4.7 Article

Reversibility of enzymatic reactions might limit biotransformation of organic micropollutants

期刊

SCIENCE OF THE TOTAL ENVIRONMENT
卷 665, 期 -, 页码 574-578

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.02.143

关键词

Anaerobic digestion; Bisphenol A; Chemical equilibrium; Kinases; Phosphorylation; Sewage treatment plant

资金

  1. Spanish Government (Agencia Estatal de Investigacion) through COMETT project [CTQ2016-80847-R]
  2. Spanish Government (Ministerio de Educacion) through COMETT project [CTQ2016-80847-R]
  3. FPU (Formacion de Profesorado Universitario) [FPU13/01255, EST16/00138]
  4. FEDER (EU) [AGRUP2015/02, GRC ED431C 2017/29]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Biotransformation of many organic micropollutants (OMPs) in sewage treatment plants is incomplete leading to their release into the environment. Recent findings suggest that thermodynamic aspects of the reaction as chemical equilibrium limit biotransformation, while kinetic parameters have a lower influence. Reversibility of enzymatic reactions might result in a chemical equilibrium between the OMP and the transformation product, thus impeding a total removal of the compound. To the best of our knowledge, no study has focused on proving the reversible action of enzymes towards OMPs so far. Therefore, we aimed at demonstrating this hypothesis through in vitro assays with bisphenol A (BPA) in the presence of kinase enzymes, namely acetate kinase and hexokinase, which are key enzymes in anaerobic processes. Results suggest that BPA is phosphorylated by acetate kinase and hexokinase in the presence of ATP (adenosine 5-triphosphate), but when the concentration of this co-substrate decreases and the enzymes loss their activity, the backward reaction occurs, revealing a reversible biotransformation mechanism. This information is particularly relevant to address new removal strategies, which up to now were mainly focused on modifying the kinetic parameters of the reaction. (c) 2019 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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