Next Article in Journal
The Spinning Voltage Influence on the Growth of ZnO-rGO Nanorods for Photocatalytic Degradation of Methyl Orange Dye
Next Article in Special Issue
Continuous Production of 2-Phenylethyl Acetate in a Solvent-Free System Using a Packed-Bed Reactor with Novozym® 435
Previous Article in Journal
Synergistic Interaction of Cerium and Barium-New Insight into the Promotion Effect in Cobalt Systems for Ammonia Synthesis
Previous Article in Special Issue
Whole-Cells of Yarrowia lipolytica Applied in “One Pot” Indolizine Biosynthesis
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Kramers’ Theory and the Dependence of Enzyme Dynamics on Trehalose-Mediated Viscosity

by
José G. Sampedro
1,*,
Miguel A. Rivera-Moran
1 and
Salvador Uribe-Carvajal
2
1
Instituto de Física, Universidad Autónoma de San Luis Potosí, Manuel Nava 6, Zona Universitaria, San Luis Potosí C.P. 78290, Mexico
2
Instituto de Fisiología Celular, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Ciudad de México C.P. 04510, Mexico
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Catalysts 2020, 10(6), 659; https://doi.org/10.3390/catal10060659
Submission received: 29 April 2020 / Revised: 29 May 2020 / Accepted: 29 May 2020 / Published: 11 June 2020
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Biocatalytic Process Optimization)

Abstract

:
The disaccharide trehalose is accumulated in the cytoplasm of some organisms in response to harsh environmental conditions. Trehalose biosynthesis and accumulation are important for the survival of such organisms by protecting the structure and function of proteins and membranes. Trehalose affects the dynamics of proteins and water molecules in the bulk and the protein hydration shell. Enzyme catalysis and other processes dependent on protein dynamics are affected by the viscosity generated by trehalose, as described by the Kramers’ theory of rate reactions. Enzyme/protein stabilization by trehalose against thermal inactivation/unfolding is also explained by the viscosity mediated hindering of the thermally generated structural dynamics, as described by Kramers’ theory. The analysis of the relationship of viscosity–protein dynamics, and its effects on enzyme/protein function and other processes (thermal inactivation and unfolding/folding), is the focus of the present work regarding the disaccharide trehalose as the viscosity generating solute. Finally, trehalose is widely used (alone or in combination with other compounds) in the stabilization of enzymes in the laboratory and in biotechnological applications; hence, considering the effect of viscosity on catalysis and stability of enzymes may help to improve the results of trehalose in its diverse uses/applications.

Graphical Abstract

1. Trehalose in Biology

The disaccharide trehalose has been used as food or therapeutic agent by humans since ancient times [1]. Trehalose is naturally found in the sweet cocoon (the capsule named trehala-manna) that protects the larvae of weevils, insects in the genus Larinus [1,2,3,4]. Pure trehalose crystals were isolated first from the ergot of rye by Wiggers (1832), then the carbohydrate was identified as the main component of trehala-manna (from which it takes the name trehalose) by Berthelot (1858) and identified as a non-reducing disaccharide formed by two glucose units [5].
Trehalose (α-D-glucopyranosyl-1, 1-α-D-glucopyranoside) was found at high concentrations in diverse organisms [6] and under stress conditions [4], including yeast and fungi [7,8], plants [9], and others [6]. Trehalose, in addition to forming part of cellular structures [6], has been claimed to behave as a reserve carbohydrate as it is usually found in spores of yeast, fungi, and bacteria [4,6,7,8,10], and also as a biostructure stabilizer, namely of proteins and membranes during harsh environmental conditions [4], and even in the pathogenesis of virulent bacteria (like actinomycetes and mycobacteria) and fungi [11,12]. Currently, the metabolic pathways for trehalose biosynthesis and hydrolysis, and their regulation are well known [8,9,10,13,14], and in some organisms, trehalose metabolic pathways seem to have a major role in the regulation of other metabolic processes [7,8].
Among the diverse stress conditions where trehalose is synthesized and accumulated, dehydration (or the phenomenon of anhydrobiosis) has been that which has attracted the most interest (because of its potential industrial applications) [5,15,16,17], namely in food and pharmaceutics. Van Leeuwenhoek (1702) first described the phenomenon in bdelloid rotifers [18,19]. Since then, other organisms have been recognized to endure the absence of water, such as nematodes, brine shrimp cysts, yeast, and some plants [4,6,18].
Experiments have demonstrated the effectiveness of trehalose to preserve the structure of proteins and membranes in the dry state [16,20,21]. Nonetheless, the role of intrinsically disordered proteins (stress proteins) protecting organisms that synthesize little to no trehalose seems to be important [22,23]. In nature, the dehydration process in anhydrobiotic organisms seems to be slow, i.e., water is removed in minute amounts leading to cell desiccation [16]. At the same time, trehalose begins to be synthesized, reaching high concentrations in the cytoplasm, while a small amount is exported (trehalose is required at both surfaces of the plasma membrane) [24]. Although cell survival does correlate with the amount of trehalose present in the cell [16,19], other biochemical responses contributing to anhydrobiosis (or acting synergically with trehalose) seem to take place simultaneously to trehalose accumulation [16], e.g., the synthesis of heat shock proteins [25].
Physically, under optimum growth conditions (nutrients, temperature, etc.) the cell cytoplasm is a crowded space containing a great diversity of molecules, hence inherently highly viscous [26,27,28,29]. Then, during dehydration, the accumulation of trehalose increases viscosity even further as water-loss proceeds [30,31,32,33,34]. Hence, viscosity increases up to finally reach the glassy state [34,35]. Here, although the interaction of trehalose with proteins has been subjected to some controversy [36], the effect of trehalose on the maintenance of the integrity of membranes (via the interaction with phospholipid headgroups) is relatively well understood [16,37]. Nonetheless, what is certain is that viscosity (the glassy state) generated by trehalose is high. Here proteins and other bio-structures are “arrested”, which in turn preserves both the structure and function of proteins [34,38,39,40].
In microorganisms, trehalose is also synthesized in the stationary phase of growth. In yeast cultures when nutrients are exhausted, cells enter a quiescent state known as the stationary phase [41], where the metabolic rate is slowed and cell division stops (arrested cell cycle) [42,43]. Notably, during entry to the stationary phase, trehalose is accumulated at high concentrations (up to 20% in dry weight), as well as glycogen (up to 8% in dry weight) [42]. The cells at the stationary phase thus become denser, heavier, and cytoplasm viscosity increases [31,32,42]. In this regard, trehalose seems to have a role in the exit of yeast from the stationary phase besides [42]; however, no specific role of trehalose in cell metabolism under the quiescent state has been described. Instead, cells in the stationary phase display high thermotolerance, possibly due to trehalose accumulation [4,21].

2. Trehalose, Water, and Proteins

Trehalose/water interaction is the basis for protein stabilization by trehalose [36,44,45,46]. Water is the medium where most biochemical processes take place and the hydration water has a fundamental role in protein structure and function [47,48,49]. In this regard, water molecules seem to be more uniformly distributed on the surface of globular proteins when compared to those on intrinsically disordered proteins (IDPs) [48,50]; despite that, the arrangement of tetrahedral water molecules is more disordered on the surface of globular proteins than on IDPs [50]. The above is probably due to the highly irregular surface of globular proteins. Interestingly, the dynamics of hydration water on proteins are different from bulk water molecules [47,48,51,52,53]. In solution, trehalose molecules display a relatively rigid conformation and slow translational motion (self-diffusion) [46,54]. Besides, trehalose molecules interact through trehalose–trehalose hydrogen bonds [44,55,56]; while trehalose–water hydrogen bonds are weaker [56]. This seems to facilitate vitrification [46], i.e., by allowing water molecules to escape from the system. Additionally, trehalose appears to be physically (preferentially) excluded from protein surfaces [57,58], thus promoting preferential hydration [45,59,60,61]. This is while maintaining the disordered arrangement of hydration water molecules [50]. Nonetheless, the dynamics of hydration water appears to be slowed down by trehalose and consequently, dynamics of the amino acid residues in proteins decrease [45,48,61,62,63,64,65,66,67], e.g., in C-phycocyanin (CP), trehalose slows down the dynamics of the hydration water by an order of magnitude when compared to the dynamics of bulk water [68]. As a result, protein processes where structural dynamics are a major component become affected by the presence of trehalose in the medium, namely folding, unfolding, thermal and cold inactivation, oligomerization, aggregation, catalysis, and even the equilibrium between catalytic states (Figure 1). The thermodynamic effect of trehalose would be to increase the energetic barrier between different structural states (Figure 1).

