Increased enzyme binding to substrate is not necessary for more efficient cellulose hydrolysis

Substrate binding is typically one of the rate-limiting steps preceding enzyme catalytic action during homogeneous reactions. However, interfacial-based enzyme catalysis on insoluble crystalline substrates, like cellulose, has additional bottlenecks of individual biopolymer chain decrystallization from the substrate interface followed by its processive depolymerization to soluble sugars. This additional decrystallization step has ramifications on the role of enzyme–substrate binding and its relationship to overall catalytic efficiency. We found that altering the crystalline structure of cellulose from its native allomorph Iβ to IIII results in 40–50% lower binding partition coefficient for fungal cellulases, but surprisingly, it enhanced hydrolytic activity on the latter allomorph. We developed a comprehensive kinetic model for processive cellulases acting on insoluble substrates to explain this anomalous finding. Our model predicts that a reduction in the effective binding affinity to the substrate coupled with an increase in the decrystallization procession rate of individual cellulose chains from the substrate surface into the enzyme active site can reproduce our anomalous experimental findings.

[1]  B. Nidetzky,et al.  Dissecting and Reconstructing Synergism , 2012, The Journal of Biological Chemistry.

[2]  C. Radke,et al.  Competitive sorption kinetics of inhibited endo- and exoglucanases on a model cellulose substrate. , 2012, Langmuir : the ACS journal of surfaces and colloids.

[3]  Clayton J. Radke,et al.  Cellulase Adsorption and Reactivity on a Cellulose Surface from Flow Ellipsometry , 2012 .

[4]  Harvey W Blanch,et al.  Initial- and processive-cut products reveal cellobiohydrolase rate limitations and the role of companion enzymes. , 2012, Biochemistry.

[5]  Liisa Viikari,et al.  Inhibition of enzymatic hydrolysis by residual lignins from softwood—study of enzyme binding and inactivation on lignin‐rich surface , 2011, Biotechnology and bioengineering.

[6]  Anurag Sethi,et al.  Quantifying Intramolecular Binding in Multivalent Interactions: A Structure-Based Synergistic Study on Grb2-Sos1 Complex , 2011, PLoS Comput. Biol..

[7]  T. Ando,et al.  Traffic Jams Reduce Hydrolytic Efficiency of Cellulase on Cellulose Surface , 2011, Science.

[8]  Xiao Liang,et al.  Local site selectivity and conformational structures in the glycosidic bond scission of cellobiose. , 2011, The journal of physical chemistry. B.

[9]  Venkatesh Balan,et al.  Binding characteristics of Trichoderma reesei cellulases on untreated, ammonia fiber expansion (AFEX), and dilute‐acid pretreated lignocellulosic biomass , 2011, Biotechnology and bioengineering.

[10]  B. Dale,et al.  Probing the early events associated with liquid ammonia pretreatment of native crystalline cellulose. , 2011, The journal of physical chemistry. B.

[11]  G. Phillips,et al.  Restructuring the crystalline cellulose hydrogen bond network enhances its depolymerization rate. , 2011, Journal of the American Chemical Society.

[12]  Bruce E Dale,et al.  Deconstruction of lignocellulosic biomass to fuels and chemicals. , 2011, Annual review of chemical and biomolecular engineering.

[13]  Baron Peters,et al.  Molecular-level origins of biomass recalcitrance: decrystallization free energies for four common cellulose polymorphs. , 2011, The journal of physical chemistry. B.

[14]  Jack N Saddler,et al.  Enhancing the enzymatic hydrolysis of lignocellulosic biomass by increasing the carboxylic acid content of the associated lignin , 2011, Biotechnology and bioengineering.

[15]  Zhiguang Zhu,et al.  Cellulose solvent‐based biomass pretreatment breaks highly ordered hydrogen bonds in cellulose fibers of switchgrass , 2011, Biotechnology and bioengineering.

