Kinetics of Enzyme Action E-Book

Ross L. Stein

• Herausgeber: John Wiley & Sons
• Kategorie: Wissenschaft und neue Technologien
• Sprache: Englisch

Seitenzahl: 455

Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2011

Beschreibung

Few scientists have the knowledge to perform the studies that are necessary to discover and characterize enzyme inhibitors, despite the vested interest the pharmaceutical industry has in this field. Beginning with the most basic principles pertaining to simple, one-substrate enzyme reactions and their inhibitors, and progressing to a thorough treatment of two-substrate enzymes, Kinetics of Enzyme Action: Essential Principles for Drug Hunters provides biochemists, medicinal chemists, and pharmaceutical scientists with numerous case study examples to outline the tools and techniques necessary to perform, understand, and interpret detailed kinetic studies for drug discovery.

Leseprobe

Table of Contents

Cover

Title page

Copyright page

DEDICATION

PREFACE

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 A BRIEF HISTORY OF ENZYMOLOGY

1.2 GOAL OF ENZYMOLOGY: THE ELUCIDATION OF MECHANISM

1.3 THE EMERGENCE OF MECHANISM FROM DATA

2 KINETICS OF SINGLE-SUBSTRATE ENZYMATIC REACTIONS

2.1 THE DEPENDENCE OF INITIAL VELOCITY ON SUBSTRATE CONCENTRATION AND THE REQUIREMENT FOR AN E : S COMPLEX

2.2 DERIVATION OF THE RATE EQUATION FOR A SINGLE-SUBSTRATE REACTION WITH THE ASSUMPTION OF RAPID EQUILIBRIUM

2.3 DERIVATION OF RATE EQUATIONS USING THE STEADY-STATE ASSUMPTION

2.4 METHODS OF ENZYME ASSAY

2.5 ENZYME KINETICS PRACTICUM: ASSAY DEVELOPMENT, EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN, DATA COLLECTION, AND DATA ANALYSIS

3 KINETICS OF SINGLE-SUBSTRATE ENZYMATIC REACTIONS: SPECIAL TOPICS

3.1 TRANSITION STATE THEORY AND FREE ENERGY DIAGRAMS

3.2 KINETIC CONSEQUENCES OF AN ENZYME : SUBSTRATE COMPLEX

3.3 REACTIONS WITH MORE THAN ONE INTERMEDIARY COMPLEX

3.4 DEVIATIONS FROM MICHAELIS–MENTEN KINETICS

3.5 KINETICS OF ENZYMATIC ACTION ON SUBSTRATES WITH MULTIPLE REACTIVE CENTERS

4 ENZYME INHIBITION: THE PHENOMENON AND MECHANISM-INDEPENDENT ANALYSIS

4.1 ENZYME INHIBITION: THE PHENOMENON

4.2 ENZYME INHIBITION: THE FIRST QUANTITATIVE STEPS

4.3 ENZYME-INHIBITOR SYSTEMS MISBEHAVING

4.4 CASE STUDIES

5 KINETIC MECHANISM OF INHIBITION OF ONE-SUBSTRATE ENZYMATIC REACTIONS

5.1 IMPORTANCE IN DRUG DISCOVERY

5.2 THEORETICAL CONSIDERATIONS

5.3 ANALYSIS OF INITIAL VELOCITY DATA FOR ENZYME INHIBITION

5.4 INHIBITION OF ONE-SUBSTRATE, TWO-INTERMEDIATE REACTIONS

5.5 INHIBITION BY DEPLETION OF SUBSTRATE

6 TIGHT-BINDING, SLOW-BINDING, AND IRREVERSIBLE INHIBITION

6.1 IMPORTANCE IN DRUG DISCOVERY

6.2 TIGHT-BINDING INHIBITION

6.3 SLOW-BINDING INHIBITION

6.4 IRREVERSIBLE INHIBITION

7 KINETICS OF TWO-SUBSTRATE ENZYMATIC REACTIONS

7.1 IMPORTANCE IN DRUG DISCOVERY

7.2 BASIC MECHANISMS

7.3 CONCEPTUAL UNDERSTANDING OF SEQUENTIAL MECHANISMS

7.4 DERIVATION OF RATE EQUATIONS FOR SEQUENTIAL MECHANISMS

7.5 PING-PONG MECHANISMS

7.6 DETERMINING THE KINETIC MECHANISM FOR TWO-SUBSTRATE REACTIONS

7.7 A CONCEPTUAL UNDERSTANDING OF THE SHAPES OF SECONDARY PLOTS

7.8 MISTAKEN IDENTITY: RAPID EQUILIBRIUM RANDOM VERSUS STEADY-STATE ORDERED

8 KINETIC MECHANISM OF INHIBITION OF TWO-SUBSTRATE ENZYMATIC REACTIONS

8.1 IMPORTANCE IN DRUG DISCOVERY

8.2 MECHANISMS OF INHIBITION OF TWO-SUBSTRATE REACTIONS

8.3 INHIBITION BY SUBSTRATE ANALOGS

8.4 ANALYSIS OF SEQUENTIAL REACTIONS IN WHICH INHIBITOR BINDS TO ENZYME : PRODUCT COMPLEXES

8.5 DRIVING SAR PROGRAMS FOR TWO-SUBSTRATE ENZYMATIC REACTIONS

9 ALLOSTERIC MODULATION OF ENZYME ACTIVITY

9.1 MECHANISMS OF ENZYME MODULATION

9.2 KINETICS OF ALLOSTERIC MODULATION

9.3 MEANING OF β AND γ

9.4 CASE STUDIES: DEPENDENCE OF ALLOSTERIC MODULATION ON STRUCTURAL FEATURES OF THE SUBSTRATE

10 KINETICS-BASED PROBES OF MECHANISM

10.1 pH DEPENDENCE OF ENZYMATIC REACTIONS

10.2 TEMPERATURE DEPENDENCE OF ENZYMATIC REACTIONS

10.3 VISCOSITY DEPENDENCE OF ENZYMATIC REACTIONS

10.4 KINETIC ISOTOPE EFFECTS ON ENZYME-CATALYZED REACTIONS

APPENDIX A: BASIC PRINCIPLES OF CHEMICAL KINETICS

A.1 ONE-STEP, IRREVERSIBLE, UNIMOLECULAR REACTIONS

A.2 ONE-STEP, IRREVERSIBLE, BIMOLECULAR REACTIONS

A.3 ONE-STEP, REVERSIBLE REACTIONS

A.4 TWO-STEP, IRREVERSIBLE REACTIONS

A.5 TWO-STEP REACTION, WITH REVERSIBLE FIRST STEP

APPENDIX B: TRANSITION STATE THEORY AND ENZYMOLOGY: ENZYME CATALYTIC POWER AND INHIBITOR DESIGN

B.1 CATALYTIC POWER OF ENZYMES

B.2 TRANSITION STATE ANALOG INHIBITION

APPENDIX C: SELECTING SUBSTRATE CONCENTRATIONS FOR HIGH-THROUGHPUT SCREENS

C.1 BALANCING THE STEADY STATE FOR ONE-SUBSTRATE REACTIONS

C.2 BALANCING THE STEADY STATE FOR TWO-SUBSTRATE, RAPID EQUILIBRIUM-ORDERED ENZYMATIC REACTIONS

C.3 BALANCING THE STEADY STATE FOR TWO-SUBSTRATE, RAPID EQUILIBRIUM RANDOM ENZYMATIC REACTIONS

C.4 BALANCING THE STEADY STATE FOR NONEQUILIBRIUM ENZYMATIC REACTIONS INVOLVING A SECOND STEADY-STATE INTERMEDIATE

C.5 BALANCING THE STEADY STATE FOR TWO-SUBSTRATE, PING-PONG ENZYMATIC REACTIONS

Index

Copyright © 2011 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. All rights reserved

