Sequence, structure, dynamics, and substrate specificity analyses of bacterial Glycoside Hydrolase 1 enzymes from several activities

Glycoside hydrolase 1 (GH1) enzymes are a ubiquitous family of enzymes that hydrolyse the glycosidic bond between two or more carbohydrates, or between a carbohydrate and a non-carbohydrate moiety. Despite their conserved catalytic domain, these enzymes have many different enzyme activities and/or substrate specificities as a change of only a few residues in the active site can alter their function. Most GH1 active site residues are situated in loop regions, and it is known that enzymes are more likely to develop new functions (broad specificity) if they possess an active site with a high proportion of loops. Furthermore, the GH1 active site consists of several subsites and cooperative binding makes the binding affinity of sites difficult to measure because the properties of one subsite are influenced by the binding of the other subsites. Extensive knowledge of protein-ligand interactions is critical to the comprehension of biology at the molecular level. However, the structural determinants and molecular details of GH1 ligand specificity and affinity are very broad, highly complex, not well understood, and therefore still need to be clarified. The aim of this study was to computationally characterise the activity of three newly solved GH1 crystallographic structures sent to us by our collaborators, and to provide evidence for their ligand-binding specificities. In addition, the differences in structural and biochemical contributions to enzyme specificity and/or function between different GH1 activities/enzymes was assessed, and the sequence/structure/function relationship of several activities of GH1 enzymes was analysed and compared. To accomplish the research aims, sequence analyses involving sequence identity, phylogenetics, and motif discovery were performed. As protein structure is more conserved than sequence, the discovered motifs were mapped to 3D structures for structural analysis and comparisons. To obtain information on enzyme mechanism or mode of action, as well as structure-function relationship, computational methods such as docking, molecular dynamics, binding free energy calculations, and essential dynamics were implemented. These computational approaches can provide information on the active site, binding residues, protein-ligand interactions, binding affinity, conformational change, and most structural or dynamic elements that play a role in enzyme function. The three new structures received from our collaborators are the first GH1 crystallographic structures from Bacillus licheniformis ever determined. As phospho-glycoside compounds were unavailable for purchase for use in activity assays, and as the active sites of the structures were absent of ligand, in silico docking and MD simulations were performed to provide evidence for their GH1 activities and substrate specificities. First though, the amino acid sequences of all known characterised bacterial GH1 enzymes were retrieved from the CAZy database and compared to the sequences of the three new B. licheniformis crystallographic structures which provided evidence of the putative 6Pβ-glucosidase activity of enzyme BlBglH, and dual 6Pβ-glucosidase/6Pβ-galactosidase (dual-phospho) activity of enzymes BlBglB and BlBglC. As all three enzymes were determined to be putative 6Pβ-glycosidase activity enzymes, much of the thesis focused on the overall analysis and comparison of the 6Pβ-glucosidase, 6Pβ-galactosidase, and dual-phospho activities that make up the 6Pβ-glycosidases. The 6Pβ-glycosidase active site residues were identified through consensus of binding interactions using all known 6Pβ-glycosidase PDB structures complexed complete ligand substrates. With regards to the 6Pβ-glucosidase activity, it was found that the L8b loop is longer and forms extra interactions with the L8a loop likely leading to increased L8 loop rigidity which would prevent the displacement of residue Ala423 ensuring a steric clash with galactoconfigured ligands and may engender substrate specificity for gluco-configured ligands only. Also, during molecular dynamics simulations using enzyme BlBglH (6Pβ-glucosidase activity), it was revealed that the favourable binding of substrate stabilises the loops that surround and make up the enzyme active site. Using the BlBglC (dual-phospho activity) enzyme structure with either galacto- (PNP6Pgal) or gluco-configured (PNP6Pglc) ligands, MD simulations in triplicate revealed important details of the broad specificity of dual-phospho activity enzymes. The ligand O4 hydroxyl position is the only difference between PNP6Pgal and PNP6Pgal, and it was found that residues Gln23 and Trp433 bind strongly to the ligand O3 hydroxyl group in the PNP6Pgal-enzyme complex, but to the ligand O4 hydroxyl group in the PNP6Pglc-enzyme complex. Also, His124 formed many hydrogen bonds with the PNP6Pgal O3 hydroxyl group but had none with PNP6Pglc. Alternatively, residues Tyr173, Tyr301, Gln302 and Thr321 formed hydrogen bonds with PNP6Pglc but not PNP6Pgal. Lastly, using multiple 3D structures from various GH1 activities, a large network of conserved interactions between active site residues (and other important residues) was uncovered, which most likely stabilise the loop regions that contain these residues, helping to retain their positions needed for binding molecules. Alternatively, there exists several differing residue-residue interactions when comparing each of the activities which could contribute towards individual activity substrate specificity by causing slightly different overall structure and malleability of the active site. Altogether, the findings in this thesis shed light on the function, mechanisms, dynamics, and ligand-binding of GH1 enzymes – particularly of the 6Pβ-glycosidase activities.Thesis (PhD) -- Faculty of Science, Biochemistry and Microbiology, 202