4.6 Article

Cooperative effect of two surface amino acid mutations (Q252L and E170K) in glucose dehydrogenase from Bacillus megaterium IWG3 on stabilization of its oligomeric state

期刊

APPLIED AND ENVIRONMENTAL MICROBIOLOGY
卷 71, 期 6, 页码 3285-3293

出版社

AMER SOC MICROBIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1128/AEM.71.6.3285-3293.2005

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A thermostable glucose dehydrogenase (GlcDH) mutant of Bacillus megaterium IWG3 harboring the Q252L substitution (Y. Makino, S. Negoro, I. Urabe, and H. Okada, J. Biol. Chem. 264:6381-6385, 1989) is stable at pH values above 9, but only in the presence of 2 M NaCl. Another GlcDH mutant exhibiting increased stability at an alkaline pH in the absence of NaCl has been isolated previously (S.-H. Baik, T. Ide, H. Yoshida, O. Kagami, and S. Harayama, Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 61:329-335, 2003). This mutant had two amino acid substitutions, Q252L and E170K. In the present study, we characterized three GlcDH mutants harboring the substitutions Q252L, E170K, and Q252L/E170K under low-salt conditions. The GlcDH mutant harboring two substitutions, Q252L/E170K, was stable, but mutants harboring a single substitution, either Q252L or E170K, were unstable at an alkaline pH. Gel filtration chromatography analyses demonstrated that the oligomeric state of the Q252/E170K enzyme was stable, while the tetramers of the enzymes harboring a single substitution (Q252L or E170K) dissociated into dimers at an alkaline pH. These results indicated that the Q252L and E170K substitutions synergistically strengthened the interaction at the dimer-dimer interface. The crystal structure of the E170K/Q252L mutant, determined at 2.0-angstrom resolution, showed that residues 170 and 252 are located in a hydrophobic cavity at the subunit-subunit interface. We concluded that these residues in the wild-type enzyme have thermodynamically unfavorable effects, while the Q252L and E170K substitutions increase the subunit-subunit interactions by stabilizing the hydrophobic cavity.

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