D38E Mutant of 3-Oxo-∆5-Steroid Isomerase
A R T I C L E S
q
q
alone. Enthalpic stabilization generally results from favorable
polar and electrostatic interactions between enzyme and the
transition state, whereas entropic stabilization can be attributed
to changes in conformation or to changes in solvation. Jencks
has argued that enzymes catalyze reactions primarily by making
entropic changes from an enzyme-substrate complex to prod-
In many cases, both T∆S and ∆H for the enzymatic reaction
16-19
are more favorable than those for the nonenzymatic reaction,
1
5
although there are exceptions to this trend. It is generally
thought that the majority of entropy loss for a nonenzymatic
reaction results from bringing two or more molecules together,
and the entropy changes from the bond making/bond breaking
7
7
ucts more favorable than in solution. Jencks reasoned that, in
steps of catalysis are minimal. The typically large enthalpic
a bimolecular reaction between A and B in solution, decreases
in entropy result from losses of both translational and rotational
freedom. He maintained that enzymes overcome unfavorable
costs due to bond making/bond breaking can be overcome by
an enzyme’s ability to provide favorable ionic and hydrogen
bonding interactions that are not available in solution.
7
14
entropy by bringing A and B together in the active site so that
once bound, the entropy change from ground state to transition
state is minimal or even positive. Thus, the conversion of the
enzyme-substrate complex to products (kcat) often shows a
more-favorable entropy than that of the corresponding non-
enzymatic reaction in aqueous solution. For example, kcat for
cytidine deaminase-catalyzed deamination of 5,6-dihydro-
cytidine is ∼8 kcal/mol entropically more favorable than the
spontaneous first-order reaction.18 The favorable entropy is
attributed to changes in the active-site hydration and conforma-
tion of a glutamate residue.18 Warshel, however, has argued
that the Jencks’ rationale overestimates the contribution of
entropy to catalysis.
Complicating the interpretation of differences in activation
parameters between enzymatic and nonenzymatic reactions is
the fact the there are often several steps that contribute to the
overall enzymatic rate constant, including binding, product
release, and chemical steps. Similarly, observed nonenzymatic
rate constants are generally a combination of individual steps,
each with a distinct transition state. Although the activation
parameters for the overall rate constants of both enzymatic and
nonenzymatic reactions have been determined in many cases,
we are unaware of any previous studies that have examined
these parameters for the microscopic rate constants of both
enzymatic and nonenzymatic reactions. Additionally, enzymatic
reactions are often compared to nonenzymatic reactions in
moderately dilute buffer, which may not provide the best model
for the enzymatic mechanism. While these comparisons are
useful, the ability to determine differences in the detailed
transition-state interactions requires a comparison of an enzy-
matic reaction to a specific nonenzymatic reaction catalyzed
by an appropriate model compound. KSI provides an excellent
system to do just that by a comparison of the activation
parameters of the microscopic rate constants for D38E to the
activation parameters of the acetate ion-catalyzed isomeriza-
13
In a recent review by Wolfenden,51 the catalytic power (kcat/
KM) of single substrate enzymes is attributed to their ability to
q
q
lower ∆H , while effecting minimal changes in ∆S , relative to
an uncatalyzed reaction in aqueous solution. He concluded that
the affinity of a transition state for an enzyme is due to
predominantly electrostatic interactions, including hydrogen
bonds, that act in concert with one another. Indeed, these
interactions are necessary in a variety of enzymatic reactions,
1
7
such as deamination of cytidine by cytidine deaminase,
1
9
racemization of mandelate by mandelate racemase, and
21
tion.