3. Protein Dynamics and Catalysis

Proteins, like most polymers, display inherent movements inside their structure [71,72]. Some movements participate in the function, e.g., catalysis [71,73], while others are part of the protein vibrational state specific to the medium temperature [74,75,76]. Indeed, the function of proteins is defined by the dynamics of the three-dimensional structure [77,78,79,80,81]. The inter-conversion between different structural states determines the function of the protein [82]. For example, the motions of the enzyme structure are a major component in catalysis [73,78,83,84,85,86]. There exists ample evidence on the role of enzyme structural dynamics in catalysis [73,87,88,89]; currently, experimental and computational techniques have demonstrated enzymes are highly dynamic entities [90]. Importantly, the rate of the structural dynamics in enzymes whether internal, specific (like loops and domain), as a structural network, or global (collective) has been determined as the limit for the turnover rate (kcat) [71,91]. In this regard, protein crystallography has provided the structural details of enzymes at the atomic level [74,92,93]. Unfortunately, such a structure is just a snapshot of the protein structure that yields limited information about function [77,94]. Nonetheless, efforts have resulted in the successful crystallization of enzymes in complex with ligands which demonstrates the existence of structural dynamics related to catalysis [74,95]. In some fortunate cases, the crystallographic structures of enzymes obtained under different conditions allow the depiction of the catalytic cycle [71,73,96,97,98]; however, it is worth noting that these states usually are a (small) fraction of the infinite conformations the protein structure may sample [75,82]. Experimental methods to study protein dynamics include NMR relaxation, hydrogen-deuterium exchange, fluorescence, UV-Vis spectroscopy, Raman spectroscopy, infrared spectroscopy, and molecular dynamics simulations (MDS) [73,77,99]; nonetheless, the timescale of measurement usually is variable, e.g., MDS ranges in the ns scale and less, while hydrogen-deuterium exchange ranges between ms and s scale [77]. Importantly, most biological processes (such as enzyme catalysis) lay on the μs to ms time scale [71,73,77]. Here protein dynamics have been evaluated by different methods, e.g., in rotary proteins like FoF1-ATPase [100,101]. MDS has emerged as a very helpful technique to study protein dynamics and function [72,88,102]. The position of any given atom in the polypeptide chain may be known with more precision at any given moment [72], although, a high-resolution three-dimensional (3D) structure is a requisite [103]. Still, when the 3D-structure is not available, modeling is an option [104]. However, the in vitro experimental validation of the in silico results is desirable [49,80,105].
In enzymes, it is known that under isobaric conditions the structural dynamics are modulated by variations in temperature (thermal energy) and solvent composition (cosolvents, ions, polymers, etc.) [38,49,76,106,107,108], i.e., in Michaelian enzymes, some conformational states may be favored as the kinetics of state interconversion are affected [77,109,110]. The diverse conformational states in a “resting” protein/enzyme (in the absence of ligands) in solution result from side-chain fluctuations, movements of loops and secondary structures, structural domains, and collective global arrangements [82]; thus, before catalysis, enzymes probe multiple conformations [77,109,111]. In this sense, even the whole catalytic cycle may occur in some enzymes in the absence of ligands [73,112]. Notably, in the kinetics of cooperative enzymes, the Monod, Wyman, and Changeux model is used on the assumption that enzymes fluctuate between two states with high (“relaxed”, R) and low substrate affinity (“tight”, T) [69,113], while binding of ligands, allosteric effectors, and even phosphorylation of some amino acid residues, changes the equilibrium towards the high- or low-affinity state, accordingly [114].

