Advertisement

Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology

, Volume 102, Issue 19, pp 8373–8388 | Cite as

Building a toolbox of protein scaffolds for future immobilization of biocatalysts

  • Sarah Schmidt-Dannert
  • Guoqiang Zhang
  • Timothy Johnston
  • Maureen B. Quin
  • Claudia Schmidt-Dannert
Biotechnologically relevant enzymes and proteins

Abstract

Biological materials that are genetically encoded and can self-assemble offer great potential as immobilization platforms in industrial biocatalysis. Protein-based scaffolds can be used for the spatial organization of enzymes, to stabilize the catalysts and provide optimal microenvironments for reaction sequences. In our previous work, we created a protein scaffold for enzyme localization by engineering the bacterial microcompartment shell protein EutM from Salmonella enterica. Here, we sought to expand this work by developing a toolbox of EutM proteins with different properties, with the potential to be used for future immobilization of enzymes. We describe the bioinformatic identification of hundreds of homologs of EutM from diverse microorganisms. We specifically select 13 EutM homologs from extremophiles for characterization, based on phylogenetic analyses. We synthesize genes encoding the novel proteins, clone and express them in E. coli, and purify the proteins. In vitro characterization shows that the proteins self-assemble into robust nano- and micron-scale architectures including protein nanotubes, filaments, and scaffolds. We explore the self-assembly characteristics from a sequence-based approach and create a synthetic biology platform for the coexpression of different EutM homologs as hybrid scaffolds with integrated enzyme attachment points. This work represents a step towards our goal of generating a modular toolbox for the rapid production of self-assembling protein-based materials for enzyme immobilization.

Keywords

Protein scaffolds Immobilization Synthetic biology Spatial organization Self-assembly 

Notes

Funding

This research was supported by Defense Threat Reduction Agency Grant HDTRA-15-0004 and Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency Contract HR0011-17-2-0038. S.S.-D. and T. J. were supported by funding from a Grand Challenge research award from the University of Minnesota.

Compliance with ethical standards

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Supplementary material

253_2018_9252_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (1.3 mb)
ESM 1 (PDF 1353 kb)

