4.5 Article

The role of double covalent flavin binding in chito-oligosaccharide oxidase from Fusarium graminearum

期刊

BIOCHEMICAL JOURNAL
卷 413, 期 -, 页码 175-183

出版社

PORTLAND PRESS LTD
DOI: 10.1042/BJ20071591

关键词

bi-covalent FAD; oligosaccharides; oxidase; pre-steady-state kinetics; redox potential

向作者/读者索取更多资源

ChitO (chito-oligosaccharide oxidase) from Fusarium graminearum catalyses the regioselective oxidation of N-acetylated oligosaccharides. The enzyme harbours an FAD cofactor that is covalently attached to His(94) and Cys(154). The functional role of this unusual bi-covalent flavin-protein linkage was studied by site-directed mutagenesis. The double mutant (H94A/C154A) was not expressed, which suggests that a covalent flavin-protein bond is needed for protein stability. The single mutants H94A and C154A were expressed as FAD-containing enzymes in which one of the covalent FAD-protein bonds was disrupted relative to the wild-type enzyme. Both mutants were poorly active, as the k(cat) decreased (8.3- and 3-fold respectively) and the K-m increased drastically (34- and 75-fold respectively) when using GlcNac as the substrate. Pre-steady-state analysis revealed that the rate of reduction in the mutant enzymes is decreased by 3 orders of magnitude when compared with wild-type ChitO (k(red) = 750 s(-1)) and thereby limits the turnover rate. Spectroelectrochemical titrations revealed that wild-type ChitO exhibits a relatively high redox potential (+ 131 mV) and the C154A mutant displays a lower potential (+ 70 mV), while the H94A mutant displays a relatively high potential of approximately + 164 mV. The results show that a high redox potential is not the only prerequisite to ensure efficient catalysis and that removal of either of the covalent bonds may perturb the geometry of the Michaelis complex. Besides tuning the redox properties, the bi-covalent binding of the FAD cofactor in ChitO is essential for a catalytically competent conformation of the active site.

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

4.5
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