research papers
Characterization of high-H2O2-tolerant bacterial CYP105D18: insights into papaverine N-oxidation
aDepartment of Life Science and Biochemical Engineering, Graduate School, SunMoon University, Asan 31460, Republic of Korea, bResearch Unit of Cryogenic Novel Material, Korea Polar Research Institute, 26, Songdomirae-ro, Yeonsu-gu, Incheon 21990, Republic of Korea, cDepartment of Polar Sciences, University of Science and Technology, Incheon 21990, Republic of Korea, dGenome-based BioIT Convergence Institute, Asan 31460, Republic of Korea, and eDepartment of Pharmaceutical Engineering and Biotechnology, SunMoon University, Asan 31460, Republic of Korea
*Correspondence e-mail: junhyucklee@kopri.re.kr, tjoh3782@sunmoon.ac.kr
The bacterial CYP105 family is involved in secondary metabolite biosynthetic pathways and plays essential roles in the biotransformation of xenobiotics. This study investigates the newly identified H2O2-mediated CYP105D18 from Streptomyces laurentii as the first bacterial CYP for N-oxidation. The catalytic efficiency of CYP105D18 for papaverine N-oxidation was 1.43 s−1 µM−1. The heme oxidation rate (k) was low (<0.3 min−1) in the presence of 200 mM H2O2. This high H2O2 tolerance capacity of CYP105D18 led to higher turnover prior to heme oxidation. Additionally, the high-resolution papaverine complexed structure and substrate-free structure of CYP105D18 were determined. Structural analysis and activity assay results revealed that CYP105D18 had a strong substrate preference for papaverine because of its bendable structure. These findings establish a basis for biotechnological applications of CYP105D18 in the pharmaceutical and medicinal industries.
Keywords: CYP105D18; papaverine N-oxide; H2O2 tolerance; Streptomyces laurentii; enzyme mechanisms; crystal morphology; co-crystals.
PDB references: CYP105D18 complex with papaverine, 7dls; apo-structure of CYP105D18, 7di3
1. Introduction
b-containing enzymes expressed in a variety of species. These enzymes catalyze diverse reactions, including hydroxylation, alcohol and carbonyl oxidation, epoxidation, demethylation, N-oxidation, ring cleavage, coupling, and formation of a vast number of endogenous and exogenous compounds, such as xenobiotics and other drugs (Isin & Guengerich, 2007). CYPs are involved in regio- and stereo-specific reactions with substrate flexibility, making them suitable targets for biotechnological applications (Ciaramella et al., 2020). The complex mechanism of CYP reactions involves specific redox partners and costly cofactors, thereby limiting the broad utility of CYPs in nature. However, some CYP monooxygenases and peroxygenases support the shunt pathway using an oxygen surrogate system such as hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) and organic surrogates such as cumene hydroperoxide or iodosylbenzene for efficient catalysis of different substrates (Wei et al., 2019; Munro et al., 2018). Implementation of this system may be economically viable, with some P450s evolving to use H2O2, but is typically inefficient and may lead to heme oxidation and enzyme destabilization or inactivation (Ciaramella et al., 2020; Munro et al., 2018). In addition, the shape and size of the substrate-binding pocket may hinder the formation of highly reactive compounds using the shunt pathway for efficient catalysis (Ciaramella et al., 2020; Wei et al., 2019).
(CYP) enzymes comprise a large superfamily of hemeThe general ability of CYPs to utilize H2O2 has been demonstrated for many human CYPs and bacterial CYPs. Human CYP1A2 supports H2O2 shunting for efficient oxidation of aromatic (Anari et al., 1997), and CYP3A4 and CYP2D6 can convert pinacidil (a vasodilator drug) into its corresponding amine using H2O2 (Zhang et al., 2002). The major human drug-metabolizing CYPs, i.e. CYP2C9, CYP2C19, CYP2D6 and CYP1A2, can also support different oxygen surrogate systems, and their catalysis function is based on the various substrates used (Strohmaier et al., 2020). Typically, members of the bacterial CYP152 family, including P450BSβ, P450SPα and OleTJe, have been shown to utilize H2O2 for efficient fatty acid hydroxylation (Munro et al., 2018).