Published by John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken, New Jersey

Published simultaneously in Canada

No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, scanning, or otherwise, except as permitted under Section 107 or 108 of the 1976 United States Copyright Act, without either the prior written permission of the Publisher, or authorization through payment of the appropriate per-copy fee to the Copyright Clearance Center, Inc., 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923, [phone], fax [phone], or on the web at www.copyright.com. Requests to the Publisher for permission should be addressed to the Permissions Department, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030, [phone], fax [phone], or online at http://www.wiley.com/go/permissions.

Limit of Liability/Disclaimer of Warranty: While the publisher and author have used their best efforts in preparing this book, they make no representations or warranties with respect to the accuracy or completeness of the contents of this book and specifically disclaim any implied warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose. No warranty may be created or extended by sales representatives or written sales materials. The advice and strategies contained herein may not be suitable for your situation. You should consult with a professional where appropriate. Neither the publisher nor author shall be liable for any loss of profit or any other commercial damages, including but not limited to special, incidental, consequential, or other damages.

For general information on our other products and services or for technical support, please contact our Customer Care Department within the United States at [phone], outside the United States at [phone] or fax [phone].

Wiley also publishes its books in a variety of electronic formats. Some content that appears in print may not be available in electronic formats. For more information about Wiley products, visit our web site at www.wiley.com.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

ISBN 978-0-470-41411-8

eISBN 9781118084397

oIBSN 9781118084410

ePub ISBN 9781118084403

To my children, Sarah and Zak, and

my three mentors, Mike Matta, Gene Cordes, and Dick Schowen.

PREFACE

All too often, textbooks of enzymology present enzyme kinetics simply as a catalogue of standard mechanisms and their rate laws. Little effort is made to give the reader what one might call a “gut-feeling” for the connection between a mechanism and its rate law; that is, how a mechanism is reflected in the form of its rate law, and how a rate law predicts the behavior of its corresponding mechanism. Furthermore, these kinetic treatments seldom provide adequate conceptual resources for the analysis of real-world enzyme kinetic data, which frequently reflect underlying mechanisms that deviate from standard mechanisms. In this book, I aim to develop a distinctly different treatment of enzyme kinetics.

The two overarching goals of this book are to present (1) theoretical aspects of enzyme kinetics within a conceptual framework that underscores the connections between mechanism and rate law and (2) practical aspects of enzyme kinetics with a focus on mechanism-independent methods of data analysis.

An underlying premise of this book is that the conceptual understanding of an enzyme mechanism, independent of any mathematical treatment, allows a more informed use of the mechanism’s rate law, for both experimental design and data analysis. Such an understanding can be achieved through the construction and analysis of free energy diagrams for enzymatic mechanisms. This approach is used throughout this book to provide conceptual underpinnings for single-substrate reactions with one or two intermediate species, enzyme inhibition, and mechanisms of two-substrate reactions.

Analysis of enzyme kinetic data is presented in this book as a process based on a mechanism-independent approach, the goal of which is to provide an alternative to the standard analytical approach in which mechanisms are imposed on a data set. Instead, an analytical method is presented that allows the mechanism to emerge from the data. Significantly, this approach reveals departures from non-ideal behavior in enzyme kinetic data that reflect non-standard mechanisms.

Another goal of this book is to provide a resource for practitioners of enzymology who work in early stage drug discovery. So, throughout this book, the theoretical and practical principles just described are presented in the context of drug discovery, using examples and case studies drawn from the literature.

Finally, it is my hope that this book will provide enzymologists, at all stages of their careers, with a new way of thinking about the theory and practice of enzyme kinetics.

ROSS L. STEIN

1

INTRODUCTION

Enzymes are effectors of chemical change. Through their action, enzymes bring about the transformation of one chemical substance into another. Like all change, the chemical change brought about by enzymes involves a temporal aspect that can be expressed as the rate at which the change occurs. The systematic study of these rates defines the biochemical field known as enzyme kinetics.

In this book, I describe the various approaches that are used to study the kinetics of enzyme catalysis and inhibition. The chapters of this book are arranged in order of increasing complexity of the system under study, moving from single substrate enzymatic reactions and their inhibition, to two substrate reactions and their inhibition. Along the way are chapters devoted to special areas, such as the utility and construction of free energy diagrams, kinetics of multi-intermediate reactions, and the kinetic analysis of tight-binding and time-dependent inhibitors. While this book should be useful to any investigator involved in kinetic examinations of enzymatic reactions, it is aimed at those involved in drug discovery research, where kinetic characterization is fundamental to drug discovery programs that have enzymes as their therapeutic target.

In this introductory chapter, I discuss three topics that set the stage for the remainder of the book. I first provide a historical context for our subsequent discussions of enzyme kinetics. Here we will discuss the historical connections between enzymology and other branches of chemistry, early developments in the kinetics of enzymatic reactions, and several aspects of contemporary enzymology. In the second section of this chapter, we dissect the concept of “mechanism of action” into component parts, or “sub-mechanisms,” and see what is actually involved in elucidating an enzyme’s mechanism. Finally, in the third section, we discuss how an accurate description of enzymatic mechanisms can emerge from kinetic data.

1.1 A BRIEF HISTORY OF ENZYMOLOGY

The history I present below is incomplete; space does not permit a full historical account of enzymology. Rather, this summary was written to give the reader some sense of how enzymology developed into the sophisticated, quantitative science it has now become. More often than not, I let the many pioneering figures of enzymology speak for themselves in quotations drawn from their original works.

1.1.1 A History of the Interplay between Organic and Biochemistry

Since its beginning in the closing decades of the nineteenth century, enzymology has developed in close relation with both biochemistry and organic chemistry. Advances in organic chemistry have informed and enriched both biochemistry and enzymology, and there have always been strong synergistic interactions between enzymology and biochemistry. Organic and biochemistry are, of course, subdivisions that grew out of chemistry itself.

