-transparent.png){kind=logo}
Table 7 presents a brief summary of the effects of various mutations on some of the relevant kinetic constants. The results illustrate several important features of the use of site-directed mutagenesis in exploring structure and function of enzymes. Note that most of the mutations affect a given step or kinetic parameter in the mechanism, such as the binding of NAD+ or the turnover number with ethanol. Furthermore, one mutation can affect many steps in the mechanism. Thus, it is difficult to ascribe a particular role to an amino acid residue. It is also difficult to quantify the function of a residue, since the magnitudes of the effects on kinetic parameters will be modulated by the other amino acid residues that participate in the reaction. Comprehensive and quantitative kinetic studies of many mutant enzymes are required if we are to understand catalysis and specificity. We are reluctant to describe any residue as "essential" for activity since substitution with some amino acid can probably produce an enzyme with some residual activity. (Maybe the Thr48Gly enzyme would be active, as a water molecule could substitute for the hydroxyl of the threonine.) Likewise, when substitution of a residue partially, but not totally, decreases activity, it does not necessarily mean that the residue is "not essential". The change in activity can reflect the contribution of that residue to catalysis. On the other hand, if various substitutions of a residue do not change activity, it would be reasonable to conclude that the residue is not essential (Plapp et al., 1971). Most of the amino acid residues at the active site are involved in the catalytic mechanism, either by contacting the substrates directly or by participating in the chemistry. Some of the residues that are outside of the active site are indirectly involved, by affecting the structure of the protein. Substitution of an important amino acid residue should significantly affect activity, and studies on the kinetics and structure should allow one to distinguish among the various explanations.
B V Plapp, and
A J Ganzhorn, and
R M Gould, and
D W Green, and
T Jacobi, and
E Warth, and
D A Kratzer
September 2014,
Biochemistry,
B V Plapp, and
A J Ganzhorn, and
R M Gould, and
D W Green, and
T Jacobi, and
E Warth, and
D A Kratzer
April 1975,
The Journal of biological chemistry,
B V Plapp, and
A J Ganzhorn, and
R M Gould, and
D W Green, and
T Jacobi, and
E Warth, and
D A Kratzer
April 2020,
Journal of agricultural and food chemistry,
B V Plapp, and
A J Ganzhorn, and
R M Gould, and
D W Green, and
T Jacobi, and
E Warth, and
D A Kratzer
January 2010,
Archives of biochemistry and biophysics,
B V Plapp, and
A J Ganzhorn, and
R M Gould, and
D W Green, and
T Jacobi, and
E Warth, and
D A Kratzer
October 1977,
Food and cosmetics toxicology,
B V Plapp, and
A J Ganzhorn, and
R M Gould, and
D W Green, and
T Jacobi, and
E Warth, and
D A Kratzer
January 1994,
Journal of enzyme inhibition,
B V Plapp, and
A J Ganzhorn, and
R M Gould, and
D W Green, and
T Jacobi, and
E Warth, and
D A Kratzer
July 1957,
Archives of biochemistry and biophysics,
B V Plapp, and
A J Ganzhorn, and
R M Gould, and
D W Green, and
T Jacobi, and
E Warth, and
D A Kratzer
May 1968,
Photochemistry and photobiology,
B V Plapp, and
A J Ganzhorn, and
R M Gould, and
D W Green, and
T Jacobi, and
E Warth, and
D A Kratzer
June 1968,
European journal of biochemistry,
B V Plapp, and
A J Ganzhorn, and
R M Gould, and
D W Green, and
T Jacobi, and
E Warth, and
D A Kratzer
May 1976,
Nature,
