Steinmann et al.
JOCNote
TABLE 1. Rate Constants for Exchange Reactions of Selenols and
Thiols with Disulfides, Selenylsulfides, Diselenides and Hydrogen
Peroxide at pH 7
in an active site must be deprotonated under physiological
2
8,29
conditions to act as a nucleophile,
and thus, only the
smaller difference in nucleophilicity of ca. 1-2 orders of
magnitude is expected for Sec versus Cys in enzymes with
similar functions. In GPx, nucleophilic attack of the thiolate/
selenolate on the peroxide substrate is the rate-limiting step:
indeed, for the Sec-containing pig heart enzyme GPx-4, the
rate constant for the attack at phosphatidylcholine hydroper-
-
1 -1
reaction
rate constant (M
s )
a
Nu
b
c
El
LG
Cya/SeCyaox
Cys/Secox
5
7
5
7
RSH RSe-SeR RShe
RShe RSe-SR RSh
k
k
k
k
k
k
k
k
1
(1.3 ( 0.2) ꢀ 10
-1 (2.6 ( 0.2) ꢀ 10
(1.0 ( 0.2) ꢀ 10
(2.6 ( 0.2) ꢀ 10
7 ( 2
RSH RS-SeR RRShe
2
11 ( 3
3
3
7
-1 -1
6
-1 -1 30,31
RShe RS-SR
RSH RS-SR
RSh
RSh
-2 (1.4 ( 0.3) ꢀ 10
(1.8 ( 0.4) ꢀ 10
oxide is 1 ꢀ 10 M
s
, compared to 1.3 ꢀ 10 M
s
d
4
5
6
7
3.6 ( 0.1
for the corresponding Cys-containing enzyme of Drosophila
melanogaster. Similarly, for the Sec-containing bovine cGPx,
the rate constant for attack at H O is 1 order of magnitude
7
e
RShe RSe-SeR RShe
RSH HO-OH HOh
RShe HO-OH HOh
a
(1.7 ( 0.2) ꢀ 10
f
1.1 ; 2.9
g
c
1.0 ; 2.9
g
2h
9.7 ꢀ 10
2 2
higher than that of the Cys-containing human peroxiredoxin
Although comparisons of enzymes from different org-
Nucleophile, RSH stands for the equilibrium mixture RSH and RSh.
32,33
2.
b
c
Electrophile. Leaving group. pD = 7.43. pD < 7.6. pH = 7.4,
d
18 e
18 f
2
4 g
25 h
26
2
0 °C. pH 7.4, 37 °C. pH = 6.8, 20 °C.
anisms or that have different functions may have limited
validity, these literature values agree reasonably well with
our findings of a 10-fold rate enhancement when selenium acts
as a nucleophile.
0
23
E° (Sec /2Sec) = -383 ( 8 mV, we calculate E° (hSeCys /
0
ox
ox
Cys,Sec) = -311 ( 9 mV. Solutions containing Cys are less
sensitive to oxidation, and we were able to measure K directly
via the absorbance changes in kinetics traces attributed to
Additionally, leaving group protonation by proximate
amino acid residues may influence the rate of reaction. It is
argued that, in a hydrophobic active-site environment, de-
protonated Cys is a worse leaving group; in an environment
where protonation of the leaving group is assisted, differ-
2
0
equilibrium 2, from which we calculate E° (Cys /2Cys) -
ox
0
E° (Sec /2Sec) = -145 mV, in excellent agreement with the
ox
0
0
2
sum ΔE ° þ ΔE ° = -144 ( 9 mV. We were also able to
1
2
-1
34
determine K ([DTT][Sec ])/([DTT ][Sec] ) = 90 M by
ox
ences in reactivity between Sec and Cys may be small.
Thus, from Table 1 it is clear that the rate enhancement of
eq
ox
stopped-flow spectrophotometry, which fits with the electrode
23
0
4
selenium over sulfur as an electrophile (ca. 10 ) is 2 orders of
potential of E° (Sec /2Sec) = -383 ( 8 mV. We can derive
ox
mechanistic information regarding the relative effectiveness of
selenium versus sulfur as an electrophile, nucleophile, or
leaving group by comparing the reactions and corresponding
rate constants in Table 1.
First, we compare reactions of each nucleophile with a
given electrophile and leaving group (e.g., reactions 1 vs 5 or
magnitude greater than that of the nucleophilic enhance-
ment; selenium as a leaving group is approximately equiva-
lent to sulfur.