References

  1. Agapakis CM, Boyle PM, Silver PA (2012) Natural strategies for the spatial optimization of metabolism in synthetic biology. Nat Chem Biol 8:527–535.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nchembio.975 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Aleman Garcia MA, Hu Y, Willner I (2016) Switchable supramolecular catalysis using DNA-templated scaffolds. Chem Commun (Camb) 52:2153–2156.  https://doi.org/10.1039/c5cc08873a CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Altschul SF, Gish W, Miller W, Meyers EW, Lipman DJ (1990) Basic local alignment search tool. J Mol Biol 215:403–410.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-2836(05)80360-2 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Axen SD, Erbilgin O, Kerfeld CA (2014) A taxonomy of bacterial microcompartment loci constructed by a novel scoring method. PLoS Comput Biol 10:e1003898.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003898.g001 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. Benkert P, Kunzli M, Schwede T (2009) QMEAN server for protein model quality estimation. Nucleic Acids Res 37:W510–W514.  https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkp322 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. Berman HM, Westbrook J, Feng Z, Gilliland G, Bhat TN, Weissig H, Shindyalov IN, Bourne PE (2000) The protein data bank. Nucleic Acids Res 28:235–242.  https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/28.1.235 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. Biasini M, Bienert S, Waterhouse A, Arnold K, Studer G, Schmidt T, Kiefer F, Gallo Cassarino T, Bertoni M, Bordoli L, Schwede T (2014) SWISS-MODEL: modelling protein tertiary and quaternary structure using evolutionary information. Nucleic Acids Res 42:W252–W258.  https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gku340 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. Bobik TA, Lehman BP, Yeates TO (2015) Bacterial microcompartments: widespread prokaryotic organelles for isolation and optimization of metabolic pathways. Mol Microbiol 98:193–207.  https://doi.org/10.1111/mmi.13117 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. Bornscheuer UT (2018) The fourth wave of biocatalysis is approaching. Philos Trans A Math Phys Eng Sci 376:20170063.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2017.0063 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Cai F, Sutter M, Bernstein SL, Kinney JN, Kerfeld CA (2015) Engineering bacterial microcompartment shells: chimeric shell proteins and chimeric carboxysome shells. ACS Synth Biol 4:444–453.  https://doi.org/10.1021/sb500226j CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Choudhary S, Quin MB, Sanders MA, Johnson ET, Schmidt-Dannert C (2012) Engineered protein nano-compartments for targeted enzyme localization. PLoS One 7:e33342.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0033342 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. Chowdhury C, Chun S, Sawaya MR, Yeates TO, Bobik TA (2016) The function of the PduJ microcompartment shell protein is determined by the genomic position of its encoding gene. Mol Microbiol 101:770–783.  https://doi.org/10.1111/mmi.13423 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. Clomburg JM, Crumbley AM, Gonzalez R (2017) Industrial biomanufacturing: the future of chemical production. Science 355:aag0804.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aag0804 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Conrado RJ, Wu GC, Boock JT, Xu H, Chen SY, Lebar T, Turnsek J, Tomsic N, Avbelj M, Gaber R, Koprivnjak T, Mori J, Glavnik V, Vovk I, Bencina M, Hodnik V, Anderluh G, Dueber JE, Jerala R, DeLisa MP (2012) DNA-guided assembly of biosynthetic pathways promotes improved catalytic efficiency. Nucleic Acids Res 40:1879–1889.  https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkr888 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Crowley CS, Cascio D, Sawaya MR, Kopstein JS, Bobik TA, Yeates TO (2010) Structural insight into the mechanisms of transport across the Salmonella enterica Pdu microcompartment shell. J Biol Chem 285:37838–37846.  https://doi.org/10.1074/jbc.M110.160580 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. Delebecque CJ, Linder AB, Silver PA, Aldaye FA (2011) Organization of intracellular reactions with rationally designed RNA assemblies. Science 333:470–474.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1206938 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Denard CA, Ren H, Zhao H (2015) Improving and repurposing biocatalysts via directed evolution. Curr Opin Chem Biol 25:55–64.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cbpa.2014.12.036 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. DiCosimo R, McAuliffe J, Poulose AJ, Bohlmann G (2013) Industrial use of immobilized enzymes. Chem Soc Rev 42:6437–6474.  https://doi.org/10.1039/c3cs35506c CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Dueber JE, Wu GC, Malmirchegini GR, Moon TS, Petzold CJ, Ullal AV, Prather KL, Keasling JD (2009) Synthetic protein scaffolds provide modular control over metabolic flux. Nat Biotechnol 27:753–759.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.1557 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Dumorne K, Cordova DC, Astorga-Elo M, Renganathan P (2017) Extremozymes: a potential source for industrial applications. J Microbiol Biotechnol 27:649–659.  