4. Dependence of Enzyme Catalysis on Medium Viscosity (Kramers’ Theory)

The viscosity of the crowded cell cytoplasm is higher than pure water [26,27,115,116,117]. Viscosity varies by cell type, e.g., in Saccharomyces cerevisiae cytoplasm it has been calculated to be ~10 cP [115]. Certainly, the viscosity of the cytoplasm is considerably higher in organisms at the quiescent state and during dehydration, osmotic stress, and at heat-shock as they accumulate viscosity generating solutes such as trehalose, glycerol, and others [115]. In the physics of fluids, viscosity is defined as the friction between molecules or the resistance to flow (molecular diffusion) in a liquid (or gaseous) system [115]. In this environment, the three-dimensional (3D) structure of enzymes fluctuates between different conformations [71,118,119]. Protein structural fluctuations are coupled to the movement of water molecules at the hydration shell, and these in turn, to the dynamics of the molecules present in the bulk solution [49,120]. Recently, studies on the translational diffusion of hydration waters concluded that protein function may be modulated by sugar molecules [48,64]. Hence, the inhibition or hindering of protein motions, whether by a decrease in temperature or by changing the composition of the suspending medium, leads to decreased catalysis [85,121,122,123,124].
Specifically, trehalose promotes the hydration of the protein surface (preferential hydration) [60,61,125], but it also diminishes the dynamics of hydration water [61,64]. As a result, the motion of amino acid residues is slowed down, and the rate constant of enzyme structural fluctuations becomes dependent on the viscosity of the medium [47]. Certainly, the effect of medium viscosity on enzyme catalysis has already been considered [118], when the dependence of catalysis on viscosity was rationalized to the inhibition of enzyme fluctuations according to Kramers’ theory [106,118,120,123,126,127,128], as described by Equation (1):
k = A η e Δ / k B T
where Δ is the height of the potential barrier, k is the rate constant of catalysis (kcat), A is a function of structural parameters characterizing the potential energy profile, kB is the Boltzmann constant, and η is the viscosity of the medium. Equation (2) is an actualized version of Equation (1) when using the enzyme kinetic parameter Vmax (Vmax = kcat·[Et]).
V max = A η e Δ U / R T
where −ΔU is the height of the potential barrier, and R is the gas constant. Notably, Equation (2) has been useful to analyze the inhibition of enzyme catalysis by the presence of trehalose [31,32,129,130]; thus indicating that trehalose does inhibit the rate of catalysis by hindering the structural fluctuations of enzymes during the catalytic cycle [31,32,108,130]. Vmax becomes inversely proportional to the viscosity (Vmax α 1/η) of the medium, and a straight line is usually observed when plotting Vmax versus η−1 [31,32,108,130]; i.e., as viscosity increases, enzyme activity decreases [32]. Importantly, the viscosity generated by trehalose in the bulk solution would affect mainly the largest structural motions involved in catalysis (Figure 1) [31,129,130]. For example, in the plasma membrane H+-ATPase from yeast, the motion of the N-domain (a globular structure of ~16.5 kDa) toward the P-domain is required to transfer the γ-phosphate of ATP to the Asp residue [131]. Notably, the activity of the H+-ATPase decreases linearly as the viscosity generated by trehalose increases (Figure 2a) [31]. This behavior is in agreement with Equation (2), as described by Kramers’ theory [31]. Similarly, the H+-ATPase from plants is inhibited linearly by the viscosity generated by the presence of sucrose (the natural disaccharide in plants) [132]. Additionally, the kinetics of pyruvate reduction by lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) from rabbit muscle is dependent on medium viscosity, as LDH catalysis depends on the movement of a loop on the active site [130,133]. The LDH Vmax is dependent on medium viscosity as expected from Kramers’ theory (Figure 2b) [130]. Notably, the viscosity generated by trehalose increases the activation energy (Ea) in both enzymes, H+-ATPase, and LDH [31,130] (Figure 3), as suggested in Figure 1a. Therefore, enzyme inhibition by trehalose is expected when a relatively large structural motion is involved in the catalytic mechanism.
Enzymes do display catalysis dependence on viscosity as described by Kramers’ theory even when using viscogens others than trehalose; e.g., a decrease in the rate constants (kcat) is observed in the CO2 hydration and HCO3− dehydration by carbonic anhydrase (CA) [134], the ATPase hydrolysis in chloroplast coupling factor (CF1), myosin and meromyosin [135,136], the deacylation step of subtilisin BPN′ catalyzed ester hydrolysis [137], the thioesterase activity of fatty acid synthetase (FAS) [138], the carboxypeptidase-A (CPA)-catalyzed benzoylglycyl-L-phenyl lactate hydrolysis [139], the cysteine protease activity of human ribosomal protein S4 (RPS4) [140], the DNA polymerizing activity of polymerase β (POLB) [141], the sugar cleaving enzyme oligo-1,6-glucosidase 1 (MalL) [142], the indole-3-glycerol phosphate synthase (IGPS) from Sulfolobus solfataricus [105], and in the electron transfer reactions of sulfite oxidase (SO), respiratory and photosynthetic complexes [143,144,145]. In extreme situations of viscosity, i.e., enzymes embedded in a glass-state environment where viscosity is infinitely high, the absence of protein motions leads halts catalysis [120]. The modulation of protein/enzyme dynamics by viscosity has been also recently demonstrated by molecular dynamics simulation (MDS) [146] using the small protein factor Xa [147,148], and ssIGPS [105].
Viscosity generating solutes also affects the enzyme Michaelis-Menten constant ( K m = k 1 + k 2 k 1 ) or the binding (k1) and dissociation (k−1) of the substrate from the binding site, when in the enzyme a structural diffusion is involved in either of these processes, e.g., glycerol increases the Km in phosphorylase B [149], sucrose increases the Km of polymerizing myosin [135], and trehalose decreases the Km of glucose oxidase (GOx) and glucoamylase from Aspergillus niger [150,151]. Therefore, the catalytic efficiency (kcat/Km) of enzymes varies as substrate affinity is decreased/increased by viscogens [149,150,151] by hampering structural motions in either ligand binding or dissociation. Interestingly, enzyme activation by trehalose has been reported in thermophilic enzymes like neutral glucoamylase from the mold Thermomucor indicae-seudaticae [152]. Similarly, in pyruvate kinase (PK) from Geobacillus stearothermophilus (a cooperative enzyme), trehalose increases the velocity of the enzyme reaction (Figure 4a) by increasing substrate affinity (KR and KT) in both “tight” and “relaxed” (T and R) states, and hindering the population of catalytically unproductive conformational states; nonetheless, trehalose does affect the equilibrium between the R and T states as described in Figure 1b, without changing the enzyme cooperativity (Hill number, n) (Figure 4b). This phenomena (enzyme activation) may be explained either by the effect of viscosity on the enzyme structural fluctuations (i.e., in the transition between R and T states) [70], by favoring the population of a given oligomeric state [153], by decreasing the protein volume [154] thus leading to the formation of the binding site [155], by preventing the sample of catalytically unproductive enzyme conformations [85], or by a combination of all of them. In this regard, the compressing effect of protein structure by viscosity generating solutes has already been observed with glycerol [155,156], sucrose [155,157], and trehalose [67,155], e.g., the volume of lysozyme decreases ~2% in the presence of trehalose [67].
Kinetics of protein processes others than catalysis are also affected by viscosity [158] as described by Kramers’ theory, some of these are the escape of O2 from respiratory proteins [159] and hemerythrin [160], the heme pocked relaxation in hemoglobin after CO photolysis [161], the dissociation of CO from horse ferrocytochrome c (FCC) [162], and the CO binding to horse myoglobin [163].

5. The Application of Kramers’ Theory on Heat-Mediated Enzyme Inactivation, Protein Folding, and Unfolding

Heat-shock is another stress condition where trehalose may accumulate in the cytoplasm of some organisms [4,6,8,14,24,129,165], e.g., in yeast, trehalose accumulation (~0.5 M) has been related to the ability of the cells to survive at relatively high temperatures [21,165]. The number of conformational states a protein may sample is related to the surrounding temperature [75]. When raising the temperature, the structural fluctuations increase critically up to unfold/denature the three-dimensional (3D) structure of the protein as described in Figure 1c,d; in the denatured state, the number of possible conformations becomes immense [23,166,167]. The first event to occur in enzymes when undergoing unfolding is the loss of catalytic activity [168,169,170,171]. It has been proposed that the high viscosity generated by trehalose stabilizes proteins by inducing preferential hydration of the protein surface [60,61], preserving the hydration shell and decreasing its dynamics [172], increasing surface tension on the trehalose-water phase [59], and hampering protein motions that lead to unfolding [61,129,173]. Hence, thermal stabilization mediated by trehalose has been observed in a diversity of enzymes, such as bovine intestine alkaline phosphatase (BIALP) [174], human brain-type creatine kinase (hBBCK) [175], ornithine carbamoyltransferase (OCTase) [176], polyphenol oxidase (PPO) from yacon roots (Smallanthus sonchifolius) [177], rabbit muscle phosphofructokinase (PFK) [153], citrate synthase (CS) [25], cutinase from Fusarium solani pisi [178], larval Manduca sexta fat body glycogen phosphorylase B (GPb) [179], Renilla luciferase (Rluc) from Renilla reniformis [180], yeast cytosolic pyrophosphatase (PPi) [181], and others. In this regard, the MDS of thermal inactivation and unfolding of Rluc in the presence of trehalose showed that Rluc is stabilized through the inhibition of the structural fluctuations generated by high temperature [180], while in thermal inactivation of lysozyme and glucoamylase (GA) from A. niger and α-amylase (AA) from Bacillus sp, it was found that trehalose prevents the loss of protein hydrophobic interactions and helical structure, thus avoiding protein aggregation [150,182,183].
The kinetics of enzyme thermal inactivation in the presence of trehalose has been determined experimentally for some enzymes where usually first-order kinetics is observed [178,184,185]. Kinetic analysis showed that trehalose decreases the inactivation rate constant (ki) of xanthine oxidase (XO) from Arthrobacter M3 [184], PK from rabbit muscle [186], GOx from A. niger [151], and mushroom tyrosinase (MT) from Agaricus bisporus [185]. Therefore, trehalose increases the thermal stability of the enzymes by decreasing the inactivation rate constant (ki) [129]. Interestingly, thermal inactivation of the plasma membrane H+-ATPase from the yeast Kluyveromyces lactis is irreversible, showing biphasic kinetics with the presence of an active intermediary [129,173], i.e., a three-state mechanism (N → I → U) (Figure 1c) with respective inactivation rate constants for each phase, ki1, and ki2. Notably, physiological concentrations of trehalose stabilize the H+-ATPase by decreasing ki1 and ki2 [173,187]. The high viscosity generated by trehalose has been proposed as the mechanism of thermal stabilization of H+-ATPase [129,173]. Detailed analysis of the H+-ATPase thermal inactivation kinetics shows that the inactivation rate constants (ki1 and ki2) are inversely proportional to medium viscosity (ki α 1/η) as described by Kramers’ theory and Equation (3) [129]:
k i = A η e Δ U / R T
where ki is the first-order inactivation rate constant, η the viscosity of the medium, A has the same meaning as in Equation (1) but regarding the enzyme inactivation process, ΔU is the potential energy barrier for inactivation, R is the gas constant, and T is the absolute temperature [129]. The plot of ki versus η−1 usually shows a straight line when a diffusive component on the thermal inactivation mechanism of the enzyme exists [129,173,188], e.g., the dissociation of monomers from a large oligomer [188]. Analysis of the decrease of the inactivation rate constant by trehalose shows that trehalose increases the activation energy (Ea) for thermal inactivation (Figure 1) of AA [183], H+-ATPase [173], and GOx [151].
Particularly, in GOx where catalysis is dependent on the presence of the coenzyme FAD in the active site [151], the thermal inactivation occurs first through the formation of a molten globule and after that FAD is released (Figure 5a) [189], resulting in the irreversible loss of GOx activity [151,189]. Interestingly, trehalose decreases the rate constant of the thermally generated large structural changes hence preventing the formation of the molten globule [151]. Due to the hampering of the FAD release, the inactivation rate constant (ki) of GOx decreases [151] (Figure 5b), the T1/2 for FAD release is increased to higher temperatures (Figure 5b). In this unfolding mechanism, trehalose seems to act by compacting the protein structure of GOx, thus preventing the release of FAD, and as a consequence, GOx retains the catalytic activity [151]. A similar stabilizing pattern by trehalose was observed in OCTase against thermal inactivation [176].
The dependence of protein unfolding on the viscosity (Figure 1d) generated by trehalose presence has been observed in cytochrome c (Cytc) [140], phosphoglycerate kinase (PGK), β-lactoglobulin (βLG) [190], cutinase, and the small protein barstar (Bs) [169]. Like in thermal inactivation, trehalose decreases the rate constant of thermal unfolding (kU) by promoting the compactness of the unfolded state [191] and inhibiting large structural fluctuations [180]. Regarding protein folding, the high viscosity generated by trehalose affects the folding rate by inhibiting the structural dynamics as described by Kramers’ theory [192,193,194,195,196,197].
Finally, the effect of the high viscosity generated by trehalose on macromolecular folding is being currently extended to other important biopolymers such as DNA [200,201] and RNA, e.g., in human telomere sequence [202] and RNA tertiary motif of the GAAA tetraloop receptor (TLR) [203], human telomerase hairpin (hTR HP) and H-type pseudoknot from the beet western yellow virus (BWYV) [204].
In cells, trehalose synthesis and accumulation helps to cope with harsh stress conditions. Trehalose affects enzyme activity (catalysis) and stability by hindering protein mobility through the high viscosity generated. Viscosity-mediated effects of trehalose (and other solutes) on enzymes are explained by Kramers’ theory, i.e., the rate constant (k) of a given diffusive process in the enzyme structure is inversely proportional to the media viscosity. Currently, trehalose is widely used in enzyme applications (in the laboratory and biotechnology), whether alone or in combination with other compounds; therefore, it would be safe to consider the effect of viscosity on enzyme structural dynamics to improve the results of the use of trehalose.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, J.G.S.; Methodology, J.G.S.; Validation, J.G.S. and M.A.R.-M.; Formal Analysis, J.G.S., M.A.R.-M., and S.U.-C.; Investigation, J.G.S. and M.A.R.-M.; Resources, J.G.S. and S.U.-C.; Data Curation, J.G.S.; Writing—Original Draft Preparation, J.G.S.; Writing—Review & Editing, J.G.S., M.A.R.-M., and S.U.-C.; Visualization, J.G.S.; Supervision, J.G.S.; Project administration, J.G.S.; Funding Acquisition, J.G.S. and S.U.-C. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was partially funded by FAI-UASLP México grant number C19-FAI-05-89.89 to J.G.S. and by a grant to S.U.-C.: DGAPA/PAPIIT Project IN203018.

