Previous Article | Next Article ![]()
Journal of Bacteriology, January 2005, p. 415-421, Vol. 187, No. 2
0021-9193/05/$08.00+0 doi:10.1128/JB.187.2.415-421.2005
Copyright © 2005, American Society for Microbiology. All Rights Reserved.
Stefan R. Kaschabek,3,4
Walter Reineke,3 and
Lindsay D. Eltis1,2*
Departments of Microbiology and Biochemistry, University of British Columbia, Vancouver,1 Department of Biochemistry, Université Laval, Quebec City, Quebec, Canada,2 Bergische Universität Wuppertal, Chemische Mikrobiologie, Wuppertal,3 Technische-Universität Bergakademie Freiberg, Freiberg, Germany4
Received 16 September 2004/ Accepted 20 October 2004
|
|
|---|
|
|
|---|
A critical step in improving the microbial catabolic activities for the degradation of PCBs is understanding the reactivities of the four enzymes of the bph pathway for PCB metabolites. This includes determining the enzymes' specificities for these metabolites. Considerable effort has been directed towards characterizing and engineering biphenyl dioxygenase, the first enzyme of the pathway (for recent examples see references 6, 15, and 32). The second enzyme of the pathway was proposed to have a very broad substrate specificity, in part because it catalyzes the dehydrogenation of 3,4-dihydro-3,4-dihydroxy-2,2',5,5'-tetrachlorobiphenyl at a very low rate (5). However, a subsequent study showed that it limits the degradation of some PCBs (9). The fourth enzyme of the pathway has also been identified as an important determinant of PCB degradation, as it is competitively inhibited by some chlorinated (Cl) metabolites (29, 30).
2,3-Dihydroxybiphenyl 1,2-dioxygenase (DHBD; EC 1.13.11.39) is the third enzyme of the bph pathway. It utilizes a mononuclear nonheme iron(II) center to cleave 2,3-dihydroxybiphenyl (DHB) in an extradiol fashion (Fig. 1). Early studies using whole cells indicated that this enzyme limits the degradation of certain PCB congeners by Alcaligenes sp. strain Y42 and Acinetobacter sp. strain P6 (now Rhodococcus globerulus P6) (17). DHBD also limited the degradation of some congeners by the bph pathway of Burkholderia sp. strain LB400 when this pathway was heterologously expressed in Escherichia coli (31). More recent studies using purified enzyme preparations demonstrated that DHBDLB400 from Burkholderia sp. strain LB400 cleaves Cl DHBs with lower specificity than that for unchlorinated DHB, is more susceptible to oxidative inactivation during cleavage of Cl DHBs, and is competitively inhibited by 2',6'-dichloro-2,3-dihydroxybiphenyl (2',6'-diCl DHB; Kic = 7 nM) (11). In contrast, DHBDP6-I and DHBDP6-III, two evolutionarily divergent isozymes from the PCB-degrading R. globerulus P6 (2, 3), had markedly different reactivities compared to that of DHBDLB400 (37). However, DHBDP6-I and DHBDP6-III shared the relative inability of DHBDLB400 to cleave 2',6'-dichlorinated (diCl) DHB. A promising candidate to degrade ortho-chlorinated metabolites is 2,2',3-trihydroxybiphenyl dioxygenase from Sphingomonas sp. strain RW1 (THBDRW1), which cleaves a structural analog of 2'-Cl DHB in an extradiol fashion (Fig. 1) (20). McKay et al. (24) demonstrated that five DHBDs (the four mentioned above and DHBDP6-II) have different reactivities with Cl DHBs. However, the results of these studies are harder to interpret, as the authors used partially inactive enzyme preparations and did not take into account the effects of oxidative inactivation of the enzymes during catalytic turnover. Moreover, comparisons of the five DHBDs were performed using impure Cl DHBs at a single substrate concentration: steady-state parameters were determined for only the three P6 isozymes for three monochlorinated (monoCl) DHBs.
![]() View larger version (13K): [in a new window] |
FIG. 1. Reaction catalyzed by DHBD and related enzymes. In the aerobic catabolism of biphenyl, DHBD catalyzes a reaction in which R = H. In the aerobic catabolism of dibenzofuran, THBDRW1 catalyzes a reaction in which R = OH.
|
|
|
|---|
Strains, media, and growth.
