4.4 Article

PLP-Dependent Enzyme Methionine γ-Lyase: Insights into the Michaelis Complex from Molecular Dynamics and Free Energy Simulations

期刊

BIOCHEMISTRY
卷 62, 期 18, 页码 2791-2801

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acs.biochem.3c00355

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Methionine gamma-lyase (MGL) is a therapeutic protein that can break down methionine to damage cancer cells. The presence of methionine affects the structure and active site of MGL, enhancing the enzyme reaction.
Methionine gamma-lyase (MGL) breaks down methionine, with the help of its cofactor pyridoxal-5 '-phosphate (PLP), or vitamin B6. Methionine depletion is damaging for cancer cells but not normal cells, so MGL is of interest as a therapeutic protein. To increase our understanding and help engineer improved activity, we focused on the reactive, Michaelis complex between MGL, covalently bound PLP, and substrate Met. is not amenable to crystallography, as it proceeds to products. Experimental activity measurements helped exclude a mechanism that would bypass. We then used molecular dynamics and alchemical free energy simulations to elucidate its structure and dynamics. We showed that the PLP phosphate has a pKa strongly downshifted by the protein, whether Met is present or not. Met binding affects the structure surrounding the reactive atoms. With Met, the Schiff base linkage between PLP and a nearby lysine shifts from a zwitterionic, keto form to a neutral, enol form that makes it easier for Met to approach its labile, target atom. The Met ligand also stabilizes the correct orientation of the Schiff base, more strongly than in simulations without Met, and in agreement with structures in the Protein Data Bank, where the Schiff base orientation correlates with the presence or absence of a co-bound anion or substrate analogue in the active site. Overall, the Met ligand helps organize the active site for the enzyme reaction by reducing fluctuations and shifting protonation states and conformational populations.

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

4.4
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