Figure 4.
(A) Overview of the mechanisms for the TIM-catalyzed deprotonation of the full substrate GAP and the substrate fragments glycoaldehyde and phosphite dianion (GA·HPi). (B) A comparison of calculated activation (ΔG‡calc, dark blue) and reaction (ΔG0calc, light blue) free energies for the non-enzymatic deprotonation of the full substrate GAP, as well as the corresponding TIM-catalyzed deprotonation of substrates glycoaldehyde (GA), GA·HPi and GAP. All energies are shown in kcal·mol−1. (C) Population densities of the conformational space sampled by the substrate fragments (C,F) GA and (D,G) GA·HPi, as well as (E,H) the full substrate GAP, at (C–E) the Michaelis complexes and (F–H) transition states for the TIM-catalyzed deprotonation of these substrates, obtained from EVB simulations, performed as described in ref. [30]. The data on the x- and y-axes based on distances between the donor carbon atoms of the relevant substrate and the backbone α-amino acid carbon atoms of D111 in Chain B and I19 in Chain A. For full details of the analysis see ref. [30]. This figure is adapted from and based on data presented in ref. [30] (https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/jacs.8b00251), and is reproduced with permission from the American Chemical Society. Please note that requests for permissions regarding further reuse of this figure should be directed to the American Chemical Society.
Modeling TIM-catalyzed reactions of the whole substrate and substrate fragments.

(A) Overview of the mechanisms for the TIM-catalyzed deprotonation of the full substrate GAP and the substrate fragments glycoaldehyde and phosphite dianion (GA·HPi). (B) A comparison of calculated activation (ΔGcalc, dark blue) and reaction (ΔG0calc, light blue) free energies for the non-enzymatic deprotonation of the full substrate GAP, as well as the corresponding TIM-catalyzed deprotonation of substrates glycoaldehyde (GA), GA·HPi and GAP. All energies are shown in kcal·mol−1. (C) Population densities of the conformational space sampled by the substrate fragments (C,F) GA and (D,G) GA·HPi, as well as (E,H) the full substrate GAP, at (CE) the Michaelis complexes and (FH) transition states for the TIM-catalyzed deprotonation of these substrates, obtained from EVB simulations, performed as described in ref. [30]. The data on the x- and y-axes based on distances between the donor carbon atoms of the relevant substrate and the backbone α-amino acid carbon atoms of D111 in Chain B and I19 in Chain A. For full details of the analysis see ref. [30]. This figure is adapted from and based on data presented in ref. [30] (https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/jacs.8b00251), and is reproduced with permission from the American Chemical Society. Please note that requests for permissions regarding further reuse of this figure should be directed to the American Chemical Society.

Close Modal

or Create an Account

Close Modal
Close Modal