1993
DOI: 10.1016/0167-4838(93)90048-v
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Proton transfer in the catalytic mechanism of carbonic anhydrase. Effects of placing histidine residues at various positions in the active site of human isoenzyme II

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

1
24
0

Year Published

1995
1995
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6
2

Relationship

2
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 25 publications
(25 citation statements)
references
References 20 publications
1
24
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The loop residues Glu88 and Glu89 which have been shown to operate the proton transfer minimally in Zn-Cam and the corresponding loop are not found in the Zn-Cap structure. Interestingly, in the case of human carbonic anhydrase it has been observed that the similar process of proton transfer is carried out by His64 (Liang et al, 1993).…”
Section: Active-site Architecturementioning
confidence: 92%
“…The loop residues Glu88 and Glu89 which have been shown to operate the proton transfer minimally in Zn-Cam and the corresponding loop are not found in the Zn-Cap structure. Interestingly, in the case of human carbonic anhydrase it has been observed that the similar process of proton transfer is carried out by His64 (Liang et al, 1993).…”
Section: Active-site Architecturementioning
confidence: 92%
“…These experiments use histidine placed at various sites (positions 62, 64, 67, 200) in the active-site cavity and test their capacity to promote proton transfer, following the example of Liang et al [18]. Other experiments use 4-methylimidazole (4-MI) in chemical rescue of mutants lacking a proton shuttle residue, with accompanying crystallographic studies to estimate the binding site of the 4-MI.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…It has been shown that imidazole derivatives, such as 1,2-dimethylimidazole, provide a relatively efficient 'shunt' pathway for proton transfer without participation of the shuttle group, while other buffers, such as Taps, do not, probably because they cannot enter the active site cavity deeply enough to establish an effective 'shunt' (Tu et al, 1989). In wild-type HCA 11, proton shuttling via His64 is the dominating pathway and the buffer specificity ratio is approximately 1 (Table l), whereas the mutant [H64AH]CA 11, which cannot shuttle protons, has a buffer specificity ratio of 0.03 (Liang et al, 1993). In this mutant, proton transfer in Taps buffer probably occurs between the metal ion center and bulk water molecules.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%