Relationships between kinetic constants and the amino acid composition of enzymes from the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae glycolysis pathway
 Peteris Zikmanis^{1}Email author and
 Inara Kampenusa^{1}
DOI: 10.1186/16874153201211
© Zikmanis and Kampenusa; licensee Springer. 2012
Received: 11 January 2012
Accepted: 21 July 2012
Published: 6 August 2012
Abstract
The kinetic models of metabolic pathways represent a system of biochemical reactions in terms of metabolic fluxes and enzyme kinetics. Therefore, the apparent differences of metabolic fluxes might reflect distinctive kinetic characteristics, as well as sequencedependent properties of the employed enzymes. This study aims to examine possible linkages between kinetic constants and the amino acid (AA) composition (AAC) for enzymes from the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae glycolytic pathway. The values of MichaelisMenten constant (K M), turnover number (k cat), and specificity constant (k sp = k cat/K M) were taken from BRENDA (15, 17, and 16 values, respectively) and protein sequences of nine enzymes (HXK, GADH, PGK, PGM, ENO, PK, PDC, TIM, and PYC) from UniProtKB. The AAC and sequence properties were computed by ExPASy/ProtParam tool and data processed by conventional methods of multivariate statistics. Multiple linear regressions were found between the logvalues of k cat (3 models, 85.74% < R adj.2 <94.11%, p < 0.00001), K M (1 model, R adj.2 = 96.70%, p < 0.00001), k sp (3 models, 96.15% < R adj.2 < 96.50%, p < 0.00001), and the sets of AA frequencies (four to six for each model) selected from enzyme sequences while assessing the potential multicollinearity between variables. It was also found that the selection of independent variables in multiple regression models may reflect certain advantages for definite AA physicochemical and structural propensities, which could affect the properties of sequences. The results support the view on the actual interdependence of catalytic, binding, and structural residues to ensure the efficiency of biocatalysts, since the kinetic constants of the yeast enzymes appear as closely related to the overall AAC of sequences.
Keywords
MichaelisMenten constant Turnover number Specificity constant Glycolytic enzymes Sequencedependent properties Multivariate relationshipsIntroduction
According to the concepts of systems biology, metabolic fluxes are net sums of underlying enzymatic reaction rates represented by integral outputs of three biological quantities which interact at the level of enzyme kinetics: kinetic parameters, enzyme and reactant concentrations[1]. Integrated view of enzymes suggests to consider them as dynamic assemblies whose variable structures are closely related to catalytic functions[2, 3]. It is therefore an important task to extend the knowledge of the enzyme sequence, structure and function relationships which allow to specify a chemical mechanism of catalytic reaction and to be predictive for targeted modification of enzymes[4]. Sitedirected mutagenesis has proved to be a powerful tool to probe certain amino acids (AA) within an enzyme, yet still somewhat less focusing on other residues and, therefore, tempted to ignore the actual interdependence of catalytic, binding, and structural residues being considered as a key feature of such complex cooperative systems[2, 3, 5]. Moreover, statistical evaluation of the relation between functionally and structurally important AA of the enzyme sequences reveals contribution of the catalytic residues to the structural stabilization of the respective proteins, which indicates both residue sets as rather overlapping than segregated[6]. In addition, the modest success of creating artificial enzymes also points to currently unknown, probably crucial, parameters that could significantly affect enzyme catalysis[7]. AA composition (AAC) is a simplest attribute of proteins among the socalled global sequence descriptors[8] which represents the frequencies of occurrence of the natural AA thereby creating a 20dimensional feature for a given protein sequence[8, 9]. AAC appears as a simple, yet powerful feature for a successful prediction of several protein properties, including protein folding and mutual interactions[10–12].
On the other hand, these complex events can be measured in many respects, including protein conformational heterogeneity and structural dynamics[7, 13, 14]. For these reasons, there could be certain links between the enzyme kinetic constants and AAC of the sequences. The goal of this study was to check this assumption.
