J Biol Chem, Vol. 274, Issue 53, 37717-37722, December 31, 1999
Glycosyl Fluorides Can Function as Substrates for Nucleotide
Phosphosugar-dependent Glycosyltransferases*
Brenda
Lougheed
,
Hoa D.
Ly
,
Warren W.
Wakarchuk§, and
Stephen G.
Withers
¶
From the
Department of Chemistry, University of
British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia V6T 1Z1 and the
§ Institute of Biological Sciences, National Research
Council of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0R6, Canada
 |
ABSTRACT |
-Galactosyl fluoride is shown to function as a
substrate, in place of uridine-5'-diphosphogalactose, for the
-galactosyltransferase from Neisseria meningitidis. The
reaction only occurs in the presence of catalytic
quantities of uridine 5'-diphosphate. In the presence of galactosyl
acceptors, the expected oligosaccharide product is formed in
essentially quantitative yields, reaction having been performed on
multi-milligram scales. In the absence of a suitable acceptor, the
enzyme synthesizes uridine-5'-diphosphogalactose, as demonstrated
through a coupled assay in which uridine-5'-diphosphogalactose is
converted to uridine-5'-diphosphoglucuronic acid with conversion of NAD
to NADH. These glycosyl fluoride substrates therefore offer the
potential of an inexpensive alternative donor substrate in the
synthesis of oligosaccharides as well a means of generating steady
state concentrations of nucleotide diphosphate sugars for in
situ use by other enzymes. Further, they should prove valuable as
mechanistic probes.
 |
INTRODUCTION |
Oligosaccharides, primarily in the form of various
glycoconjugates, are involved in a wide variety of biological functions (1-3) and consequently show enormous potential as therapeutic agents
for a number of conditions ranging from infectious diseases to cancer
therapies (4-7). Their development as drugs, however, has been slow,
in part because of difficulties with the large scale synthesis of
oligosaccharides in an economic manner. Despite significant advances,
chemical syntheses are generally impractical on the large scale since
multiple protection and deprotection steps are typically required to
control regiochemistry and because control of stereochemistry remains a
challenge (8-10). Enzymatic synthesis provides an attractive
alternative. The use of glycosidases run "backward" has a long
history, but one which has been troubled by poor yields (11, 12),
although the recent development of mutant glycosidases (glycosynthases)
shows promise (13).
The alternative enzymatic approach involves the use of
glycosyltransferases, nature's own anabolic enzymes, to form the very specific glycosyl linkages required (14, 15). Two problems have plagued
this approach, one being the availability and stability of the enzymes,
and the other being the cost of the nucleotide diphosphate sugar
substrates. The former problem is being solved through the cloning and
high level expression of the soluble catalytic domains, particularly of
bacterial enzymes rather than their mammalian counterparts. The latter
problem has been tackled through the development of complex, but
effective recycling schemes to enzymatically regenerate the nucleotide
diphosphate sugars (15). Although prices of nucleotide diphosphosugars
are decreasing as recombinant strains producing them are developed, a
problem still exists with end product (UDP) inhibition. A need
therefore exists for detailed mechanistic information on these
important enzymes, and for the development of alternative substrates
that could prove more amenable to kinetic study and also less expensive
for large scale synthesis. Such a system is described herein.
NDP1-sugar
glycosyltransferases have been assigned to families on the basis of
sequence similarities (16). They can also be classified mechanistically
as either inverting or retaining, depending on the relative anomeric
stereochemistries of their substrate and product, exactly as has been
done with the well studied glycosidases (17, 18). This has led to the
tacit assumption that similar mechanisms are followed by the two
classes of enzyme. Mechanistic studies to date have been largely
limited to kinetic analyses that reveal no common mechanism. Studies on
the retaining glucosyltransferase glycogen synthase pointed to a rapid
equilibrium random bi bi mechanism (19-21), while those on the
inverting galactosyl (22) and fucosyl (23) transferases suggested rapid
equilibrium random and ordered bi-bi schemes, respectively. Other
studies have included measurement of positional isotope exchange and
secondary deuterium kinetic isotope effects, as well as a few affinity
labeling and photoaffinity labeling studies (see Ref. 17, and
references therein). The only three-dimensional structures available to
date are those of the phage T4
-glucosyltransferase, which
unfortunately appears to be unrelated in amino acid sequence to any
other enzyme (24) and very recently published structures of a bovine
galactosyltransferase (25) and a presumed
N-acetylglucosaminyltransferase from Bacillus subtilis (26).