https://doi.org/10.4014/jmb.1611.11006 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Eddy SR (2004) Where did the BLOSUM62 alignment score matrix come from? Nat Biotechnol 22:1035–1036.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt0804-1035 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Edgar RC (2004) MUSCLE: multiple sequence alignment with high accuracy and high throughput. Nucleic Acids Res 32:1792–1797.  https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkh340 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  23. Fan C, Cheng S, Sinha S, Bobik TA (2012) Interactions between the termini of lumen enzymes and shell proteins mediate enzyme encapsulation into bacterial microcompartments. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 109:14995–15000.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1207516109 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  24. Fessner WD (2015) Systems biocatalysis: development and engineering of cell-free “artificial metabolisms” for preparative multi-enzymatic synthesis. New Biotechnol 32:658–664.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nbt.2014.11.007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. France SP, Hepworth LJ, Turner NJ, Flitsch SL (2016) Constructing biocatalytic cascades: in vitro and in vivo approaches to de novo multi-enzyme pathways. ACS Catal 7:710–724.  https://doi.org/10.1021/acscatal.6b02979 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Held M, Kolb A, Perdue S, Hsu SY, Bloch SE, Quin MB, Schmidt-Dannert C (2016) Engineering formation of multiple recombinant Eut protein nanocompartments in E. coli. Sci Rep 6:24359.  https://doi.org/10.1038/srep24359 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  27. Held M, Quin MB, Schmidt-Dannert C (2013) Eut bacterial microcompartments: insights into their function, structure, and bioengineering applications. J Mol Microbiol Biotechnol 23:308–320.  https://doi.org/10.1159/000351343 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Hoarau M, Badieyan S, Marsh ENG (2017) Immobilized enzymes: understanding enzyme - surface interactions at the molecular level. Org Biomol Chem 15:9539–9551.  https://doi.org/10.1039/c7ob01880k CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Jakobson CM, Chen Y, Slininger MF, Valdivia E, Kim EY, Tullman-Ercek D (2016) Tuning the catalytic activity of subcellular nanoreactors. J Mol Biol 428:2989–2996.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmb.2016.07.006 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Kaczmarczyk A, Vorholt JA, Francez-Charlot A (2013) Cumate-inducible gene expression system for sphingomonads and other Alphaproteobacteria. Appl Environ Microbiol 79:6795–6802.  https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.02296-13 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  31. Kerfeld CA, Aussignargues C, Zarzycki J, Cai F, Sutter M (2018) Bacterial microcompartments. Nat Rev Microbiol 16:277–290.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nrmicro.2018.10 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Kim EY, Slininger MF, Tullman-Ercek D (2014) The effects of time, temperature, and pH on the stability of Pdu bacterial microcompartments. Protein Sci 23:1434–1441.  https://doi.org/10.1002/pro.2527 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  33. Kim S, Hahn JS (2014) Synthetic scaffold based on a cohesin-dockerin interaction for improved production of 2,3-butanediol in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. J Biotechnol 192(Pt A):192–196.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbiotec.2014.10.015 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Kumar S, Stecher G, Tamura K (2016) MEGA7: molecular evolutionary genetics analysis version 7.0 for bigger datasets. Mol Biol Evol 33:1870–1874.  https://doi.org/10.1093/molbev/msw054 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  35. Kurniawan NA, van Kempen THS, Sonneveld S, Rosalina TT, Vos BE, Jansen KA, Peters GWM, van de Vosse FN, Koenderink GH (2017) Buffers strongly modulate fibrin self-assembly into fibrous networks. Langmuir 33:6342–6352.  https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.langmuir.7b00527 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  36. Le Feuvre RA, Scrutton NS (2018) A living foundry for synthetic biological materials: a synthetic biology roadmap to new advanced materials. Synth Syst Biotechnol 3:105–112.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.synbio.2018.04.002 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  37. Lee CC, Kibblewhite RE, Paavola CD, Orts WJ, Wagschal K (2016a) Production of glucaric acid from hemicellulose substrate by Rosettasome enzyme assemblies. Mol Biotechnol 58:489–496.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12033-016-9945-y CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Lee MJ, Brown IR, Juodeikis R, Frank S, Warren MJ (2016b) Employing bacterial microcompartment technology to engineer a shell-free enzyme-aggregate for enhanced 1,2-propanediol production in Escherichia coli. Metab Eng 36:48–56.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ymben.2016.02.007 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  39. Lee MJ, Mantell J, Hogdson L, Alibhai D, Fletcher JM, Brown IR, Frank S, Xue W-F, Verkade P, Woolfson DN, Warren MJ (2018) Engineered synthetic scaffolds for organizing proteins within the bacterial cytoplasm. Nat Chem Biol 14:142–148.