Acknowledgments

M.A.R.-M. is a recipient of a Ph.D. fellowship of CONACyT México.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Abbreviations

Molecular dynamics simulation: MDS; intrinsically disordered proteins: IDPs; C-phycocyanin: CP; lactate dehydrogenase: LDH; carbonic anhydrase: CA; chloroplast coupling factor CF1; fatty acid synthetase: FAS; carboxypeptidase-A: CPA; ribosomal protein S4: RPS4; polymerase β, POLB; oligo-1,6-glucosidase 1: MalL; indole-3-glycerol phosphate synthase: IGPS; sulfite oxidase: SO; glucose oxidase: GOx; pyruvate kinase: PK; ferrocytochrome c: FCC; bovine intestine alkaline phosphatase: BIALP; human brain-type creatine kinase: hBBCK; ornithine carbamoyltransferase: OCTase; polyphenol oxidase: PPO; phosphofructokinase: PFK; citrate synthase: CS; glycogen phosphorylase B: GPb; Renilla luciferase: Rluc; pyrophosphatase: PPi; glucoamylase: GA; and α-amylase: AA; xanthine oxidase: XO; mushroom tyrosinase: MT; cytochrome c: Cytc; phosphoglycerate kinase: PGK; β-lactoglobulin: βLG; barstar: Bs; tetraloop receptor: TLR; human telomerase hairpin: hTR HP; beet western yellow virus: BWYV.

