| Literature DB >> 27003449 |
Timo Stressler1, Jacob Ewert1, Michael Merz1, Joshua Funk2, Wolfgang Claaßen1, Sabine Lutz-Wahl1, Herbert Schmidt2, Andreas Kuhn3, Lutz Fischer1.
Abstract
Lactic acid bacteria (LAB) are auxotrophic for a number of amino acids. Thus, LAB have one of the strongest proteolytic systems to acquit their amino acid requirements. One of the intracellular exopeptidases present in LAB is the glutamyl (aspartyl) specific aminopeptidase (PepA; EC 3.4.11.7). Most of the PepA enzymes characterized yet, belonged to Lactococcus lactis sp., but no PepA from a Lactobacillus sp. has been characterized so far. In this study, we cloned a putative pepA gene from Lb. delbrueckii ssp. lactis DSM 20072 and characterized it after purification. For comparison, we also cloned, purified and characterized PepA from Lc. lactis ssp. lactis DSM 20481. Due to the low homology between both enzymes (30%), differences between the biochemical characteristics were very likely. This was confirmed, for example, by the more acidic optimum pH value of 6.0 for Lb-PepA compared to pH 8.0 for Lc-PepA. In addition, although the optimum temperature is quite similar for both enzymes (Lb-PepA: 60°C; Lc-PepA: 65°C), the temperature stability after three days, 20°C below the optimum temperature, was higher for Lb-PepA (60% residual activity) than for Lc-PepA (2% residual activity). EDTA inhibited both enzymes and the strongest activation was found for CoCl2, indicating that both enzymes are metallopeptidases. In contrast to Lc-PepA, disulfide bond-reducing agents such as dithiothreitol did not inhibit Lb-PepA. Finally, Lb-PepA was not product-inhibited by L-Glu, whereas Lc-PepA showed an inhibition.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27003449 PMCID: PMC4803204 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0152139
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Fig 1Course of the bioreactor cultivation (working volume: 600 mL) of recombinant Cultivations began at 37°C and shifted to 30°C with simultaneous induction using IPTG (see arrow). The means ± standard deviation of three independent measurements are presented.
Fig 2SDS-PAGE before (lane 1 and 3) and after (lane 2 and 4) Ni2+ affinity purification of Lb-PepA (lane 1 and 2) and Lc-PepA (lane 3 and 4).
The molecular mass marker is presented in lane M.
Fig 3Determination of the optimum temperature (A and B), the optimum pH (C and D) and the temperature stability (E and F) of . The means ± standard deviation of three independent measurements are presented.
Fig 4Determination of the influence of different metal salts on the activity of The means ± standard deviation of three independent measurements are presented.
Effect of various solvents, inhibitors and other reagents on the PepA activity.
| Substance | Concentration | Relative activity | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Acetone | 4.2 | 78.5 | 62.8 | |
| Ethanol | 4.2 | 83.7 | 74.3 | |
| DMSO | 4.2 | 84.9 | 86.1 | |
| DMF | 4.2 | 21.9 | 15.1 | |
| Imidazol | 40 | 66.2 | 79.0 | |
| SDS2 | 0.1 | 88.8 | 73.4 | |
| 1.0 | 27.1 | 37.1 | ||
| 10 | 0.01 | 2.79 | ||
| DTT | 0.001 | 104 | 30.8 | |
| 0.01 | 94.5 | 13.0 | ||
| 0.1 | 88.3 | 3.65 | ||
| 0.01 | 98.7 | 74.4 | ||
| 0.1 | 99.4 | 41.8 | ||
| 1.0 | 96.3 | 3.99 | ||
| EDTA | 0.1 | 100 | 64.4 | |
| 1.0 | 0 | 0 | ||
| 1,10-phenanthroline | 0.1 | 91.9 | 96.1 | |
| 1.0 | 78.9 | 0.49 | ||
| 10 | 0 | 0 | ||
| PMSF | 0.1 | 90.4 | 91.8 | |
| 1.0 | 90.7 | 87.6 | ||
| 10 | 65.1 | 68.2 | ||
| Pepstatin A | 0.001 | 99.1 | 93.9 | |
| 0.01 | 98.1 | 92.4 | ||
| 0.1 | 99.1 | 91.7 | ||
| E64 | 0.001 | 104 | 90.3 | |
| 0.01 | 104 | 90.0 | ||
| 0.1 | 103 | 88.1 | ||
1The value of 100% was determined in the presence of the corresponding solvent without the additional substance.
The substances were dissolved in
2H2Odd
3Acetone
4Ethanol
5DMSO.