Chemistry is the most ancient of the special sciences, with origins that can be traced to the dye and perfume makers of Mesopotamia, Egypt, India, and China of the third millennia B.C., and before that to metallurgists of prehistory. Following them were alchemists, who, in their search for the Philosopher’s Stone, flourished from the beginning of the common era on into medieval times. It was not until Robert Boyle published his The Sceptical Chymist in 1661 that the distinction between alchemy and chemistry was clearly articulated, the latter relying on the “scientific method” and inductive logic as laid out by Francis Bacon in the late sixteenth century. However, the birth of chemistry is usually dated to Antoine Lavoisier’s discovery in 1783 of the law of conservation of mass that refuted and laid to rest the phlogiston theory of combustion.

Our chief concern in this section is with two subdivisions of chemistry, the allied fields of organic and biochemistry. The origin of organic chemistry is usually said to be Friedrich Wöhler’s synthesis of urea in 1828. This simple laboratory procedure produced the principal organic component of urine from the inorganic salt ammonium cyanate, and in one stroke dispelled the vitalistic notion that only living organisms have the ability to produce organic substances. Fully understanding the significance of his accomplishment, Wöhler exclaimed to his mentor, the Swedish chemist Jöns Jakob Berzelius: “I can no longer, so to speak, hold my chemical water and must tell you that I can make urea without needing a kidney, whether of man or dog.”

Wöhler’s landmark 1828 synthesis not only triggered a wave of interest in organic chemistry, especially in Germany, but also motivated scientists throughout Europe to study the chemical basis of biological phenomenon. This new field of study would eventually become known as “biochemistry,” a term that would not exist until 1903, when it was coined by German chemist Carl Neuber. The true beginning of biochemistry can be traced to the 1833 studies of French chemist Anselme Payen that resulted in the production of barley extracts that contained heat-labile components with the remarkable ability to convert starch into sugar. Previous to Payen’s studies, it was thought that activities such as these could occur only in intact organisms, such as the grain berry itself. The extracts that Payen investigated were called “diastase,” which we know now to be a mixture of related amylase enzymes.

These early studies marked the beginnings of organic chemistry and biochemistry and were characterized by investigations of the macroscopic. During the infancy of biochemistry, we hear of “substances” and “factors” with no mention yet of molecules. For example, in the passage below from a publication that appeared in 1827, British physician and chemist William Prout first introduces and then goes on to describe results of his studies that were aimed at understanding the “organized bodies” (i.e., starch, fat, and protein droplets and globules) that initially form during digestion of food stuffs and serve as the “principal alimentary matters” used by animals to extract nourishment.

The subject of digestion had for a long time occupied my particular attention: and by degrees I had come to the conclusion, that the principal alimentary matters employed by man, and the more perfect animals, might be reduced to three great classes, namely, the saccharine [starch], the oily [fat], and the albuminous [protein]: hence, it was determined to investigate these in the first place, and their exact composition being ascertained, to inquire afterwards into the changes induced in them by the action of the stomach and other organs during the subsequent processes of assimilation. … It was known from the very infancy of chemistry, that all organized bodies, besides the elements of which they are essentially composed, contain minute quantities of different foreign bodies, such as the earthy and alkaline salts, iron, etc. These have usually been considered as mere mechanical mixtures accidentally present; but I can by no means subscribe to this opinion. Indeed, much attention to this subject for many years past has satisfied me that they perform the most important functions; in short, that organization cannot take place without them. … Thus, starch I consider as merorganized sugar, the two substances having the same essential composition, but the starch differing from sugar by containing minute portions of other matters, which we may presume, prevent its constituent particles from arranging themselves into the crystalline form, and thus cause it to assume different sensible properties.

(Prout 1827; italics in the original)

We see here not a hint of Prout using molecular theory to describe the macromolecules (i.e., carbohydrates, lipids, and proteins) that concern him.

Similarly, German chemist Moritz Traube explained fermentation and related processes in terms of substances and not molecules: “The putrefaction and decay ferments are definite chemical compounds arising from the reaction of the protein substances with water, arising thus from a chemical process” (Traube 1858a). We see here that while Traub recognized that the underlying bases of fermentation and putrefaction were chemical, he did not describe the results of his experiments in molecular terms as the chemical transformation of molecules.

Like Traub, many chemists of the mid-nineteenth century were reluctant to accept the existence of entities that that they could not see with their own eyes. This reluctance was despite the fact that Amedeo Avogadro first proposed the existence of molecules in 1811 and the enormous inroads that Friedrich Kekulé made from 1850–1870 into the understanding of carbon’s multivalency and thus its ability to form complex structure; that is, “molecules.”

It would not be until the beginning of the twentieth century that molecular theory, finally embraced by most organic chemists during the closing decades of the nineteenth century, would become part of the interpretational apparatus of biochemical studies. In 1902, Franz Hofmeister reports that “the protein molecule is mainly built-up from amino acids” (Hofmeister 1902; italics mine). Three years later, a paper appeared in first volume of the American publication Journal of Biological Chemistry by biochemist Phoebus A. T. Levene that extended Hofmeister’s observations to try to understand how differences in amino acid composition of various proteins render them more or less susceptible to degradation by the action of trypsin and other digestive enzymes of the gut. Levene remarks that “polypeptides composed of the lower amino-acids are decomposed by trypsin less readily than polypeptides containing in their molecule the higher acids” (Levene 1905; italics mine).

Organic chemistry and biochemistry were rapidly becoming molecular sciences. During the twentieth century, organic chemistry would develop in many directions, spawning a host of subspecialties (e.g., synthetic organic chemistry, physical organic chemistry, organo-metallic chemistry) and entire industries (e.g., polymers, pharmaceuticals, petroleum products). At the same time, biochemists would unravel the intricacies of the many metabolic pathways that comprise cellular physiology, and probe the structure and function of the principal macromolecules of all living organisms—DNA, RNA, proteins, carbohydrates, and lipids. The history of the development of organic chemistry and biochemistry in the twentieth century is a fascinating story, in which the two disciplines at times separate to only merge again several years later in their intertwined and symbiotic relationship.

1.1.2 Early Developments in the Quantitative Study Enzyme-Catalyzed Reactions: Kinetics, Catalysis, and Inhibition

Even in its infancy, enzymology possessed a quantitative aspect that organic chemistry and biochemistry largely lacked. A key concept that allowed the development of enzymology as a quantitative science was the idea that enzymes are chemical in nature, “definite chemical compounds” (Traube 1858b). Wilhelm Kuhne, who coined the term enzyme, explained that enzymatic reactions are “simple chemical changes” and that enzyme “activity can occur without the presence of the organisms and outside the latter” (Kuhne 1877). Buchner, in his studies of fermentation, insisted that “an apparatus as complicated as the yeast cell is not required to institute the fermenting process” (Buchner 1897). He also had the insight that “the carrier of the fermenting activity of the press juice must be a dissolved substance, undoubtedly a protein.” (Buchner 1897).

It is interesting to note that even in the face of these advances toward establishing the chemical nature of enzymes, there persisted the sense that enzymes must still possess, in some manner, the “vital force” of the organism from which they were extracted. For example, in 1901, Joseph Kastle published a paper in Science entitled “On the Vital Activity of the Enzymes,” where he concluded that “the enzymes are active in the same sense of retaining certain of the vital activities of the living cell” (Kastle 1901).

