4.6 Review

Synthesis of Human Milk Oligosaccharides: Protein Engineering Strategies for Improved Enzymatic Transglycosylation

期刊

MOLECULES
卷 24, 期 11, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/molecules24112033

关键词

human milk oligosaccharides; transglycosylation; protein engineering; fucosidase; sialidase; beta-N-acetylhexosaminidase; transfucosylation; transsialylation; casein glycomacropeptide

资金

  1. DTU Bioengineering, Protein Chemistry and Enzyme Technology Division, Technical University of Denmark
  2. Novo Nordisk Foundation [NNF17OC0025660]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Human milk oligosaccharides (HMOs) signify a unique group of oligosaccharides in breast milk, which is of major importance for infant health and development. The functional benefits of HMOs create an enormous impetus for biosynthetic production of HMOs for use as additives in infant formula and other products. HMO molecules can be synthesized chemically, via fermentation, and by enzymatic synthesis. This treatise discusses these different techniques, with particular focus on harnessing enzymes for controlled enzymatic synthesis of HMO molecules. In order to foster precise and high-yield enzymatic synthesis, several novel protein engineering approaches have been reported, mainly concerning changing glycoside hydrolases to catalyze relevant transglycosylations. The protein engineering strategies for these enzymes range from rationally modifying specific catalytic residues, over targeted subsite -1 mutations, to unique and novel transplantations of designed peptide sequences near the active site, so-called loop engineering. These strategies have proven useful to foster enhanced transglycosylation to promote different types of HMO synthesis reactions. The rationale of subsite -1 modification, acceptor binding site matching, and loop engineering, including changes that may alter the spatial arrangement of water in the enzyme active site region, may prove useful for novel enzyme-catalyzed carbohydrate design in general.

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