Cited by 641Evolution and Genetic DynamicsProtein Structure and DynamicsEnzyme Catalysis and Immobilization

Enzyme promiscuity: evolutionary and mechanistic aspects

Khersonsky, Olga, Roodveldt, Cintia, Tawfik, Dan S·2006·Current Opinion in Chemical Biology

Abstract

The past few years have seen significant advances in research related to the 'latent skills' of enzymes - namely, their capacity to promiscuously catalyze reactions other than the ones they evolved for. These advances regard (i) the mechanism of catalytic promiscuity - how enzymes, that generally exert exquisite specificity, promiscuously catalyze other, and sometimes barely related, reactions; (ii) the evolvability of promiscuous functions - namely, how latent activities evolve further, and in particular, how promiscuous activities can firstly evolve without severely compromising the original activity. These findings have interesting implications on our understanding of how new enzymes evolve. They support the key role of catalytic promiscuity in the natural history of enzymes, and suggest that today's enzymes diverged from ancestral proteins catalyzing a whole range of activities at low levels, to create families and superfamilies of potent and highly specialized enzymes.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.cbpa.2006.08.011

Cites

194 of 194 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The cumulative number of cell divisions (CCD) was proposed as a more appropriate denominator to evaluate microbial evolution.

    “Only recently, the cumulative number of cell divisions (CCD) was proposed as a more appropriate denominator to evaluate microbial evolution [126].”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Khersonsky, O., Roodveldt, C., & Tawfik, D. S.
Affiliations
Weizmann Institute of Science (IL)
Corresponding author
Tawfik, Dan S
Venue
Current Opinion in Chemical Biology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2006-10
Volume
10
Issue
5
Pages
498-508
ISSN
1367-5931 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2135900956
Cited by
641
References
194
Citations by year
2026: 14 · 2025: 20 · 2024: 34 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 27 · 2021: 20 · 2020: 29 · 2019: 25 · 2018: 30 · 2017: 31 · 2016: 27 · 2015: 31 · 2014: 29 · 2013: 33 · 2012: 41
FWCI
4.88
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Current Opinion in Chemical Biology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Department of Science and Technology, Ministry of Science and Technology, India
  • Israel Science Foundation
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Evolution and Genetic Dynamics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Protein Structure and Dynamics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Enzyme Catalysis and Immobilization
Keywords
enzyme promiscuity, catalytic promiscuity, enzyme evolution, latent enzyme activity, enzyme specificity, enzyme superfamilies, enzyme families, enzyme mechanism
MeSH terms
Animals, Catalysis, Enzyme Activation, Enzymes, Humans, Substrate Specificity, Evolution, Molecular

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review