Considerable effort has been expended in the probing of substrate
specificities using modified donor and acceptor sugars (27-29). However, no functional substrate analogs have yet been reported in
which the nucleotide diphosphate moiety is substantially altered or
removed. Glycosyl fluorides have proven to be valuable substrates for
glycosidases, both for use in synthesis and in probing mechanisms (30-35). The small size and high reactivity of the fluoride leaving group tends to ensure reasonable reaction rates with glycosidases, and
the reaction can be easily monitored by use of a fluoride ion-selective
electrode. It therefore seemed to be of value to test whether glycosyl
fluorides could in fact function as alternate glycosyl donors for
nucleotide diphosphate sugar-dependent
glycosyltransferases. This could provide a much less expensive
alternative for large scale syntheses as well as providing a simpler
system for mechanistic studies.
 |
MATERIALS AND METHODS |
General Procedures--
Recombinant
-galactosyltransferase
from Neisseria meningitidis lacking the 19 C-terminal amino
acid residues was expressed in, and purified from, Escherichia
coli as described previously (36). Concentrations of lgtC
19
solutions were determined based on
280 = 1.74 ml
mg
1 cm
1 (36). Type II rabbit muscle
pyruvate kinase and lactate dehydrogenase were obtained from Sigma as
suspensions in 3.2 M ammonium sulfate, pH 6.0. UDP-galactose 4-epimerase from E. coli and UDP-glucose dehydrogenase from group A Streptococcus, were gifts from
Dr. H. M. Holden (University of Wisconsin) and Dr. M. Tanner
(University of British Columbia). respectively.
-Galactosyl fluoride
was synthesized by reaction of penta-O-acetyl galactose with
HF/pyridine, followed by deprotection using sodium methoxide in
methanol as described previously (37, 38). Thin-layer chromatographic (TLC) separations were performed using Merck Kieselgel 60 F254 analytical plates. Compounds were detected visually
(when possible) under long wavelength UV light, or by charring with
either 5% sulfuric acid in methanol or 10% ammonium molybdate with 2 M sulfuric acid. Mass spectrometry was performed using a
Sciex API 300 triple quadrupole LC/MS/MS electrospray mass
spectrometer. NMR spectra were recorded on Varian Unity 500-MHz and
Varian 300-MHz spectrometers. High pressure liquid chromatography
(HPLC) was performed using a Waters HPLC system equipped with a Waters
410 differential refractometer on a Rainin DynamaxTM column
(4.6 mm × 150 mm) equipped with a guard column (60 Å, 8-µm
NH2-linked packing). Elution was performed with
acetonitrile/water mixtures.
Enzymatic Synthesis--
Analytical runs were performed by
adding 5 µl of 6 mg/ml lgtC
19 (0.9 nmol) to 3 µl of 115 mM
-galactosyl fluoride (0.35 µmol), 3 µl of 100 mM UDP (0.3 µmol), 5 µl of 5 mM acceptor
(0.025 µmol), plus 4 µl of 500 mM HEPES buffer (pH 7.5)
containing 50 mM MnCl2 and 25 mM
DTT. Reaction progress was monitored by TLC using a solvent system of
7:2:1:0.1 ethyl acetate/methanol/H2O/acetic acid. Products
were partially purified by loading onto a SepPak in deionized water,
then eluting with 1:1 (v/v) acetonitrile/water.