Papaverine, an isoquinoline alkaloid present in opium, causes smooth muscle relaxation and has been used to treat vasospasm. Moreover, papaverine has been administered as an alternative to nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in some patients to treat renal colic pain, migraine headaches, schizophrenia, cancers and even viral infections (Shen et al., 2019; Aggarwal et al., 2020). Despite the medicinal importance of papaverine, this compound has many adverse effects. However, modified papaverine may have better efficacy and reduced cytotoxicity and can easily be metabolized by the body. Chemical modification of papaverine for C—H functionalization, N-oxidation (Egbewande et al., 2019) and O-demethylation has been reported (Brossi & Teitel, 1970). These classical approaches are time-consuming and costly and may suffer from poor regio-selectivity compared with enzyme-catalyzed reactions. Shen et al. (2019) reported an efficient biocatalyst, CYP105D1, for the 6-O-demethylation of papaverine.
The CYP105 family is involved in biosynthetic pathways of Streptomyces avermitilis catalyzes the hydration of 1-deoxypentalenic acid at the C1 position, isoflavone and daidzein at the 3 position and diclofenac at the C4′ position (Takamatsu et al., 2011; Pandey et al., 2010; Xu et al., 2015). Additionally, CYP105A1 from Streptomyces griseous converts vitamin D3 (VD3) to 1,25-dihydroxy vitamin D3, a hormonally active form, via two sequential hydroxylations (O'Keefe et al., 1988; Hayashi et al., 2008). CYP105P1 and CYP105D6 are also involved in the biosynthesis of filipin (Xu et al., 2010). Although the CYP105 family has diverse functions, all members share a common CYP structure within a relative mean squared deviation of 2 Å, indicating that further close structural investigation is required to determine the regio- and/or stereo-specific substrate recognition and chemistry (Lee et al., 2016).
and biotransformation of xenobiotic compounds. For example, CYP105D7 fromIn this study, we aimed to determine biochemical and structural information for proteins in the CYP105 family. We studied CYP, annotated as CYP105D18, from Streptomyces laurentii. We also determined the substrate-free and papaverine-complexed crystal structures of CYP105D18 at resolutions of 1.7 and 2.0 Å, respectively. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first report of an N-oxidation reaction using bacterial CYP.
2. Results and discussion
2.1. Functional characterization of CYP105D18
Phylogenetic tree analysis of CYP105D18 revealed that it had the closest relationships with functionally characterized CYP105D7 (71.1%) and CYP105D1 (64.9%; Fig. S1 of the supporting information). CYP105D1 was well characterized for biotransformation of isoquinoline (Shen et al., 2019). So, we speculated that this protein is involved in the biotransformation of different isoquinoline (e.g. papaverine, THP, berberine and palmatine). CYP105D18 was cloned, overexpressed and purified. The theoretical molecular weight was 44.3 kDa, and a single band at ∼50 kDa (with a His-tag from pET28) was obtained by sodium dodecyl sulfate-polyacrylamide gel [Fig. 1(a)]. Purified CYP105D18 showed a Soret peak at 418 nm in an oxidized form. The carbon-monoxide-bound and dithionite-reduced form of CYP105D18 exhibited maximum absorption at a wavelength of 449 nm, one of the important spectral characteristics of CYP450 [Fig. 1(b)]. The purity of a CYP can be evaluated from its Rz value, calculated as the ratio of absorbance (A) at λmax of the to the A value at 280 nm. The purified enzyme had an Rz value of 1.45, indicating high purity (Lee et al., 2016). The redox partner proteins Pdx and PdR were expressed and purified to single bands corresponding to 11.4 and 45.6 kDa, respectively (Fig. S2). The four isoquinoline with different structures (listed in Fig. S3) were screened for in vitro biotransformation by CYP105D18. There was no in vitro biotransformation by CYP105D18 for papaverine, palmatine, THP or berberine using the redox partners Pdx/PdR from the P450cam system and/or spinach Fdx/FdR (data not shown). CYP105D18 supported the N-oxidation of papaverine and hydroxylation of tetrahydropalmatine using the oxygen surrogate H2O2. High-performance (HPLC) analysis of papaverine revealed product formation at a of 18.2 min, equivalent to hydroxylation/N-oxidation in liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry (LC-MS) analysis [Fig. 2(a)]. The HPLC results showed an additional peak at a of 22.2 min, which could not be identified because of the poor by LC-electrospray ionization-MS. The major product was purified and characterized by nuclear magnetic resonance analysis as papaverine N-oxide (Fig. S4). Similarly, the tetrahydropalmatine product catalyzed by CYP105D18 in the presence of H2O2 showed a single peak at a of 13.5 min in the HPLC analysis [Fig. 2(b)]. The LC-MS data revealed the mono-hydroxylation (mass, 372.179 g mol−1) of tetrahydropalmatine. The maximum product conversion for tetrahydropalmatine under optimum conditions was less than 12%; therefore, we did not purify the product for structural analysis. The results showed no support from H2O2 as an oxygen surrogate partner for biotransformation of berberine and palmatine by CYP105D18.