1.1.2.1 Chemical Kinetics, the Concept of the Active Site, and Enzyme Kinetics.

One of the goals of enzymology, both then and now, is to establish quantitative and predictive relationships between reaction velocities and experimental variables, such as enzyme and substrate concentration. Methods to accurately measure the rates of enzymatic reactions and the sense that these measurements could be made reproducibly and lead to testable hypotheses concerning how reaction rates depend on experimental variables, grew out of the rapidly evolving field of chemical kinetics.

Chemical kinetics was born with Ludwig Wilhelmy’s 1850 publication on the kinetics on the acid-catalyzed hydrolysis of sucrose (Wilhelmy 1850). In this publication, he not only provided methodology for accurate measurement of this reaction, but also set forth the important hypothesis that the rates of chemical reaction follow “general laws of nature.”

It is known that the action of acids on cane sugar converts it into fruit sugar, which rotates the plane [of polarized light] to the left. Since readings of how far this change has proceeded can be made with great ease, it seemed to me to offer the possibility of finding the laws of this process. … This is certainly only one member of a greater series of phenomena which all follow general laws of nature.

(Wilhelmy 1850)

The methods used by Wilhelmy in his kinetic studies, relying on polarimetry, would be used in subsequent years to follow the invertase-catalyzed hydrolysis of sucrose. But even more important than providing new methodologies with which to study enzymatic reactions, studies such as these in chemical kinetics provided the theoretical underpinnings for enzyme kinetics.

A key to the development of kinetic methods to treat enzymatic reactions, and an important advance toward modern concepts of enzyme mechanism, was the recognition that enzymes must form complexes with their substrates prior to chemical transformation of the substrate. This was first articulated by Emil Fischer, with his now famous “lock-and-key” model (Fischer 1894).

Fischer had observed that the enzyme invertase, which he had isolated from brewer’s yeast, hydrolyzes α-glucosides but not β-glucosides, while the related enzyme emulsin hydrolyzes β-glucosides but not α-glucosides. Reflecting on these observations, Fischer speculated that “enzyme and glucoside have to fit to each other like lock and key in order to exert a chemical effect on each other” (Fischer 1894). This was a profound insight that accounted not only for the stereoselectivity that these enzymes possess, but also led to a construal of enzyme action in which a snug and intimate fit between enzyme and substrate is a necessary requirement for catalysis.

Studies of lipase led Henry Dakin to similar conclusions (Dakin 1903). Dakin found that esters of racemic mandelic acid were hydrolyzed by pig liver lipase in a stereospecific manner, resulting in the production of D-mandelic acid, with little of the L-isomer being produced. He concluded that lipase is a “powerfully optically active substance” and that “actual combination takes place between the enzyme and with the ester undergoing hydrolysis” (Dakin 1903). In trying to account for the observed differences in hydrolysis rates of D- and L-mandelate esters, Dakin reasoned that when esters of D-mandelic acid combine with an optically active lipase molecule, it forms a diastereomer that is chemically more reactive than the diastereomer formed upon combination of the enzyme with esters of L-mandelic acid. He stated: “Since the additive compounds thus formed in the case of the dextro and levo components of the ester would not be optical opposites, they may be decomposed with unequal velocity, and thus account for the liberation of optically active mandelic acid” (Dakin 1903).

These concepts concerning mandatory formation of enzyme : substrate complexes were tied to the kinetic behavior of enzymes by Adrian Brown. In his 1902 paper, Brown proposes “that one molecule of an enzyme combines with one molecule of a reacting substance, and that the compound molecule exists for a brief interval of time during the further actions which end in disruption and change” (Brown 1902). He went on to describe what we now refer to as “saturation kinetics.”

If a constant amount of enzyme is in the presence of varying quantities of a reacting substance, and in all cases the quantity of reacting substance ensures a greater number of molecular collisions in unit time than the possible number of molecular changes, then a constant amount of substance will be changed in unit time in all the actions.

(Brown 1902)

Brown’s hypothesis was restated in the landmark paper of Leoner Michaelis and Maud Menten (Michaelis and Menten 1913). Their studies of invertase resulted in the proposal that “the rate of breakdown at any moment is proportional to the concentration of the sucrose-invertase compound; and the concentration of this compound at any moment is determined by the concentration of the ferment and of the sucrose” (Michaelis and Menten 1913). What was shown to be true of invertase, is true for all enzymes, that velocities of enzyme-catalyzed reactions are proportional to the concentration of the enzyme : substrate complex, where the constant of proportionality is kcat, the first-order rate constant for decomposition of the complex into enzyme and products.

From the concept of the catalytically active enzyme : substrate complex emerged the idea that substrates bind at a specific site on the enzyme, and it is the chemistry of this site that leads to transformation of substrate into product. One of the first enzymologist to articulate this view was George Falk who explained that “some definite grouping in the complex enzyme molecule were responsible for a given enzyme action. … The problem therefore resolves itself into a study of the chemical nature of this grouping” (Falk 1918).

A decade later, Barnet Woolf would propose the “addition compound theory of enzyme action”:

An enzyme is a definite chemical compound which is able to form an unstable addition compound with all its substrates, each at its own specific combining group in the enzyme molecule. The process of catalysis then consists of a series of tautomeric changes in the enzyme-substrate complex, as a result of which, in a certain proportion of cases, the complex is able to dissociate into free enzyme plus the products of the catalyzed reaction.

(Woolf 1931)

Woolf’s hypothesis gives us an early view of the contemporary concept of the “active-site,” and how it is the seat of chemical change and catalysis.

1.1.2.2 Enzyme Catalysis.

To this point, we have not spoken of the catalytic nature of enzymes. By the opening years of the twentieth century, catalysis was a well-known phenomenon in chemistry that originated in 1836, with the insights of Jacob Berzelius. In describing “a new force for developing chemical activity,” he named it “the catalytic force of bodies and the breakdown caused by it catalysis” (Berzelius 1836). Berzelius explained that the “catalytic force appears to consist intrinsically in this: that bodies through their mere presence may awaken affinities slumbering at this temperature. So that as a result of this the elements in a complex body arrange themselves in altered relations.”

Years later, in 1894, Wilhelm Ostwald would provide a more detailed description of catalysis based on chemical energetics:

Catalysis is the acceleration of a chemical reaction, which proceeds slowly, by the presence of a foreign substance. … There are numerous substances or combinations of substances which in themselves are not stable but undergo slow change and only seem stable to us because their changes occur so slowly that during the usual short period of observation they do not strike us. Such substances or systems often attain an increased reaction rate if certain foreign substances, that is, substances which are not in themselves necessary for the reaction, are added. This acceleration occurs without alteration of the general energy relations, since after the end of the reaction the foreign body can again be separated from the field of the reaction.

(Ostwald 1894)

In this statement, Oswald explained one of the central principals of chemical catalysis, that the catalyst can only influence rate, not the free energy difference between the reactant and product.