E. coli strain DH5
was used for DNA propagation and was cultured at 37°C and 200 rpm in Luria-Bertani (LB) broth with the appropriate antibiotics. Pseudomonas putida KT2442 (21) transformed with pVLT31 (12) derivatives was used for overexpression and was cultured at 30°C and 250 rpm in LB broth with 20 µg of tetracycline/ml supplemented with phosphate buffer and mineral salts as previously described (35).
Construction of plasmids and overexpression. DNA was manipulated using standard protocols (4). The gene encoding THBDRW1, dbfB, was amplified by PCR from the chromosomal DNA of Sphingomonas sp. strain RW1 and two oligonucleotides: 5'RW1 (5'-AGTTATCCATATGTCAGTAAAACAA-3') (introduced NdeI site underlined) and 3'RW1 (5'-CGCGGATCCTTCGTCACTACG-3' ) (introduced C.BamHI site underlined). The PCR was performed using the Pwo DNA polymerase (Roche Applied Sciences, Laval, Quebec, Canada) according to the manufacturer's instructions and an annealing temperature of 45°C. The resulting amplicon was digested with NdeI and BamHI and cloned in pT7-7 (33), yielding pT7-7dbfB. The cloned gene was sequenced on an ABI 373 Strech (Applied Biosystems, Foster City, Calif.) sequencer by using Big-Dye terminators to confirm its authenticity. The gene was then subcloned as an XbaI fragment into the pVLT31 vector, yielding pAHD1. THBDRW1 was overexpressed in P. putida KT2442 freshly transformed with pAHD1 essentially as previously described for DHBDs (35, 37).
Protein purification. Unless otherwise specified, all manipulations were performed under an inert atmosphere in an M. Braun Labmaster 100 glovebox (Newburyport, Mass.) maintained at 2 ppm of O2 or less. Buffers were prepared and made anaerobic as described previously (35, 37). All chromatography steps were performed on an ÄKTA Explorer (Amersham Biosciences, Baie d'Urfé, Quebec, Canada) configured to maintain an anaerobic atmosphere during purification, as previously described (35). DHBDLB400, DHBDP6-I, and DHBDP6-III enzymes were purified to apparent homogeneity according to published protocols (35, 37).
THBDRW1 was purified using a similar protocol. Briefly, cells from 4 liters of culture were harvested by centrifugation. The cell pellet (approximately 28 g) was resuspended in 36 ml of 50 mM phosphate, pH 7.5, containing 1 mM MgCl2, 1 mM CaCl2, and 0.1 mg of DNase I/ml. The cells were disrupted by three successive passages through a French press (Spectronic Instruments Inc., Rochester, N.Y.) operated at a pressure of 20,000 lb/in2. The cell debris was removed by ultracentrifugation in gastight tubes at 37,000 rpm for 90 min in a T1250 rotor (DuPont Instruments, Wilmington, Del.). The clear supernatant was carefully decanted and filtered using a 0.45-µm-pore-size filter (Sartorius AG, Göttingen, Germany). This fluid was referred to as the raw extract.
The raw extract was brought to 20% saturation ammonium sulfate and divided into four equal portions (
16 ml each). Each portion was loaded onto a Source15 Phenyl (Amersham Biosciences) hydrophobic interaction column (2 by 8 cm) previously equilibrated with 50 mM phosphate (pH 7.5)-2 mM dithiothreitol (buffer A) containing 0.85 M ammonium sulfate. Following the injection of THBDRW1, the column was rinsed with 2 column volumes of buffer A containing 0.85 M ammonium sulfate and 3 column volumes of buffer A containing 0.68 M ammonium sulfate. THBDRW1 activity was eluted using a linear gradient of 0.68 M to 0 M ammonium sulfate in buffer A (8 column volumes). Fractions of 8 ml were collected. Those containing enzyme activity were pooled and equilibrated with 10 mM Tris-Cl (pH 7.5)-10% isopropanol-2 mM dithiothreitol (buffer C) by three rounds of dilution-concentration with a stirred cell concentrator equipped with a YM10 membrane (Amicon, Oakville, Ontario, Canada). The resulting preparation (
10 ml) was divided into three parts, each of which was loaded onto an HR16/10 MonoQ anion-exchange column (Amersham Pharmacia Biotech) equilibrated with buffer C. THBDRW1 activity was eluted at a flow of 6 ml/min with a 15-column-volume linear gradient of 0 to 250 mM NaCl in buffer C. Fractions from the three runs containing activity were pooled, concentrated to 3 ml by ultrafiltration, and loaded onto a HiLoad 26/60 Superdex 200 column (Amersham Biosciences) equilibrated with buffer C containing 50 mM NaCl and 0.25 mM ferrous ammonium sulfate. The protein was eluted at a flow rate of 2.5 ml/min. Fractions (5 ml) exhibiting activities were combined, concentrated to 22 mg of protein/ml, and frozen as beads in liquid N2. Purified THBDRW1 was stored at 80°C for up to 6 months without any significant loss of activity.