To support the in vitro biotransformation of papaverine by CYP105D18, we performed the substrate-binding experiment. Among the four substrates, only papaverine induced the spectral shift, which was at 422 nm (Fig. S5). Even though THP was catalyzed by CYP105D18 using H2O2 as co-substrate, there was no spin-shift observed. The binding of 4-(pyridine-3-yl) benzoic acid and 4-(pyridine-2-yl) benzoic acid to CYP199A4 exhibits type II UV–vis spectral changes showing a greater shift in the Soret wavelength (422 versus 424 nm) (Podgorski et al., 2020). Papaverine was also modified in the pyridine ring (N-oxidation) by CYP105D18 and exhibits a similar pattern of spectral shift at 422 nm. In addition, there was a spectral difference in the δ band between substrate-bound and unbound forms. Papaverine-bound spectra showed a at 322 nm, which was not observed in the binding of 4-(pyridine-3-yl) benzoic acid and 4-(pyridine-2-yl) benzoic acid to CYP199A4 (Podgorski et al., 2020).
This is the first report of N-oxidation of a compound by bacterial CYP. However, human CYP has been reported to catalyze the N-oxidation of drugs during drug modification by liver microsomes. CYP2E1 is the main microsomal enzyme involved in the N-oxidation of nicotinamide (Real et al., 2013), and CYP2C9, CYP2C19 and CYP3A4 exhibit different affinities for N-oxidation of the antifungal drug voriconazole during its metabolism in liver microsomes (Hyland et al., 2003). In addition, the fungal aromatic peroxygenase (AaP) was reported to catalyze the N-oxygenation of pyridine and related compounds (Ullrich et al., 2008). Nitrogen-rich are used to treat various human diseases, and these motifs are found in many isoquinoline alkaloid drugs (Egbewande et al., 2019). The N-oxide derivatives of isoquinoline are structurally and functionally related to the original compound and are reported to have good pharmacological properties (Dembitsky et al., 2015). Bremner & Wiriyachitra (1973) reported the chemical synthesis of papaverine N-oxide from papaverine using chloroform and m-chloroperbenzoic acid. The photochemical synthesis of papaverine N-oxide was reported by Girreser et al. (2003). However, chemical and photochemical methods are time-consuming and exhibit poor yields, as reported previously. For example, papaverine was treated with aqueous H2O2 at 70°C for up to 10 h to produce papaverine N-oxide (Girreser et al., 2003). In contrast, we showed that CYP105D18, in the presence of a stoichiometric amount of H2O2, efficiently transformed papaverine to papaverine N-oxide, providing important insight into chemical methods.