[16]  Venkatesh Balan,et al.  Hemicellulases and auxiliary enzymes for improved conversion of lignocellulosic biomass to monosaccharides , 2011, Biotechnology for biofuels.

[17]  Joseph A. Rollin,et al.  Increasing cellulose accessibility is more important than removing lignin: A comparison of cellulose solvent‐based lignocellulose fractionation and soaking in aqueous ammonia , 2011, Biotechnology and bioengineering.

[18]  P. Väljamäe,et al.  Processivity of Cellobiohydrolases Is Limited by the Substrate* , 2010, The Journal of Biological Chemistry.

[19]  Bruce E Dale,et al.  Multifaceted characterization of cell wall decomposition products formed during ammonia fiber expansion (AFEX) and dilute acid based pretreatments. , 2010, Bioresource technology.

[20]  Frits Goedegebuur,et al.  Hypocrea jecorina CEL6A protein engineering , 2010, Biotechnology for biofuels.

[21]  H. Blanch,et al.  A mechanistic model of the enzymatic hydrolysis of cellulose , 2010, Biotechnology and bioengineering.

[22]  P. Väljamäe,et al.  Mechanism of initial rapid rate retardation in cellobiohydrolase catalyzed cellulose hydrolysis , 2010, Biotechnology and bioengineering.

[23]  Michael E Himmel,et al.  Cellulose crystallinity index: measurement techniques and their impact on interpreting cellulase performance , 2010, Biotechnology for biofuels.

[24]  Masakazu Ike,et al.  Enzymatic hydrolysis of cellulose I is greatly accelerated via its conversion to the cellulose II hydrate form , 2010 .

[25]  Bruce E Dale,et al.  Mixture optimization of six core glycosyl hydrolases for maximizing saccharification of ammonia fiber expansion (AFEX) pretreated corn stover. , 2010, Bioresource technology.

[26]  Jay H. Lee,et al.  Cellulose crystallinity – a key predictor of the enzymatic hydrolysis rate , 2010, The FEBS journal.

[27]  M. Himmel,et al.  Identification of amino acids responsible for processivity in a Family 1 carbohydrate-binding module from a fungal cellulase. , 2010, The journal of physical chemistry. B.

[28]  J. Catchmark,et al.  Thermodynamics of Family 1 Cellulose-Binding Modules from T. reesei Cel7A and Cel6A , 2010 .

[29]  Venkatesh Balan,et al.  Strategy for Identification of Novel Fungal and Bacterial Glycosyl Hydrolase Hybrid Mixtures that can Efficiently Saccharify Pretreated Lignocellulosic Biomass , 2010, BioEnergy Research.

[30]  M. Penttilä,et al.  High Speed Atomic Force Microscopy Visualizes Processive Movement of Trichoderma reesei Cellobiohydrolase I on Crystalline Cellulose* , 2009, The Journal of Biological Chemistry.

[31]  Frances H Arnold,et al.  A family of thermostable fungal cellulases created by structure-guided recombination , 2009, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[32]  Venkatesh Balan,et al.  Lignocellulosic biomass pretreatment using AFEX. , 2009, Methods in molecular biology.

[33]  Y.‐H.P. Zhang,et al.  Bioseparation of recombinant cellulose-binding module-proteins by affinity adsorption on an ultra-high-capacity cellulosic adsorbent. , 2008, Analytica chimica acta.

[34]  Bruce E Dale,et al.  High-throughput microplate technique for enzymatic hydrolysis of lignocellulosic biomass. , 2008, Biotechnology and bioengineering.

[35]  H. Masaki,et al.  Correlation between cellulose binding and activity of cellulose‐binding domain mutants of Humicola grisea cellobiohydrolase 1 , 2007, FEBS letters.

[36]  B. Synstad,et al.  Costs and benefits of processivity in enzymatic degradation of recalcitrant polysaccharides , 2006, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[37]  M. Himmel,et al.  Outlook for cellulase improvement: screening and selection strategies. , 2006, Biotechnology advances.

