4.1 Article

Disulfide bridges as essential elements for the thermostability of lytic polysaccharide monooxygenase LPMO10C from Streptomyces coelicolor

期刊

PROTEIN ENGINEERING DESIGN & SELECTION
卷 30, 期 5, 页码 401-408

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/protein/gzx014

关键词

disulfide bridge; lytic polysaccharide monooxygenases; Streptomyces coelicolor LPMO10C; thermal stability

资金

  1. Agency for Innovation by Science and Technology in Flanders (IWT Vlaanderen) [121629]
  2. Special Research Fund of Ghent University (MRP-project Ghent Bio-Economy)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Lytic polysaccharide monooxygenases (LPMOs) are crucial components of cellulase mixtures but their stability has not yet been studied in detail, let alone been engineered for industrial applications. In this work, we have evaluated the importance of disulfide bridges for the thermodynamic stability of Streptomyces coelicolor LPMO10C. Interestingly, this enzyme was found to retain 34% of its activity after 2-h incubation at 80 degrees C while its apparent melting temperature (T-m) is only 51 degrees C. When its three disulfide bridges were broken, however, irreversible unfolding occurred and no residual activity could be detected after a similar heat treatment. Based on these findings, additional disulfide bridges were introduced, as predicted by computational tools (MOdelling of DIsulfide bridges in Proteins (MODiP) and Disulfide by Design (DbD)) and using the most flexible positions in the structure as target sites. Four out of 16 variants displayed an improvement in T-m, ranging from 2 to 9 degrees C. Combining the positive mutations yielded additional improvements (up to 19 degrees C) but aberrant unfolding patterns became apparent in some cases, resulting in a diminished capacity for heat resistance. Nonetheless, the best variant, a combination of A143C-P183C and S73C-A115C, displayed a 12 degrees C increase in T-m and was able to retain and was able to retain no less than 60% of its activity after heat treatment.

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

4.1
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