4.5 Article

Structural Features on the Substrate-Binding Surface of Fungal Lytic Polysaccharide Monooxygenases Determine Their Oxidative Regioselectivity

期刊

BIOTECHNOLOGY JOURNAL
卷 14, 期 3, 页码 -

出版社

WILEY-V C H VERLAG GMBH
DOI: 10.1002/biot.201800211

关键词

enzyme engineering; lytic polysaccharide monooxygenase; oxidative regioselectivity; Pichia pastoris

资金

  1. Agency for Innovation by Science and Technology in Flanders (IWT Vlaanderen) [121629]
  2. Special Research Fund of Ghent University (MRP-project Ghent Bio-Economy)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Lytic polysaccharide monooxygenases (LPMOs) are copper-dependent enzymes that oxidatively cleave many of nature's most recalcitrant polysaccharides by acting on the C1- and/or C4-carbon of the glycosidic bond. Here, the results of an extensive mutagenesis study on three LPMO representatives, Phanerochaete chrysosporium LPMO9D (C1-oxidizer), Neurospora crassa LPMO9C (C4), and Hypocrea jecorina LPMO9A (C1/C4), are reported. Using a previously published indicator diagram, the authors demonstrate that several structural determinants of LPMOs play an important role in their oxidative regioselectivity. N-glycan removal and alterations of the aromatic residues on the substrate-binding surface are shown to alter C1/C4-oxidation ratios. Removing the carbohydrate binding module (CBM) is found not to alter the regioselectivity of HjLPMO9A, although the effect of mutational changes is shown to increase in a CBM-free context. The accessibility to the solvent-exposed axial position of the copper-site reveales not to be a major regioselectivity indicator, at least not in PcLPMO9D. Interestingly, a HjLPMO9A variant lacking two surface exposed aromatic residues combines decreased binding capacity with a 22% increase in synergetic efficiency. Similarly to recent LPMO10 findings, our results suggest a complex matrix of surface-interactions that enables LPMO9s not only to bind their substrate, but also to accurately direct their oxidative force.

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