Methods
The dataset consisted of the enzyme characteristics, representing the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae glycolysis pathway, together with the reaction directly branching (pyruvate carboxylase) from it. It includes the data for the following enzymes: Hexokinase (HXK, EC 2.7.1.1), Glyceraldehyde3phosphate dehydrogenase (GADH, EC 1.2.1.12), 3phosphoglycerate kinase (PKG, EC 2.7.2.3), Phosphoglycerate mutase (PGM, EC 5.4.2.1), Enolase (ENO, EC 4.2.1.11), Pyruvate kinase (PK, EC 2.7.1.40), Pyruvate decarboxyase (PDC, EC 4.1.1.1), Triosephosphate isomerase (TIM, EC 5.3.1.1), and Pyruvate carboxylase (PYC, EC 6.4.1.1). The kinetic constants and the enzyme AA sequences were taken from the BRENDA[15] and UniProtKB[16] databases, respectively. The numerical values of kinetic constants retrieved from BRENDA and the UniProtKB accession numbers of enzyme sequences are summarized in Additional file1: Table S1. The relatively limited volume of this dataset is due to the fact that only these glycolytic enzymes from S. cerevisiae are currently represented in BRENDA database[15] by both fundamental constants[17]: the turnover number (k cat), the MichaelisMenten constant (K M) and, consequently, the derived specificity constant (k sp = k cat/K M)[17, 18]. The values of k cat and K M obtained from the same literature source were used for the direct calculation of k sp. If the several kinetic constants with the different numerical values come from various literature sources (m*n) values for k sp were calculated, where m and n represent the numbers of k cat and K M, respectively (Additional file1: Table S1). In this way, the calculated smallest and largest k sp values were excluded from subsequent use to form a more even balance for the number of sequences under study. Consequently, 16 k sp values were included in the data set (Additional file1: Table S1).
The AAC (frequencies of AA occurrence) of sequences was computed using ExPASy/ProtParam tool[19]. The average AA property, P ave(i), for each sequence (or an extracted group of AA) was computed using the standard formula[20], where P(j) is the property value for j th residue and the summation over N, the total number of residues in a protein.
The data were processed by correlation analysis (parametric and nonparametric) using the Statgraphics®Plus (Manugistics Inc., Maryland, USA) and SPSS 11.0 for Windows (SPSS Inc., Illinois, USA) and subjected to the multiple linear regression analysis using the same software. Explanatory variables in the models were selected by stepwise forward selection procedures by finding the significant onevariable models (20 AA × 3 kinetic constants) as well as significant twovariable models (190 possible ways/C(20,2)/to arrange 20 AA in groups of 2 at a time for each kinetic constant). The best threevariable models were formed by adding another variable onebyone from the remaining ones and the variables that yield the greatest increase in the adjusted R 2 value were included. And so forth to obtain the fourvariable and larger models until no variables could increase the criterion. The logarithmic transformation of the kinetic constant values was used to increase the normality of the dependent variables. The Fisher’s Ftest for analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed to evaluate the statistical significance of regression models and the Student’s ttest was employed to check the significance of regression coefficients. The leaveoneout crossvalidation (LOOCV) procedure was employed to validate developed regression models[21]. The linear plots of the actual kinetic constants against those predicted by the multiple regression models were used throughout the study to assess the goodnessoffit for observed multivariate relationships according to adjusted R 2 values. Conventional nonparametric tests, including the Friedman ANOVA for ranks and the Wilcoxon signed rank test, were used to evaluate the P ave(i) for each protein in respect of the AA groups selected/nonselected as the predictor variables.
The p values < 0.05 were considered to be statistically significant for both parametric and nonparametric tests.
A conventional single letter code was used throughout to denote AA representing their frequencies of occurrence as the independent variables.
Results
The characteristics of the obtained models
Regression model  Dependent variable  Parameters^{a}  Regression coefficient  S.E.  t value  P value  R^{2}%  R_{adjusted}^{2}%  VIF^{b}  R^{2}%^{c}  R_{adjusted}^{2}%^{c} 

I  log(k_{cat})  constant  5.2073  0.5003  10.408  0.0000  95.58  94.11  90.72  90.10  