These ideas help answer what had become one of the principal questions in enzymology: How is it that “a very small amount of an enzyme can transform a relatively very large amount of another compound” (Loew 1899)? In trying to answer this question, Oscar Loew likened enzymes to “machines [that] transform heat into chemical action,” this transformation involving “two or even more labile [i.e., reactive] groups in one molecule of an enzyme.” (Loew 1899)

As soon as we understand the close connection between [reactivity] and activity, and that enzymes are capable of transforming heat energy into chemical energy, we can … understand that their chemical energy may be transferred to other compounds. And when these other compounds are of such a character that their atoms are easily set in motion, we can further understand that by lessening certain affinities in them another grouping of atoms may result. … Such chemical action produced by the mere transmission of chemical energy by a certain substance, which remains chemically unaltered, are called catalytic.

(Loew 1899)

The ideas we have been discussing, from Traube’s concept that enzymes are “definite chemical substances” to Loew’s ideas about the catalytic nature of enzymes to Woolf’s “addition compound theory of enzyme action,” are all concerned with the enzymatic transformation of reactants into products, and set the stage for our modern ventures into this area. In the course of the studies that gave rise to these ideas, investigators noted that certain substances can retard or inhibit the enzymatic reactions they were studying.

1.1.2.3 Enzyme Inhibition and the Prospect of Designing Drugs.

In 1904, E. F. Armstrong reported on experiments he had conducted “with the object of ascertaining by direct observation whether and to what extent the action of a given enzyme is affected by one or more of the products formed under its influence” (Armstrong 1904). Armstrong examined the effect of certain hexoses on the rate of hydrolysis catalyzed by a number of sugar-splitting enzymes. He found that in those cases where the hexoses were decomposition products of hydrolysis they inhibited the progress of the enzymatic reaction (Armstrong 1904). Adrian Brown had made similar observations for invertase (Brown 1902).

In their studies of xanthine oxidase, Dixon and Thurlow noted that the purine bases adenine and guanine inhibited reactions catalyzed by this enzyme (Dixon and Thurlow 1924). To explain this, they conjectured that “the effect might be due to adsorption by the enzyme of the inhibitory substances, thus preventing the adsorption of one or both of the reactants.” They noted that the effect was “remarkably specific. Caffeine showed no trace of inhibitory effect. The pyrimidine substances uracil, cytosine, and thymine were also tried but show no effect” (Dixon and Thurlow 1924). Herbert Coombs noted the same effect, and extended these studies to include a number of synthetic purine derivatives, developing perhaps the first structure–activity relationship for inhibition: “The complete purine skeleton—the two ring structure—is necessary for adsorption. The introduction of an amino-group strongly favors adsorption; and the introduction of methyl groups, particularly in the iminazole ring, tends to prevent adsorption” (Coombs 1927).

These studies laid the groundwork for the use of enzyme inhibitors as mechanistic probes as wells as for therapeutics (Sizer 1957). D. D. Woods summarized the latter sentiment in his introduction to a 1950 volume of the Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences devoted to antimetabolites (Woods 1950). He stated that there is a “general concept that substances of related structure may compete with others having physiological action” and in so doing these substances exert their physiological/pharmacological effects. In this introductory chapter, Woods illustrated this concept with the sulfonamide antibiotics, noting these these drugs compete with the structurally related bacterial metabolite p-aminobenzoic for enzymes essential to bacteria.

The use of enzyme inhibitors as therapeutics agents was reviewed in 1955 by F. Edmund Hunter and Oliver Lowry. They concluded their review with the following passage, whose sentiment is still expressed today:

At the present time, most of the successful drugs are developed empirically or through synthesis of congeners of pre-existing drugs. One wishes for a rational approach which would permit the deliberate development of new drugs specifically to affect particular enzymes. There have been many attempts to develop drugs on a rational basis. Perhaps these attempts will be more successful in the near future. But it must be admitted that the total enzyme matrix of the living organism is more complex and subtle than formerly visualized. Although new information concerning enzymes and their sensitivity to inhibition is being obtained at a constantly accelerated rate, each increment of knowledge also shows the goal to be a little further away than it had appeared to be.

(Hunter and Lowry 1955)

1.1.3 Contemporary Enzymology

We now possess an understanding of enzyme action that would have seemed unobtainable and utterly fantastic to the scientists that worked in the intertwined fields of organic chemistry, biochemistry, and enzymology, from the early part of the nineteenth century through the mid-twentieth century. The understanding we now possess is built upon their pioneering work, and arises from a coupling of new concepts and new technologies. In this section, we explore some of the central themes that define contemporary enzymology.

1.1.3.1 Enzyme Kinetic Theory.

One of the principal advancements in enzymology was the theory developed by W. W. Cleland for handling the steady-state kinetics of enzymes with two or more substrates (Cleland 1963a; Cleland 1963b; Cleland 1963c). To apply these theories, Cleland went on to insist that enzyme kinetic data should no longer be analyzed by linearization methods (e.g., Lineweaver–Burk plots), but rather by fitting nontransformed kinetic data to rate equations by nonlinear least squares analysis (Cleland 1963d).

It was also recognized that for complex enzyme mechanisms involving multiple intermediates, the information available from steady-state kinetic analysis is limited to estimation of macroscopic constants, such as kc and Km, while microscopic constants, which define the interconversion of intermediates, remain largely inaccessible. To solve this problem, the analysis of pre-steady-state kinetics was needed. This was made possible through the development of the appropriate, and often quite complex, rate laws that govern the pre-steady state, and the introduction of rapid-kinetics instrumentation (Gutfreund 1975).

With the recognition that steady-state kinetic parameters kc and kc/Km are often composites of several microscopic rate constants came the appreciation that more than one of these rate constants could contribute to rate limitation. This idea was captured and put to use in the analysis of isotope effects by Dexter Northrop and his “commitment to catalysis” factors (Northrop 1981), and by the elegant concept of the virtual transition state introduced by Richard Schowen (Schowen 1978).

1.1.3.2 Transition State Theory and Its Application to Problems of Enzymology.

Transition state rate theory has had a profound effect on chemical thinking since its introduction in 1935 by Henry Eyring. In this theory, Eyring proposed that for the chemical transformation of a molecule to occur, the molecule must pass through a high-energy “transition state” that separates reactants from products (Eyring 1935a,b; Wynne-Jones and Eyring 1935). Eyring called the molecular species that exists in the transition state the “activated complex” and posited that it has the properties of a stable molecule except for translation along the reaction coordinate, which leads to reaction. A decade later, Linus Pauling proposed that enzyme catalysis results not because the substrate is bound tightly by enzyme, but rather because the activated complex of the reaction is bound tightly (Pauling 1946, 1948). A practical outcome of Pauling’s idea was Richard Wolfenden’s proposal that new types of enzyme inhibitors with extraordinary potencies might be designed based on structural properties of the transition state (Wolfenden 1969). Wolfenden’s hypothesis has borne much fruit, being used for the successful design of hundreds of transition state analog inhibitors.

