4.5 Review

Saccharomyces cerevisiae beta-Carbonic Anhydrase: Inhibition and Activation Studies

期刊

CURRENT PHARMACEUTICAL DESIGN
卷 16, 期 29, 页码 3327-3336

出版社

BENTHAM SCIENCE PUBL LTD
DOI: 10.2174/138161210793429878

关键词

Carbonic anhydrase; beta-class enzyme; Saccharomyces cerevisiae; yeast; sulfonamide; sulfamate; anion inhibitor; amino acid; amine; activator

资金

  1. European Union

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The beta-carbonic anhydrase from Saccharomyces cerevisiae (CA, EC 4.2.1.1), scCA, which is encoded by the Nce103 gene, is an effective catalyst for CO2 hydration to bicarbonate and protons, with a k(cat) of 9.4 x 10(5) s(-1), and k(cat)/K-M of 9.8 x 10(7) M-1.s(-1). Its inhibition with anions and sulfonamides has been investigated, as well as its activation with amines and amino acids. Bromide, iodide and sulfamide, were the best anion inhibitors, with K(I)s of 8.7 - 10.8 mu M. Benzenesulfonamides substituted in 2-, 4- and 3,4-positions with amino, alkyl, halogeno and hydroxyalkyl moieties had K(I)s in the range of 0.976 - 18.45 mu M. Better inhibition (K(I)s in the range of 154 654 nM) was observed for benzenesulfonamides incorporating aminoalkyl/carboxyalkyl moieties or halogenosulfanilamides; benzene-1,3-disulfonamides; simple heterocyclic sulfonamides and sulfanilyl-sulfonamides. The clinically used sulfonamides/sulfamate (acetazolamide, ethoxzolamide, methazolamide, dorzolamide, topiramate, celecoxib, etc.) generally showed effective scCA inhibitory activity, with K(I)s in the range of 82.6 - 133 nM. The best inhibitor (K-I of 15.1 nM) was 4-(2-amino-pyrimidin-4-yl)-benzenesulfonamide. L-adrenaline and some piperazines incorporating aminoethyl moieties were the most effective scCA activators. These studies may lead to a better understanding of the role of this enzyme in yeasts/fungi, and since the Nce103 gene is also present in many pathogenic organisms (Candida spp., Cryptococcus neoformans, etc) they may be useful to develop antifungal drugs.

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