Unambiguous identification of the products of C–C bond
cleavage was necessary, as a mechanism involving diol cleavage
would predict formation of two aldehyde fragments. The increased
turnover of threo-7,8-dihydroxytetradecanoic acid (rac 6b) re-
vealed the presence of heptanal and 7-oxoheptanoic acid in
comparable amounts at short reaction times. Both compounds,
either as synthetic standards or produced via P450 catalysed bond
scission, were converted to the corresponding acids over time
( > 70% after 24 h) under enzyme turnover conditions via aerial
oxidation, independent of NADPH. All of these results are
due to the instability of the uncomplexed enzyme.10 However, it
was clear from the estimated association constants10 that the
hydroxylated fatty acids bound significantly (at least 4 fold) more
tightly to the enzyme than the starting fatty acid, but both alcohol
and diol appeared to bind equally well. This is analogous to the
situation seen with P450scc in which the hydroxylated intermediates
were bound equally, but more tightly than cholesterol.2 This is
presumed to increase the efficiency of the reaction: the inter-
mediates are not released or displaced by the initial substrate but
continue on to product. The fact that the C7 alcohol and the 7,8-diol
both facilitate and direct subsequent oxidation reactions is clearly
reflected in the analysis of the enzymic turnovers. While the 11-
and 12-hydroxytetradecanoic acids are the major products isolated
from P450BioI catalyzed hydroxylation of 1, they are not substrates
for further oxidation.12 2 does not accumulate in enzymic
oxidations of 1, nor does 6 appear in turnover of 1 or 2. Finally, the
only alternative oxidation pathway apart from C–C bond cleavage
seen for 2 is conversion into the corresponding ketone 4.
Interestingly, this pathway was much more significant for R 2 than
S 2 ( > 10 fold, quantified by GC), which produces less pimelic acid.
This suggests that the orientation of the substrate in the active site
is determined by the stereochemistry at C7 and this in turn directs
subsequent oxidation reactions.
consistent with C–C bond cleavage via a route corresponding to
2
that seen for P450scc
.
The absolute configurations of the preferred enzymic substrates
were investigated by the synthesis and evaluation of scalemic
samples of the 7-hydroxy (2) and threo 7,8-dihydroxytetradecanoic
acids (6b). The former was available in ~ 70% ee as determined by
enantioselective HPLC (Chiracel OD), with the key step in the
syntheses being a CBS borane reduction of the appropriate
acetylenic ketone.14 The enantiomerically pure threo diols (R,R and
S,S 6b) were synthesised from chiral, non-racemic tartaric acid,
utilizing methodology developed by Seebach for differentiating
either end of the starting diacid.15 Incubation of these substrates
with a catalytically active system indicated that the S 2 and the
corresponding R,R diol were preferentially processed by P450BioI
(Fig. 2). The enantioselectivity of the enzyme was low, with less
favored R 2 and S,S 6b still being good substrates for the enzyme.
A plausible explanation for this lack of selectivity stems from the
fact that the enantiomers of 6b differ only in the location of a
carboxyl or a methyl group five methylene groups removed from
the diol moiety. In the putative natural substrate, an acyl ACP, the
carrier protein would presumably dictate the binding orientation.
However, with the free fatty acids, two binding orientations are
possible that present the same apparent stereochemistry of the diol
at the active site differing only in the location of a distal methyl or
carboxylate.
In conclusion, we have identified the pathway by which the
multifunctional, prokaryotic P450BioI catalyses the cleavage of a C–
C bond in a fatty acid (Scheme 1). By analogy we predict cleavage
of an acyl ACP, its natural substrate, will occur in the same way.
The mechanism involves the consecutive formation of an alcohol
and a vicinal diol and subsequent C–C bond cleavage. This is
analogous to that seen with P450scc and P450BioI is thus only the
second P450 identified as being capable of such bond fission, and
the first from a prokaryote.
MJC is grateful for an Australian Postgraduate Research
Award.
Accurate dissociation constants for the enzyme–substrate com-
plexes were difficult to determine spectrophotometrically, probably
Notes and references
‡ Whilst C–C bond cleavage is observed with CYP19 and CYP51 in steroid
biosynthesis, both proceed via aldehyde intermediates which are in-
accessible to P450BioI
.
1 P. R. Ortiz de Montellano and J. J. De Voss, Nat. Prod. Rep., 2002, 19,
477.
2 P. R. Ortiz de Montellano, in Cytochrome P450: Structure, Mechanism,
and Biochemistry, Second Edition, ed. P. R. Ortiz de Montellano,
Plenum, New York, 1995.
3 M. J. Cryle, J. E. Stok and J. J. De Voss, Aust. J. Chem., 2003, 56,
749.
4 H. Fukuda, T. Fujii, E. Sukita, M. Tazaki, S. Nagahama and T. Ogawa,
Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun., 1994, 201, 516.
5 T. Hakamatsuka, M. F. Hashim, Y. Ebizuka and U. Sankawa,
Tetrahedron, 1991, 47, 5969.
Scheme 1
6 J. R. Reed, D. Vanderwel, S. Choi, G. Pomonis, R. C. Reitz and G. J.
Blomquist, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 1994, 91, 10000.
7 V. Stanjek, M. Miksch, P. Lueer, U. Matern and W. Boland, Angew.
Chem., Int. Ed., 1999, 38, 400.
8 W. Yin, G. A. Doss, R. A. Stearns, A. G. Chaudhary, C. E. Hop, R. B.
Franklin and S. Kumar, Drug Metab. Dispos., 2003, 31, 215.
9 K. Umehara, S. Kudo, Y. Hirao, S. Morita, T. Ohtani, M. Uchida and G.
Miyamoto, Drug Metab. Dispos., 2000, 28, 1417.
10 J. E. Stok and J. J. De Voss, Arch. Biochem. Biophys., 2000, 384,
351.
11 S. Bower, J. B. Perkins, R. R. Yocum, C. L. Howitt, P. Rahaim and J.
Pero, J. Bacteriol., 1996, 178, 4122.
12 M. J. Cryle, N. J. Matovic and J. J. De Voss, Org. Lett., 2003, 5,
3341.
13 A. J. Green, S. L. Rivers, M. Cheesman, G. A. Reid, L. G. Quaroni, I.
D. G. Macdonald, S. K. Chapman and A. W. Munro, J. Biol. Inorg.
Chem., 2001, 6, 523.
Fig. 2 Pimelic acid production by P450BioI from scalemic substrates
(substrate concentration = 1 mM).
14 K. A. Parker and M. W. Ledeboer, J. Org. Chem., 1996, 61, 3214.
15 E. Hungerbuehler and D. Seebach, Helv. Chim. Acta, 1981, 64, 687.
C h e m . C o m m u n . , 2 0 0 4 , 8 6 – 8 7
87