2.2. H2O2 stability for CYP105D18 and optimization for papaverine N-oxidation
Only H2O2 supported CYP105D18-dependent N-oxidation of papaverine; therefore, we analyzed the oxidative degradation of heme under different concentrations of H2O2 (0.1–200 mM). Unexpectedly, the `k' was low, even in the presence of higher concentrations of H2O2, suggesting the high tolerance capacity of CYP105D18 for H2O2 (Table 1). The decrease in Soret absorbance at 417 nm 90 s after treatment with 0.1–200 mM H2O2 for 30 min is shown in Figs. 3(a)–3(g). The well established P450 peroxygenase P450s SPα (CYP152B1 from Sphingomonas paucimobilis), BSβ (CYP152A1 from Bacillus subtilis) and OleT (CYP152L1 from Jeotgalicoccus sp.) have been reported to replace the acid–alcohol amino acid pair, which is used for proton relay to iron–oxo species to facilitate the catalytic cycle (Munro et al., 2018). General CYPs with conserved acid–alcohol pairs (i.e. BM3, CYP15B1 and CYP121A1) have also been reported to utilize H2O2. The steroid hydroxylase CYP154C8 surprisingly functioned in the presence of a high concentration of H2O2, as reported in our previous work (Dangi et al., 2018). The stability of heme also plays a crucial role in the efficient catalysis of the CYP. For example, P450116B5hd showed higher tolerance than P450BMP (Ciaramella et al., 2020). Here, we report the first CYP105 subfamily enzyme showing tolerance for H2O2. Indeed, CYP105D18 was found to utilize H2O2 for efficient N-oxidation of papaverine with high stability. The heme oxidation k was lower than those of the steroid hydroxylases CYP154C8, CYP152L1 and P450116B5hd. The heme dissociation was less than 0.3 min−1, even in the presence of 200 mM H2O2. Enzymes with high stability in the presence of H2O2 may exhibit more frequent turnover before definitive heme oxidation.
The heme oxidation rate k was low, even in the presence of high concentrations of H2O2. The conversion of papaverine to papaverine N-oxide by 3 µM CYP105D18 with different H2O2 concentrations is shown in Fig. 3(h). A product conversion rate of 70% was observed with 5 mM H2O2. The product conversion was more than 95% between 40 and 200 mM H2O2. The heme dissociation constant was less than 0.014 min−1, and product conversion was greater than 97% using 40 mM H2O2 within 30 min. Therefore, 40 mM H2O2 was used as the optimum concentration to evaluate the enzyme kinetics. The product conversion decreased sharply when the the H2O2 concentration was greater than 200 mM, and more than 10% conversion was observed in the presence of 800 mM H2O2.
Time-dependent in vitro conversion of papaverine N-oxide by CYP105D18 is shown in Fig. 4(a). The Km and kcat values for papaverine were estimated to be 213 ± 26 µM and 5 ± 0.3 min−1, respectively [Fig. 4(b)]. Similarly, Km and kcat values for tetrahydropalmatine were 75 ± 15 µM and 0.13 ± 0.01 min−1, respectively [Fig. 4(c)]. The catalytic efficiency (kcat/Km) for papaverine was much higher (1.43 s−1 µM−1) in comparison with tetrahydropalmatine (0.11 s −1 µM−1).
2.3. Overall substrate-free structure of CYP105D18
Structural investigation of CYP105D18 was conducted to obtain detailed structural information related to the active site. Crystallization experiments for full-length CYP105D18 yielded crystals in the C2 diffracting to 1.7 Å. A final model was obtained with R factor and Rfree values of 0.16 and 0.21, respectively, and a Molprobity score of 1.48 (Williams et al., 2018). A Ramachandran plot analysis of the refined model showed that 96.55 and 0% of non-glycine residues were in favored regions and outliers, respectively. The final model of CYP105D18 exhibited electron density for most of the molecule, except for the N-terminus (amino acids 1–3) and a loop containing residues 73–85, which connected αB and αC [dotted line in Fig. 5(a)]. The had one molecule of CYP105D18. Consistent with this observation, size analysis of CYP105D18 revealed that the protein existed as a monomer in solution (Fig. S6). The coordinates were deposited in the Protein Data Bank under entry 7di3 (substrate-free structure). Data collection and are summarized in Table S4 of the supporting information.
As observed in the structures of the CYP105 family, CYP105D18 can be divided into two units: β-sheet-containing units and helix-rich units composed of helices αC–αJ [Fig. 5(a)]. A long αI was located in the middle between the two units and connected two units. CYP105D18 contained a heme surrounded by loops from the β-sheet-containing unit and αC, αI and αL from the helix-rich unit. The last C-terminus long loop starting from Lue366 covered the concave active site. As shown in the phylogenetic tree, CYP105D18 had the highest homology with the CYP105D subfamily, including CYP105D4, CYP105D7, CYP105D8 and CYP105D1. Consistent with this, structural similarities generated from the DALI server (https://ekhidna2.biocenter.helsinki.fi/dali/) showed high similarity with structures of CYP105D7 and CYP105D6 (PetD) from S. avermitilis (Z-scores: 53.7 and 53.0, respectively; Table 2) (Xu et al., 2015, 2010).