References

  1. Bodenheimer, F.S. Chapter, V. Asia. In Insects as Human Food; Bodenheimer, F.S., Ed.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 1951; pp. 208–280. ISBN 978-94-017-5767-6. [Google Scholar]
  2. Leibowitz, J. A new source of trehalose. Nature 1943, 152, 414. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Gültekin, L.; Shahreyary-Nejad, S. A new trehala-constructing Larinus Dejean (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) from Iran. Zool. Middle East 2015, 61, 246–251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Singer, M.A.; Lindquist, S. Thermotolerance in Saccharomyces cerevisiae: The Yin and Yang of trehalose. Trends Biotechnol. 1998, 16, 460–468. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Richards, A.; Krakowka, S.; Dexter, L.; Schmid, H.; Wolterbeek, A.P.; Waalkens-Berendsen, D.; Shigoyuki, A.; Kurimoto, M. Trehalose: A review of properties, history of use and human tolerance, and results of multiple safety studies. Food Chem. Toxicol. 2002, 40, 871–898. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Elbein, A.D. The metabolism of α,α-trehalose. Adv. Carbohydr. Chem. Biochem. 1974, 30, 227–256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Gancedo, C.; Flores, C.L. The importance of a functional trehalose biosynthetic pathway for the life of yeasts and fungi. FEMS Yeast Res. 2004, 4, 351–359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  8. Voit, E.O. Biochemical and genomic regulation of the trehalose cycle in yeast: Review of observations and canonical model analysis. J. Theor. Biol. 2003, 223, 55–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Lunn, J.E.; Delorge, I.; Figueroa, C.M.; Van Dijck, P.; Stitt, M. Trehalose metabolism in plants. Plant J. 2014, 79, 544–567. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Elbein, A.D.; Pan, Y.T.; Pastuszak, I.; Carroll, D. New insights on trehalose: A multifunctional molecule. Glycobiology 2003, 13, 17R–27R. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Thammahong, A.; Puttikamonkul, S.; Perfect, J.R.; Brennan, R.G.; Cramer, R.A. Central role of the trehalose biosynthesis pathway in the pathogenesis of human fungal infections: Opportunities and challenges for therapeutic development. Microbiol. Mol. Biol. Rev. 2017, 81, e00053-16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  12. Kalscheuer, R.; Koliwer-Brandl, H. Genetics of mycobacterial trehalose metabolism. Microbiol. Spectr. 2014, 2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  13. Smallbone, K.; Malys, N.; Messiha, H.L.; Wishart, J.A.; Simeonidis, E. Building a kinetic model of trehalose biosynthesis in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. In Methods in Enzymology; Academic Press Inc.: San Diego, CA, USA, 2011; Volume 500, pp. 355–370. ISBN 978-0-12-385118-5. [Google Scholar]
  14. Eleutherio, E.; Panek, A.; De Mesquita, J.F.; Trevisol, E.; Magalhães, R. Revisiting yeast trehalose metabolism. Curr. Genet. 2015, 61, 263–274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Schiraldi, C.; Di Lernia, I.; De Rosa, M. Trehalose production: Exploiting novel approaches. Trends Biotechnol. 2002, 20, 420–425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Crowe, J.H. Anhydrobiosis: An unsolved problem with applications in human welfare. Subcell. Biochem. 2015, 71, 263–280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. McClements, D.J. Modulation of globular protein functionality by weakly interacting cosolvents. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 2002, 42, 417–471. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Tunnacliffe, A.; Lapinski, J. Resurrecting Van Leeuwenhoek’s rotifers: A reappraisal of the role of disaccharides in anhydrobiosis. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. Ser. B Biol. Sci. 2003, 358, 1755–1771. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  19. Hengherr, S.; Heyer, A.G.; Köhler, H.R.; Schill, R.O. Trehalose and anhydrobiosis in tardigrades—Evidence for divergence in responses to dehydration. FEBS J. 2008, 275, 281–288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Sampedro, J.G.; Guerra, G.; Pardo, J.P.; Uribe, S. Trehalose-mediated protection of the plasma membrane H+-ATPase from Kluyveromyces lactis during freeze-drying and rehydration. Cryobiology 1998, 37, 131–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. De Virgilio, C.; Hottiger, T.; Dominguez, J.; Boller, T.; Wiemken, A. The role of trehalose synthesis for the acquisition of thermotolerance in yeast. I. Genetic evidence that trehalose is a thermoprotectant. Eur. J. Biochem. 1994, 219, 179–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Boothby, T.C.; Tapia, H.; Brozena, A.H.; Piszkiewicz, S.; Smith, A.E.; Giovannini, I.; Rebecchi, L.; Pielak, G.J.; Koshland, D.; Goldstein, B. Tardigrades use intrinsically disordered proteins to survive desiccation. Mol. Cell 2017, 65, 975–984.e5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  23. Boothby, T.C.; Pielak, G.J. Intrinsically disordered proteins and desiccation tolerance: Elucidating functional and mechanistic underpinnings of anhydrobiosis. BioEssays 2017, 39, 1700119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Magalhães, R.S.S.; Popova, B.; Braus, G.H.; Outeiro, T.F.; Eleutherio, E.C.A. The trehalose protective mechanism during thermal stress in Saccharomyces cerevisiae: The roles of Ath1 and Agt1. FEMS Yeast Res. 2018, 18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  25. Viner, R.I.; Clegg, J.S. Influence of trehalose on the molecular chaperone activity of p26, a small heat shock/α-crystallin protein. Cell Stress Chaperones 2001, 6, 126–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Hu, J.; Jafari, S.; Han, Y.; Grodzinsky, A.J.; Cai, S.; Guo, M. Size- and speed-dependent mechanical behavior in living mammalian cytoplasm. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2017, 114, 9529–9534. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  27. Luby-Phelps, K. Cytoarchitecture and physical properties of cytoplasm: Volume, viscosity, diffusion, intracellular surface area. In International Review of Cytology; Academic Press Inc.: San Diego, CA, USA, 1999; Volume 192, pp. 189–221. ISBN 978-0-12-364596-8. [Google Scholar]
  28. Feig, M.; Yu, I.; Wang, P.H.; Nawrocki, G.; Sugita, Y. Crowding in cellular environments at an atomistic level from computer simulations. J. Phys. Chem. B 2017, 121, 8009–8025. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Welch, G.R.; Somogyi, B.; Matkó, J.; Papp, S. Effect of viscosity on enzyme-ligand dissociation II. Role of the microenvironment. J. Theor. Biol. 1983, 100, 211–238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Rampp, M.; Buttersack, C.; Lüdemann, H.-D. c, T-Dependence of the viscosity and the self-diffusion coefficients in some aqueous carbohydrate solutions. Carbohydr. Res. 2000, 328, 561–572. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Sampedro, J.G.; Muñoz-Clares, R.A.; Uribe, S. Trehalose-mediated inhibition of the plasma membrane H+-ATPase from Kluyveromyces lactis: Dependence on viscosity and temperature. J. Bacteriol. 2002, 184, 4384–4391. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  32. Uribe, S.; Sampedro, J.G. Measuring solution viscosity and its effect on enzyme activity. Biol. Proced. Online 2003, 5, 108–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  33. Magazù, S.; Maisano, G.; Migliardo, P.; Middendorf, H.D.; Villari, V. Hydration and transport properties of aqueous solutions of α-α-trehalose. J. Chem. Phys. 1998, 109, 1170–1174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Wyatt, T.T.; Golovina, E.A.; van Leeuwen, R.; Hallsworth, J.E.; Wösten, H.A.B.; Dijksterhuis, J. A decrease in bulk water and mannitol and accumulation of trehalose and trehalose-based oligosaccharides define a two-stage maturation process towards extreme stress resistance in ascospores of N eosartorya fischeri (A spergillus fischeri). Environ. Microbiol. 2015, 17, 383–394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Cicerone, M.T.; Soles, C.L. Fast dynamics and stabilization of proteins: Binary glasses of trehalose and glycerol. Biophys. J. 2004, 86, 3836–3845. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  36. Jain, N.K.; Roy, I. Effect of trehalose on protein structure. Protein Sci. 2009, 18, 24–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Crowe, J.H. Trehalose as a “chemical chaperone”: Fact and fantasy. In Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2007; Volume 594, pp. 143–158. ISBN 9780387399744. [Google Scholar]