Preparative scale synthesis was carried out by the addition of 15 µl
of 1 M
-galactosyl fluoride (15 µmol), 5 µl of 1 M UDP (5 µmol), 100 µl of 500 mM Tris
buffer (pH 7.5) containing 50 mM MnCl2 and 25 mM DTT to a vial. Approximately 78 nmol of purified lgtC
19 was added, followed by 40 µl of 250 mM lactose
(10 µmol), and the vial incubated at room temperature. Progress was
monitored by TLC. After 9 h, the pH had dropped to 5.0 and thus
was adjusted to a pH of 7.5 by use of NaOH. After 23 h, the
reaction had reached >90% completion (by TLC) and reaction was
terminated by removal of the enzyme using an Amicon centrifugal
concentrator (cut-off 10 kDa). Product was purified by HPLC, yielding 5 mg (9.9 µmol; 99%) of trisaccharide product. 1H NMR
(D2O): (where A
-Gal(1,4), B
-Gal(1,4), and C
Glc)
5.22 (d, 0.4 H, J1, 2 = 3.6 Hz, H-1C
a), 4.95 (d, 1 H, J1, 2 = 3.6 Hz, H-1A), 4.66 (d, 0.6 H, J1, 2 = 8 Hz,
H-1C
b), 4.52 (d, 1 H, J1, 2 = 8 Hz, H-1B),
4.39 (t, 2 H, J5, 6 = 8 Hz, H-5A,B), 4.08 (t, 2 H, J4,
5 = J5, 6 = 3.6 Hz, H-4A,B), 3.6-4.0 (m, 12 H,
H-2A,B,C; H-3A,B,C; H-4C; H-6A,B,C), 3.35 (t, 1 H, J5, 6 = 8 Hz, H-5C).
Kinetic Analysis--
Kinetic parameters for the transfer of
galactose from
-galactosyl fluoride to lactose by lgtC
19 were
determined using a continuous assay in which fluoride release was
monitored. For standard assays, a solution containing 100 mM HEPES (pH 7.5 or 7.0), 2.5 mM
MnCl2, 5 mM DTT, and 2 mM UDP plus
appropriate concentrations of lactose and
-galactosyl fluoride was
incubated at 30 °C. The spontaneous hydrolysis of
-galactosyl
fluoride was monitored for 5 min before lgtC
19 was added to initiate
the transfer reaction, giving a final assay volume of 300 µl. The
reaction was then followed for 10 min and the reaction rate corrected
for the background hydrolysis.
The continuous coupled assay monitoring UDP-Gal production was carried
out in assay cells containing 100 mM HEPES (pH 7.5), 15 mM MnCl2, 0.5 mM UDP, 5 mM DTT, 0.5 mM NAD+, 4.3 mg/ml
UDP-galactose 4-epimerase, and 1.03 mg/ml UDP-glucose dehydrogenase
plus
-galactosyl fluoride (0-200 mM) in a total volume
of 190 µl. Reactions were initiated by the addition of lgtC
19 (3.07 nmol), bringing the final volume to 200 µl, and monitored through the
change in absorbance at a wavelength of 340 nm (
340 = 6.22 mM
1 cm
1). Control
experiments were performed to confirm that UDP-glucuronic acid did not
inhibit the coupling system significantly at the concentrations formed
during initial rate analysis. Similarly, control experiments in which
lgtC
19 was omitted confirmed that
-galactosyl fluoride plus UDP
could not function as substrates for UDP-galactose-4-epimerase and
UDP-glucose dehydrogenase. Subsequent investigations revealed that the
substrate specificity of the dehydrogenase is sufficiently broad that
the epimerase is not needed.
Competitive rate reduction upon addition of lactose was measured by
incubating cells as above, but containing a fixed concentration (50 mM) of
-galactosyl fluoride and varying the
concentration of lactose over a range of 0-120 mM.
Mathematical Treatment of Data--
All kinetic parameters were
determined by direct fit of the data using the software program Grafit
(39). Derivation and manipulation of Equations 1 and 2 was performed
using the method of King-Altman (40) and the software program
Mathematica (41). Due to the complexity of Equation 3, its
derivation and manipulation was performed solely using Mathematica.
 |
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION |
-Galactosyl fluoride was first tested as a donor substrate for
the recombinant lipopolysaccharide galactosyltransferase C (lgtC
19)
from N. meningitidis (36) in the presence of several readily-detected fluorescent galactosides as acceptors. When reaction mixtures containing
-galactosyl fluoride plus, individually, FITC
lac, FCHASE gal, and FCHASE lac were incubated with lgtC
19 in buffer
containing Mn2+ and DTT, no reaction product could be
detected after 1 h by thin-layer chromatography or HPLC analysis,
or by use of a fluoride electrode. However, when uridine 5'-diphosphate
(UDP) was also added, complete conversion of the fluorescent
galactoside to a disaccharide and of the fluorescent lactosides to the
corresponding trisaccharides was observed within that same time frame.