M  −1.6219  0.1169  −13.879  0.0000  1.853  
W  −0.5258  0.2147  −2.449  0.0307  3.329  
R  0.3558  0.07329  4.855  0.0004  1.103  
L  −0.1697  0.06309  −2.691  0.0196  2.180  
II  log(k_{cat})  constant  3.9385  1.3200  2.984  0.0124  95.22  93.05  80.32  79.01  
T  −0.4482  0.07274  −6.161  0.0001  2.851  
V  0.2756  0.05350  5.151  0.0003  1.530  
H  −1.3861  0.2088  −6.639  0.0000  2.003  
A  0.2840  0.06859  4.141  0.0016  1.868  
K  −0.2333  0.09633  −2.422  0.0339  2.857  
III  log(k_{cat})  constant  −6.3103  1.7275  −3.653  0.0033  89.30  85.74  71.62  69.73  
A  0.4367  0.07955  5.489  0.0001  1.224  
H  −0.9759  0.3015  −3.237  0.0071  2.034  
V  0.2728  0.07752  3.519  0.0042  1.564  
E  0.5900  0.1564  3.773  0.0027  1.498  
IV  log(K_{M})  constant  13.2588  0.8236  16.098  0.0000  97.88  96.70  93.18  92.66  
D  −1.1379  0.06612  −17.209  0.0000  1.365  
N  −0.9961  0.07256  −13.729  0.0000  1.932  
W  1.0535  0.08387  12.561  0.0000  1.948  
L  −0.2347  0.03077  −7.628  0.0002  2.140  
A  −0.09888  0.02288  −4.321  0.0019  1.093  
V  log(k_{cat}/K_{M})  constant  −11.0119  1.5657  −7.052  0.0001  97.77  96.29  88.86  88.06  
A  −0.5525  0.05736  9.632  0.0000  1.705  
H  −1.2042  0.1817  −6.626  0.0001  2.082  
R  1.1894  0.1006  11.829  0.0000  2.373  
G  0.6911  0.09445  7.317  0.0000  2.520  
Q  −0.5142  0.1009  −5.098  0.0006  1.672  
N  0.4252  0.1246  3.412  0.0077  2.176  
VI  log(k_{cat}/K_{M})  constant  9.4887  0.8188  11.589  0.0000  97.69  96.15  88.86  88.07  
L  −0.4399  0.05548  −7.929  0.0000  1.902  
T  −0.9367  0.07023  −13.338  0.0000  3.267  
N  1.1552  0.1032  11.194  0.0000  1.437  
W  −1.0394  0.2182  −5.012  0.0007  3.420  
Q  −0.3207  0.1191  −2.692  0.0247  2.244  
F  −0.2690  0.09349  −2.877  0.0183  1.349  
VII  log(k_{cat}/K_{M})  constant  2.5597  0.8288  3.088  0.0115  97.00  96.50  90.44  89.77  
T  −0.8156  0.06297  −12.953  0.0000  2.249  
Q  −0.7700  0.1050  −7.331  0.0000  1.495  
C  2.4452  0.2845  8.593  0.0000  3.581  
N  0.5745  0.1162  4.943  0.0006  1.561  
A  0.2605  0.06600  3.946  0.0027  2.027 
It is noted that rather small or moderate values of the variance inflation factor (VIF)[22] (Table1) also indicate that the observed multivariate relationships are not significantly affected by the multicollinearity of independent variables.
The ANOVA for the regression models are summarized in Additional file2: Table S2.
It is noted that statistically robust multivariate relationships could also occur in cases where the values of kinetic constants have come from different sources. Thus, the K M values which are represented for only seven enzymes of S. cerevisiae TCA cycle in the BRENDA database[15] were found to be closely related (R adj.2 = 91.81%; p = 0.0006) to the selected frequencies of AA (A, R, L, M, P). Besides, the K M values included in the Teusink’s model for yeast glycolysis[27] also were closely linked to the frequencies of selected AA (K, Y, C, M, I) in sequences of 10 corresponding enzymes (R adj.2 = 98.87%; p = 0.0001). Extended sets of these results are summarized in Additional file4: Figure S1 and Additional file5: Figure S2, respectively. In this case, the essential differences between the sets of variables for regression models (Table1) are due to the fact that the K M values included in BRENDA have been obtained in “optimized” in vitro conditions, while the model uses the estimates (experimental and computational) which are more in line to the environment of living cell[27, 28].
Discussion
The obtained results indicate that the basic kinetic constants[17, 18] of yeast glycolytic enzymes appear as closely related to the AAC of the sequences and, therefore, support the view on the actual interdependence of catalytic, binding, and structural residues to ensure the fullscale efficiency of biocatalysts[3] as well as suggest that a certain functional overlap may occur between these sets of AA[6]. Furthermore, the observed relationships fit well with the uptodate concepts on the structural and functional properties of proteins, including structural, energy and conformational networks[28], conformational dynamics, heterogeneity and selection[7], AA networks[12, 29]. A broad representation of AA frequencies as the strong predictor variables for the developed regression models (Table1) as well as findings about the different impact of the selected AA groups on predicted features of enzyme sequences (Figure5) most likely reflect the potential of protein adjustments to keep the kinetic parameters of enzymes within a definite range and, consequently, their efficient operation under varied external conditions.
