4.6 Article

The Structure of a Streptomyces avermitilis α-L-Rhamnosidase Reveals a Novel Carbohydrate-binding Module CBM67 within the Six-domain Arrangement

期刊

JOURNAL OF BIOLOGICAL CHEMISTRY
卷 288, 期 17, 页码 12376-12385

出版社

AMER SOC BIOCHEMISTRY MOLECULAR BIOLOGY INC
DOI: 10.1074/jbc.M113.460097

关键词

-

资金

  1. JSPS KAKENHI [22580110]
  2. Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council [BB/G016224/1] Funding Source: researchfish
  3. BBSRC [BB/G016224/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  4. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [22580110] Funding Source: KAKEN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

alpha-L-Rhamnosidases hydrolyze alpha-linked L-rhamnosides from oligosaccharides or polysaccharides. We determined the crystal structure of the glycoside hydrolase family 78 Streptomyces avermitilis alpha-L-rhamnosidase (SaRha78A) in its free and L-rhamnose complexed forms, which revealed the presence of six domains N, D, E, F, A, and C. In the ligand complex, L-rhamnose was bound in the proposed active site of the catalytic module, revealing the likely catalytic mechanism of SaRha78A. Glu(636) is predicted to donate protons to the glycosidic oxygen, and Glu(895) is the likely catalytic general base, activating the nucleophilic water, indicating that the enzyme operates through an inverting mechanism. Replacement of Glu(636) and Glu(895) resulted in significant loss of alpha-rhamnosidase activity. Domain D also bound L-rhamnose in a calcium-dependent manner, with a K-D of 135 mu M. Domain D is thus a non-catalytic carbohydrate binding module (designated SaCBM67). Mutagenesis and structural data identified the amino acids in SaCBM67 that target the features of L-rhamnose that distinguishes it from the other major sugars present in plant cell walls. Inactivation of SaCBM67 caused a substantial reduction in the activity of SaRha78A against the polysaccharide composite gum arabic, but not against aryl rhamnosides, indicating that SaCBM67 contributes to enzyme function against insoluble substrates.

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