  38. Lubchenko, V.; Wolynes, P.G.; Frauenfelder, H. Mosaic energy landscapes of liquids and the control of protein conformational dynamics by glass-forming solvents. J. Phys. Chem. B 2005, 109, 7488–7499. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Malferrari, M.; Francia, F.; Venturoli, G. Retardation of protein dynamics by trehalose in dehydrated systems of photosynthetic reaction centers. Insights from electron transfer and thermal denaturation kinetics. J. Phys. Chem. B 2015, 119, 13600–13618. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Malferrari, M.; Savitsky, A.; Lubitz, W.; Möbius, K.; Venturoli, G. Protein immobilization capabilities of sucrose and trehalose glasses: The effect of protein/sugar concentration unraveled by high-field EPR. J. Phys. Chem. Lett. 2016, 7, 4871–4877. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Zhang, J.; Martinez-Gomez, K.; Heinzle, E.; Wahl, S.A. Metabolic switches from quiescence to growth in synchronized Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Metabolomics 2019, 15, 121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  42. Valcourt, J.R.; Lemons, J.M.S.; Haley, E.M.; Kojima, M.; Demuren, O.O.; Coller, H.A. Staying alive. Cell Cycle 2012, 11, 1680–1696. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  43. Gray, J.V.; Petsko, G.A.; Johnston, G.C.; Ringe, D.; Singer, R.A.; Werner-Washburne, M. “Sleeping Beauty”: Quiescence in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Microbiol. Mol. Biol. Rev. 2004, 68, 187–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  44. Winther, L.R.; Qvist, J.; Halle, B. Hydration and mobility of trehalose in aqueous solution. J. Phys. Chem. B 2012, 116, 9196–9207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Shiraga, K.; Adachi, A.; Nakamura, M.; Tajima, T.; Ajito, K.; Ogawa, Y. Characterization of the hydrogen-bond network of water around sucrose and trehalose: Microwave and terahertz spectroscopic study. J. Chem. Phys. 2017, 146, 105102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Liu, J.; Chen, C.; Li, W. Protective mechanisms of α,α-trehalose revealed by molecular dynamics simulations. Mol. Simul. 2018, 44, 100–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Bellissent-Funel, M.-C.; Hassanali, A.; Havenith, M.; Henchman, R.; Pohl, P.; Sterpone, F.; van der Spoel, D.; Xu, Y.; Garcia, A.E. Water determines the structure and dynamics of proteins. Chem. Rev. 2016, 116, 7673–7697. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Schirò, G.; Fichou, Y.; Gallat, F.-X.; Wood, K.; Gabel, F.; Moulin, M.; Härtlein, M.; Heyden, M.; Colletier, J.-P.; Orecchini, A.; et al. Translational diffusion of hydration water correlates with functional motions in folded and intrinsically disordered proteins. Nat. Commun. 2015, 6, 6490. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Nakagawa, H.; Kataoka, M. Rigidity of protein structure revealed by incoherent neutron scattering. Biochim. Biophys. Acta Gen. Subj. 2020, 1864, 129536. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Aggarwal, L.; Biswas, P. Hydration water distribution around intrinsically disordered proteins. J. Phys. Chem. B 2018, 122, 4206–4218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Nucci, N.V.; Pometun, M.S.; Wand, A.J. Site-resolved measurement of water-protein interactions by solution NMR. Nat. Struct. Mol. Biol. 2011, 18, 245–250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Zhang, L.; Wang, L.; Kao, Y.-T.; Qiu, W.; Yang, Y.; Okobiah, O.; Zhong, D. Mapping hydration dynamics around a protein surface. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2007, 104, 18461–18466. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  53. Houston, P.; Macro, N.; Kang, M.; Chen, L.; Yang, J.; Wang, L.; Wu, Z.; Zhong, D. Ultrafast dynamics of water-protein coupled motions around the surface of eye crystallin. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2020, 142, 3997–4007. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Lins, R.D.; Pereira, C.S.; Hünenberger, P.H. Trehalose-protein interaction in aqueous solution. Proteins Struct. Funct. Bioinform. 2004, 55, 177–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Paul, S.S.; Paul, S.S. The influence of trehalose on hydrophobic interactions of small nonpolar solute: A molecular dynamics simulation study. J. Chem. Phys. 2013, 139, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Soper, A.K.; Ricci, M.A.; Bruni, F.; Rhys, N.H.; McLain, S.E. Trehalose in water revisited. J. Phys. Chem. B 2018, 122, 7365–7374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Xie, G.; Timasheff, S.N. The thermodynamic mechanism of protein stabilization by trehalose. Biophys. Chem. 1997, 64, 25–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Shimizu, S.; Matubayasi, N. Preferential solvation: Dividing surface vs. excess numbers. J. Phys. Chem. B 2014, 118, 3922–3930. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Lin, T.-Y.; Timasheff, S.N. On the role of surface tension in the stabilization of globular proteins. Protein Sci. 2008, 5, 372–381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  60. Timasheff, S.N. Protein hydration, thermodynamic binding, and preferential hydration. Biochemistry 2002, 41, 13473–13482. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Olsson, C.; Genheden, S.; García Sakai, V.; Swenson, J. Mechanism of trehalose-induced protein stabilization from neutron scattering and modeling. J. Phys. Chem. B 2019, 123, 3679–3687. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Fedorov, M.V.; Goodman, J.M.; Nerukh, D.; Schumm, S. Self-assembly of trehalose molecules on a lysozyme surface: The broken glass hypothesis. Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 2011, 13, 2294–2299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  63. Magno, A.; Gallo, P. Understanding the mechanisms of bioprotection: A comparative study of aqueous solutions of trehalose and maltose upon supercooling. J. Phys. Chem. Lett. 2011, 2, 977–982. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Corradini, D.; Strekalova, E.G.; Eugene Stanley, H.; Gallo, P.; Stanley, H.E.; Gallo, P. Microscopic mechanism of protein cryopreservation in an aqueous solution with trehalose. Sci. Rep. 2013, 3, 1218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Giuffrida, S.; Cottone, G.; Bellavia, G.; Cordone, L. Proteins in amorphous saccharide matrices: Structural and dynamical insights on bioprotection. Eur. Phys. J. E 2013, 36, 79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  66. Fogarty, A.C.; Laage, D. Water dynamics in protein hydration shells: The molecular origins of the dynamical perturbation. J. Phys. Chem. B 2014, 118, 7715–7729. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  67. GhattyVenkataKrishna, P.K.; Carri, G.A. The effect of complex solvents on the structure and dynamics of protein solutions: The case of lysozyme in trehalose/water mixtures. Eur. Phys. J. E 2013, 36, 14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  68. Gabel, F.; Bellissent-Funel, M.C. C-phycocyanin hydration water dynamics in the presence of trehalose: An incoherent elastic neutron scattering study at different energy resolutions. Biophys. J. 2007, 92, 4054–4063. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  69. Changeux, J.-P. Allostery and the Monod-Wyman-Changeux model after 50 years. Annu. Rev. Biophys. 2012, 41, 103–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  70. Waldauer, S.A.; Stucki-Buchli, B.; Frey, L.; Hamm, P. Effect of viscogens on the kinetic response of a photoperturbed allosteric protein. J. Chem. Phys. 2014, 141, 22D514. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  71. Eisenmesser, E.Z. Enzyme dynamics during catalysis. Science 2002, 295, 1520–1523. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  72. Alpert, B.; Rivet, E. Protein Dynamics. In Encyclopedia of Analytical Chemistry; Meyers, R.A., Ed.; John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.: Chichester, UK, 2011; pp. 1–48. ISBN 9780471976707. [Google Scholar]
  73. Eisenmesser, E.Z.; Millet, O.; Labeikovsky, W.; Korzhnev, D.M.; Wolf-Watz, M.; Bosco, D.A.; Skalicky, J.J.; Kay, L.E.; Kern, D. Intrinsic dynamics of an enzyme underlies catalysis. Nature 2005, 438, 117–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Frauenfelder, H.; Petsko, G.A.; Tsernoglou, D. Temperature-dependent X-ray diffraction as a probe of protein structural dynamics. Nature 1979, 280, 558–563. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Frauenfelder, H.; Sligar, S.; Wolynes, P. The energy landscapes and motions of proteins. Science 1991, 254, 1598–1603. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  76. Frauenfelder, H.; Fenimore, P.W.; Young, R.D. Protein dynamics and function: Insights from the energy landscape and solvent slaving. IUBMB Life 2007, 59, 506–512. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Henzler-Wildman, K.; Kern, D. Dynamic personalities of proteins. Nature 2007, 450, 964–972. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  78. Agarwal, P.K.; Doucet, N.; Chennubhotla, C.; Ramanathan, A.; Narayanan, C. Conformational sub-states and populations in enzyme catalysis. In Methods in Enzymology; Academic Press Inc.: San Diego, CA, USA, 2016; Volume 578, pp. 273–297. ISBN 978-0-12-811107-9. [Google Scholar]