1.1.3.3 Kinetic Isotope Effects.

Of all the tools of the physical organic chemist that have been brought to bear on problems of enzyme mechanism, the kinetic isotope effect is by far the most useful (see Chapter 10). Perhaps the first isotope effect measured for an enzyme-catalyzed reaction was the primary deuterium isotope effect for the alcohol dehydrogenase-catalyzed reduction of acetaldehyde by NADH(D) (Mahler and Douglas 1957). Two years later, a heavy atom isotope effect was measured by Westheimer, who reported a 13C isotope effect for oxaloacetate decarboxylase (Seltzer et al. 1959). Since these early studies, kinetic isotope effects have been used by numerous investigators to probe the mechanisms and transition state structures for a host of enzymes (Cook 1991).

1.1.3.4 Structural Investigations of Enzymes.

While the principle focus of this introduction is on kinetic and methodological aspects of the history and development of enzymology, I would be remiss if not stating the extraordinary impact that structural studies have had on our understanding of enzyme action. Among the first X-ray structures of enzymes to be published were those of lysozyme in 1965 (Johnson and Phillips 1965) and chymotrypsin in 1967 (Matthews et al. 1967). With the solution of these structures came a physical context for the interpretation of kinetic data. In the case of lysozyme, the structure of the bound glycan substrate suggested a mechanism involving formation of an oxocarbenium ion intermediate and general-based catalysis, which have since been substantiated by α-deuterium isotope effects (Dahlquist et al. 1969) and solvent isotope effects (Banerjee et al. 1975). The solved structure of chymotrypsin suggested that a grouping of active site amino acids, Ser195, His, 57, and Asp102, now known as the “charge relay system,” plays a critical role in catalysis by this enzyme. The actual operation of the charge relay system has been demonstrated not only for chymotrypsin but also for a number of other serine proteases (Elrod et al. 1976, 1980; Quinn et al. 1980; Stein et al. 1987). In the years since these structures appeared, hundreds more have been solved for enzymes of all mechanistic classes. These structures have been a great aid not only in understanding mechanism, but also in the design of inhibitors.

1.1.4 Enzyme Catalytic Power: The Final Step in Our Understanding Enzyme Action

The most intriguing aspect of enzyme action, their tremendous catalytic power, remains an open question today. While a great many hypotheses have been advanced to explain enzymatic catalysis (Jenks 1975; Fersht 1999; Bugg 2001), it seems now that the answer lies in the coupling of protein conformational isomerization to the reaction coordinate during the transformation of the Michaelis complex to product (Case and Stein 2003; Hengge and Stein 2004). While this is not a new idea (Lumry and Biltonen 1969; Careri et al. 1979; Welch et al. 1982; Somogyi et al. 1984; Welch 1986), interest in it has recently been renewed with the observation of the apparent coupling of protein motions to active site hydrogen tunneling in a number of hydrogen transfer reactions (Antoniou et al. 2002; Knapp and Klinman 2002; Hay et al. 2008).

An increased understanding of how protein dynamics is coupled to catalysis will not only boost our understanding of other enzymatic phenomenon, such as allostery, but will also have far reaching practical consequences, such as the design of synthetic enzymes, with catalytic efficiencies approaching those of natural enzymes, and new classes of inhibitors and activators.

1.2 GOAL OF ENZYMOLOGY: THE ELUCIDATION OF MECHANISM

1.2.1 Mechanism of Substrate Turnover

One of the principal goals of enzymology is to understand how enzymes transform their substrates into products. When attained, this understanding allows investigators to describe an enzyme’s mechanism of action. Accurate descriptions of an enzyme’s mechanism of action must include accounts of four underlying mechanisms:

Kinetic Mechanism—the pathway of steady-state intermediates leading from substrates to products.Chemical Mechanism—the pathway of chemical transformations leading from substrates to products.Dynamics Mechanism—the protein conformational changes required for substrate turnover.Catalytic Mechanism—the means by which an enzyme effects rate acceleration.

The division of an enzyme’s overall mechanism of action into these “sub”-mechanisms is, in a sense, artificial. The intermediates that populate the steady state of an enzyme-catalyzed reaction include both stable conformational isomers as well as the intermediates that form during the course of a substrate’s chemical conversion into products. And the means by which an enzyme effects catalysis is dictated both by the nature of the chemical transformation and the protein dynamic potential of the enzyme. An enzyme’s overall mechanism of action is, in fact, the integration of the four underlying mechanisms. We see then, for a mechanistic proposal to be accurate, it must incorporate information about all these mechanisms.

While perhaps artificial, this division is operationally useful, in that it allows experiments to be designed and hypotheses to be constructed that are of a limited and manageable scope. For an investigator to elucidate an enzyme’s chemical mechanism, it is unnecessary to consider the catalytic power that the enzyme brings to bear on the reaction. By the same token, the protein dynamical changes that attend an enzymatic reaction can be probed and ultimately tied to catalytic power without complete knowledge of the enzyme’s chemical mechanism. And, as we will see throughout this book, kinetic mechanisms can be probed and understood in the complete absence of information regarding the other three mechanisms.

The definitions given above for the four underlying mechanisms that comprise an enzyme’s overall mechanism of action are qualitative in nature. However, associated with each of these mechanisms are specific parameters whose values provide a quantitative element to the mechanistic description. For example, elucidating the kinetic mechanism of a two substrate reaction does not only include determining the order of the two substrates to the enzyme, but also the equilibrium and rate constants for the addition steps. The chemical and dynamics mechanisms will not be fully elucidated until rate constants are determined for interconversion of the various chemical intermediates and conformational isomers, respectively. Finally, an understanding of the catalytic mechanism will require an estimate of the catalytic enhancement over the uncatalyzed reaction and, if possible, a quantitative breakdown of catalytic enhancement into the various elements that comprise the catalytic mechanism, including utilization of general acid–base chemistry, substrate binding energy, and energy derived from the heat sink of bulk solvent.

The integration of the underlying mechanisms mentioned above will require establishing quantitative relationships among rate constants for the kinetic, chemical, and dynamics mechanisms. More specifically, this integration will require the investigator to determine how the steady-state rate parameters relate to the rate constants for the interconversion of the various chemical intermediates and conformational isomers that attend enzymatic turnover of substrate.

1.2.2 Mechanism of Inhibition

The division of mechanism of action into various underlying mechanisms is also useful when studying enzyme inhibition. Here, the four mechanisms become

Kinetic Mechanism—knowledge of the enzyme forms to which an inhibitor binds, and the pathway of intermediates leading to stable enzyme : inhibitor complexes.Chemical Mechanism—the pathway of chemical transforms, if any, required to form stable enzyme : inhibitor complexes.Dynamics Mechanism—the protein conformational changes required for formation of the various stable enzyme : inhibitor complexes.Inhibitory Mechanism—the binding-site interactions that stabilize enzyme : inhibitor complexes, and the means by which the enzyme establishes these interactions.