Handling of dioxygenase samples. Aliquots of DHBD were thawed immediately prior to use and were exchanged into 20 mM 4-(2-hydroxyethyl)-1-piperazinepropanesulfonic acid (HEPPS)-80 mM NaCl (I = 0.1)-2 mM dithiothreitol (pH 8.0) by gel filtration chromatography (35). Samples of DHBD were further diluted using the same buffer supplemented with 0.1 mg of bovine serum albumin/ml.
Sodium dodecyl sulfate-polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis was performed in a Bio-Rad MiniProtean II apparatus, and gels were stained with Coomassie blue according to established procedures (4). Protein concentrations were determined by the Bradford method (8). Iron concentrations were determined colorimetrically using Ferene S (18).
Kinetic measurements and analysis of steady-state data. Enzymatic activity was routinely measured by monitoring the formation of 2-hydroxy-6-oxo-6-phenylhexa-2,4-dienoic acid (HOPDA) on a Varian Cary 3 instrument equipped with a thermojacketed cuvette holder. One unit of enzymatic activity was defined as the quantity of enzyme required to produce 1 µmol of HOPDA per min. The amount of enzyme used in each assay was adjusted so that the progress curve was linear for at least 1 min. Initial velocities were determined from a least-squares analysis of the linear portion of the progress curves by using the kinetics module of the Cary software. To determine the Km for O2 of THBDRW1, KmO2, progress curves were obtained using a Clark-type O2 electrode essentially as described previously (35).
All experiments were performed using potassium phosphate buffer, pH 7.0 (I = 0.1 M) at 25.0 ± 0.1°C (
290 µM dissolved O2). The standard activity assay was performed using 100 µM DHB. Concentrations of active DHBD in the assay were defined by the iron content of the injected purified enzyme solution and were used in calculating specificity and catalytic and inactivation constants. Steady-state rate equations (either the Michaelis-Menten equation or an equation describing a mechanism in which substrate inhibition occurs (see equation 2) (35) were fitted to data by using the least squares and dynamic weighting options of the LEONORA program (10).
Kinetics of inactivation.
Partition ratios for all substrates were determined using the spectrophotometric assay described above and saturating substrate concentrations (i.e., the concentration of DHB exceeded Kmapp by at least 15-fold). The amount of enzyme added to the reaction cuvette was such that the enzyme was completely inactivated before 15% of either the catecholic substrate or O2 was consumed in the reaction mixture. The partition ratio was calculated by dividing the amount of product formed by the amount of active DHBD added to the assay. The progress curves from these same reactions were also used to evaluate the apparent rate constant of inactivation during catalytic turnover in air-saturated buffer, j3app (equation 1) (36). Under the assay conditions, the concentration of free enzyme, [E], is negligible and the partition ratio is equal to the ratio of the catalytic constant kcatapp to the inactivation constant j3app (i.e.,
ji = j3).
