4.4 Article

Dual substrate and reaction specificity in mouse serine racemase:: Identification of high-affinity dicarboxylate substrate and inhibitors and analysis of the β-eliminase activity

期刊

BIOCHEMISTRY
卷 44, 期 39, 页码 13091-13100

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/bi051201o

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Mouse serine racemase (mSR) is a pyridoxal 5'-phosphate dependent enzyme that catalyzes the biosynthesis of the N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor coagonist D-serine in the brain. Furthermore, mSR catalyzes beta-elimination of serine and L-serine-O-sulfate into pyruvate. The biological significance of this beta-elimination activity and the factors influencing mSR substrate and reaction specificity, which are crucial for prospective inhibitor design, are poorly understood. Using a bacterial expression system and ATP-agarose affinity chromatography, we have generated a pure and active recombinant mSR and investigated its substrate and reaction specificity in vitro by analyzing a systematic series of compounds derived from L-Ser and L-serine-O-sulfate. The analysis revealed several competitive inhibitors of serine racernization including glycine (K-I = 1.63 mM), several dicarboxylic acids including malonate (K-I = 0.077 mM), and L-erythro-3-hydroxyaspartate (KI = 0.049 mM). The latter compound represents the most effective inhibitor of SR reported to date. A simple inversion of the beta-carbon configuration of the compound yields an excellent P-elimination substrate L-threo-3-hydroxyaspartate. Inhibition analysis indicates that racemization and beta-elimination activities of mSR reside at the same active site. While the racernization activity is specific to serine, the beta-elimination activity has a broader specificity for L-amino acids with a suitable leaving group at the beta-carbon and optimal spatial orientation of the a-carboxyl and leaving groups. The possible implications of our observations for inhibitor design, regulation of activity, and function of mSR are discussed.

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