Neither UMP nor UTP functioned equivalently. The products observed were
chromatographically identical to that formed using UDP-Gal as glycosyl
donor. Further, mass spectrometric analysis of the Sep-Pak-purified
products confirmed the expected masses of 905.4 for FCHASE-gal-gal,
1067.6 for FCHASE-lac-gal, and 985.2 for FITC-lac-gal. Repeat of the
reaction on a larger scale but using lactose as the acceptor allowed
the production and HPLC purification of multi-milligram quantities of
pure product. 1H NMR analysis confirmed that this product
was indeed a trisaccharide, as evidenced by the presence of two
anomeric proton resonances from sugars involved in glycosidic linkages
at
4.95 ppm (J = 3.6 Hz), 4.52 ppm (J = 8 Hz) and the two
resonances due to the
- and
- protons of the reducing end
hemiacetal at
5.22 ppm (J = 3.6 Hz) and 4.66 ppm (J = 8 Hz). The formation of a Gal
1,4-Gal linkage in the structure Gal
1,4-Gal
1,4-Glc is confirmed by the resonance at
4.95 ppm.
This chemical shift is essentially identical to that of
4.96 ppm
measured previously for this same linkage in an oligosaccharide
containing the fragment Gal
1,4-Gal
1,4-Glc
1,2- (42).
Further, a strong NOE was observed between this resonance and that at
4.05 ppm assigned to H-4 of the Gal
1,4-Glc.
Through the use of a fluoride-sensitive electrode, the initial rate of
fluoride release from
-galactosyl fluoride (in the presence of 2 mM UDP and 65 or 100 mM acceptor substrate,
lactose) was monitored and kinetic parameters were determined. At low
concentrations of
-galactosyl fluoride, a linear dependence of rate
upon
-galactosyl fluoride concentration was observed (Fig.
1a), allowing the
determination of the second order rate constant to be
kcat/Km = 1 × 10
4 mM
1 s
1.
However, as the concentration of
-galactosyl fluoride was increased, no saturation behavior was observed. Instead, a distinct upward curvature in the plot of rate as a function of
-galactosyl fluoride concentration was seen (Fig. 1b). This result suggests that,
at sufficiently high concentrations, a second molecule of
-galactosyl fluoride can become involved in the reaction leading to
an increase in the observed rates. Since the acceptor for this enzyme
is a galactosyl moiety, it is likely that this second molecule of
-galactosyl fluoride is functioning as an alternative acceptor,
giving
-Gal-1,4-
-GalF as the product. The formation of this
product has indeed been confirmed by TLC and HPLC analysis of a
reaction mixture containing UDP,
-galactosyl fluoride, and enzyme.
In addition, the enzyme was also shown to be capable of reaction when
assayed with only
-galactosyl fluoride and UDP, in the absence of
other glycosyl acceptors (Fig. 2). The
second order rate constant for this transfer of galactose from
-galactosyl fluoride to a second molecule of
-galactosyl fluoride
was determined to be 2 × 10
4
mM
1 s
1.

View larger version (11K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 1.
Rate of galactosyl transfer to lactose at low
(a) and high (b) concentrations of
the donor substrate, -galactosyl
fluoride. Equations 1-3 all yielded the same fit to the data in
b.
|
|
The dual role of
-galactosyl fluoride in the presence of another
glycosyl acceptor such as lactose can be described kinetically by three
possible models, depending on whether substrate binding proceeds via a
ping pong, ordered, or random mechanism (Scheme 1, a-c, respectively). The
simplified initial velocity equation for each of these mechanisms is
given below. The individual rate constants comprising each constant
term in these equations are summarized in Table
I.
|
(Eq. 1)
|
|
(Eq. 2)
|
|
(Eq. 3)
|
At a fixed concentration of lactose, the rate equations in terms
of
-galactosyl fluoride concentration have the same general form for
both ping pong (Equation 1) and ordered (Equation 2) mechanisms. On the
other hand, the rate equation describing the random mechanism (Equation 3) is quite different. Nonetheless, the fact that the data in Fig.
1b can be fitted equally well by each equation demonstrates
that it is possible for
-galactosyl fluoride to behave as both donor
and alternate acceptor substrates regardless of the kinetic mechanism
employed for substrate binding. Differentiation between these
mechanisms will require measurements of rates at a series of
concentrations of
-galactosyl fluoride, UDP, and lactose, as well as
product inhibition studies.

View larger version (14K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Scheme 1.