![]() | (1) |
![]() | (2) |
![]() | (3) |
are the concentrations of product at the start and end of the assay, respectively, and Pt is the concentration of product formed at time t. Structural modeling. The structure of THDBRW1 was modeled using MODELLER 6v2 (28) and the crystallographic coordinates of DHBDLB400 bound to 2',6'-diCl DHB (Protein Data Bank identifier 1LKD). The amino acid sequences of THBDRW1 and DHBDLB400 were aligned using T-COFFEE (26). The fitting and minimization routines of MODELLER were performed using the default parameters.
|
|
|---|
|
View this table: [in a new window] |
TABLE 1. Purification details of THBDRW1 expressed in P. putida KT2442
|
|
View this table: [in a new window] |
TABLE 2. Molar extinction coefficients of HOPDAs
|
|
View this table: [in a new window] |
TABLE 3. Apparent steady-state kinetic parameters and inactivation parameters of DHBDLB400, DHBDP6-I, DHBDP6-III, and THBDRW1 for Cl DHBsa
|
Although DHBDP6-III generally cleaved DHBs more slowly than the other three enzymes, this enzyme seemed best suited to the degradation of PCBs. More particularly, this enzyme showed a greater specificity for most of the tested Cl DHBs than for unchlorinated DHB. Most strikingly, the apparent specificity of DHBDP6-III for 4,3'5'-triCl DHB was 28 times higher than that for DHB. Similarly, the partition coefficients of the enzyme for many Cl DHBs was comparable to that for DHB.
THBDRW1 had a good specificity for 2'-Cl DHB and had a relatively high partition coefficient in the presence of this substrate. This is consistent with the enzyme's physiological role in the degradation of dibenzofuran. Moreover, the specificity constant of THBDRW1 for several Cl DHBs was either very similar to or higher than that of unchlorinated DHB (3',5'-diCl DHB > 3'-Cl DHB > DHB
2'-Cl DHB). It was therefore somewhat surprising that, among the tested enzymes, THBDRW1 cleaved 2',6'-diCl DHB the least efficiently and had the lowest partition coefficient in the presence of this compound. Interestingly, no substrate inhibition was observed with any Cl DHBs even at a concentration of 3,300 times Kmapp in the case of 2'-Cl DHB. Some substrate inhibition was observed in the presence of DHB, as reported by Happe et al. (20), but the KiA could not be reliably evaluated from the present data (Fig. 2A). Finally, the enzyme's KmO2 in the presence of DHB was 0.8 ± 0.1 mM (Fig. 2B), which is comparable to those reported for DHBDLB400 (1.2 ± 0.2 mM) and DHBDP6-I (0.25 ± 0.02 mM).
![]() View larger version (15K): [in a new window] |
FIG. 2. Steady-state cleavage of DHB by THBDRW1. (A) Dependence of initial velocity on the concentration of DHB in air-saturated buffer. The line represents a best fit of the Michaelis-Menten equation to the data. The fitted parameters are Kmapp = 2.8 ± 0.4 µM and V = 64 ± 2 µM/min. (B) Dependence of initial velocity on the concentration of O2 with 100 µM DHB. The line represents a best fit of the Michaelis-Menten equation to the data. The fitted parameters are KmO2app = 830 ± 100 µM and V = 200 ± 20 µM/min. All experiments were performed using air-saturated 100 mM phosphate buffer, pH 7.0, at 25°C. Initial velocities obtained on different days were normalized according to the amount of enzyme used in the assay.
|
|
|
|---|
Overall, the present data agree reasonably well with steady-state kinetic parameters and relative activities reported by McKay et al. (24). Both studies evaluated the steady-state kinetic parameters of DHBDP6-I and -III for DHB and 2'- and 3'-Cl DHB. The main differences are in the kcatapp, kAapp, and partition coefficients of DHBDP6-I: in the present study they are up to an order of magnitude higher than previously reported. These effects are presumably due to the low iron content, as reported by the authors, of the enzyme used previously. McKay et al. also reported relative activities of five enzymes at 100 µM concentrations of various DHBs, by normalizing the data to the rate of cleavage of unchlorinated DHB. Accordingly, we calculated relative activities at 100 µM DHB using the steady-state parameters reported in Table 3. For the 15 combinations of enzyme and Cl DHB studied by both groups, the relative activities agreed to within a factor of 3. Considering that McKay et al. isolated Cl DHBs from culture supernatants containing up to 20% unwanted Cl DHBs, this is a surprising degree of agreement. Nevertheless, the true measure of an enzyme's ability to utilize different substrates is the specificity constant (14). In this respect, the relative activities determined at 100 µM substrate do not agree well with relative specificities (kAapp for each Cl DHB normalized to kAapp for DHB), differing by over 2 orders of magnitude in some cases. The correspondence between relative activity and specificity is particularly poor for substrates with low Kms, such as 3',5'-diCl DHB. Related to this, despite investigating the relative activities of five enzymes for each of 17 DHBs, McKay et al. did not identify a single Cl DHB that is a better substrate for a given enzyme than DHB.
