4.8 Article

Structural and functional characterization of a conserved pair of bacterial cellulose-oxidizing lytic polysaccharide monooxygenases

出版社

NATL ACAD SCIENCES
DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1402771111

关键词

GH61; CBM33

资金

  1. Norwegian Research Council [190965, 214138, 214613]
  2. Norwegian Academy of Science and Letters Vista Program Grant [6505]
  3. US Department of Energy

向作者/读者索取更多资源

For decades, the enzymatic conversion of cellulose was thought to rely on the synergistic action of hydrolytic enzymes, but recent work has shown that lytic polysaccharide monooxygenases (LPMOs) are important contributors to this process. We describe the structural and functional characterization of two functionally coupled cellulose-active LPMOs belonging to auxiliary activity family 10 (AA10) that commonly occur in cellulolytic bacteria. One of these LPMOs cleaves glycosidic bonds by oxidation of the C1 carbon, whereas the other can oxidize both C1 and C4. We thus demonstrate that C4 oxidation is not confined to fungal AA9-type LPMOs. X-ray crystallographic structures were obtained for the enzyme pair from Streptomyces coelicolor, solved at 1.3 angstrom (ScLPMO10B) and 1.5 angstrom (CelS2 or ScLPMO10C) resolution. Structural comparisons revealed differences in active site architecture that could relate to the ability to oxidize C4 (and that also seem to apply to AA9-type LPMOs). Despite variation in active site architecture, the two enzymes exhibited similar affinities for Cu2+ (12-31 nM), redox potentials (242 and 251 mV), and electron paramagnetic resonance spectra, with only the latter clearly different from those of chitin-active AA10-type LPMOs. We conclude that substrate specificity depends not on copper site architecture, but rather on variation in substrate binding and orientation. During cellulose degradation, the members of this LPMO pair act in synergy, indicating different functional roles and providing a rationale for the abundance of these enzymes in biomass-degrading organisms.

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