4.8 Article

Precision is essential for efficient catalysis in an evolved Kemp eliminase

期刊

NATURE
卷 503, 期 7476, 页码 418-+

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/nature12623

关键词

-

资金

  1. Swiss National Science Foundation (SNSF)
  2. National Center of Excellence in Research (NCCR) Structural Biology program of the SNSF
  3. ETH Zurich
  4. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA)
  5. Fonds des Verbandes der chemischen Industrie
  6. Stipendienfonds der Schweizer Chemischen Industrie
  7. Studienstiftung des deutschen Volkes
  8. National Security Science and Engineering Faculty Fellowship

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Linus Pauling established the conceptual framework for understanding and mimicking enzymes more than six decades ago(1). The notion that enzymes selectively stabilize the rate-limiting transition state of the catalysed reaction relative to the bound ground state reduces the problem of design to one of molecular recognition. Nevertheless, past attempts to capitalize on this idea, for example by using transition state analogues to elicit antibodies with catalytic activities(2), have generally failed to deliver true enzymatic rates. The advent of computational design approaches, combined with directed evolution, has provided an opportunity to revisit this problem. Starting from a computationally designed catalyst for the Kemp elimination(3)-a well-studied model system for proton transfer from carbon-we show that an artificial enzyme can be evolved that accelerates an elementary chemical reaction 6 x 10(8)-fold, approaching the exceptional efficiency of highly optimized natural enzymes such as triosephosphate isomerase. A 1.09 angstrom resolution crystal structure of the evolved enzyme indicates that familiar catalytic strategies such as shape complementarity and precisely placed catalytic groups can be successfully harnessed to afford such high rate accelerations, making us optimistic about the prospects of designing more sophisticated catalysts.

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

4.8
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