|
CYP105D18 forms a deep, concave and funnel-like active site located in the center between the β-sheet and helix-rich units; at the bottom of the active site, the heme plane is located vertically with respect to the active site funnel (Fig. 5). The active site funnel shape is composed of a B/C loop (residues 173–187), turn region between αF and αG, and C-terminal loop (residues 336–396). Although the CYP105 family shares high structural homology but has diverse substrates, residues from these three regions are barely conserved [Fig. 5(b)], indicating that these regions are essential for substrate selectivity for the CYP family. A previous study of CYP105D7 indicated that the arginine residues (Arg70, Arg88 and Arg190) in the B/C loop and αG of the substrate-binding pocket are conserved in the CYP105 family and may be important residues for substrate recognition (Xu et al., 2015). Unlike CYP105D7, CYP105D18 contains Ser63 and Phe184, corresponding to Arg70 and Arg190 of CYP105D7. This suggests that the residual recognition of the substrate at the active site of CYPs is more complicated and varied.
2.4. Structural feature for the H2O2 stability of CYP105D18
Previous studies have reported that human P450 1A2 is thiol-insensitive to H2O2. The simulation using rabbit P450 4B1 as a model suggested that the Gln451 of P450 4B1 is an essential residue for the thiol sensitivity of P450 (Albertolle et al., 2019). Gln451 in P450 4B1 showed heme thiolate and sulfenic acid-dependent open and closed conformations, respectively. These conformational changes alter the solvent accessibility of heme-thiolate Cys488. Once the Cys488 was oxidized to sulfenic acid, the Gln451 forms an NH–π bond with Phe441 for closed conformation, limiting the accessibility of oxidizing agents to the protein (Albertolle et al., 2019). Consistent with this, H2O2-stable CYP105D18 shows high sequential and structural similarity with P450 4B1. Across from the heme molecule are Phe338 and Gln348, which correspond to Phe441 and Gln451 of P450 4B1 and show a closed conformation. Notably, the substrate-free CYP105D18 shows a small blob on the heme molecules, as depicted in Fig. 6, indicating that the heme of CYP105D18 is oxidized. A similar mechanism with the P450 4B1 access region to the heme region of CYP105D18 may involve conformational changes upon oxidation, and this closed conformation probably results in the H2O2 resistance of CYP105D18 (Fig. 6).
2.5. Comparison of substrate-binding pockets between substrate-free and papaverine complexes with CYP105D18
In addition to the substrate-free structure of CYP105D18, we determined the papaverine complex structure (PDB entry 7dls) to support papaverine N-oxidation and understand the substrate-binding mode and structural changes that occur upon substrate binding. The papaverine complex structure was superimposed with the substrate-free structure and showed an overall Cα relative mean squared deviation of 0.196 Å. Structural comparisons between the substrate-free and complex forms of CYP105D18s revealed that conformation changes occurred mainly in the B/C loop region. A flexible, less structured loop was observed in the B/C loop, and electron density for residues 73–84 was absent from the substrate-free structure, indicating that this region had a high degree of flexibility. However, the papaverine complex structure had a well defined electron density for the B/C loop and formed a short helix named αB′, which has been previously observed in the diclofenac complex CYP105D7 structure (Xu et al., 2015). Although the B/C loop is a less conserved region, Phe68 and Pro69 are conserved within the CYP105 family. Phe68 is located at the starting point of the B/C loop and is deeply embedded by interactions with Val286 and Val288 from β4, which may act as a hinge with Pro69 for B/C loop movement. Consistent with this observation, the electron density after Pro69 was blurry with a high B-factor (∼50 Å2), whereas the electron density for Phe68 and Pro69 showed a sharp and a good fit with a low B-factor [∼30 Å2; Fig. 7(a)]. Taken together, these findings show that the B/C loop in the active site of the CYP105D18 structure was flexible and remained in an open confirmation without substrate. Once the substrate bound to CYP105D18, the B/C loop formed a helix (αB′) with a closed conformation. This region is thought to be responsible for substrate binding and specificity (Lee et al., 2016; Xu et al., 2009).