  79. Callender, R.; Dyer, R.B. The dynamical nature of enzymatic catalysis. Acc. Chem. Res. 2015, 48, 407–413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Orellana, L. Large-scale conformational changes and protein function: Breaking the in silico barrier. Front. Mol. Biosci. 2019, 6, 117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  81. Hammes-Schiffer, S.; Benkovic, S.J. Relating protein motion to catalysis. Annu. Rev. Biochem. 2006, 75, 519–541. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  82. James, L.C.; Tawfik, D.S. Conformational diversity and protein evolution—A 60-year-old hypothesis revisited. Trends Biochem. Sci. 2003, 28, 361–368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Agarwal, P.K.; Geist, A.; Gorin, A. Protein dynamics and enzymatic catalysis: Investigating the peptidyl-prolyl cis-trans isomerization activity of cyclophilin A. Biochemistry 2004, 43, 10605–10618. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  84. Duff, M.R.; Borreguero, J.M.; Cuneo, M.J.; Ramanathan, A.; He, J.; Kamath, G.; Chennubhotla, S.C.; Meilleur, F.; Howell, E.E.; Herwig, K.W.; et al. Modulating enzyme activity by altering protein dynamics with solvent. Biochemistry 2018, 57, 4263–4275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Doshi, U.; McGowan, L.C.; Ladani, S.T.; Hamelberg, D. Resolving the complex role of enzyme conformational dynamics in catalytic function. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2012, 109, 5699–5704. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  86. Kamerlin, S.C.L.L.; Warshel, A. At the dawn of the 21st century: Is dynamics the missing link for understanding enzyme catalysis. Proteins Struct. Funct. Bioinform. 2010, 78, 1339–1375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  87. Kohen, A. Role of dynamics in enzyme catalysis: Substantial versus semantic controversies. Acc. Chem. Res. 2015, 48, 466–473. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  88. Karplus, M.; Kuriyan, J. Molecular dynamics and protein function. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2005, 102, 6679–6685. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  89. MacKerell, A.D.; Rigler, R.; Nilsson, L.; Hahn, U.; Saenger, W. Protein dynamics. A time-resolved fluorescence, energetic and molecular dynamics study of ribonuclease T1. Biophys. Chem. 1987, 26, 247–261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Nevin Gerek, Z.; Kumar, S.; Banu Ozkan, S. Structural dynamics flexibility informs function and evolution at a proteome scale. Evol. Appl. 2013, 6, 423–433. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  91. Tokuriki, N.; Tawfik, D.S. Protein dynamism and evolvability. Science 2009, 324, 203–207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  92. Meisburger, S.P.; Case, D.A.; Ando, N. Diffuse X-ray scattering from correlated motions in a protein crystal. Nat. Commun. 2020, 11, 1271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Grimes, J.M.; Hall, D.R.; Ashton, A.W.; Evans, G.; Owen, R.L.; Wagner, A.; McAuley, K.E.; Von Delft, F.; Orville, A.M.; Sorensen, T.; et al. Where is crystallography going? Acta Crystallogr. Sect. D Struct. Biol. 2018, 74, 152–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  94. Kang, Y.; Gao, X.; Zhou, X.E.; He, Y.; Melcher, K.; Xu, H.E. A structural snapshot of the rhodopsin-arrestin complex. FEBS J. 2016, 283, 816–821. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Shahlaei, M.; Madadkar-Sobhani, A.; Mahnam, K.; Fassihi, A.; Saghaie, L.; Mansourian, M. Homology modeling of human CCR5 and analysis of its binding properties through molecular docking and molecular dynamics simulation. Biochim. Biophys. Acta Biomembr. 2011, 1808, 802–817. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  96. Schlichting, I.; Berendzen, J.; Chu, K.; Stock, A.M.; Maves, S.A.; Benson, D.E.; Sweet, R.M.; Ringe, D.; Petsko, G.A.; Sligar, S.G. The catalytic pathway of cytochrome P450cam at atomic resolution. Science 2000, 287, 1615–1622. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Kanai, R.; Ogawa, H.; Vilsen, B.; Cornelius, F.; Toyoshima, C. Crystal structure of a Na+-bound Na+,K+-ATPase preceding the E1P state. Nature 2013, 502, 201–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  98. Inesi, G.; Lewis, D.; Ma, H.; Prasad, A.; Toyoshima, C. Concerted conformational effects of Ca2+ and ATP are required for activation of sequential reactions in the Ca2+ ATPase (SERCA) catalytic cycle. Biochemistry 2006, 45, 13769–13778. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  99. Barbato, G.; Ikura, M.; Kay, L.E.; Pastor, R.W.; Bax, A. Backbone dynamics of calmodulin studied by nitrogen-15 relaxation using inverse detected two-dimensional NMR spectroscopy: The central helix is flexible. Biochemistry 1992, 31, 5269–5278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Diez, M.; Zimmermann, B.; Börsch, M.; König, M.; Schweinberger, E.; Steigmiller, S.; Reuter, R.; Felekyan, S.; Kudryavtsev, V.; Seidel, C.A.M.; et al. Proton-powered subunit rotation in single membrane-bound F0F1-ATP synthase. Nat. Struct. Mol. Biol. 2004, 11, 135–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  101. Su, T.; Cui, Y.; Zhang, X.; Liu, X.; Yue, J.; Liu, N.; Jiang, P. Constructing a novel nanodevice powered by δ-free FoF1-ATPase. Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 2006, 350, 1013–1018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  102. Karplus, M.; McCammon, J.A. Molecular dynamics simulations of biomolecules. Nat. Struct. Biol. 2002, 9, 646–652. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Lindahl, E.R. Molecular dynamics simulations. In Molecular Modeling of Proteins (Methods in Molecular Biology); Kukol, A., Ed.; Humana Press: Totowa, NJ, USA, 2008; Volume 443, pp. 3–23. ISBN 978-1-58829-864-5. [Google Scholar]
  104. Náray-Szabó, G. Protein Modelling; Náray-Szabó, G., Ed.; Springer: Heidelberg, Germany, 2014; ISBN 978-3-319-09975-0. [Google Scholar]
  105. Schlee, S.; Klein, T.; Schumacher, M.; Nazet, J.; Merkl, R.; Steinhoff, H.-J.; Sterner, R. Relationship of catalysis and active site loop dynamics in the (βα) 8 -barrel enzyme indole-3-glycerol phosphate synthase. Biochemistry 2018, 57, 3265–3277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Beece, D.; Eisenstein, L.; Frauenfelder, H.; Good, D.; Marden, M.C.; Reinisch, L.; Reynolds, A.H.; Sorensen, L.B.; Yue, K.T.; Marden, M.C.; et al. Solvent viscosity and protein dynamics. Biochemistry 1980, 19, 5147–5157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Caliskan, G.; Mechtani, D.; Roh, J.H.; Kisliuk, A.; Sokolov, A.P.; Azzam, S.; Cicerone, M.T.; Lin-Gibson, S.; Peral, I. Protein and solvent dynamics: How strongly are they coupled? J. Chem. Phys. 2004, 121, 1978–1983. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Caliskan, G.; Kisliuk, A.; Tsai, A.M.; Soles, C.L.; Sokolov, A.P. Protein dynamics in viscous solvents. J. Chem. Phys. 2003, 118, 4230–4236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Pan, X.; Schwartz, S.D. Conformational heterogeneity in the michaelis complex of lactate dehydrogenase: An analysis of vibrational spectroscopy using Markov and hidden Markov models. J. Phys. Chem. B 2016, 120, 6612–6620. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  110. Min, W.; Xie, X.S.; Bagchi, B. Two-dimensional reaction free energy surfaces of catalytic reaction: Effects of protein conformational dynamics on enzyme catalysis. J. Phys. Chem. B 2008, 112, 454–466. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  111. Świderek, K.; Tuñón, I.; Martí, S.; Moliner, V. Protein conformational landscapes and catalysis. Influence of active site conformations in the reaction catalyzed by L-lactate dehydrogenase. ACS Catal. 2015, 5, 1172–1185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  112. Ma, B.; Nussinov, R. Enzyme dynamics point to stepwise conformational selection in catalysis. Curr. Opin. Chem. Biol. 2010, 14, 652–659. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  113. Thirumalai, D.; Hyeon, C.; Zhuravlev, P.I.; Lorimer, G.H. Symmetry, rigidity, and allosteric signaling: From monomeric proteins to molecular machines. Chem. Rev. 2019, 119, 6788–6821. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Campitelli, P.; Modi, T.; Kumar, S.; Ozkan, S.B. The role of conformational dynamics and allostery in modulating protein evolution. Annu. Rev. Biophys. 2020, 49, 267–288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  115. Puchkov, E.O. Intracellular viscosity: Methods of measurement and role in metabolism. Biochem. Suppl. Ser. A Membr. Cell Biol. 2013, 7, 270–279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Luby-Phelps, K. The physical chemistry of cytoplasm and its influence on cell function: An update. Mol. Biol. Cell 2013, 24, 2593–2596. