4.8 Article

Discovery of novel carbohydrate-active enzymes through the rational exploration of the protein sequences space

出版社

NATL ACAD SCIENCES
DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1815791116

关键词

CAZymes; screening; polysaccharides

资金

  1. French National Research Agency [ANR-14-CE06-0017]
  2. French Infrastructure for Integrated Structural Biology (FRISBI) [ANR-10-INSB-05-01]
  3. Glyco@Alps Cross-Disciplinary Program [ANR-15-IDEX-02]
  4. Grenoble Graduate School in Chemistry, Biology, and Health [ANR-17-EURE-0003]
  5. FRISBI [ANR-10-INSB-05-01]
  6. Labex ARCANE

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Over the last two decades, the number of gene/protein sequences gleaned from sequencing projects of individual genomes and environmental DNA has grown exponentially. Only a tiny fraction of these predicted proteins has been experimentally characterized, and the function of most proteins remains hypothetical or only predicted based on sequence similarity. Despite the development of postgenomic methods, such as transcriptomics, proteomics, and metabolomics, the assignment of function to protein sequences remains one of the main challenges in modern biology. As in all classes of proteins, the growing number of predicted carbohydrate-active enzymes (CAZymes) has not been accompanied by a systematic and accurate attribution of function. Taking advantage of the CAZy database, which groups CAZymes into families and subfamilies based on amino acid similarities, we recombinantly produced 564 proteins selected from subfamilies without any biochemically characterized representatives, from distant relatives of characterized enzymes and from nonclassified proteins that show little similarity with known CAZymes. Screening these proteins for activity on a wide collection of carbohydrate substrates led to the discovery of 13 CAZyme families (two ofwhich were also discovered by others during the course of our work), revealed three previously unknown substrate specificities, and assigned a function to 25 subfamilies.

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