Challenges and Advances in Validating Enzyme Design Proposals: The Case of Kemp Eliminase Catalysis

Department of Chemistry, 418 SGM Building, University of Southern California, 3620 McClintock Avenue, Los Angeles, California 90089-1062, USA.
Biochemistry (Impact Factor: 3.02). 03/2011; 50(18):3849-58. DOI: 10.1021/bi200063a
Source: PubMed


One of the fundamental challenges in biotechnology and biochemistry is the ability to design effective enzymes. Despite recent progress, most of the advances on this front have been made by placing the reacting fragments in the proper places, rather than by optimizing the preorganization of the environment, which is the key factor in enzyme catalysis. Thus, rational improvement of the preorganization would require approaches capable of evaluating reliably the actual catalytic effect. This work considers the catalytic effects in different Kemp eliminases as a benchmark for a computer-aided enzyme design. It is shown that the empirical valence bond provides a powerful screening tool, with significant advantages over current alternative strategies. The insights provided by the empirical valence bond calculations are discussed with an emphasis on the ability to analyze the difference between the linear free energy relationships obtained in solution and those found in the enzymes. We also point out the trade-off between the reliability and speed of the calculations and try to determine what it takes to realize reliable computer-aided screening.


Available from: Maria P Frushicheva, Jul 02, 2014
  • Source
    • "To illustrate the power of the EVB approach in protein redesign, we refer the reader to detailed EVB studies [36,37] of catalysis of the Kemp elimination shown in Figure 1. The first issue that we would like to highlight here again is the aforementioned one of precision. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Enzymes are tremendously proficient catalysts, which can be used as extracellular catalysts for a whole host of processes, from chemical synthesis to the generation of novel biofuels. For them to be more amenable to the needs of biotechnology, however, it is often necessary to be able to manipulate their physico-chemical properties in an efficient and streamlined manner, and, ideally, to be able to train them to catalyze completely new reactions. Recent years have seen an explosion of interest in different approaches to achieve this, both in the laboratory, and in silico. There remains, however, a gap between current approaches to computational enzyme design, which have primarily focused on the early stages of the design process, and laboratory evolution, which is an extremely powerful tool for enzyme redesign, but will always be limited by the vastness of sequence space combined with the low frequency for desirable mutations. This review discusses different approaches towards computational enzyme design and demonstrates how combining newly developed screening approaches that can rapidly predict potential mutation "hotspots" with approaches that can quantitatively and reliably dissect the catalytic step can bridge the gap that currently exists between computational enzyme design and laboratory evolution studies.
    International Journal of Molecular Sciences 12/2012; 13(10):12428-60. DOI:10.3390/ijms131012428 · 2.86 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: In the preceding article, “Perspective: Pre-chemistry conformational changes in DNA polymerase mechanisms” contributed by Schlick and coworkers as well as previous studies of these workers (Schlick et al. in Theor Chem Acc 131:1287, 2012; Radhakrishnan and Schlick in J Am Chem Soc 127:13245–13252, 2005; Radhakrishnan and Schlick in Biochem Biophys Res Commun 350:521–529, 2006; Radhakrishnan et al. in Biochemistry 45:15142–15156, 2006; Radhakrishnan and Schlick in Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 101:5970–5975, 2004) have argued that the conformational changes preceding the chemical step contribute to DNA synthesis and to the fidelity of DNA polymerases. In one of our previous investigations (Ram Prasad and Warshel in Proteins 79:2900–2919, 2011), we argued and showed that as long as the free energy barriers associated with any of the prechemistry steps are not rate limiting, they could not contribute to the catalysis and then to the fidelity. Though all our arguments are based on exact and well-defined scientific logics, Schlick and coworkers seem to overlook some of the clear conditions in these arguments and in particular the requirement that the chemical step is rate limiting in their arguments that the prechemistry barriers contribute to the catalysis. In fact, as long as the prechemistry steps are not rate limiting, we have shown that the enzymes cannot carry the memory of the previous steps. We also address other potential misunderstandings about several key issues; First, we clarify that it is misleading to relate the prechemistry proposal to the clear fact that the substrate-induced conformational changes determine the final preorganization (the issue is the height of the barrier of the enzyme substrate system and not the trivial fact that the enzyme has to change its structure when the substrate binds). Second, we address the presumed role of dynamical effects in enzyme catalysis and the assumption that any observable should be explored in studies of biological function even if they are not relevant to the given effect. Third, we clarify that the fidelity cannot be explained or quantified by invoking the induced fit or conformational selection effects but by evaluating the free energy contributions to the rate-limiting steps from the structures of the corresponding systems (that of course can reflect the induce fit structural changes). Overall, we put a major emphasis on clarifying what is the prechemistry proposal and thus on trying to force the reader to focus on the only real controversy. We of course dismiss any implication that our studies cannot explore mutational effects as we actually pioneered such computational studies and we clarify that in studies of chemical rates, the focus must be placed on evaluating the chemical barriers, rather than on irrelevant factors, but that the calculations of the chemical barriers must consider all the factors that determine this barrier (including metal ions) and also examine if needed different problematic proposals such as dynamical effects, tunneling, and prechemistry.
    Theoretical Chemistry Accounts 12/2012; 131(12). DOI:10.1007/s00214-012-1288-6 · 2.23 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The proposal that enzymatic catalysis is due to conformational fluctuations has been previously promoted by means of indirect considerations. However, recent works have focused on cases where the relevant motions have components toward distinct conformational regions, whose population could be manipulated by mutations. In particular, a recent work has claimed to provide direct experimental evidence for a dynamical contribution to catalysis in dihydrofolate reductase, where blocking a relevant conformational coordinate was related to the suppression of the motion toward the occluded conformation. The present work utilizes computer simulations to elucidate the true molecular basis for the experimentally observed effect. We start by reproducing the trend in the measured change in catalysis upon mutations (which was assumed to arise as a result of a "dynamical knockout" caused by the mutations). This analysis is performed by calculating the change in the corresponding activation barriers without the need to invoke dynamical effects. We then generate the catalytic landscape of the enzyme and demonstrate that motions in the conformational space do not help drive catalysis. We also discuss the role of flexibility and conformational dynamics in catalysis, once again demonstrating that their role is negligible and that the largest contribution to catalysis arises from electrostatic preorganization. Finally, we point out that the changes in the reaction potential surface modify the reorganization free energy (which includes entropic effects), and such changes in the surface also alter the corresponding motion. However, this motion is never the reason for catalysis, but rather simply a reflection of the shape of the reaction potential surface.
    Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 08/2011; 108(34):14115-20. DOI:10.1073/pnas.1111252108 · 9.67 Impact Factor
Show more