As above, this mechanistic “deconstruction” is a useful, albeit somewhat artificial, way to approach the study of how an enzyme inhibitor works. Any mechanistic hypothesis for how an inhibitor works that seeks to be complete must integrate information concerning all four of the sub-mechanisms.

1.2.3 Kinetic Mechanisms of Substrate Turnover and Inhibition

The focus of this book is the kinetic mechanism. For both substrate turnover and inhibition, we will derive rate equations for many standard mechanisms, discuss how to set up steady-state kinetic experiments to probe a mechanism, and then how to proceed from the experimental data to the final elucidation of the kinetic mechanism. We will discuss these topics with relatively little reference to the other “sub”-mechanisms. While a complete description of an enzyme’s overall mode of action does, of course, require an understanding of the chemical, dynamics, and catalytic mechanisms, lack of this knowledge in no way hinders the determination of kinetic mechanisms.

The conceptual disengagement of kinetics from other mechanistic components has important consequences. It means that kinetic mechanistic information (e.g., the order of addition of substrates) can be properly used for various purposes (e.g., assay design) without knowledge of the chemical, dynamical, or catalytic mechanistic features.

1.3 THE EMERGENCE OF MECHANISM FROM DATA

This book is based on a short course I periodically taught for the American Chemical Society for about 3 years. Like this book, the course was aimed at scientists in the biotech and pharmaceutical industries whose jobs involved the kinetic analysis of enzymatic reactions. Despite the responsibilities of their jobs, the nearly 200 scientists who participated in this course had only the most basic understanding of enzyme kinetics. What became clear in teaching this course is that the availability of inexpensive curve fitting software designed to fit enzyme kinetic data to the rate laws for standard mechanisms had made scientists in the industry intellectually lazy.

All too frequently, investigators fit kinetic data to rate equations for several standard models, and then pronounce as winner the mechanism that resulted in the best fitting statistics. While easy and convenient, this approach can result in inaccurate descriptions of mechanism since it does not require the investigator to carefully examine primary data for subtle trends that may signal nonstandard mechanisms. And, of course, recognizing the existence of such trends is the crucial first step in the accurate description of mechanism.

What is required is an analytic method that readily allows the identification of these trends. Such a method would not impose a mechanism on the data, but rather would allow the mechanism to emerge from the data. The key lies in the stepwise analysis of kinetic data, where, at each step, the data are examined for departures from ideal behavior.

Data from the simplest kinetic experiments, in which initial velocities are determined as a function of a single independent variable (e.g., inhibitor or substrate concentration), require only a single step for analysis, in which the data are examined for departures from simple Michaelis–Menten kinetics. For kinetic experiments in which initial velocities are determined as a function of two independent variables (e.g., concentrations of two substrates, or concentrations of a substrate and an inhibitor), a two-step, sequential process is used:

1. Analyze the dependence of initial velocity on one independent variable, for all instances of the second independent variable.

2. Analyze the dependence of the parameters derived from the first step of analysis on the second independent variable.

For example, we will see in Chapter 5 that in determining the kinetic mechanism of an inhibitor, initial velocities are determined as a function of both substrate and inhibitor concentration. The first step in the analysis of the data set will be to plot initial velocities versus substrate concentration, at each of the inhibitor concentrations, and examine each plot for departures from simple Michaelis–Menten kinetics. In the second step of the analysis, the observed steady-state rate parameters (i.e., (Vmax)obs and (Vmax/Km)obs) are plotted as a function of inhibitor concentration. Again, at this second stage, the two plots are examined for departures from simple inhibitor binding behavior. Finally, from these replots, one can construct a mechanism and calculate inhibition constants. At each stage of analysis, departures from ideal behavior are recognized as important mechanistic features.

While subtle departures from nonideal behavior can readily be identified using the method just described (i.e., the method of replots), they can easily be overlooked if the data are fit globally. The relative merits of global fitting versus the method of replots will be discussed at length in Chapters 5, 7, and 8, for inhibition of one substrate reactions, kinetics of two-substrate reactions, and inhibition of two-substrate reactions, respectively. In these chapters, I advocate the use of the method of replots because at each step of the analysis, departures from nonideal behavior can be identified and then incorporated into the evolving mechanistic picture.

REFERENCES

Antoniou, D., et al. (2002). “Barrier passage and protein dynamics in enzymatically catalyzed reactions.” Eur. J. Biochem. 269: 3102–3112.

Armstrong, E. F. (1904). “Studies on enzyme action. III. The influence of the products of change on the rate of change by sucroclastic enzymes.” Proc. Roy. Soc. 73: 516.

Banerjee, S. K., et al. (1975). “Reaction of N-acetylglucosamine oligosaccharides with lysozyme. Temperature, pH, and solvent deuterium isotope effects; equilbrium, steady state, and pre-steady state measurements.” J. Biol. Chem. 250(11): 4355–4367.

Berzelius, J. J. (1836). “Einige Ideen uber eine bei der Bildung Organischer Verbindungen in der lebenden Natur wirksame, aber bisher nicht bemerkte Kraft [A few ideas about a force active in the formation of organic compounds in living nature but hitherto not oberserved].” Jahres-Bericht uber die Fortschritte Physischen Wissenschaften 237: 237–248.

Brown, A. (1902). “Enzyme action.” J. Chem. Soc. 81: 377–388.

Buchner, E. (1897). “Alcoholic fermentation without yeast cells.” Ber. Chem. Ges. 30: 117.

Bugg, T. D. H. (2001). “The development of mechanistic enyzmology in the 20th century.” Nat. Prod. Rep. 18: 465–493.

Careri, G., et al. (1979). “Enzyme dynamics: The statistical physics approach.” Annu. Rev. Biophys. Bioeng. 8: 69–97.

Case, A. and R. L. Stein (2003). “Mechanistic origins of the substrate selectivity of serine proteases.” Biochemistry 42: 3335–3348.

Cleland, W.W. (1963a). “The kinetics of enzyme catalyzed reactions with two or more substrates or products. I. Nomenclature and rate equations.” Biochim. Biophys. Acta 67: 104–137.

Cleland, W.W. (1963b). “The kinetics of enzyme catalyzed reactions with two or more substrates or products. II. Inhibition: nomenclature and theory.” Biochim. Biophys. Acta 67: 173–187.

Cleland, W.W. (1963c). “The kinetics of enzyme catalyzed reactions with two or more substrates or products. III. Prediction of initial velocity and inhibition patters by inspection.” Biochim. Biophys. Acta 67: 188–196.

Cleland, W.W. (1963d). “Computer programmes for processing enzyme kinetic data.” Nature 198: 463–465.

Cook, P. F. (1991). Enzyme Mechanism from Isotope Effects. New York, CRC Press.

Coombs, H. I. (1927). “Studies on xanthine oxidase. The specificity of the system.” Biochem. J. 21: 1260–1265.

Dahlquist, F. W., et al. (1969). “Application of secondary alpha-deuterium kinetic isotope effects to studies of enzyme catalysis. Glycoside hydrolysis by lysozyme and beta-glucosidase.” Biochemistry 8(10): 4214–4221.

