4.7 Article

How is the reactivity of laccase affected by single-point mutations? Engineering laccase for improved activity towards sterically demanding substrates

期刊

APPLIED MICROBIOLOGY AND BIOTECHNOLOGY
卷 91, 期 1, 页码 123-131

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00253-011-3240-4

关键词

Laccase; Site-directed mutagenesis; Steric hindrance; Active site; Oxidation reactivity

资金

  1. Italian MIUR
  2. University of Roma 'La Sapienza'

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In spite of its broad specificity among phenols, Trametes versicolor laccase hardly succeeds in oxidizing hindered substrates. To improve the oxidation ability of this laccase towards bulky phenolic substrates, we designed a series of single-point mutants on the basis of the amino-acid layout inside the reducing substrate active site known from the crystal structure of the enzyme. Site-directed mutagenesis has addressed four phenylalanine residues in key positions 162, 265, 332, and 337 at the entrance of the binding pocket, as these residues appeared instrumental for docking of the substrate. These phenylalanines were replaced by smaller-sized but still apolar alanines. A double mutant F162A/F332A was also designed. Measurement of the oxidation efficiency towards encumbered phenols has shown that mutant F162A was more efficient than the wild-type laccase. The double mutant F162A/F332A led to 98% consumption of bisphenol A in only 5 h and was more efficient than the single mutants in the aerobic oxidation of this bulky substrate. In contrast, lack of appropriate hydrophobic interactions with the substrate possibly depresses the oxidation outcome with mutants F265A and F332A. One explanation for the lack of reactivity of mutant F337A, supported by literature reports, is that this residue is part of the second coordination shell of T1 Cu. A mutation at this position thus leads to a drastic coordination shell destabilization. Thermal stability of the mutants and their resistance in a mixed water-dioxane solvent have also been investigated.

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

4.7
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