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nchembio.2535 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Letunic I, Bork P (2016) Interactive tree of life (iTOL) v3: an online tool for the display and annotation of phylogenetic and other trees. Nucleic Acids Res 44:W242–W245.  https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkw290 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  41. Lin J-L, Palomec L, Wheeldon I (2014) Design and analysis of enhanced catalysis in scaffolded multienzyme cascade reactions. ACS Catal 4:505–511.  https://doi.org/10.1021/cs401009z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Lin JL, Zhu J, Wheeldon I (2017) Synthetic protein scaffolds for biosynthetic pathway colocalization on lipid droplet membranes. ACS Synth Biol 6:1534–1544.  https://doi.org/10.1021/acssynbio.7b00041 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Littlechild JA (2015) Enzymes from extreme environments and their industrial applications. Front Bioeng Biotechnol 3:161.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fbioe.2015.00161 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  44. Lotze J, Reinhardt U, Seitz O, Beck-Sickinger AG (2016) Peptide-tags for site-specific protein labelling in vitro and in vivo. Mol BioSyst 12:1731–1745.  https://doi.org/10.1039/c6mb00023a CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Moon TS, Dueber JE, Shiue E, Prather KL (2010) Use of modular, synthetic scaffolds for improved production of glucaric acid in engineered E. coli. Metab Eng 12:298–305.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ymben.2010.01.003 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Mutti FG, Knaus T, Scrutton NS, Breuer M, Turner NJ (2015) Conversion of alcohols to enantiopure amines through dual-enzyme hydrogen-borrowing cascades. Science 349:1525–1529.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aac9283 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  47. Nguyen PQ, Courchesne ND, Duraj-Thatte A, Praveschotinunt P, Joshi NS (2018) Engineered living materials: prospects and challenges for using biological systems to direct the assembly of smart materials. Adv Mater 30:1704847–1704881.  https://doi.org/10.1002/adma.201704847 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Noël CR, Cai F, Kerfeld CA (2016) Purification and characterization of protein nanotubes assembled from a single bacterial microcompartment shell subunit. Adv Mater Interfaces 3:1500295.  https://doi.org/10.1002/admi.201500295 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Notredame C, Higgins DG, Heringa J (2000) T-coffee: a novel method for fast and accurate multiple sequence alignment. J Mol Biol 302:205–217.  https://doi.org/10.1006/jmbi.2000.4042 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. Pang A, Frank S, Brown I, Warren MJ, Pickersgill RW (2014) Structural insights into higher order assembly and function of the bacterial microcompartment protein PduA. J Biol Chem 289:22377–22384.  https://doi.org/10.1074/jbc.M114.569285 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  51. Pitts AC, Tuck LR, Faulds-Pain A, Lewis RJ, Marles-Wright J (2012) Structural insight into the Clostridium difficile ethanolamine utilisation microcompartment. PLoS One 7:e48360.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0048360 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  52. Quin MB, Perdue SA, Hsu SY, Schmidt-Dannert C (2016) Encapsulation of multiple cargo proteins within recombinant Eut nanocompartments. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 100:9187–9200.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00253-016-7737-8 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. Quin MB, Wallin KK, Zhang G, Schmidt-Dannert C (2017) Spatial organization of multi-enzyme biocatalytic cascades. Org Biomol Chem 15:4260–4271.  https://doi.org/10.1039/c7ob00391a CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. Ramirez M, Guan D, Ugaz V, Chen Z (2013) Intein-triggered artificial protein hydrogels that support the immobilization of bioactive proteins. J Am Chem Soc 135:5290–5293.  https://doi.org/10.1021/ja401075s CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. Saitou N, Nei M (1987) The neighbor-joining method: a new method for reconstructing phylogenetic trees. Mol Biol Evol 4:406–425.  https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.molbev.a040454 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. Salis HM, Mirsky EA, Voigt CA (2009) Automated design of synthetic ribosome binding sites to control protein expression. Nat Biotechnol 27:946–950.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.1568 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  57. Sarmiento F, Peralta R, Blamey JM (2015) Cold and hot extremozymes: industrial relevance and current trends. Front Bioeng Biotechnol 3:148.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fbioe.2015.00148 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  58. Schmidt-Dannert C, Lopez-Gallego F (2016) A roadmap for biocatalysis - functional and spatial orchestration of enzyme cascades. Microb Biotechnol 9:601–609.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1751-7915.12386 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  59. Schrittwieser JH, Velikogne S, Hall M, Kroutil W (2018) Artificial biocatalytic linear cascades for preparation of organic molecules. Chem Rev 118:270–348.  https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.chemrev.7b00033 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. Sheldon RA, van Pelt S (2013) Enzyme immobilisation in biocatalysis: why, what and how. Chem Soc Rev 42:6223–6235.  