4.4 Article

Metabolic enzymes from psychrophilic bacteria:: Challenge of adaptation to low temperatures in ornithine carbamoyltransferase from Moritella abyssi

期刊

JOURNAL OF BACTERIOLOGY
卷 185, 期 7, 页码 2161-2168

出版社

AMER SOC MICROBIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1128/JB.185.7.2161-2168.2003

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The enzyme ornithine carbamoyltransferase (OTCase) of Motitella abyssi (OTCase(Mab)), a new, strictly psychrophilic and piezophilic bacterial species, was purified. OTCase(Mab) displays maximal activity at rather low temperatures (23 to 25degreesC) compared to other cold-active enzymes and is much less thermoresistant than its homologues from Escherichia coli or thermophilic procaryotes. In vitro the enzyme is in equilibrium between a trimeric state and a dodecameric, more stable state. The melting point and denaturation enthalpy changes for the two forms are considerably lower than the corresponding values for the dodecameric Pyrococcus furiosus OTCase and for a thermolabile trimeric mutant thereof. OTCase(Mab) displays higher K-m values for ornithine and carbamoyl phosphate than mesophilic and thermophilic OTCases and is only weakly inhibited by the bisubstrate analogue delta-N-phosphonoacetyl-L-ornithine (PALO). OTCase(Mab) differs from other, nonpsychrophilic OTCases by substitutions in the most conserved motifs, which probably contribute to the comparatively high K-m values and the lower sensitivity to PALO. The K. for ornithine, however, is substantially lower at low temperatures. A survey of the catalytic efficiencies (k(cat)/K-m) of OTCases adapted to different temperatures showed that OTCase(Mab) activity remains suboptimal at low temperature despite the 4.5-fold decrease in the K-m value for ornithine observed when the temperature is brought from 20 to 5degreesC. OTCase(Mab) adaptation to cold indicates a trade-off between affinity and catalytic velocity, suggesting that optimization of key metabolic enzymes at low temperatures may be constrained by natural limits.

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