4.4 Article

Biosynthesis of covalently bound flavin: Isolation and in vitro flavinylation of the monomeric sarcosine oxidase apoprotein

期刊

BIOCHEMISTRY
卷 44, 期 17, 页码 6452-6462

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/bi047271x

关键词

-

资金

  1. NIGMS NIH HHS [R01 GM031704, GM 31704] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The covalently bound FAD in native monomeric sarcosine oxidase (MSOX) is attached to the protein by a thioether bond between the 8 alpha-methyl group of the flavin and Cys315. Large amounts of soluble apoenzyme are produced by controlled expression in a riboflavin-dependent Escherichia coli strain. A time-dependent increase in catalytic activity is observed upon incubation of apoMSOX with FAD, accompanied by the covalent incorporation of FAD to similar to 80% of the level observed with the native enzyme. The spectral and catalytic properties of the reconstituted enzyme are otherwise indistinguishable from those of native MSOX. The reconstitution reaction exhibits apparent second-order kinetics (k = 139 M-1 min(-1) at 23 degrees C) and is accompanied by the formation of a stoichiometric amount of hydrogen peroxide. A time-dependent reduction of FAD is observed when the reconstitution reaction is conducted under anaerobic conditions. The results provide definitive evidence for autoflavinylation in a reaction that proceeds via a reduced flavin intermediate and requires only apoMSOX and FAD. Flavinylation of apoMSOX is not observed with 5-deazaFAD or 1-deazaFAD, an outcome attributed to a decrease in the acidity of the 8 alpha-methyl group protons. Covalent flavin attachment is observed with 8-nor-8-chloroFAD in an aromatic nucleophilic displacement reaction that proceeds via a quininoid intermediate but not a reduced flavin intermediate. The reconstituted enzyme contains a modified cysteine-flavin linkage (8-nor-8-S-cysteinyl) as compared with native MSOX (8 alpha-S-cysteinyl), a difference that may account for its similar to 10-fold lower catalytic activity.

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