Advertisement

Journal of Molecular Modeling

, 24:347 | Cite as

Evaluating apoenzyme–coenzyme–substrate interactions of methane monooxygenase with an engineered active site for electron harvesting: a computational study

  • Sikai Zhang
  • Raghupathy Karthikeyan
  • Sandun D. Fernando
Original Paper
  • 32 Downloads

Abstract

Low-temperature methane oxidation is one of the greatest challenges in energy research. Although methane monooxygenase (MMO) does this catalysis naturally, how to use this biocatalyst in a fuel cell environment where the electrons generated during the oxidation process is harvested and used for energy generation has not yet been investigated. A key requirement to use this enzyme in a fuel cell is wiring of the active site of the enzyme directly to the supporting electrode. In soluble MMO (sMMO), two cofactors, i.e., nicotinamide adenine di-nucleotide (NAD+) and flavin adenine dinucleotide (FAD) provide opportunities for direct attachment of the enzyme system to a supporting electrode. However, once modified to be compatible with a supporting metal electrode via FeS functionalization, how the two cofactors respond to complex binding phenomena is not yet understood. Using docking and molecular dynamic simulations, modified cofactors interactions with sMMO-reductase (sMMOR) were studied. Studies revealed that FAD modification with FeS did not interfere with binding phenomena. In fact, FeS introduction significantly improved the binding affinity of FAD and NAD+ on sMMOR. The simulations revealed a clear thermodynamically more favorable electron transport path for the enzyme system. This system can be used as a fuel cell and we can use FeS-modified-FAD as the anchoring molecule as opposed to using NAD+. The overall analysis suggests the strong possibility of building a fuel cell that could catalyze methane oxidation using sMMO as the anode biocatalyst.

Keywords

Methane Methane monooxygenase sMMO pMMO AutoDock Vina NAMD 

Notes

Supplementary material

894_2018_3876_MOESM1_ESM.docx (78 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 77 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Xu J, Baase WA, Baldwin E, Matthews BW (1998) The response of T4 lysozyme to large-to-small substitutions within the core and its relation to the hydrophobic effect. Protein Sci 7(1):158–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Murray EP, Tsai T, Barnett S (1999) A direct-methane fuel cell with a ceria-based anode. Nature 400(6745):649–651CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Whittington DA, Rosenzweig AC, Frederick CA, Lippard SJ (2001) Xenon and halogenated alkanes track putative substrate binding cavities in the soluble methane monooxygenase hydroxylase. Biochemistry 40(12):3476–3482CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Deeth RJ, Dalton H (1998) Methane activation by methane monooxygenase: free radicals, Fe-C bonding, substrate dependent pathways and the role of the regulatory protein. J Biol Inorg Chem 3(3):302–306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chatwood LL, Müller J, Gross JD, Wagner G, Lippard SJ (2004) NMR structure of the flavin domain from soluble methane monooxygenase reductase from Methylococcus capsulatus (Bath). Biochemistry 43(38):11983–11991CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lee SJ, McCormick MS, Lippard SJ, Cho U-S (2013) Control of substrate access to the active site in methane monooxygenase. Nature 494(7437):380CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Wang W, Iacob RE, Luoh RP, Engen JR, Lippard SJ (2014) Electron transfer control in soluble methane monooxygenase. J Am Chem Soc 136(27):9754–9762CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lin K-C, Chen S-M (2006) Reversible cyclic voltammetry of the NADH/NAD+ redox system on hybrid poly (luminol)/FAD film modified electrodes. J Electroanal Chem 589(1):52–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Marafon E, Kubota LT, Gushikem Y (2009) FAD-modified SiO2/ZrO2/C ceramic electrode for electrocatalytic reduction of bromate and iodate. J Solid State Electrochem 13(3):377–383CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Willner I, Heleg-Shabtai V, Blonder R, Katz E, Tao G, Bückmann AF, Heller A (1996) Electrical wiring of glucose oxidase by reconstitution of FAD-modified monolayers assembled onto au-electrodes. J Am Chem Soc 118(42):10321–10322CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Golabi S, Zare HR (1999) Electrocatalytic oxidation of hydrazine at glassy carbon electrode modified with electrodeposited film derived from caffeic acid. Electroanalysis 11(17):1293–1300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gorton L, Domı́ E (2002) Electrocatalytic oxidation of NAD (P) H at mediator-modified electrodes. Rev Mol Biotechnol 82(4):371–392CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Karyakin AA, Ivanova YN, Karyakina EE (2003) Equilibrium (NAD+/NADH) potential on poly (neutral red) modified electrode. Electrochem Commun 5(8):677–680CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Goodsell DS, Morris GM, Olson AJ (1996) Automated docking of flexible ligands: applications of AutoDock. J Mol Recogn 9(1):1–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Norinder U, Österberg T (2001) Theoretical calculation and prediction of drug transport processes using simple parameters and partial least squares projections to latent structures (PLS) statistics. The use of electrotopological state indices. J Pharm Sci 90(8):1076–1085CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    O’Boyle NM, Banck M, James CA, Morley C, Vandermeersch T, Hutchison GR (2011) Open Babel: an open chemical toolbox. J Cheminform 3(1):33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Yagi K, Ozawa T (1960) Complex formation of apo-enzyme, coenzyme and substrate of d-amino acid oxidase: I. Kinetic analysis using indicators. Biochimica et biophysica Acta 42:381–387CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Mahadevan A, Fernando T, Fernando S (2016) Iron–sulfur-based single molecular wires for enhancing charge transport in enzyme-based bioelectronic systems. Biosens Bioelectron 78:477–482CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Mahadevan A, Gunawardena DA, Fernando S (2014) Biochemical and electrochemical perspectives of the anode of a microbial fuel cell technology and application of microbial fuel cells. InTechGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Mahadevan A, Gunawardena DA, Karthikeyan R, Fernando S (2015) Potentiometric vs amperometric sensing of glycerol using glycerol dehydrogenase immobilized via layer-by-layer self-assembly. Microchim Acta 182(3–4):831–839CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Nørskov JK, Rossmeisl J, Logadottir A, Lindqvist L, Kitchin JR, Bligaard T, Jonsson H (2004) Origin of the overpotential for oxygen reduction at a fuel-cell cathode. J Phys Chem B 108(46):17886–17892CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Ghangrekar M, Shinde V (2007) Performance of membrane-less microbial fuel cell treating wastewater and effect of electrode distance and area on electricity production. Bioresour Technol 98(15):2879–2885CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Sato F, Togo M, Islam MK, Matsue T, Kosuge J, Fukasaku N, Kurosawa S, Nishizawa M (2005) Enzyme-based glucose fuel cell using vitamin K 3-immobilized polymer as an electron mediator. Electrochem Commun 7(7):643–647CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Park DH, Zeikus JG (2003) Improved fuel cell and electrode designs for producing electricity from microbial degradation. Biotechnol Bioeng 81(3):348–355CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Palmore GTR, Bertschy H, Bergens SH, Whitesides GM (1998) A methanol/dioxygen biofuel cell that uses NAD+−dependent dehydrogenases as catalysts: application of an electro-enzymatic method to regenerate nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide at low overpotentials. J Electroanal Chem 443(1):155–161CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Biological and Agricultural Engineering DepartmentTexas A&M UniversityCollege StationUSA

Personalised recommendations