Papaverine was buried within the internal hydrophobic cavity of CYP105D18 and was surrounded by residues Ala85, Leu87, Val231, Ala282, Val234 and Ile386, with no hydrophilic residues [Fig. 7(b)]. The dimethodyisoquinoline group of papaverine was closely situated in the center of the heme, and dimethodyisoquinoline nitrogen was located toward the iron of the heme group. An electron-density blob corresponding to a water molecule between the isoquinoline nitrogen and heme iron was found (Fig. S7). The distance between the water and nitrogen was 3.2 Å, and that between the water and iron was 2.1 Å, indicating that the binding mode represented the true mode for N-oxidation (Fig. 8). The dimethodyisoquinoline and dimethoxy-phenyl groups were bent by approximately 90°, with a single carbon bond. This finding strongly supports our biochemical data demonstrating that CYP105D18 selectively transformed papaverine, although the overall biochemical characteristics of the substrates tested were similar because other isoquinoline are linked using two single carbon bonds that cannot be bent.
To further support this observation, a molecular docking simulation was conducted with bendable substrates and non-bendable substrates. First, we used the papaverine model to check the reliability of the docking simulation. The simulated papaverine binds to the substrate-binding pocket of CYP105D18 with a similar binding mode to that of the co-crystallized structure (Fig. 9). The simulation results show that nitrogen of bendable chemicals has a closer distance (2.5–2.7 Å) with water molecules interacting with iron of the heme molecule in CYP105D18 compared with those of non-bendable chemical compounds (4.4–8.6 Å). Taken together, we suggest that the bending motion of the ligand may be the critical feature in establishing the distance and coordinates during hydroxyl group transfer. Based on this analysis, we listed potential substrates for CYP105D18 in Fig. S8. Overall, this structural analysis supported the unique features of CYP105D18, including high flexibility at the active site entrance and substrate selectivity.
3. Conclusions
In this study, we reported a novel 2O2-mediated N-oxidation of papaverine by this CYP and its high tolerance to H2O2 for papaverine biotransformation. In addition, we investigated the of CYP105D18, which suggested that high structural similarity is shared by the CYP105 family. Structural comparison of substrate-free CYP105D18 with a substrate-bound structure revealed high flexibility at the active site entrance comprising the B/C loop. In a papaverine-bound structure, papaverine adopted a bent structure that enabled correct alignment with the heme molecule for the N-oxidation reaction of papaverine. This finding explains why CYP105D18 had strong papaverine activity but weak or no activity for other isoquinoline with non-bendable structures in our data. Taken together, our findings showed that this novel CYP exhibited high tolerance for H2O2 and unique substrate specificity, warranting studies of substantial drug modifications for biotechnological applications.
enzyme annotated as CYP105D18. We observed H4. Related literature
The following references are cited in the supporting information: Bhattarai et al. (2013); DeLano (2002); Kumar et al. (2018); Omura & Sato (1964); Purdy et al. (2004); Roy et al. (2010); Winn et al. (2011); Zhang (2008).
Supporting information
Experimental procedures, tables and figures. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1107/S2052252521005522/jt5056sup1.pdf
Footnotes
‡These authors contributed equally to this work.
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank the staff at the X-ray core facility of the Korea Basic Science Institute (KBSI; Ochang, Korea) and the BL-5C of the Pohang Accelerator Laboratory (Pohang, Korea) for their kind help with the X-ray diffraction data collection. We would also like to thank the Division of Magnetic Resonance, Korea Basic Science Institute, Ochang, Chungbuk, Republic of Korea, for NMR analyses.
Funding information
This research was part of the project titled `Development of potential antibiotic compounds using polar organism resources' (grant No. 15250103, KOPRI grant PM21030), funded by the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries, Korea.
