| Literature DB >> 24352732 |
Michael Toesch1, Markus Schober, Kurt Faber.
Abstract
This review gives an overview on the occurrence of sulfatases in Prokaryota, Eukaryota and Archaea. The mechanism of enzymes acting with retention or inversion of configuration during sulfate ester hydrolysis is discussed taking two complementary examples. Methods for the discovery of novel alkyl sulfatases are described by way of sequence-based search and enzyme induction. A comprehensive list of organisms with their respective substrate scope regarding prim- and sec-alkyl sulfate esters allows to assess the capabilities and limitations of various biocatalysts employed as whole cell systems or as purified enzymes with respect to their activities and enantioselectivities. Methods for immobilization and selectivity enhancement by addition of metal ions or organic (co)solvents are summarised.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2013 PMID: 24352732 PMCID: PMC3920027 DOI: 10.1007/s00253-013-5438-0
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Appl Microbiol Biotechnol ISSN: 0175-7598 Impact factor: 4.813
Scheme 1Stereochemical consequences of catalysis by retaining and inverting hydrolases, i.e., dehalogenases, epoxide hydrolases, glycosidases and sulfatases
Fig. 1Catalytic residues and their mode of action for the retaining sulfatase PAS from Pseudomonas aeruginosa (PDB 1HDH, top left) and the inverting sulfatase Pisa1 from P. sp. DSM 6611 (PDB 4AXH, top right). Preferred enantiomers of the substrate 2-octyl sulfate (green) were docked into the active site using Schrödinger Maestro (Schrödinger Maestro Software Suite 2013) The flow of electrons implying nucleophilic attack is indicated by red arrows, and the S–O/C–O bonds being broken are marked by scissor symbols. The schematic mechanism is given below. Some amino acid residues were omitted for clarity. Pictures were generated using Pymol (Pymol Software 2013)
Scheme 2Partial sequence alignment of SUMF1 gene derived proteins. PJDR2, Paenibacillus sp. JDR-2 (YP_003009726); CM, Cupriavidus metallidurans (YP_586663); AC, Acinetobacter calcoaceticus (YP_004994666); RS, putative FGE-protein from Ralstonia solanacearum RFBP2957 (YP_003747422); human (NP_877437); mouse (NP_666049); sea urchin (XP_782973). Sequence alignment was done with clustal omega (Sievers et al. 2011). Numbers in brackets indicate the aligned amino acid residues. Letters highlighted in bold display the conserved sequence across Eukaryota and Prokaryota
Classification of sulfate esters employed as test substrates for the screening of whole microbial cells and/or purified enzymes for sulfatase activity
| Substrate | Type |
| ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A | B | C | D | E | ||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| 1 | H |
| CH3 |
| CH=CH2 |
| CH3 | C≡C–C2H5 | CH3 | 3,5-(CF3)2C6H3 |
| 2 | H |
| CH3 |
| CH=CH2 |
| CH3 | CH2–C≡C–CH3 | CH3 |
|
| 3 | H |
| CH3 |
| CH=CH2 |
| CH3 | C≡C–Ph | CH3 |
|
| 4 | H |
| CH3 |
| CH=CH2 |
| C2H5 | C≡C–CH3 | ||
| 5 | H |
| CH3 |
| CH3 | (CH2)2CH=C(CH3)2 | C2H5 | C≡C–C2H5 | ||
| 6 | H |
| CH3 |
| CH3 | CH2–CH=CH2 | C≡CH |
| ||
| 7 | H |
| CH3 |
| CH3 | (CH2)2CH=CH2 | C≡CH | CH2–CH(CH2)3 | ||
| 8 | H |
| CH3 |
| C≡CH |
| ||||
| 9 | H |
| CH3 |
| C≡CH |
| ||||
| 10 | H |
| C2H5 | C2H5 | ||||||
| 11 | H |
| C2H5 |
| ||||||
| 12 | SLES | C2H5 |
| |||||||
| 13 | 2-BOS |
|
| |||||||
| 14 |
|
| ||||||||
| 15 |
|
| ||||||||
| 16 |
|
| ||||||||
| 17 | CH3 | c-C6H11 | ||||||||
| 18 | CH3 | Ph | ||||||||
| 19 | CH3 | CH2-Ph | ||||||||
| 20 | CH3 | (CH2)2-Ph | ||||||||
SLES sodium lauryl ether sulfate (Na+ n-C12H25–O–(CH2)2–O–SO3 −), 2-BOS 2-butyl-1-octyl sulfate
Substrate scope, activities and enantioselectivities for sulfatase-activities of whole cell preparations
| Organism | Substrate type | Conversion (%)a |
| Refs. |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Prokaryota | ||||
| Proteobacteria | ||||
|
| A 4,5,6,8,9,10,11,12 | n.d. | n.a. | (Gadler and Faber |