In general, such relationships between the kinetic constants and AAC of the enzymes might include the quadratic effects and interactions between the variables actually making them more complex. Nevertheless, it should be noted that a multiple linear regression still offers a best linear approximation to the unknown regression function even if it is nonlinear[30]. Really, the refinement of the observed multiple linear regressions (Figure2) by means of the secondorder polynomial equations resulted in a marked reduction of unexplained variance which characterize substantially stronger relationships between the variables (Additional file6: Figure S3). However, it should be taken into account that the practical use of secondorder equations are strongly restricted due to a sharp increase of required regression coefficients and degrees of freedom to obtain statistically robust regression models.
It should be noted that this study well corresponds to a certain line of research in recent years where the set of primary structurederived features[31, 32] or integral physicochemical indices of proteins[33] have been used to predict the values of kinetic constants for particular enzymes.
Conclusions
The multivariate linear relationships broadly confirm the actual link between the kinetic constants of yeast enzymes and the AAC of the respective sequences. The results of this study suggest to some possible outputs. Regression models of such kind could be used, at least in principle, to specify and coordinate the appropriate values of kinetic constants especially if there is a need to include any additional enzyme currently not represented in a given metabolic pathway (e.g., metabolic engineering, dynamic modeling). There is a possibility that the metabolic fluxes could be directly linked to the enzyme sequencedependent properties including AAC, in particular because they are largely determined by enzyme kinetic parameters[1].
Although, prospects of such an approach apparently now are rather limited due to lack of necessary kinetic parameters and, therefore, are dependent on further data accumulation and specification in the enzyme databases.
Abbreviations
 AA:

Amino acid
 AAC:

Amino acid composition
 k cat:

Turnover number
 K M:

MichaelisMenten constant
 k sp:

Specificity constant
 LOOCV:

Leaveoneout crossvalidation
 VIF:

Variance inflation factor.
Declarations
Acknowledgment
This study was funded by the European Structural Fund Nr. 2009/0207/1DP/1.1.1.2.0/09/APIA/VIAA/128 “Latvian Interdisciplinary Interuniversity Scientific group of Systems Biology”.
Authors’ Affiliations
References
 Gerosa L, Sauer U: Regulation and control of metabolic fluxes in microbes. Curr. Opin. Biotechnol. 2011, 22: 110. 10.1016/j.copbio.2011.04.016View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Agarwal PK: Enzymes: an integrated view of structure, dynamics and function. Microbial Cell. Fact 2006, 5: 2. 10.1186/1475285952View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Kraut DA, Carroll KS, Herschlag D: Challenges in enzyme mechanism and energetics. Annu. Rev. Biochem. 2003, 72: 517571. 10.1146/annurev.biochem.72.121801.161617View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Pegg SC, Brown SD, Ojha S, Seffernick J, Meng EC, Morris JH, Chang PJ, Huang CC, Ferrin TE, Babbitt PC: Leveraging enzyme structurefunction relationships for functional inference and experimental design: the structurefunction linkage database. Biochemistry 2006, 45: 25452555. 10.1021/bi052101lView ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Nevoigt E: Progress in metabolic engineering of Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Microbiol. Mol. Biol. Rev 2008, 72: 379412. 10.1128/MMBR.0002507View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Magyar C, Tudos E, Simon I: Functionally and structurally relevant residues of enzymes: are they segregated or overlapping? FEBS Lett 2004, 567: 239242. 10.1016/j.febslet.2004.04.070View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Boehr DD, Nussinov R, Wright PE: The role of dynamic conformational ensembles in biomolecular recognition. Nat. Chem. Biol 2009, 5: 789796. 10.1038/nchembio.232View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Zhang Z, Kochhar S, Grigorov MG: Descriptorbased protein remote homology identification. Protein Sci 2005, 14: 431444. 10.1110/ps.041035505View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Rackovsky S: Sequenced physical properties encode the global organization of protein structure space. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 2009, 106: 1434514348. 10.1073/pnas.0903433106View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Deiana A, Giansanti A: Predictors of natively unfolded proteins: unanimous consensus score to detect a twilight zone between order and disorder in generic datasets. BMC Bioinforma 2010, 11: 198. 10.1186/1471210511198View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Gromiha MM: Intrinsic relationship of amino acid composition/occurrence with topological parameters and protein folding rate. Open Struct. Biol. J 2009, 3: 126. 