4.7 Article

Structural analysis of K+ dependence in l-asparaginases from Lotus japonicus

期刊

PLANTA
卷 234, 期 1, 页码 109-122

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00425-011-1393-0

关键词

Asparaginases; K+-Dependent enzyme activity; Lotus; Ntn-hydrolases; Nitrogen metabolism; Homology model

资金

  1. Junta de Andalucia [BIO-163, BIO-198, P07-CVI-3026]
  2. Spanish Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovacion [BFU2009-07190]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The molecular features responsible for the existence in plants of K+-dependent asparaginases have been investigated. For this purpose, two different cDNAs were isolated in Lotus japonicus, encoding for K+-dependent (LjNSE1) or K+-independent (LjNSE2) asparaginases. Recombinant proteins encoded by these cDNAs have been purified and characterized. Both types of asparaginases are composed by two different subunits, alpha (20 kDa) and beta (17 kDa), disposed as (alpha beta)(2) quaternary structure. Major differences were found in the catalytic efficiency of both enzymes, due to the fact that K+ is able to increase by tenfold the enzyme activity and lowers the K (m) for asparagine specifically in LjNSE1 but not in LjNSE2 isoform. Optimum LjNSE1 activity was found at 5-50 mM K+, with a K (m) for K+ of 0.25 mM. Na+ and Rb+ can, to some extent, substitute for K+ on the activating effect of LjNSE1 more efficiently than Cs+ and Li+ does. In addition, K+ is able to stabilize LjNSE1 against thermal inactivation. Protein homology modelling and molecular dynamics studies, complemented with site-directed mutagenesis, revealed the key importance of E248, D285 and E286 residues for the catalytic activity and K+ dependence of LjNSE1, as well as the crucial relevance of K+ for the proper orientation of asparagine substrate within the enzyme molecule. On the other hand, LjNSE2 but not LjNSE1 showed beta-aspartyl-hydrolase activity (K (m) = 0.54 mM for beta-Asp-His). These results are discussed in terms of the different physiological significance of these isoenzymes in plants.

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

4.7
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