prev next front |1 |2 |3 |4 |5 |6 |7 |8 |9 |10 |11 |12 |13 |14 |15 |16 |17 |18 |19 |20 |21 |22 |23 |24 |25 |26 |27 |28 |29 |30 |review
Also, in comparison to these classical asymptotic enzyme kinetics of rate vs. substrate concentration, kinetics are cooperatively S-shaped, for the isoleucine synthetic enzyme14 and for ATCase.15 This suggests that these enzymes are composed of interacting subunits. A pure enzyme was required to understand these discrepancies, to eliminate uncertainties posed by effects and explanations based on complexities of properties and metabolism in crude extracts. For starting material, ATCase was de-repressed 1,000 fold, and then purified and crystallized by Margaret Shepherdson. With this pure enzyme the feedback inhibitor was demonstrated to be not uridine but cytidine triphosphate (CTP). But this compound has no apparent structural similarity to the pathway’s initial substrates.16 This dilemma was solved by the discovery of enzyme’s regulatory sites distinct from catalytic sites. An initial demonstration of a regulatory site was that ATP (which is not a substrate) increases ATPase activity, in contrast to inhibitory CTP.15 This rules out the mechanism of an interaction at the catalytic site, since binding of ATP to the active site would have to be inhibitory. It must therefore bind to a different, regulatory site. Such binding of a regulatory molecule can change the protein’s structure and thereby its catalytic site’s activity, per the induced fit model proposed for enzymes by Daniel Koshland.17