Possible kinetic mechanisms of lgtC-19
describing the dual role of -galactosyl fluoride as both donor and
acceptor substrate in the presence of a second glycosyl acceptor.
a, ping pong; b, ordered; c,
random. E, UDP-bound enzyme; F, covalent
galactosyl enzyme; A, -galactosyl fluoride; B,
lactose; P, fluoride; Q, trisaccharide
( -Gal-1,4- -Gal-1,4-Glc); Q', disaccharide
( -Gal-1,4- -GalF).
|
|
The complicated nature of
-galactosyl fluoride functioning in the
capacity of both donor and acceptor substrate has made it difficult to
determine individual values of kcat and
Km for
-galactosyl fluoride and lactose in the
galactosylation reaction. An estimate of the enzyme's affinity for UDP
was obtained by measuring rates at fixed concentrations of
-galactosyl fluoride (100 mM) and lactose (100 mM) while varying UDP concentration. Here, saturation kinetics were observed (Fig. 3) and an
apparent Km value of 0.08 mM was
obtained.
The absolute requirement for UDP is of interest, but not entirely
unexpected, since UDP is probably required to optimally orient residues
for catalysis. The small size of the fluorine substituent on the
galactose moiety must allow for both
-galactosyl fluoride and UDP to
bind coincidentally in the donor site. By analogy with retaining
glycosidases, an intermediate of some kind is presumably formed, which
then reacts with a glycosyl acceptor (Scheme
2, upper pathway).
This intermediate is shown here as a covalent glycosyl-enzyme, but may
well take any form. It is conceivable that such an intermediate could
also react with UDP to form UDP-Gal (Scheme 2, lower
pathway). However, the detection of UDP-Gal formation is a
challenging endeavor given that UDP-Gal binds tightly to the enzyme
(Km = 30 µM) and will cause severe
product inhibition. As a consequence, no significant accumulation of
UDP-Gal will occur. In addition, any UDP-Gal formed can be turned over
by the enzyme in the galactosylation of
-galactosyl fluoride, which
can function as an acceptor substrate. To circumvent this problem, a
coupled assay was developed to partition off any UDP-Gal formed,
thereby allowing for its detection and quantitation (Scheme 2). In this
assay, the enzyme UDP-Gal 4-epimerase was used to convert any UDP-Gal
formed by the transferase to UDP-Glc. The latter was then oxidized by a
second enzyme UDP-Glc dehydrogenase to UDP-glucuronic acid with
concomitant reduction of NAD+ to NADH.

View larger version (19K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Scheme 2.
lgtC-19 catalyzed formation of lactose
or UDP-Gal from -galactosyl fluoride. R, -F or
-1,4-Glc; U, uracil; P, phosphate;
1, -galactosyltransferase; 2, UDP-Gal
epimerase; 3, UDP-Glc dehydrogenase.
|
|
As shown in Fig. 4a, a rate
that was dependent upon the concentration of
-galactosyl fluoride
was indeed observed. Once again, the absence of any saturation is
consistent with a low affinity of the transferase for
-galactosyl
fluoride. From the linear dependence of the data, the
kcat/Km value was determined to be 7 × 10
5 mM
1
s
1. The reasonable agreement of this value with that
obtained for the galactosylation of
-galactosyl fluoride in the
absence of another glycosyl acceptor (2 × 10
4
mM
1 s
1) is consistent with the
notion that the same step, formation of the intermediate, is
rate-limiting in both cases. Furthermore, the introduction of lactose
also resulted in the suppression of UDP-Gal production, as can be seen
in the decreased rates at increasing concentrations of this additional
acceptor (Fig. 4b). This is not surprising, as the presence
of a second glycosyl acceptor would cause a greater partitioning of the
intermediate toward the synthesis of oligosaccharides instead of
UDP-Gal. The saturable dependence of this rate decrease as a function
of lactose concentration allowed the determination of an apparent
Km value of 7 mM for lactose under these
conditions (50 mM
-galactosyl fluoride, 0.5 mM UDP).

View larger version (11K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 4.
