4.1 Article

Engineering Giardia lamblia trimethylguanosine synthase (GlaTgs2) to transfer non-natural modifications to the RNA 5′-cap

期刊

PROTEIN ENGINEERING DESIGN & SELECTION
卷 28, 期 6, 页码 179-186

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/protein/gzv011

关键词

AdoMet analog; 5'-cap; Giardia intestinalis; Giardia lamblia; trimethylguanosine synthase

资金

  1. Emmy Noether-Programme of the DFG [RE 2796/2-1]
  2. Fonds der Chemischen Industrie
  3. Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, DFG EXC 1003 Cells in Motion - Cluster of Excellence, Munster, Germany
  4. Fonds der Chemischen Industrie for a doctoral fellowship

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Trimethylguanosine synthase from Giardia lamblia (GlaTgs2) naturally catalyzes methyl transfer from S-adenosyl-L-methionine (AdoMet) to the exocyclic N-2 atom of the 5'-cap-a hallmark of eukaryotic mRNAs. The wild-type enzyme shows substrate promiscuity and can also use the AdoMet-analog AdoPropen for allyl transfer. Here we report on engineering GlaTgs2 to enhance the activity on AdoPropen. A mutational analysis, involving an alanine scan of 10 residues located around the active site, was performed. Positions V34 and S38 were identified as mutational hot spots and analyzed in greater detail by testing NNK libraries. Kinetic analysis and thermostability measurements revealed V34A as the best variant of GlaTgs2, with a similar to 10-fold improved specificity for AdoPropen. Double mutants did not yield additional improvements due to low catalytic efficiencies and thermal destabilization. Homologous Tgs enzymes from Homo sapiens and G. intestinalis were also investigated regarding their catalytic activity on AdoPropen. While neither the human wild-type (WT) enzyme nor any of its variants showed activity on AdoPropen, the homologue from G. intestinalis (GinTgs) was remarkably active on AdoPropen. Introducing the best substitution at the homologous position led to variant T34A with similar to 40-fold higher specificity for AdoPropen than the original GlaTgs2 WT.

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

4.1
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