https://doi.org/10.1039/c3cs60075k CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. Slininger Lee MF, Jakobson CM, Tullman-Ercek D (2017) Evidence for improved encapsulated pathway behavior in a bacterial microcompartment through shell protein engineering. ACS Synth Biol 6:1880–1891.  https://doi.org/10.1021/acssynbio.7b00042 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. Sutter M, Faulkner M, Aussignargues C, Paasch BC, Barrett S, Kerfeld CA, Liu LN (2016) Visualization of bacterial microcompartment facet assembly using high-speed atomic force microscopy. Nano Lett 16:1590–1595.  https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.nanolett.5b04259 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. Sutter M, Greber B, Aussignargues C, Kerfeld CA (2017) Assembly principles and structure of a 6.5-MDa bacterial microcompartment shell. Science 356:1293–1297.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aan3289 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  64. Takenoya M, Nikolakakis K, Sagermann M (2010) Crystallographic insights into the pore structures and mechanisms of the EutL and EutM shell proteins of the ethanolamine-utilizing microcompartment of Escherichia coli. J Bacteriol 192:6056–6063.  https://doi.org/10.1128/JB.00652-10 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  65. Tan CY, Hirakawa H, Nagamune T (2015) Supramolecular protein assembly supports immobilization of a cytochrome P450 monooxygenase system as water-insoluble gel. Sci Rep 5:8648.  https://doi.org/10.1038/srep08648 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  66. Tanaka S, Kerfeld CA, Sawaya MR, Cai F, Heinhorst S, Cannon GC, Yeates TO (2008) Atomic-level models of the bacterial carboxysome shell. Science 319:1083–1086.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1151458 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  67. Tanaka S, Sawaya MR, Yeates TO (2010) Structure and mechanisms of a protein-based organelle in Escherichia coli. Science 327:81–84.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1179513 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  68. Tsoy O, Ravcheev D, Mushegian A (2009) Comparative genomics of ethanolamine utilization. J Bacteriol 191:7157–7164.  https://doi.org/10.1128/JB.00838-09 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  69. Uddin I, Frank S, Warren MJ, Pickersgill RW (2018) A generic self-assembly process in microcompartments and synthetic protein nanotubes. Small 14:e1704020.  https://doi.org/10.1002/smll.201704020 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  70. Vick JE, Clomburg JM, Blankschien MD, Chou A, Kim S, Gonzalez R (2015) Escherichia coli enoyl-acyl carrier protein reductase (FabI) supports efficient operation of a functional reversal of the β-oxidation cycle. Appl Environ Microbiol 81:1406–1416.  https://doi.org/10.1021/sb3000782 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  71. Wu JC, Hutchings CH, Lindsay MJ, Werner CJ, Bundy BC (2015) Enhanced enzyme stability through site-directed covalent immobilization. J Biotechnol 193:83–90.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbiotec.2014.10.039 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  72. Wu S, Zhou Y, Wang T, Too HP, Wang DI, Li Z (2016) Highly regio- and enantioselective multiple oxy- and amino-functionalizations of alkenes by modular cascade biocatalysis. Nat Commun 7:11917.  https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms11917 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  73. Young EJ, Burton R, Mahalik JP, Sumpter BG, Fuentes-Cabrera M, Kerfeld CA, Ducat DC (2017) Engineering the bacterial microcompartment domain for molecular scaffolding applications. Front Microbiol 8:1441.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2017.01441 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  74. Zakeri B, Fierera JO, Celik E, Chittock EC, Schwarz-Linek U, Moy VT, Howarth M (2012) Peptide tag forming a rapid covalent bond to a protein, through engineering a bacterial adhesin. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 109:E690–E697.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1115485109/-/DCSupplemental CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  75. Zhang G, Quin MB, Schmidt-Dannert C (2018) Self-assembling protein scaffold system for easy in vitro coimmobilization of biocatalytic cascade enzymes. ACS Catal 8:5611–5620.  https://doi.org/10.1021/acscatal.8b00986 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Zhang Y, Tsitkov S, Hess H (2016) Proximity does not contribute to activity enhancement in the glucose oxidase-horseradish peroxidase cascade. Nat Commun 7:13982.  https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms13982 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  77. Zhang YF, Hess H (2017) Toward rational design of high-efficiency enzyme cascades. ACS Catal 7:6018–6027.  https://doi.org/10.1021/acscatal.7b01766 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Zhang Z, Witham S, Alexov E (2011) On the role of electrostatics in protein-protein interactions. Phys Biol 8:035001.  https://doi.org/10.1088/1478-3975/8/3/035001 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

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

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Biochemistry, Molecular Biology and BiophysicsUniversity of MinnesotaSt. PaulUSA

Personalised recommendations