| B 3,4,5,12,14 | <5–10 | 4–13 | ||
| C 5 | 5–10 | 1 | ||
|
| B 3,4,5,12,14 | <5–10 | 4– > 200 | (Gadler and Faber |
|
| B 3,4,5,9,14,18,20 C 5 | 5–21 | 6– > 200 | (Gadler and Faber |
|
| A 9 | n.d. | n.a. | (Yeldho et al. |
|
| A 9 | n.d. | n.a. | (Ellis et al. |
|
| A 13 | n.d. | n.a. | (Ellis et al. |
|
| A 9 | n.d. | n.a. | (Jovcic et al. |
|
| A 9 | n.d. | n.a. | (Shukor et al. |
|
| B 4 | 5–10 | 16 | (Gadler and Faber |
|
| A 9,12 | n.d. | n.a. | (Dhouib et al. |
|
| B 4 | >10 | 2 | (Gadler and Faber |
|
| B 4 | <5 | 4 | (Gadler and Faber |
|
| B 3,4,12,14 | <5–10 | 1–3 | (Gadler et al. |
| C 5 | 5–10 | 2– > 200d | ||
|
| B 4 | >10 | 1 | (Gadler and Faber |
|
| B 4 | 5–10 | 21 | (Gadler and Faber |
|
| B 4 | >10 | 2 | (Gadler and Faber |
|
| B 4 | <5 | 2 | (Gadler and Faber |
|
| B 4 | <5 | 2 | (Gadler and Faber |
|
| B 4 | <5 | 7 | (Gadler and Faber |
|
| B 4 | <5 | 2 | (Gadler and Faber |
| Actinobacteria | ||||
|
| A 5,8 | <5 | n.a. | (Gadler and Faber |
| B 3,4,5,6,7,12,14,15,19 C 2 | 4–68 | 1–21 | (Pogorevc and Faber | |
|
| B 4 | >10 | 5 | (Gadler and Faber |
|
| B 4 | >10 | (Gadler and Faber | |
| Planctomycetes | ||||
|
| A 5 | 26 | n.a. | (Wallner et al. |
| B 3,4,5,12,14 C 2,5 | <5–18 | 2– > 200 | ||
| Cyanobacteria | ||||
|
| B 3,4,5,12,14 | <5–24 | 1–3 | (Gadler et al. |
| C 5 | 5–10 | 4– > 200d | ||
|
| B 3,4,5,12,14 | <5–10 | n.d./1 | (Gadler et al. |
| Firmicutes | ||||
|
| A 9 | n.d. | n.a. | (Singh et al. |
|
| B 4 | <5 | 1 | (Gadler and Faber |
| Strain combination | ||||
|
| A 9 | n.d. | n.a. | (Abboud et al. |
| Archaea | ||||
| Crenarchaeota | ||||
|
| B 3,4,5,12,14,19 | 10–43 | 5– > 200 | (Gadler and Faber |
| C 5 | 5–10 | n.d. | ||
| E 2,3 | 5–10 | 2 | ||
|
| B 4,19 | 20–56 | 2–35 | (Wallner et al. |
|
| B 4,19 | 20–43 | 2–48 | (Wallner et al. |
|
| B 4 | 5–10 | 1 | (Wallner et al. |
|
| B 4 | 5–10 | 1 | (Wallner et al. |
|
| B 4 | 5–10 | 1 | (Wallner et al. |
|
| B 4 | 25 | 1 | (Wallner et al. |
|
| B 4 | 13 | 1 | (Wallner et al. |
|
| B 4 | 5–10 | 1 | (Wallner et al. |
|
| B 4 | 11 | 1 | (Wallner et al. |
n.a. not applicable, n.d. not determined
aIn kinetic resolutions showing high enantioselectivity, the maximum conversion is 50 %
bEnantioselectivity is expressed as the ratio of the reaction rate of enantiomers ('enantiomeric ratio', E) (Straathof and Jongejan 1997)
cUnpublished results
dImproved E values in presence of organic cosolvents
eCrude enzyme preparation
Substrate scope, activities and enantioselectivities for purified sulfatases
| Kingdom | Substrate type | Conversiona (%) |
| References |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Prokaryota | ||||
| Pisa1 | A 5 | n.d. | n.a. | (Schober et al. |
| B 1,2,4,6,11,12,14,18 | 5–57 | 10– > 200 | ||
| C 1,2,3,4,5,6,7 | 5–50 | 17– > 200c | ||
| D 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9 | 5–57 | 8– > 200 | ||
| E 1 | 49 | >200 | ||
| PAS | D 3,4,5,7,8,9 | 46–65 | 2– > 200 | (Schober et al. |
| E 1 | 30 | >200 | ||
| SdsA1 | A 3,5,7,9 | n.d. | n.a. | (Knaus et al. |
| B 4d | n.d. | n.d. | ||
| SdsAP | A 9 | n.d. | n.a. | (Long et al. |
|
| B 4 | n.d. | n.d. | (Gadler and Faber |
|
| B 3,4,5,6,8,9 | n.d. | n.d. | (Gadler and Faber |
|
| B 4 | n.d. | 21– > 200e | (Gadler and Faber |
|
| B 3,4,6 | n.d. | n.d. | (Gadler and Faber |
|
| B 4 | n.d. | n.d. | (Gadler and Faber |
|
| B 4,10,13,16 | n.d. | n.d. | (Gadler and Faber |
|
| A 1,2,3,4,5 | n.d. | n.a. | (Matts et al. |
|
| A 6 | n.d. | n.a. | (Schober |
| Eukaryota | ||||
|
| A 6 | n.d. | n.a. | (Schober |
| D 9 | n.d. | n.d. | ||
n.a. not applicable, n.d. not determined
aIn kinetic resolutions showing high enantioselectivity, the maximum conversion is 50 %
bEnantioselectivity is expressed as the ratio of the reaction rate of enantiomers ('enantiomeric ratio', E) (Straathof and Jongejan 1997)
cImproved E values in presence of organic cosolvents
dOnly the (R)-enantiomer of B4 was tested
eIn the presence of Fe3+
fCommercially available