10.2174/1874199100903020126View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Roy S, Martinez D, Platero H, Lane T, WernerWashburne M: Exploiting amino acid composition for predicting proteinprotein interactions. PLoS One 2009, 4(11):e7813. 10.1371/journal.pone.0007813View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Antal MA, Böde C, Csermely P: Perturbation waves in proteins and protein networks: Applications of percolation and game theories in signaling and drug design. Curr. Protein Peptide Sci 2009, 10: 161. 10.2174/138920309787847617View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Johnson KA: Role of induced fit in enzyme specificity: a molecular forward/reverse switch. J Biol. Chem 2008, 283: 2629726301. 10.1074/jbc.R800034200View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 BRENDA (D Schomburg, Braunschweig, 2002)http://www.brendaenzymes.org/. Accessed 27 December 2011
 UniProtKB (The UniProt Consortium, 2008)http://www.uniprot.org. Accessed 27 December 2011
 Bauer C, Cercignani G, Mura GM, Paolini M: A unified theory of enzyme kinetics based upon the systematic analysis of the variations of kcat, KM, and kcat/KM and the relevant ΔG0≠ values—possible implications in chemotherapy and biotechnology. Biochem. Pharmacol 2001, 61: 10491055. 10.1016/S00062952(01)005792View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Benner SA: Enzyme kinetics and molecular evolution. Chem. Rev 1989, 89: 789806. 10.1021/cr00094a004View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Gasteiger E, Gattiker A, Hoogland C, Ivanyi I, Appel RD, Bairoch A: ExPASy: the proteomics server for indepth protein knowledge and analysis. Nucleic Acids Res 2003, 31: 37843788. 10.1093/nar/gkg563View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Gromiha MM, Thangakani AM, Selvaraj S: Foldrate: prediction of protein folding rates from amino acid sequence. Nucleic Acids Res 2006, 34: W70W74. 10.1093/nar/gkl043View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Arlot S, Cellise A: A survey of crossvalidation procedures for model selection. Stat. Surv 2010, 4: 4079. 10.1214/09SS054MATHMathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
 O’Brien RM: A caution regarding rules of thumb for variance inflation factors. Qual. Quant 2007, 41: 673690. 10.1007/s1113500690186View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Bhaskaran R, Ponnuswamy PK: Positional flexibilities of amino acid residues in globular proteins. Int. J Pept. Protein Res 1988, 32: 242255. 10.1111/j.13993011.1988.tb01258.xGoogle Scholar
 Deleage G, Roux B: Algorithm for protein secondary structure prediction based on class prediction. Protein Eng 1987, 1: 289294. 10.1093/protein/1.4.289View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Zimmerman JM, Eliezer N, Simha R: The characterization of amino acid sequences in proteins by statistical methods. J Theor. Biol 1968, 21: 170201. 10.1016/00225193(68)900696View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Lifson S, Sander C: Nature. 1979, 282: 109. 10.1038/282109a0View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Teusink B, Passage J, Reijenga CA, Esgalhado E, van der Wejden CC, Schepper M, Walsh MC, Bakker BM, Westerhoff HV, Snoep JL: Can yeast glycolysis be understood in terms of in vitro kinetics of the constituent enzymes? Testing Biochemistristy. Eur. J. Biochem 2000, 267: 1. 10.1046/j.14321327.2000.01527.xView ArticleGoogle Scholar
 van Eunen K, Bouwman J, DaranLapujade P, Postmus J, Canelas AB, Mensonides FIC, Orij R, Tuzun I, van den Brink J, Smits GJ, van Gulik WM, Brul S, Heijnen JJ, de Winde JH, de Mattos MJT, Kettner C, Nielsen J, Westerhoff HV, Bakker BM: Measuring enzyme activities under standardized in vivolike conditions for systems biology. FEBS J 2010, 277: 749. 10.1111/j.17424658.2009.07524.xView ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Böde C, Kovács IA, Szalay MS, Palotai R, Korcsmáros T, Csermely P: Network analysis of protein dynamics. FEBS Lett 2007, 281: 27762782.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Li KC: Nonlinear confounding in high dimensional regression. Ann. Stat 1997, 25: 577612. 10.1214/aos/1031833665MATHView ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Yan SM, Shi DQ, Nong H, Wu G: Predicting KM values of betaglucosidases using cellobiose as substrate. Interdiscip. Sci. Comput. Life Sci 2012, 4: 18. 10.1007/s125390120116yView ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Yan SM, Wu G: Prediction of MichaelisMenten constant of betaglucosidases using nitrophenylbetaDglucopyranoside as substrate. Protein Peptide Lett 2011, 18: 1053. 10.2174/092986611796378747View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Gabdoulline RR, Stein M, Wade RC: qPIPSA: relating enzymatic kinetic parameters and interaction fields. BMC Bioinforma 2007, 8: 373. 10.1186/147121058373View ArticleGoogle Scholar
Copyright
This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.