hydrolysis of cytidine cyclic 2′,3′-phosphate by ribonuclease
Relative to the nonenzymatic, acetate ion-catalyzed reaction
16
A. For example, deamination of cytidine by cytidine deaminase
OAc 21
(
kisom ), D38E lowers the activation enthalpy for kcat/KM by
q
is characterized by ∆H k /K ) 2 kcal/mol, whereas in solution,
cat
M
about 10 kcal/mol and raises the activation entropy by about 5
kcal/mol for the overall isomerization (Table 3). The reaction
mechanisms for both acetate- and D38E-catalyzed isomerization
have been extensively characterized, and there are several steps
that contribute to the overall isomerization rates. To make useful
comparisons, it is first necessary to consider the individual
chemical and binding steps for both reactions.
q
∆
H k ≈ 22 kcal/mol, corresponding to a reduction in activation
non
17
enthalpy of ∼20 kcal/mol. A significant portion of this
enthalpic stabilization results from the interaction between the
2
′-OH of the ribose ring of cytidine and Glu91 of cytidine
q
deaminase, as shown by an increase of ∆H kcat/KM to ∼10 kcal/
1
7
mol in the E91A mutant. This difference corresponds to a
q
∆
∆H of 8 kcal/mol, which can be attributed to the hydrogen
D38E
Substrate Binding by D38E (KM ≈ KS). Because k1
,
bonding interaction between Glu91 and 2′-OH of the ribose ring
of cytidine.
1
koff for the D38E mutant of KSI, KM may be equated to KS,
3
8
the dissociation constant for the E1 complex. The enthalpy
and entropy for dissociation of the E1 complex (KM) are given
in Table 3. Because the sign and magnitude of binding entropy
are dependent on the choice of standard state, we limit the
discussion of KS to ∆H°. The favorable enthalpy of binding
(∆H° ) -4.3 kcal/mol) may result from the difference in the
relative strength of the hydrogen bonds made in the E1 complex
and in the free species E + 1 (Scheme 6, path a). Hydrogen
bonds in the E1 complex are stronger than those in E + 1.
Both experimental and computational determinations of the
enthalpy of a hydrogen bond in water give estimates of ∼2-4
(
45) Dang, Q.; Frieden, C. Trends Biochem. Sci. 1997, 22, 317.
(
46) The rate constant for diffusion of 2 and D38E to form the E2 complex,
2
2
k
3
on , was calculated at each temperature using the equation kon ) (2RT/
2 47
0 000) × ((r
2 E 2 E
+ r ) /r r ), where R is the ideal gas constant, and T is
48
the temperature; η is the viscosity of the solvent at each temperature,
2 E 2 E
and r and r are the radii of 2 and KSI, respectively. The radii, r and r ,
were estimated by measuring the widest diameter of each molecule using
Rasmol, version 2.7.1, from the crystal structure of the KSI-equilenin
3
0
complex determined by Cho et al. (PDB ID: 1QJG).
(
(
(
47) Connors, K. A. Chemical Kinetics: The Study of Reaction Rates in Solution;
VCH Publishers: New York, 1990; p 134.
48) CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, 55th ed.; Weast, R. C., Ed.;
CRC Press: Ohio, 1974; p F-49.
2
49) Values of koff are very sensitive to fixed values of kcat/K
M
, and so kcat/K
M
was allowed to vary during fitting. Because of this, the values reported in
2
2
Table 4 for koff have an error of ∼100%. Additionally, the values for koff
52,53
kcal/mol.
Increased hydrogen bond strength in even mod-
reported here are ∼1 order of magnitude greater than our previous
38
determinations, which is due to the inaccuracy of this method to determine
erately hydrophobic active sites relative to solution is not
2
D38E
D38E
2
k
off . Values of k-1
and k
2
are only slightly sensitive to koff values,
and we estimate ∼20% error in these reported rate constants.
(
(
50) Cleland, W. W. Biochemistry 1975, 14, 3220.
(52) Li, Z.; Lazaridis, T. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2003, 125, 6636.
(53) Patil, K. J.; Pawar, R. B. Spectrochim. Acta, Part A 2003, 59, 1289.
51) Wolfenden, R. Biophys. Chem. 2003, 105, 559.
J. AM. CHEM. SOC.
9
VOL. 126, NO. 50, 2004 16421