Dakin, H. D. (1903). “The hydrolysis of optically inactive esters by means of enzymes.” J. Physiol. 30: 253–263.

Dixon, M. and S. Thurlow (1924). “Studies on xanthine oxidase.” Biochem. J. 18(976–988): 976–988.

Elrod, J. P., et al. (1976). “Proton bridges in enzyme catalysis.” Faraday Symp. Chem. Soc. 10: 145–153.

Elrod, J. P., et al. (1980). “Protonic reorganization and substrate structure in catalysis by serine proteases.” J. Am. Chem. Soc. 102: 3917–3922.

Eyring, H. (1935a). “The activated complex and the absolute rates of chemical reactions.” Chem. Rev. 17: 65–77.

Eyring, H. (1935b). “The activated complex in chemical reactions.” J. Phys. Chem. 3: 107–115.

Falk, K. G. (1918). “A chemical study of enzyme action.” Science 47: 423–429.

Fersht, A. R. (1999). Structure and Mechanims in Protein Science—A Guide to Enzyme Catalysis and Protein Folding. New York, W.H. Freeman and Co.

Fischer, E. (1894). “Influence of the configuration on the activity of the enzyme.” Ber. Chem. Ges. 27: 2985.

Gutfreund, H. (1975). Enzymes: Physical Principles. New York, John Wiley & Sons.

Hay, S., et al. (2008). “Atomistic insight into the origin of the temperature-dependence of kinetic isotope effects and H-tunnelling in enzyme systems is revealed through combined experimental studies and biomolecular simulation.” Biochem. Soc. Trans. 36(Pt 1): 16–21.

Hengge, A. C. and R. L. Stein (2004). “Role of protein conformational mobility in enzyme catalysis: Acylation of α-chymotrypsin by specific peptide substrates.” Biochemistry 43(3): 742–747.

Hofmeister, F. (1902). “On the structure and grouping of the protein molecule.” Ergeb. Physiol. 1: 759.

Hunter, F. E. and O. H. Lowry (1955). “The effects of drugs on enzyme systems.” Pharmacol. Rev. 7: 89–135.

Jenks, W. P. (1975). “Binding energy, specificity, and enzymatic catalysis: the Circe effect.” Adv. Enzymol. Relat. Areas Mol. Biol. 43: 219–410.

Johnson, L. N. and D. C. Phillips (1965). “Structure of some crystalline lysozyme-inhibitor complexes determined by X-ray analysis at 6 Angstrom resolution.” Nature 206: 761–762.

Kastle, J. H. (1901). “On the vital activity of the enzymes.” Science 13: 765–771.

Knapp, M. J. and J. P. Klinman (2002). “Environmentally coupled hydrogen tunneling—Linking catalysis to dynamics.” Eur. J. Biochem. 269: 3113–3121.

Kuhne, W. (1877). “Ueber das Verhalten Verschiedener Organisirter und Sog Ungeformter Fermente [On the behavior of different organized and so-called unformed ferments].” Verhandlungen des Naturehistorisch-Medicinischen Vereins 1: 190.

Levene, P. A. T. (1905). “The cleavage products of proteoses.” J. Biol. Chem. 1: 45–58.

Loew, O. (1899). “On the chemical nature of enzymes.” Science 10: 955–961.

Lumry, R. and R. Biltonen (1969). “Thermodynamic and kinetic aspects of protein conformations in relation to physiological function.” In Structure and Stability of Biological Macromolecules, S. Timasheff and G. Fasman, eds. New York, Marcel Dekker.

Mahler, H. R. and J. Douglas (1957). “Mechanisms of enzyme-catalyzed oxidation-reduction reactions. I. An investigation of the yeast alcohol dehydrogenase reaction by means of the isotope rate effect.” J. Am. Chem. Soc. 79: 1159–1166.

Matthews, B. W., et al. (1967). “Three-dimensional structure of tosyl-alpha-chymotrypsin.” Nature 214: 652–656.

Michaelis, L. and M. Menten (1913). “The kinetics of invertase action.” Biochem. Z. 49: 333.

Northrop, D. B. (1981). “The expression of isotope effects on enzyme-catalyzed reactions.” Annu. Rev. Biochem. 50: 103–131.

Ostwald, W. F. (1894). “Abstract on catalysis.” Zeitschrift Physikalische Chemie 15: 705–706.

Pauling, L. (1946). “Molecular architecture and biological reactions.” Chem. Eng. News 24: 1375–1377.

Pauling, L. (1948). “The nature of forces between large molecules of biological interest.” Proc. R Inst. G B 34: 181–187.

Prout, W. (1827). “On the ultimate composition of simple alimentary substances; with some preliminary remarks on the analysis of organized bodies in general.” Philos. Trans. R Soc. 117: 355–388.

Quinn, D. M., et al. (1980). “Protonic reorganization in catalysis by serine proteases: Acylation by small substrates.” J. Am. Chem. Soc. 102: 5358–5365.

Schowen, R. L. (1978). Catalytic power and transition-state stabilization. In Transition States of Biochemical Processes, R. D. Gandour and R. L. Schowen, eds. New York, Plenum Press: 77–114.

Seltzer, S., et al. (1959). “Isotope effects in the enzymatic decarboxylation of oxalacetic acid.” J. Am. Chem. Soc. 81: 4018–4024.

Sizer, I. W. (1957). “Chemical aspects of enzyme inhibition.” Science 125: 54–59.

Somogyi, B., et al. (1984). “The dynamic basis of energy transduction in enzymes.” Biochim. Biophys. Acta 768: 81–112.

Stein, R. L., et al. (1987). “Catalysis by human leukocyte elastase. 7. Proton inventory as a mechanistic probe.” Biochemistry 26: 1305–1314.

Traube, M. (1858a). “On the theory of fermentation and decay.” Ann. Physiol. 103: 331.

Traube, M. (1858b). “On the theory of fermentation and decay phenomena, also of ferment activity in general.” Annalen Physik Chemie 103: 331.

Welch, G. R. (1986). The Fluctuating Enzyme. New York, John Wiley & Sons.

Welch, G. R., et al. (1982). “The role of protein fluctuations in enzyme action: A review.” Prog. Biophys. Mol. Biol. 39: 109–146.

Wilhelmy, L. (1850). “The law by which the action of acid on cane sugar occurs.” Annalen Physik Chemie 81: 413–433.

Wolfenden, R. (1969). “Transition state analogues for enzyme catalysis.” Nature 223(5207): 704–705.

Woods, D. D. (1950). “Biochemical significance of the competition between p-Aminobenzoic acid and the sulphonamides.” Ann. N Y Acad. Sci. 52: 1199–1211.

Woolf, B. (1931). “The addition compound theory of enzyme action.” Biochem. J. 25: 342–348.

Wynne-Jones, W. F. K. and H. Eyring (1935). “The absolute rate of reactions in condensed phases.” J. Chem. Phys. 3: 492–402.

2

KINETICS OF SINGLE-SUBSTRATE ENZYMATIC REACTIONS