UDP-Gal formation as measured by the coupled
assay. a, rate of UDP-Gal formation as a function of
-galactosyl fluoride concentration. Data have been corrected for the
small background absorbance change seen in the absence of
-galactosyl fluoride. b, decrease in the rate of UDP-Gal
formation upon addition of lactose.
|
|
The ability of glycosyl fluorides to act as substrates for
NDP-sugar-dependent glycosyltransferases carries two major
implications. One is that these retaining transferases are likely
mechanistically analogous to retaining glycosidases and proceed through
some kind of glycosyl-enzyme intermediate. They may therefore be
amenable to study using many of the mechanistic tools developed for
glycosidases. The other is that such glycosyl fluorides could serve as
inexpensive alternatives to NDP-sugars in the synthesis of
oligosaccharides, the nucleotide diphosphate being needed only in
catalytic quantities. The system could also serve as a means of
generating UDP-sugars in situ for use by other enzymes. The
rather low kcat/Km value is not as
serious a problem as might appear to be the case, being due mostly to a
high Km value for
-galactosyl fluoride, which can
be overcome through the use of high substrate concentrations. As shown
in the preparative synthesis, the use of high concentrations of
both the donor and acceptor resulted in good
product yields with no significant quantities of side products.
 |
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS |
We thank Dr. Hazel Holden and Dr. Martin
Tanner for generous gifts of UDP-Gal epimerase and
UDP-glucose dehydrogenase, respectively. In addition, we extend our
gratitude to Melissa J. Schur and Dr. Manuela Dieckelmann for their
help in the preparation of the enzyme.
 |
FOOTNOTES |
*
This work was supported by the Natural Sciences and
Engineering Research Council of Canada.The costs of publication of this article were defrayed in part by the
payment of page charges. The article
must therefore be hereby marked
"advertisement" in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section
1734 solely to indicate this fact.
¶
To whom correspondence should be addressed. Tel.:
604-822-3402; Fax: 604-822-2847; E-mail: withers@chem.ubc.ca.
 |
ABBREVIATIONS |
The abbreviations used are:
NDP, nucleotide
diphosphate;
FCHASE, 6-(5-fluoresceincarboxamido)-hexanoic acid
succinimidyl;
FITC, fluorescein isothiocyanate;
lgtC
19, lipopolysaccharide galactosyltransferase C from N. meningitidis missing the 19 C-terminal amino acid residues;
DTT, dithiothreitol;
HPLC, high performance liquid chromatography.
 |
REFERENCES |
| 1.
|
Varki, A.
(1993)
Glycobiology
3,
97[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 2.
|
Kobata, A.
(1993)
Acc. Chem. Res.
26,
319[CrossRef]
|
| 3.
|
Dwek, R. A.
(1996)
Chem. Rev.
96,
683-720[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 4.
|
Sears, P.,
and Wong, C. H.
(1996)
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A.
93,
12086-12093[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 5.
|
Simon, P. M.
(1996)
Drug Disc. Today
1,
522-528[CrossRef]
|
| 6.
|
Wong, C. H.,
Halcomb, R. L.,
Ichikawa, Y.,
and Kajimoto, T.
(1995)
Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. Engl.
34,
521-546[CrossRef]
|
| 7.
|
Zopf, D.,
and Roth, S.
(1996)
Lancet
347,
1017-1021[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 8.
|
Douglas, S. P.,
Whitfield, D. M.,
and Krepinsky, J. J.
(1991)
J. Am. Chem. Soc.
113,
5095[CrossRef]
|
| 9.
|
Boons, G. J.
(1996)
Tetrahedron
52,
1095-1121[CrossRef]
|
| 10.
|
Danishefsky, S. J.,
and Bilodeau, M. T.
(1996)
Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. Engl.
35,
1380-1419[CrossRef]
|
| 11.
|
Nilsson, K. G. I.
(1988)
Trends Biotechnol.
6,
256-264[CrossRef]
|
| 12.
|
Thiem, J.
(1995)
FEMS Microbiol. Rev.
16,
193-211[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 13.
|
Mackenzie, L. F.,
Wang, Q.,
Warren, R. A. J.,
and Withers, S. G.
(1998)
J. Am. Chem. Soc.
120,
5583-5584[CrossRef]
|
| 14.
|
Beyer, T. A.,
Sadler, E.,
Rearick, J. I.,
Paulson, J. C.,
and Hill, R. L.
(1982)
Adv. Enzymol. Relat. Areas Mol. Biol.
52,
23-175
|
| 15.
|
Ichikawa, Y.,
Lin, Y. C.,
Dumas, D. P.,
Shen, G. J.,
Garcia-Junceda, E.,
Williams, M. A.,
Bayer, R.,
Ketcham, C.,
Walker, L. E.,
Paulson, J. C.,
and Wong, C. H.
