Search

Research demonstrates that the tertiary structure of the endo-beta-1,3-glucanase from Pyrococcus furiosus, is disturbed in the presence of guanidine chloride but without affecting the secondary structure. The uniqueness of the reaction is discussed.

The complex technology of converting lignocellulose to fuels such as ethanol has advanced rapidly over the past few years, and enzymes are a critical component of this technology. The production of effective enzyme systems at cost structures that facilitate commercial processes has been the focus of research for many years. Towards this end, the H. jecorina cellobiohydrolases, CEL7A and CEL6A, have been the subject of protein engineering at Genencor. Our first rounds of cellobiohydrolase engineering were directed towards improving the thermostability of both of these enzymes and produced variants of CEL7A and CEL6A with apparent melting temperatures above 70°C, placing their stability on par with that of H. jecorina CEL5A (EG2) and CEL3A (BGL1). We have now moved towards improving CEL6A- and CEL7A-specific performance in the context of a complete enzyme system under industrially relevant conditions. Achievement of these goals required development of new screening strategies and tools. We discuss these advances along with some results, focusing mainly on engineering of CEL6A. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Sβgly and CelB are well-studied hyperthermophilic glycosyl hydrolases, isolated from the Archaea Sulfolobus solfataricus and Pyrococcus furiosus, respectively. Previous studies revealed that the two enzymes are phylogenetically related; they are very active and stable at high temperatures, and their overall three-dimensional structure is very well conserved. To acquire insight in the molecular determinants of thermostability and thermoactivity of these enzymes, we have performed a detailed comparison, under identical conditions, of enzymological and biochemical parameters of Sβgly and CelB, and we have probed the basis of their stability by perturbations induced by temperature, pH, ionic strength, and detergents. The major result of the present study is that, although the two enzymes are remarkably similar with respect to kinetic parameters, substrate specificity, and reaction mechanism, they are strikingly different in stability to the different physical or chemical perturbations induced. These results provide useful information for the design of further experiments aimed at understanding the structure–function relationships in these enzymes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]