4.6 Article

Inter-Species Redox Coupling by Flavin Reductases and FMN-Dependent Two-Component Monooxygenases Undertaking Nucleophilic Baeyer-Villiger Biooxygenations

期刊

MICROORGANISMS
卷 11, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/microorganisms11010071

关键词

diketocamphane monooxygenase; luciferase; flavin reductase; two-component monooxygenase; biocatalysis; bioremediation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Using purified enzymes, it was found that the isoenzymic 2,5- and 3,6-diketocamphane mono-oxygenases from Pseudomonas putida ATCC 17453 and the LuxAB luciferase from Vibrio fischeri ATCC 7744 are FMN-dependent two-component monooxygenases that promote redox coupling. Non-native flavin reductases from Escherichia coli ATCC 11105 and Aminobacter aminovorans ATCC 29600 were more efficient donors of FMNH2 compared to native flavin reductases for all three monooxygenases. These findings have potential practical implications for optimizing FMNH2-dependent biooxygenations of recognized practical and commercial value.
Using highly purified enzyme preparations throughout, initial kinetic studies demonstrated that the isoenzymic 2,5- and 3,6-diketocamphane mono-oxygenases from Pseudomonas putida ATCC 17453 and the LuxAB luciferase from Vibrio fischeri ATCC 7744 exhibit commonality in being FMN-dependent two-component monooxygenases that promote redox coupling by the transfer of flavin reductase-generated FMNH2 by rapid free diffusion. Subsequent studies confirmed the comprehensive inter-species compatibility of both native and non-native flavin reductases with each of the tested monooxygenases. For all three monooxygenases, non-native flavin reductases from Escherichia coli ATCC 11105 and Aminobacter aminovorans ATCC 29600 were confirmed to be more efficient donators of FMNH2 than the corresponding tested native flavin reductases. Some potential practical implications of these outcomes are considered for optimising FMNH2-dependent biooxygenations of recognised practical and commercial value.

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