(1992)
J. Am. Chem. Soc.
114,
9283-9298[CrossRef]
|
| 16.
|
Campbell, J. A.,
Davies, G. J.,
Bulone, V.,
and Henrissat, B.
(1997)
Biochem. J.
326,
929-942
|
| 17.
|
Davies, G.,
Withers, S. G.,
and Sinnott, M. L.
(1997)
in
Comprehensive Biological Catalysis
(Sinnott, M. L., ed), Vol. 1
, pp. 119-208, Academic Press, London
|
| 18.
|
Sinnott, M. L.
(1990)
Chem. Rev.
90,
1171-1202[CrossRef]
|
| 19.
|
Gold, A. M.
(1980)
Biochemistry
19,
3766-3772[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 20.
|
Salsas, E.,
and Larner, J.
(1975)
J. Biol. Chem.
250,
3471-3475[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 21.
|
Plesner, L.,
Plesner, I. W.,
and Esmann, V.
(1974)
J. Biol. Chem.
249,
1119-1125[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 22.
|
Bell, J. E.,
Beyer, T. A.,
and Hill, R. L.
(1976)
J. Biol. Chem.
251,
3003-3013[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 23.
|
Qiao, L.,
Murray, B. W.,
Shimazaki, M.,
Schultz, J.,
and Wong, C. H.
(1996)
J. Am. Chem. Soc.
118,
7653-7662[CrossRef]
|
| 24.
|
Vrielink, A.,
Ruger, W.,
Driessen, H. P. C.,
and Freemont, P. S.
(1994)
EMBO J.
13,
3413-3422[Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 25.
|
Gastinel, L. N.,
Cambillau, C.,
and Bourne, Y.
(1999)
EMBO J.
18,
3546-3557[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 26.
|
Charnock, S. J.,
and Davies, G. J.
(1999)
Biochemistry
38,
6380-6385[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 27.
|
Palcic, M. M.,
and Hindsgaul, O.
(1991)
Glycobiology
1,
205-209[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 28.
|
Lowary, T. L.,
and Hindsgaul, O.
(1993)
Carbohydr. Res.
249,
163-195[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 29.
|
Lowary, T. L.,
and Hindsgaul, O.
(1994)
Carbohydr. Res.
251,
33-67[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 30.
|
Kobayashi, S.,
Kashiwa, K.,
Kawasaki, T.,
and Shoda, S. I.
(1991)
J. Am. Chem. Soc.
113,
3079-3084[CrossRef]
|
| 31.
|
Hehre, E. J.,
Matsui, H.,
and Brewer, C. F.
(1990)
Carbohydr. Res.
198,
123-132[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 32.
|
Konstantinidis, A. K.,
Marsden, I.,
and Sinnott, M. L.
(1993)
Biochem. J.
291,
833-838
|
| 33.
|
Lindhorst, T. K.,
Braun, C.,
and Withers, S. G.
(1995)
Carbohydr. Res.
268,
93-106[CrossRef]
|
| 34.
|
Moreau, V.,
and Driguez, H.
(1996)
J. Chem. Soc. Perkin Trans.
21,
525-527
|
| 35.
|
Sierks, M. R.,
and Svensson, B.
(1996)
Biochemistry
35,
1865-1871[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 36.
|
Wakarchuk, W. W.,
Cunningham, A.,
Watson, D. C.,
and Young, N. M.
(1998)
Protein Eng.
11,
295-302[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 37.
| Hayashi, M., Hashimoto, S., and Noyori, R. (1984) Chem.
Lett. 1747-1750
|
| 38.
|
Zemplen, G.,
and Pacsu, E.
(1929)
Chem. Ber.
62,
1613-7
|
| 39.
|
Leatherbarrow, R. J.
(1990)
Grafit, version 3.0
, Erithacus Software Ltd., Staines, United Kingdom
|
| 40.
|
King, E. L.,
and Altman, C.
(1956)
J. Phys. Chem.
60,
1375[CrossRef]
|
| 41.
|
Wolfram, S.
(1996)
Mathematica, version 3.0
, Wolfram Research Inc., Champaign, IL
|
| 42.
|
Edebrink, P.,
Jansson, P. E.,
Widmalm, G.,
Holmè, T.,
and Rahman, M.
(1996)
Carbohydr. Res.
295,
127-146[Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
Copyright © 1999 by The American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Inc.