The physiological roles of the single-domain DHBDs in R. globerulus P6, DHBDP6-II and DHBDP6-III, remain unclear. Based on the higher specificity of these enzymes for some Cl DHBs than for unchlorinated DHB, it has been suggested that they may have been recruited by R. globerulus P6 to improve its PCB degradation (24, 37). However, the present results demonstrate that relatively high specificity constants for Cl DHBs are not unique to the single-domain DHBDs. Moreover, the activities of the latter enzymes are relatively low compared to those of the two-domain enzymes. Finally, conditions under which DHBDP6-III is expressed in R. globerulus P6 have yet to be identified (24). It is possible that the primary physiological role of DHBDP6-II and -III is not biphenyl catabolism or PCB transformation. Rhodococcal strains in particular appear to contain large numbers of DHBD-type enzymes, with seven or more reported in each of strains TA421 (23), RHA1 (27), and K37 (34). Although the genes encoding these enzymes have been annotated as bphC genes, recent Northern hybridization analyses in K37 (34) and DNA microarray studies in RHA1 indicate that most of them are not involved in biphenyl degradation (E. R. Gonçalves, H. Hara, D. S. Aeschliman, M. Fukuda, L. D. Eltis, and W. W. Mohn, unpublished data).
The relatively low Kmapp values of the enzymes for polychlorinated DHBs compared to the monoCl DHBs or even the nonchlorinated DHB suggest that the substrate-binding pockets of these enzymes can readily accommodate the chloro substituents. The structure of a DHBDLB400:DHB binary complex revealed that the substrate-binding pocket of this enzyme is lined with hydrophobic residues (19). With the exception of the catalytic residues, Phe187, Asn243, and Pro280 line the proximal part of the pocket around the hydroxylated ring of DHB, and Val148, Met175, Ala200, Phe202, and His209 line the distal part of the pocket around the nonhydroxylated ring. Structural modeling and sequence alignments (13) suggest that the respective substrate-binding pockets of the other enzymes are lined with similar types of residues. For example, a model of the THBDRW1:2',6'-diCl DHB binary complex indicates that Phe183, Asn243, and Pro282 line the proximal part of the pocket and Val149, Met176, Ser196, Pro198, and His208 line the distal part of the pocket (Fig. 3). In the crystallographic and modeled structures, the ring carbons of the bound substrate are relatively unencumbered: no residue approaches to within 3.25 Å of C-4, C-5, and C-6 of the bound DHB in the DHBDLB400:DHB complex. C-3', C-4', and C-5' of the distal ring are even less sterically hindered, being oriented towards the opening of the active site. Overall, the architecture of the substrate-binding pocket of DHBDs and the sequence data are consistent with the kinetic data.
![]() View larger version (27K): [in a new window] |
FIG. 3. Stereo view of the modeled active site of THBDRW1 bound to 2',6'-diCl DHB. The residues lining the substrate pocket and the bound DHB are represented in gray and black, respectively. The ligands of the ferrous iron (shown as a sphere) are His147, His209, and Glu260. The conserved catalytic residues are His191, His241, and Tyr250.
|
We thank Jeffrey T. Bolin for critically reading the manuscript, Frédéric Vaillancourt for helpful discussions, and Michela Bertero for valuable assistance with the structural modeling. We thank Victor Snieckus and Frank Reifenrath for the synthesis of Cl DHBs and Marvin Hsiao for assistance with some of the experiments.
Present address: Biotools, B & M Labs, S.A., E-28021 Madrid, Spain. ![]()
|
|
|---|
This article has been cited by other articles:
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Copyright © 2009 by the American Society for Microbiology. For an alternate route to Journals.ASM.org, visit: http://intl-journals.asm.org | More Info»