4.6 Article

Optimum temperature may be a misleading parameter in enzyme characterization and application

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 14, 期 2, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0212977

关键词

-

资金

  1. Coordenacao de Aperfeicoamento de Pessoal de Nivel Superior (CAPES) [001]
  2. FAPESP (Fundacao de Amparo a Pesquisa do Estado de Sao Paulo) [16/22365-9]
  3. CNPq (Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Cientifico e Tecnologico)
  4. Fundacao de Amparo a Pesquisa do Estado de Sao Paulo (FAPESP) [16/22365-9] Funding Source: FAPESP

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The optimum temperature is commonly determined in enzyme characterization. A search in the PubMed database for optimum temperature and enzymes yielded more than 1,700 manuscripts reporting this parameter over the last five years. Here, we show that the optimum temperature is not a constant. The catalytic activity of the mesophylic beta-glucosidase Sf beta gly was determined at different temperatures using different assay times and enzyme concentrations. We observed that the optimum temperature for Sf beta gly changed by 5 degrees C simply by modifying the assay length, and it was inversely correlated with enzyme concentration. These observations rely on the fact that close to the melting temperature, thermal denaturation continuously decreases the active enzyme concentration as the assay progresses. Thus, as the denaturation rate increases with increasing temperature, the bell-shaped curves observed in activity versus temperature plots occur only if the enzyme is denatured at and above the optimum temperature, which was confirmed using the thermostable beta-glucosidase bglTm. Thus, the optimum temperature hardly reflects an intrinsic enzyme property and is actually a mere consequence of the assay condition. Thus, adoption of the optimum temperature determined under bench conditions for large-scale uses, which differ in assay length and enzyme concentration, may result in lower yields and financial losses.

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