[38]  Charles E Wyman,et al.  Changes in the enzymatic hydrolysis rate of Avicel cellulose with conversion , 2006, Biotechnology and bioengineering.

[39]  Guido Zacchi,et al.  Adsorption of Trichoderma reesei CBH I and EG II and their catalytic domains on steam pretreated softwood and isolated lignin. , 2004, Journal of biotechnology.

[40]  M. Penner,et al.  Quantitative analysis of cellulose-reducing ends , 2004, Applied biochemistry and biotechnology.

[41]  R. Matsuno,et al.  Elucidation of adsorption processes of cellulases during hydrolysis of crystalline cellulose , 2004, Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology.

[42]  S. Allen,et al.  Kinetic dynamics in heterogeneous enzymatic hydrolysis of cellulose: an overview, an experimental study and mathematical modelling , 2003 .

[43]  C. Haynes,et al.  Carbohydrate-binding Modules Recognize Fine Substructures of Cellulose* , 2002, The Journal of Biological Chemistry.

[44]  Paul Langan,et al.  Crystal structure and hydrogen-bonding system in cellulose Ibeta from synchrotron X-ray and neutron fiber diffraction. , 2002, Journal of the American Chemical Society.

[45]  P. Langan,et al.  X-ray structure of mercerized cellulose II at 1 a resolution. , 2001, Biomacromolecules.

[46]  A. Koivula,et al.  Cellulose-binding domains promote hydrolysis of different sites on crystalline cellulose. , 2000, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[47]  M. Tenkanen,et al.  Dynamic Interaction of Trichoderma reesei Cellobiohydrolases Cel6A and Cel7A and Cellulose at Equilibrium and during Hydrolysis , 1999, Applied and Environmental Microbiology.

[48]  T. A. Jones,et al.  High-resolution crystal structures reveal how a cellulose chain is bound in the 50 A long tunnel of cellobiohydrolase I from Trichoderma reesei. , 1998, Journal of molecular biology.

[49]  J. Sugiyama,et al.  The enzymatic susceptibility of cellulose microfibrils of the algal-bacterial type and the cotton-ramie type , 1997 .

[50]  G. Findenegg,et al.  Structure, Stability, and Activity of Adsorbed Enzymes , 1997, Journal of colloid and interface science.

[51]  J. Ståhlberg,et al.  Isotherms for adsorption of cellobiohydrolase I and II fromtrichoderma reesei on microcrystalline cellulose , 1997, Applied biochemistry and biotechnology.

[52]  T. Teeri,et al.  The cellulose-binding domain of the major cellobiohydrolase of Trichoderma reesei exhibits true reversibility and a high exchange rate on crystalline cellulose. , 1996, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[53]  D. Kilburn,et al.  Comparison of a fungal (family I) and bacterial (family II) cellulose-binding domain , 1995, Journal of bacteriology.

[54]  A. Annila,et al.  Identification of functionally important amino acids in the cellulose‐binding domain of Trichoderma reesei cellobiohydrolase I , 1995, Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society.

[55]  C. Acebal,et al.  Thermoinactivation of cellobiohydrolase I from Trichoderma reesei QM 9414 , 1995 .

[56]  J. O. Baker,et al.  Thermal denaturation ofTrichoderma reesei cellulases studied by differential scanning calorimetry and tryptophan fluorescence , 1992 .

[57]  Walter Steiner,et al.  Production of Trichoderma cellulase in laboratory and pilot scale , 1991 .

[58]  D. Kilburn,et al.  Enzyme immobilization using a cellulose-binding domain: properties of a beta-glucosidase fusion protein. , 1991, Enzyme and microbial technology.

[59]  R N Goldberg,et al.  Thermodynamics of hydrolysis of disaccharides. Cellobiose, gentiobiose, isomaltose, and maltose. , 1989, The Journal of biological chemistry.

[60]  G. L. Miller Use of Dinitrosalicylic Acid Reagent for Determination of Reducing Sugar , 1959 .