4.4 Article

Development of a thermostable glucose dehydrogenase by a structure-guided consensus concept

期刊

CHEMBIOCHEM
卷 8, 期 18, 页码 2295-2301

出版社

WILEY-V C H VERLAG GMBH
DOI: 10.1002/cbic.200700500

关键词

biotransformations; cofactors; consensus sequences; protein engineering; protein stability

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Instability under non-native processing conditions, especially at elevated temperatures, is a major factor preventing the widespread adoption of biocatalysts for industrial synthesis. A crucial distinction of many redox enzymes used to synthesize chiral compounds is the need for cofactors (e.g., NAD(P)(H)) for function. Because of the prohibitively high prices of nicotinamide cofactors, a robust cofactor-regenerating enzyme is required for the economical synthesis of fine chemicals by biocatalysis. Here we test the structure-guided consensus for the generation of a thermostable glucose dehydrogenase (GDH). The consensus sequence in combination with additional knowledge-based criteria was used to select amino acids for substitutions. Using this approach we generated 24 variants, 11 of which showed higher thermal stability than the wild-type GDH, a success rate of 46%. Of the 24 variants, seven were located at the subunit interface-known to influence GDH stability-and six were more stable (86% success). The best variants feature a half-life of similar to 3.5 days at 65 degrees C, in contrast to similar to 20 min at 25 degrees C for the wild type, thus enhancing stability 10(6)-fold. In addition, the three most stabilizing single mutations were transferred to two GDH homologues from Bacillus thuringiensis and Bacillus licheniformis. The thermal stability as measured by half-life and CD222nm of the GDH variants was increased, as expected. The resulting stability changes provide further support for the view that these residues are critical for stability of GDHs and reinforce the success of the consensus approach for identifying stabilizing mutations.

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