Quick navigation: Home   |    Site Map   ||    References   |    Biography   ||    Copyright   |    Other copyright   |    Contact us   |    Advert   |   
 

[ccp4bb] Activity of a mutant enzyme compared to wild type - puzzle

- Protein crystallography

Main steps:

   - Protein purification
   - Crystallisation

Special:

   - Programs for crystallography
   - X-ray detectors

Basic tutorials:

   - Chemistry
   - Protein
   - Peptide
   - Amino Acids

Xtal community:

   - CCP4BB

CCP4bb navigation

CCP4bb <-- 1999 <-- November 1999 <-- 30 November 1999
Previous message:
Subject: Re: topology diagram
From: Dhirendra K Simanshu simanshu {- at -} GMAIL {- dot -} COM
Date: 2008-06-11
Next message:
Subject: birefringent spacegroups
From: Jacob Keller j-keller2 {- at -} MD {- dot -} NORTHWESTERN {- dot -} EDU
Date: 2008-06-12


Subject: Activity of a mutant enzyme compared to wild type - puzzle
From: Narayanan Ramasubbu ramasun1 {- at -} UMDNJ {- dot -} EDU
Date: 2008-06-12

Dear all:
I have a single residue mutant whose enzyme activity is about 50% of the
wild type. Interestingly, the mutation
is in a region that involves a secondary site but not the active site.
The two structures with or without ligands
fit well (0.18 A) and the metal binding and cofactor binding sites are
all preserved in the mutant. The one difference
noticed is that the ligand does not fill the active site (partially
occupied subsites) unlike the wild type where all the
subsites are occupied. Water structure around the actives site residues
are "identical".

I looked at the electrostatics and both surfaces look similar (not an
expert).

There are some residues whose sides chains show some positional disorder
and these residues are at the edges of the
active site.

The resolution of the both data sets are 1.5A.
The mutant enzyme was derived by MR.

One another possibility that I want to look at is to compare the
compactness of the two enzyme structures.
What is the best way to compare that? I am wondering whether the
"breathing" that was mentioned for some enzymes
might be playing a role in the mutant enzyme.

Also, I would appreciate comments on other possible explanations for
this unusual (?) behavior.


Thanks a lot

Subbu

CCP4bb navigation

CCP4bb <-- 1999 <-- November 1999 <-- 30 November 1999
Previous message:
Subject: Re: topology diagram
From: Dhirendra K Simanshu simanshu {- at -} GMAIL {- dot -} COM
Date: 2008-06-11
Next message:
Subject: birefringent spacegroups
From: Jacob Keller j-keller2 {- at -} MD {- dot -} NORTHWESTERN {- dot -} EDU
Date: 2008-06-12



ProteinCrystallography.org: Copyright 2006-2010 by Quid United Ltd