The thermodynamics as well as the kinetics of an enzyme
reaction are altered as a function of whether selenium
replaces sulfur in an active site. The electrode potentials of
selenylsulfides are ca. 70 mV lower than the potentials of
corresponding disulfides according to our study and that of
-
2 vs 4): the rate constants for nucleophilic reactions of
SeCya are 2-3 orders of magnitude higher than those of
1
4
15
Cya, as reported by Singh and Kats. Similar enhancement
is noted for nucleophilic attack on H O (reactions 6 vs 7),
Metanis et al.; thus, the selenylsulfides are considerably
9
more difficult to reduce. This difference in electrode poten-
2
2
reactions that are catalyzed by Sec- or Cys-containing gluta-
thione peroxidases (GPx) in vivo. The thiolate, not the thiol,
is the reactive nucleophile, and, thus, the difference in reac-
tivity reduces to 1-2 orders of magnitude in a basic environ-
ment where both selenols and thiols are deprotonated.
Next, we compare reactions of each electrophile with a
given nucleophile (reactions 1 vs 2 and -1 vs -2): the
reactions of selenium as an electrophile are 4 orders of
magnitude faster than those of sulfur. Similarly, nucleophilic
tials may be used advantageously to tune enzyme equilibria
in different compartments.
Experimental Section
All chemicals were of highest commercially available quality
and were, aside from Cya, used as received. Millipore Milli-Q
water (18.2 MΩ resistance) was used in all experiments.
Because small amounts of disulfide impurities can strongly
influence the redox equilibria under study, thiols were analyzed
before experiments for the presence of disulfides by HPLC. Cya
attack of cyanide on PhSeSO Ar is 5 orders of magnitude
2
2
7
faster than on PhSSO Ar.
2
contained 1.5% Cyaox and was, therefore, reduced with NaBH
4
-
5
Finally, we note that rate constants for selenolate and
thiolate as the leaving group at neutral pH are comparable
(0.01-0.1 M) and trace amounts of Secox (< 10 M) as a
catalyst. DTT contained 0.5% DTTox, which was taken into
account in the equilibrium calculations, and Cys contained only
negligible levels of impurities.
(reactions 5 vs -1 and 2 vs 4).
In enzymes, e.g., GPx, the microenvironment of the active
site plays a critical role and has to be taken into account when
comparing Sec- and Cys-containing variants. A Cys residue
(29) Huang, H. H.; Arscott, L. D.; Ballou, D. P.; Williams, C. H.
Biochemistry 2008, 47, 1721–1731.
(
23) Nauser, T.; Dockheer, S.; Kissner, R.; Koppenol, W. H. Biochem-
istry 2006, 45, 6038–6043.
24) Barton, J. P.; Packer, J. E.; Sims, R. J. J. Chem. Soc., Perkin Trans. 2
973, 1547–1549.
25) Winterbourn, C. C.; Metodiewa, D. Free Radical Biol. Med. 1999, 27,
22–328.
(30) Maiorino, M.; Ursini, F.; Bosello, V.; Toppo, S.; Tosatto, S. C. E.;
Mauri, P.; Becker, K.; Roveri, A.; Bulato, C.; Benazzi, L.; De Palma, A.;
Floh ꢀe , L. J. Mol. Biol. 2007, 365, 1033–1046.
(31) Ursini, F.; Maiorino, M.; Gregolin, C. Biochim. Biophys. Acta 1985,
839, 62–70.
(32) Peskin, A. V.; Low, F. M.; Paton, L. N.; Maghzal, G. J.; Hampton,
M. B.; Winterbourn, C. C. J. Biol. Chem. 2007, 282, 11885–11892.
(33) Floh ꢀe , L.; Loschen, G.; Eichele, E.; G u€ nzler, W. A. Hoppe-Seylers
Z. Physiol. Chem. 1972, 353, 987–999.
(
1
(
3
(
(
(
26) Pr u€ tz, W. A. Z. Naturforsch., C: Biosci. 1995, 50, 209–219.
27) Gancarz, R. A.; Kice, J. L. J. Org. Chem. 1981, 46, 4899–4906.
28) Tosatto, S. C. E.; Bosello, V.; Fogolari, F.; Mauri, P.; Roveri, A.;
Toppo, S.; Floh ꢀe , L.; Ursini, F.; Maiorino, M. Antioxid. Redox Signaling
008, 10, 1515–1525.
(34) Eckenroth, B. E.; Rould, M. A.; Hondal, R. J.; Everse, S. J.
Biochemistry 2007, 46, 4694–4705.
2
6
698 J. Org. Chem. Vol. 75, No. 19, 2010