4.6 Article

New mediators for the enzyme laccase: mechanistic features and selectivity in the oxidation of non-phenolic substrates

期刊

NEW JOURNAL OF CHEMISTRY
卷 29, 期 10, 页码 1308-1317

出版社

ROYAL SOC CHEMISTRY
DOI: 10.1039/b507657a

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

New mediators of laccase have been comparatively evaluated and ranked towards the benchmark aerobic oxidation of p-MeO-benzyl alcohol. The mechanism of oxidation of this non-phenolic substrate by each mediator, which is initially oxidised by laccase to the Med(ox) form, has been assessed among three alternatives. The latter make the phenoloxidise laccase competent for the indirect oxidation of non-phenolic (and thus 'unnatural') substrates. Experimental characterisation of the mediators, by means of spectrophotometric, electrochemical and thermochernical survey, is reported. Clear-cut evidence for the formation of a benzyl radical intermediate in the oxidation of a particular benzyl alcohol with laccase and a :: N-OH mediator is attained by means of a trapping experiment. The selectivity of the laccase-catalysed oxidation of two competing lignin and polysaccharide model compounds has been assessed by using the highly proficient 4-MeO-HPI mediator, and found very high in favour of the former model. This evidence is in keeping with the operation of a radical hydrogen-abstraction process that efficiently cleaves the benzylic rather than the aliphatic C-H bond of the two models. Significant is the finding that catechol, i.e., a model of recurring phenolic structures in lignin, once oxidised to aryloxyl radical by laccase is capable to mediate a radical oxidation of non-phenolic compounds. This supports a fully-fledged role of laccase as a delignifying enzyme in nature by way of no other mediators than the very phenolic groups of lignin. Finally, an evaluation of the dissociation energy of the NO-H bond of HBT, which is not accessible experimentally, is provided by the use of a thermochemical cycle and theoretical calculations.

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