References
Aggarwal, M., Leser, G. P. & Lamb, R. A. (2020). J. Virol. 94, e01888–19. CrossRef CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Albertolle, M. E., Song, H. D., Wilkey, C. J., Segrest, J. P. & Guengerich, F. P. (2019). Chem. Res. Toxicol. 32, 484–492. CrossRef CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Anari, M. R., Josephy, P. D., Henry, T. & O'Brien, P. J. (1997). Chem. Res. Toxicol. 10, 582–588. CrossRef CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Bhattarai, S., Liou, K. & Oh, T. J. (2013). Arch. Biochem. Biophys. 539, 63–69. CrossRef CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Bremner, J. B. & Wiriyachitra, P. (1973). Aust. J. Chem. 26, 437–442. CrossRef CAS Google Scholar
Brossi, A. & Teitel, S. (1970). J. Org. Chem. 35, 1684–1687. CrossRef CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Ciaramella, A., Catucci, G., Di Nardo, G., Sadeghi, S. J. & Gilardi, G. (2020). New Biotechnol. 54, 71–79. CrossRef CAS Google Scholar
Dangi, B., Park, H. & Oh, T. J. (2018). ChemBioChem, 19, 2273–2282. CrossRef CAS PubMed Google Scholar
DeLano, W. L. (2002). The PyMOL Molecular Graphics System. DeLano Scientific, Palo Alto, CA, USA. Google Scholar
Dembitsky, V. M., Gloriozova, T. A. & Poroikov, V. V. (2015). Phytomedicine, 22, 183–202. CrossRef CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Egbewande, F. A., Coster, M. J., Jenkins, I. D. & Davis, R. A. (2019). Molecules, 24, 3938. CrossRef Google Scholar
Girreser, U., Hermann, T. W. & Piotrowska, K. (2003). Arch. Pharm. Pharm. Med. Chem. 336, 401–405. CrossRef CAS Google Scholar
Han, S., Pham, T. V., Kim, J. H., Lim, Y. R., Park, H. G., Cha, G. S., Yun, Y. J., Chun, C. H., Kang, L. W. & Kim, D. (2015). Arch. Biochem. Biophys. 575, 1–7. CrossRef CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Hayashi, K., Sugimoto, H., Shinkyo, R., Yamada, M., Ikeda, S., Ikushiro, S., Kamakura, M., Shiro, Y. & Sakaki, T. (2008). Biochemistry, 47, 11964–11972. Web of Science CrossRef PubMed CAS Google Scholar
Hyland, R., Jones, B. C. & Smith, D. A. (2003). Drug Metab. Dispos. 31, 540–547. CrossRef PubMed CAS Google Scholar
Isin, E. M. & Guengerich, F. P. (2007). Biochim. Biophys. Acta, 1770, 314–329. Web of Science CrossRef PubMed CAS Google Scholar
Kumar, S., Stecher, G., Li, M., Knyaz, C. & Tamura, K. (2018). Mol. Biol. Evol. 35, 1547–1549. Web of Science CrossRef CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Lee, C. W., Yu, S. C., Lee, J. H., Park, S. H., Park, H., Oh, T. J. & Lee, J. H. (2016). Int. J. Mol. Sci. 17, 2067. CrossRef Google Scholar
Li, S., Tietz, D. R., Rutaganira, F. U., Kells, P. M., Anzai, Y., Kato, F., Pochapsky, T. C., Sherman, D. H. & Podust, L. M. (2012). J. Biol. Chem. 287, 37880–37890. CrossRef CAS PubMed Google Scholar
McLean, K. J., Hans, M., Meijrink, B., van Scheppingen, W. B., Vollebregt, A., Tee, K. L., van der Laan, J.-M., Leys, D., Munro, A. W. & van den Berg, M. A. (2015). Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA, 112, 2847–2852. CrossRef CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Miyanaga, A., Takayanagi, R., Furuya, T., Kawamata, A., Itagaki, T., Iwabuchi, Y., Kanoh, N., Kudo, F. & Eguchi, T. (2017). ChemBioChem, 18, 2179–2187. CrossRef CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Munro, A. W., McLean, K. J., Grant, J. L. & Makris, T. M. (2018). Biochem. Soc. Trans. 46, 183–196. CrossRef CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Obayashi, E., Shimizu, H., Park, S. Y., Shoun, H. & Shiro, Y. (2000). J. Inorg. Biochem. 82, 103–111. CrossRef PubMed CAS Google Scholar
