Advertisement

Conversion of Reductases to Dehydrogenases by Regulatory Mutations

  • Edmund C. C. Lin
Part of the Basic Life Sciences book series

Abstract

Nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide (NAD+)-linked oxidoreductases catalyze reactions that are generally in favor o f NAD+ f ormation at neutral pH. However, in vivo enzymes of this kind can function as either dehydrogenases or reductases. We have a case in which an enzyme that normally acts to reduce L-lactaldehyde is converted by a series of mutations that affect gene expression to an enzyme that acts to oxidize L-l, 2-propanediol. In Escherichia coli both aerobic and anaerobic utilization of L-fucose requires the expression of an inducible trunk pathway mediated by fucose permease (1), fucose isomerase (2), fuculose kinase (3), and fuculose 1-phosphate aldolase (4). The aldolase cleaves the six carbon substrate into dihydroxy-acetone phosphate and lactaldehyde (Figure 1). Anaerobically, lactaldehyde is completely reduced to propanediol by L-l, 2-propanediol: NAD+ 1-oxidoreductase (propanediol oxidoredutase), an enzyme with a molecular weight of 76,000 consisting of two electro-phoretically indistinguishable subunits (5). For each mole of fucose fermented, one mole of propanediol is secreted into the medium (6). The sacrifice of one half of the carbon skeleton of fucose in this way permits the further metabolism of dihydroxyacetone phosphate without an exogenous hydrogen acceptor.

Keywords

Nicotinamide Adenine Dinucleotide Affect Gene Expression Dihydroxyacetone Phosphate Glycerol Kinase Public Health Service Grant 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Hacking, A.J, and E.C.C. Lin. 1976. J. Bacteriol. 126:1166–1172.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Green, M, and S.S. Cohen.1956. J. Biol. Chem. 219:557–568.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Heath, E.C, and M.A. Ghalambor. 1962. J. Biol. Chem. 237:2423–2426.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ghalambor, M.A, and E.C. Heath. 1962. J. Biol. Chem. 237:2427–2433.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Boronat, A. and J. Aguilar. 1979. J. Bacteriol. 140:320–326.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cocks, G.T., J. Aguilar, and E.C.C. Lin. 1974. J. Bacteriol. 118:83–88.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Sridhara, S, and T.T. Wu. 1969. J. Biol. Chem. 244:5233–5238.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hacking, A.J. and E.C.C. Lin. 1977. J. Bacteriol. 130:832–838.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Sridhara, S. T.T. Wu, T.M. Chused, and E.C.C. Lin. 1969. J. Bacteriol. 98:87–95.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hacking, A.J., J. Aguilar, and E.C.C. Lin. 1978. J. Bacteriol. 136:522–530.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    St. Martin, E.J., W.B. Freedberg, and E.C.C. Lin. 1975. J. Bacteriol. 131:1026–1028.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Tang, CT., F.E. Ruch, and E.C.C. Lin. 1979. J. Bacteriol. 140:182–187.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Press, New York 1981

Authors and Affiliations

  • Edmund C. C. Lin
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Microbiology and Molecular GeneticsHarvard Medical SchoolBostonUSA

Personalised recommendations