4.6 Article

Purification and characterization of carbonic anhydrase from the teleost fish Dicentrarchus labrax (European seabass) liver and toxicological effects of metals on enzyme activity

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.etap.2011.03.013

关键词

Carbonic anhydrase; European seabass; Liver; Inhibition; Metal ions; Acid base regulation

资金

  1. Thrkish Republic Prime Ministry State Planning Organization (Turkiye Cumhuriyeti Basbakanlik Devlet Planlama Teskilati) [2010K120440]
  2. Agri Ibrahim Cecen University Scientific Research Council

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Carbonic anhydrase (EC 4.2.1.1; CA) was purified and characterized from the liver of the teleost fish Dicentrarchus labrax (European seabass) for the first time. The purification procedure consisted of a single step affinity chromatography on Sepharose 4B-tyrosine-sulfanilamide. The enzyme was purified 78.8-fold with a yield of 46%, and a specific activity of 751.72 U/mg proteins. It has an optimum pH at 7.5; an optimum temperature at 25 C; an optimum ionic strength at 10 mM and a stable pH at 8.5. The kinetic parameters of this enzyme were determined for its esterase activity, with 4-nitrophenyl acetate (NPA) as substrate and the purified enzyme had an apparent Km and V-max values of 0.44 mM and 0.249 mu mol x min(-1), respectively. The following metals, Al+3, Cu+2, Pb+2, Co+3, Ag+1, Zn+2 and Hg+2 showed inhibitory effects on the enzyme. Al+3 and Cu+2 exhibited the strongest inhibitory action. Pb+2 was moderate inhibitor, whereas other metals showed weaker actions. All tested metals inhibited the enzyme in a competitive manner. Our findings indicate that these metals inhibit the fish enzyme in a similar manner to other alpha-CAs from mammals investigated earlier, but the susceptibility to various metals differ between the fish and mammalian enzymes. Our results also demonstrate that these metals might be dangerous at low micromolar concentrations for fish CA enzymes. (C) 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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

4.6
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