O'Keefe, D. P., Romesser, J. A. & Leto, K. J. (1988). Arch. Microbiol. 149, 406–412. CAS Google Scholar
Omura, T. & Sato, R. (1964). J. Biol. Chem. 239, 2370–2378. CrossRef PubMed CAS Web of Science Google Scholar
Pandey, B. P., Roh, C. H., Choi, K. Y., Lee, N. H., Kim, E. J., Ko, S. G., Kim, T. J., Yun, H. D. & Kim, B. G. (2010). Biotechnol. Bioeng. 105, 697–704. PubMed CAS Google Scholar
Podgorski, M. N., Harbort, J. S., Coleman, T., Stok, J. E., Yorke, J. A., Wong, L. L., Bruning, J. B., Bernhardt, P. V., De Voss, J. J., Harmer, J. R. & Bell, S. G. (2020). Biochemistry, 59, 1038–1050. CrossRef CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Purdy, M. M., Koo, L. S., Ortiz De Montellano, P. R. & Klinman, J. P. (2004). Biochemistry, 43, 271–281. CrossRef PubMed CAS Google Scholar
Real, A. M., Hong, S. & Pissios, P. (2013). Drug Metab. Dispos. 41, 550–553. CrossRef CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Roy, A., Kucukural, A. & Zhang, Y. (2010). Nat. Protoc. 5, 725–738. Web of Science CrossRef CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Shen, C., Zhao, W., Liu, X. & Liu, J. (2019). Biotechnol. Lett. 41, 171–180. CrossRef CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Strohmaier, S. J., De Voss, J. J., Jurva, U., Andersson, S. & Gillam, E. M. J. (2020). Drug Metab. Dispos. 48, 432–437. CrossRef CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Takamatsu, S., Xu, L. H., Fushinobu, S., Shoun, H., Komatsu, M., Cane, D. E. & Ikeda, H. (2011). J. Antibiot. 64, 65–71. CrossRef CAS Google Scholar
Trott, O. & Olson, A. J. (2010). J. Comput. Chem. 31, 455–461. Web of Science PubMed CAS Google Scholar
Ullrich, R., Dolge, C., Kluge, M. & Hofrichter, M. (2008). FEBS Lett. 582, 4100–4106. Web of Science CrossRef PubMed CAS Google Scholar
Wei, X., Zhang, C., Gao, X., Gao, Y., Yang, Y., Guo, K., Du, X., Pu, L. & Wang, Q. (2019). ChemistryOpen, 8, 1076–1083. CrossRef CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Williams, C. J., Headd, J. J., Moriarty, N. W., Prisant, M. G., Videau, L. L., Deis, L. N., Verma, V., Keedy, D. A., Hintze, B. J., Chen, V. B., Jain, S., Lewis, S. M., Arendall, W. B., Snoeyink, J., Adams, P. D., Lovell, S. C., Richardson, J. S. & Richardson, D. C. (2018). Protein Sci. 27, 293–315. Web of Science CrossRef CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Winn, M. D., Ballard, C. C., Cowtan, K. D., Dodson, E. J., Emsley, P., Evans, P. R., Keegan, R. M., Krissinel, E. B., Leslie, A. G. W., McCoy, A., McNicholas, S. J., Murshudov, G. N., Pannu, N. S., Potterton, E. A., Powell, H. R., Read, R. J., Vagin, A. & Wilson, K. S. (2011). Acta. Cryst. D67, 235–242. Web of Science CrossRef CAS IUCr Journals Google Scholar
Xu, L. H., Fushinobu, S., Ikeda, H., Wakagi, T. & Shoun, H. (2009). J. Bacteriol. 191, 1211–1219. CrossRef PubMed CAS Google Scholar
Xu, L. H., Fushinobu, S., Takamatsu, S., Wakagi, T., Ikeda, H. & Shoun, H. (2010). J. Biol. Chem. 285, 16844–16853. CrossRef CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Xu, L. H., Ikeda, H., Liu, L., Arakawa, T., Wakagi, T., Shoun, H. & Fushinobu, S. (2015). Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 99, 3081–3091. CrossRef CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Zhang, Y. (2008). BMC Bioinformatics, 9, 40. Google Scholar
Zhang, Z., Li, Y., Stearns, R. A., Ortiz de Montellano, P. R., Baillie, T. A. & Tang, W. (2002). Biochemistry, 41, 2712–2718. CrossRef PubMed CAS Google Scholar
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) Licence, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original authors and source are cited.