Alissa Rauwerdink1, Romas J Kazlauskas1. 1. University of Minnesota, Department of Biochemistry, Molecular Biology & Biophysics and The Biotechnology Institute, Saint Paul, MN 55108 USA.
Abstract
Enzymes within a family often catalyze different reactions. In some cases, this variety stems from different catalytic machinery, but in other cases the machinery is identical; nevertheless, the enzymes catalyze different reactions. In this review, we examine the subset of α/β-hydrolase fold enzymes that contain the serine-histidine-aspartate catalytic triad. In spite of having the same protein fold and the same core catalytic machinery, these enzymes catalyze seventeen different reaction mechanisms. The most common reactions are hydrolysis of C-O, C-N and C-C bonds (Enzyme Classification (EC) group 3), but other enzymes are oxidoreductases (EC group 1), acyl transferases (EC group 2), lyases (EC group 4) or isomerases (EC group 5). Hydrolysis reactions often follow the canonical esterase mechanism, but eight variations occur where either the formation or cleavage of the acyl enzyme intermediate differs. The remaining eight mechanisms are lyase-type elimination reactions, which do not have an acyl enzyme intermediate and, in four cases, do not even require the catalytic serine. This diversity of mechanisms from the same catalytic triad stems from the ability of the enzymes to bind different substrates, from the requirements for different chemical steps imposed by these new substrates and, only in about half of the cases, from additional hydrogen bond partners or additional general acids/bases in the active site. This detailed analysis shows that binding differences and non-catalytic residues create new mechanisms and are essential for understanding and designing efficient enzymes.
Enzymes within a family often catalyze different reactions. In some cases, this variety stems from different catalytic machinery, but in other cases the machinery is identical; nevertheless, the enzymes catalyze different reactions. In tn class="Chemical">his review, we examine the subset of α/β-hydrolase fold enzymes that contain the serine-histidine-aspartate catalytic triad. In spite of having the same protein fold and the same core catalytic machinery, these enzymes catalyze seventeen different reaction mechanisms. The most common reactions are hydrolysis of C-O, C-N and C-C bonds (Enzyme Classification (EC) group 3), but other enzymes are oxidoreductases (EC group 1), acyl transferases (EC group 2), lyases (EC group 4) or isomerases (EC group 5). Hydrolysis reactions often follow the canonical esterase mechanism, but eight variations occur where either the formation or cleavage of the acyl enzyme intermediate differs. The remaining eight mechanisms are lyase-type elimination reactions, which do not have an acyl enzyme intermediate and, in four cases, do not even require the catalytic serine. This diversity of mechanisms from the same catalytic triad stems from the ability of the enzymes to bind different substrates, from the requirements for different chemical steps imposed by these new substrates and, only in about half of the cases, from additional hydrogen bond partners or additional general acids/bases in the active site. This detailed analysis shows that binding differences and non-catalytic residues create new mechanisms and are essential for understanding and designing efficient enzymes.
Authors: Peter Goettig; Hans Brandstetter; Michael Groll; Walter Göhring; Peter V Konarev; Dmitri I Svergun; Robert Huber; Jeong-Sun Kim Journal: J Biol Chem Date: 2005-07-01 Impact factor: 5.157
Authors: Antonio C Ruzzini; Shiva Bhowmik; Subhangi Ghosh; Katherine C Yam; Jeffrey T Bolin; Lindsay D Eltis Journal: Biochemistry Date: 2013-10-09 Impact factor: 3.162
Authors: Vy T Duong; Megha H Unhelkar; John E Kelly; Suhn H Kim; Carter T Butts; Rachel W Martin Journal: Integr Biol (Camb) Date: 2018-12-19 Impact factor: 2.192
Authors: Alex White; Andrew Koelper; Arielle Russell; Erik M Larsen; Charles Kim; Luke D Lavis; Geoffrey C Hoops; R Jeremy Johnson Journal: J Biol Chem Date: 2018-07-13 Impact factor: 5.157
Authors: Polytimi S Dimitriou; Alexander I Denesyuk; Toru Nakayama; Mark S Johnson; Konstantin Denessiouk Journal: Protein Sci Date: 2018-11-12 Impact factor: 6.725
Authors: Van Dung Pham; Tuan Anh To; Cynthia Gagné-Thivierge; Manon Couture; Patrick Lagüe; Deqiang Yao; Marie-Ève Picard; Louis-André Lortie; Sabrina A Attéré; Xiaojun Zhu; Roger C Levesque; Steve J Charette; Rong Shi Journal: J Biol Chem Date: 2020-05-05 Impact factor: 5.157
Authors: Man-Cheng Tang; Curt R Fischer; Jason V Chari; Dan Tan; Sundari Suresh; Angela Chu; Molly Miranda; Justin Smith; Zhuan Zhang; Neil K Garg; Robert P St Onge; Yi Tang Journal: J Am Chem Soc Date: 2019-05-10 Impact factor: 15.419
Authors: Maurice Diwo; Wiebke Michel; Philipp Aurass; Katja Kuhle-Keindorf; Jan Pippel; Joern Krausze; Sabrina Wamp; Christina Lang; Wulf Blankenfeldt; Antje Flieger Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2021-06-08 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Rebecca N Re; Johanna C Proessdorf; James J La Clair; Maeva Subileau; Michael D Burkart Journal: Org Biomol Chem Date: 2019-11-06 Impact factor: 3.876
Authors: De-Wei Gao; Cooper S Jamieson; Gaoqian Wang; Yan Yan; Jiahai Zhou; K N Houk; Yi Tang Journal: J Am Chem Soc Date: 2020-12-22 Impact factor: 15.419