4.6 Article

Cyclobutanone Inhibitor of Cobalt-Functionalized Metallo-γ-Lactonase AiiA with Cyclobutanone Ring Opening in the Active Site

期刊

ACS OMEGA
卷 6, 期 21, 页码 13567-13578

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acsomega.0c06348

关键词

-

资金

  1. Robert A. Welch Foundation [F-1572]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A designed alpha-amido cyclobutanone was found to be a competitive inhibitor of dicobalt(II) AiiA, with a proposed mechanistic hypothesis involving a radical-mediated process for ring opening. The study further explored the catalytic mechanism of AiiA using product-based transition-state modeling and revealed unexpected binding of the cyclobutanone inhibitor in the X-ray crystal structure of dicobalt(II) AiiA.
An alpha-amido cyclobutanone possessing a C10 hydrocarbon tail was designed as a potential transition-state mimetic for the quorum-quenching metallo-gamma-lactonase autoinducer inactivator A (AiiA) with the support of in-house modeling techniques and found to be a competitive inhibitor of dicobalt(II) AiiA with an inhibition constant of K-i = 0.007 +/- 0.002 mM. The catalytic mechanism of AiiA was further explored using our product-based transition-state modeling (PBTSM) computational approach, providing substrate-intermediate models arising during enzyme turnover and further insight into substrate-enzyme interactions governing native substrate catalysis. These interactions were targeted in the docking of cyclobutanone hydrates into the active site of AiiA. The X-ray crystal structure of dicobalt(II) AiiA cocrystallized with this cyclobutanone inhibitor unexpectedly revealed an N-(2-oxocyclobutyl)decanamide ring-opened acyclic product bound to the enzyme active site (PDB 7L5F). The C10 alkyl chain and its interaction with the hydrophobic phenylalanine clamp region of AiiA adjacent to the active site enabled atomic placement of the ligand atoms, including the C10 alkyl chain. A mechanistic hypothesis for the ring opening is proposed involving a radical-mediated process.

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