Presented are the means of three independent measurements and the standard deviation was < 5%.
Relative PepA activity, in the presence of potential product inhibitors.
| Substrate | Product inhibitor | c(Product inhibitor) [mM] | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.1 | no inhibition | no inhibition | ||
| 1.0 | no inhibition | no inhibition | ||
| 10 | 60.5 | 78.2 | ||
| 0.1 | no inhibition | 91.6 | ||
| 1.0 | no inhibition | 89.3 | ||
| 10 | no inhibition | 82.3 | ||
| 0.1 | no inhibition | no inhibition | ||
| 1.0 | no inhibition | no inhibition | ||
| 10 | 66.2 | 76.0 | ||
| 0.1 | no inhibition | 85.3 | ||
| 1.0 | no inhibition | 71.8 | ||
| 10 | no inhibition | 68.6 |
1 Lb-PepA (100%) = 88.1 nkatH-Asp-pNA mL-1 or 1.96 nkatH-Glu-pNA mL-1.
2 Lc-PepA (100%) = 919 nkatH-Asp-pNA mL-1 or 409 nkatH-Glu-pNA mL-1.
Presented are the means of three independent measurements and the standard deviation was < 5%.
Fig 5Determination of kinetic parameters of The Michaelis-Menten plots are displayed and the results presented are the means ± standard deviation of three independent measurements. The calculation of the kinetic parameters were performed by nonlinear regression fitting using SigmaPlot 12.5 (Systat Software, Inc., San Jose, CA).
Apparent kinetic parameters of Lb-PepA and Lc-PepA using H-Asp-pNA or H-Glu-pNA as a substrate.
The calculation of the kinetic parameters were performed by nonlinear regression fitting using SigmaPlot 12.5 (Systat Software, Inc., San Jose, CA).
| H-Asp- | H-Glu- | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 318 | 1.21 | 6.66 | 154 | 25.2 | n.a. | |
| 324 | 0.34 | 41.9 | 154 | 0.19 | 3.61 | |
n.a: not applicable.
Presented are the means of three independent measurements and the standard deviation was < 5%.
Apparent kinetic parameters of reactivated apo-Lb-PepA using H-Asp-pNA or H-Glu-pNA as a substrate.
The calculation of the kinetic parameters were performed by nonlinear regression fitting using SigmaPlot 12.5 (Systat Software, Inc., San Jose, CA).
| H-Asp- | H-Glu- | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Metal ion | ||||||
| 198 | 1.14 | 5.69 | 79.8 | 23.1 | n.a. | |
| 0.89 | 0.52 | 4.93 | not evaluable due to low activity | |||
| 1.98 | 0.62 | 5.17 | 2.96 | 19.5 | n.a. | |
n.a: not applicable.
Presented are the means of three independent measurements and the standard deviation was < 5%.
Comparision of the pepA gene and PepA protein from different microorganisms.
| Q48677 | F2HIS5 | F0HXE4 | Q8DNJ7 | |
| 1068 | 1068 | 1086 | 1065 | |
| 355/38.32 | 355/38.34 | 361/40.03 | 354/38.02 | |
| 100 | 85 | 26 | 38 | |
| 100 | 94 | 30 | 60 | |
| 213 | 213 | 215 | 213 | |
| 258 | 258 | 258 | 257 | |
| His | 65 | 65 | 67 | 66 |
| Asp | 181 | 181 | 181 | 181 |
| Glu | 214 | 214 | 216 | 214 |
| Asp | 236 | 236 | 232 | 236 |
| His | 319 | 319 | 324 | 318 |
1 The pepA gene/PepA protein from Lc. lactis ssp. cremoris MG1363 was used as a reference.
2 The pepA gene is identical to the pepA gene from Lc. lactis ssp. lactis DSM 20481 used in this study.
3 Automated UniRule annotation.
4 Experimental evidence [22].
5 By similarity.
Summary of selected characteristics of PepA from different microorganisms.
| PepA source | Optimum Temp. [°C] | Optimum pH [–] | Inhibitors | Product inhibition | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 60 | 6.0 | 1,10-phenantroline, EDTA | L-Asp (10 mM) | Current study | |
| 65 | 8.0 | 1,10-phenantroline, EDTA; DTT, | L-Asp (10 mM), L-Glu (0.1 mM) | Current study | |
| 50–55 | n.d. | 1,10-phenantroline, EDTA; DTT | n.d. | [ | |
| n.d. | 8.3 | 1,10-phenantroline, EDTA | n.d. | [ | |
| 65 | 8.0 | EDTA | n.d. | [ |
n.d.: not determined.