The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Aromatic Residues in the Catalytic Center of Chitinase A from Serratia marcescens Affect Processivity, Enzyme Activity, and Biomass Converting Efficiency
Open accessAbstract
The processive Serratia marcescens chitinases A (ChiA) and B (ChiB) are thought to degrade chitin in the opposite directions. A recent study of ChiB suggested that processivity is governed by aromatic residues in the +1 and +2 (aglycon) subsites close to the catalytic center. To further investigate the roles of aromatic residues in processivity and to gain insight into the structural basis of directionality, we have mutated Trp(167), Trp(275), and Phe(396) in the -3, +1, and +2 subsites of ChiA, respectively, and characterized the hydrolytic activities of the mutants toward beta-chitin and the soluble chitin-derivative chitosan. Although the W275A and F396A mutants showed only modest reductions in processivity, it was almost abolished by the W167A mutation. Thus, although aglycon subsites seem to steer processivity in ChiB, a glycon (-3) subsite seems to be adapted to do so in ChiA, in line with the notion that the two enzymes have different directionalities. Remarkably, whereas all three single mutants and the W167A/W275A double mutant showed reduced efficiency toward chitin, they showed up to 20-fold higher activities toward chitosan. These results show that the processive mechanism is essential for an efficient conversion of crystalline substrates but comes at a large cost in terms of intrinsic enzyme speed. This needs to be taken into account when devising enzymatic strategies for biomass turnover.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Deconstruction of Lignocellulosic Biomass to Fuels and Chemicals
Chundawat, S. P. S., Beckham, G. T., Himmel, M. E., & Dale, B. E. (2011) · Annual Review of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering · doi:10.1146/annurev-chembioeng-061010-114205 · Cited by 1,017
Payne, C. M., Knott, B. C., Mayes, H. B., Hansson, H., Himmel, M. E., Sandgren, M., Ståhlberg, J., & Beckham, G. T. (2015) · Chemical Reviews · doi:10.1021/cr500351c · Cited by 855
Processivity of Cellobiohydrolases Is Limited by the Substrate
Kurašin, M., & Väljamäe, P. (2011) · Journal of Biological Chemistry · doi:10.1074/jbc.m110.161059 · Cited by 274
Fungal chitinases: function, regulation, and potential roles in plant/pathogen interactions
Langner, T., & Göhre, V. (2016) · Current Genetics · doi:10.1007/s00294-015-0530-x · Cited by 225
Metadata
- Authors
- Zakariassen, H., Aam, B. B., Horn, S. J., Vårum, K. M., Sørlie, M., & Eijsink, V. G. H.
- Venue
- Journal of Biological Chemistry
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2009-04
- Volume
- 284
- Issue
- 16
- Pages
- 10610-10617
- ISSN
- 0021-9258 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1974515964
- Cited by
- 163
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 4.68
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Aromatic Residues in the Catalytic Center of Chitinase A from Serratia marcescens Affect Processivity, Enzyme Activity, and Biomass Converting Efficiency. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1074/jbc.m900092200
- The paper
- Zakariassen, H., Aam, B. B., Horn, S. J., Vårum, K. M., Sørlie, M., & Eijsink, V. G. H. (2009). Aromatic Residues in the Catalytic Center of Chitinase A from Serratia marcescens Affect Processivity, Enzyme Activity, and Biomass Converting Efficiency. Journal of Biological Chemistry. https://doi.org/10.1074/jbc.m900092200
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.