide, 9S(10)-epoxy-10,12(Z)-octadecadienoic acid, as judged from nonenzymatic hydrolysis products (alpha- and gamma-ketols). The enzyme was therefore designated 9S-DOX-AOS. The 9S-DOX activity oxidized C-18 and C-20 fatty acids of the n-6 and n-3 series to hydroperoxides at the n-9 and n-7 positions, and the n-9 hydroperoxides could be sequentially transformed to allene oxides with only a few exceptions. The AOS activity was stereospecific for 9- and 11-hydroperoxides with S configurations. FOXB_01332 has acidic and alcoholic residues, Glu(946)-Val-Leu-Ser(949), at positions of crucial Asn and Gln residues (Asn-Xaa-Xaa-Gln) of the AOS and LDS. Site-directed mutagenesis studies revealed that FOXB_01332 and AOS of A. terreus differ in catalytically important residues suggesting that AOS of A. terreus and F. oxysporum belong to different subfamilies. FOXB_01332 is the first linoleate 9-DOX with homology to animal heme peroxidases and the first 9-DOX-AOS fusion protein.

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