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Chung, S.Y.; Lerner, E.; Jin, Y.; Kim, S.; Alhadid, Y.; Grimaud, L.W.; Zhang, I.X.; Knobler, C.M.; Gelbart, W.M.; Weiss, S. The effect of macromolecular crowding on single-round transcription by Escherichia coli RNA polymerase. Nucleic Acids Res. 2019, 47, 1440–1450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  118. Rickey Welch, G.; Somogyi, B.; Damjanovich, S. The role of protein fluctuations in enzyme action: A review. Prog. Biophys. Mol. Biol. 1982, 39, 109–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Pal, N.; Wu, M.; Lu, H.P. Probing conformational dynamics of an enzymatic active site by an in situ single fluorogenic probe under piconewton force manipulation. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2016, 113, 15006–15011. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  120. Frauenfelder, H.; Chen, G.; Berendzen, J.; Fenimore, P.W.; Jansson, H.; McMahon, B.H.; Stroe, I.R.; Swenson, J.; Young, R.D. A unified model of protein dynamics. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2009, 106, 5129–5134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  121. Schlitter, J. Viscosity dependence of intramolecular activated processes. Chem. Phys. 1988, 120, 187–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Doster, W. Viscosity scaling and protein dynamics. Biophys. Chem. 1983, 17, 97–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  123. Gavish, B.; Werber, M.M.; Gavish, B. Viscosity-dependent structural fluctuations in enzyme catalysis. Biochemistry 1979, 18, 1269–1275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  124. Siddiqui, K.S.; Bokhari, S.A.; Afzal, A.J.; Singh, S. A novel thermodynamic relationship based on Kramers theory for studying enzyme kinetics under high viscosity. IUBMB Life 2004, 56, 403–407. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  125. Ajito, S.; Hirai, M.; Iwase, H.; Shimizu, N.; Igarashi, N.; Ohta, N. Protective action of trehalose and glucose on protein hydration shell clarified by using X-ray and neutron scattering. Phys. B Condens. Matter 2018, 551, 249–255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  126. Kramers, H.A. Brownian motion in a field of force and the diffusion model of chemical reactions. Physica 1940, 7, 284–304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  127. Gavish, B. Position-dependent viscosity effects on rate coefficients. Phys. Rev. Lett. 1980, 44, 1160–1163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  128. Fanghänel, J. Enzymatic catalysis of the peptidyl bond rotation: Are transition state formation and enzyme dynamics directly linked? Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2003, 42, 490–492. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  129. Sampedro, J.G.; Uribe, S. Trehalose-enzyme interactions result in structure stabilization and activity inhibition. The role of viscosity. Mol. Cell. Biochem. 2004, 256, 319–327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  130. Hernández-Meza, J.M.; Sampedro, J.G. Trehalose mediated inhibition of lactate dehydrogenase from rabbit muscle. The application of Kramers’ theory in enzyme catalysis. J. Phys. Chem. B 2018, 122, 4309–4317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  131. Hilge, M.; Siegal, G.; Vuister, G.W.; Güntert, P.; Gloor, S.M.; Abrahams, J.P. ATP-induced conformational changes of the nucleotide-binding domain of Na,K-ATPase. Nat. Struct. Biol. 2003, 10, 468–474. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  132. Berczi, A.; Moller, I.M. Control of the activity of plant plasma membrane MgATPase by the viscosity of the aqueous phase. Physiol. Plant. 1993, 89, 409–415. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  133. Demchenko, A.P.; Ruskyn, O.I.; Saburova, E.A. Kinetics of the lactate dehydrogenase reaction in high-viscosity media. Biochim. Biophys. Acta 1989, 998, 196–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  134. Pocker, Y.; Janjic, N. Origin of viscosity effects in carbonic anhydrase catalysis. Kinetic studies with bulky buffers at limiting concentrations. Biochemistry 1988, 27, 4114–4120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  135. Ando, T.; Asai, H. The effects of solvent viscosity on the kinetic parameters of myosin and heavy meromyosin ATPase. J. Bioenerg. Biomembr. 1977, 9, 283–288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  136. Malyan, A.N. The effect of medium viscosity on kinetics of ATP hydrolysis by the chloroplast coupling factor CF1. Photosynth. Res. 2016, 128, 163–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  137. Ng, K.; Rosenberg, A. The coupling of catalytically relevant conformational fluctuations in subtilisin BPN′ to solution viscosity revealed by hydrogen isotope exchange and inhibitor binding. Biophys. Chem. 1991, 41, 289–299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  138. Kyushiki, H.; Ikai, A. The effect of solvent viscosity on the rate-determining step of fatty acid synthetase. Proteins Struct. Funct. Genet. 1990, 8, 287–293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  139. Goguadze, N.G.; Hammerstad-Pedersen, J.M.; Khoshtariya, D.E.; Ulstrup, J. Conformational dynamics and solvent viscosity effects in carboxypeptidase-A-catalyzed benzoylglycylphenyllactate hydrolysis. Eur. J. Biochem. 1991, 200, 423–429. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  140. Sashi, P.; Bhuyan, A.K. Viscosity dependence of some protein and enzyme reaction rates: Seventy-five years after Kramers. Biochemistry 2015, 54, 4453–4461. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  141. Bakhtina, M.; Lee, S.; Wang, Y.; Dunlap, C.; Lamarche, B.; Tsai, M.D. Use of viscogens, dNTPαS, and rhodium(III) as probes in stopped-flow experiments to obtain new evidence for the mechanism of catalysis by DNA polymerase β. Biochemistry 2005, 44, 5177–5187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  142. Jones, H.B.L.; Wells, S.A.; Prentice, E.J.; Kwok, A.; Liang, L.L.; Arcus, V.L.; Pudney, C.R. A complete thermodynamic analysis of enzyme turnover links the free energy landscape to enzyme catalysis. FEBS J. 2017, 284, 2829–2842. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  143. Okada, A. Fractional power dependence of mean lifetime of electron transfer reaction on viscosity of solvent. J. Chem. Phys. 1999, 111, 2665–2677. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  144. Ivković-Jensen, M.M.; Kostić, N.M. Effects of viscosity and temperature on the kinetics of the electron- transfer reaction between the triplet state of zinc cytochrome c and cupriplastocyanin. Biochemistry 1997, 36, 8135–8144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  145. Feng, C.; Kedia, R.V.; Hazzard, J.T.; Hurley, J.K.; Tollin, G.; Enemark, J.H. Effect of solution viscosity on intramolecular electron transfer in sulfite oxidase. Biochemistry 2002, 41, 5816–5821. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  146. Curtis, J.E.; Dirama, T.E.; Carri, G.A.; Tobias, D.J. Inertial suppression of protein dynamics in a binary glycerol-trehalose glass. J. Phys. Chem. B 2006, 110, 22953–22956. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  147. Walser, R.; van Gunsteren, W.F. Viscosity dependence of protein dynamics. Proteins Struct. Funct. Genet. 2001, 42, 414–421. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  148. Perkins, J.; Edwards, E.; Kleiv, R.; Weinberg, N. Molecular dynamics study of reaction kinetics in viscous media. Mol. Phys. 2011, 109, 1901–1909. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  149. Damjanovich, S.; Bot, J.; Somogyi, B.; Sümegi, J. Effect of glycerol on some kinetic parameters of phosphorylase b. BBA Enzymol. 1972, 284, 345–348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  150. Liu, Y.; Meng, Z.; Shi, R.; Zhan, L.; Hu, W.; Xiang, H.; Xie, Q. Effects of temperature and additives on the thermal stability of glucoamylase from Aspergillus niger. J. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2015, 25, 33–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  151. Paz-Alfaro, K.J.; Ruiz-Granados, Y.G.; Uribe-Carvajal, S.; Sampedro, J.G. Trehalose-mediated thermal stabilization of glucose oxidase from Aspergillus niger. J. Biotechnol. 2009, 141, 130–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  152. Kumar, S.; Satyanarayana, T. Purification and kinetics of a raw starch-hydrolyzing, thermostable, and neutral glucoamylase of the thermophilic mold Thermomucor indicae-seudaticae. Biotechnol. Prog. 2003, 19, 936–944. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  153. Faber-Barata, J.; Sola-Penna, M. Opposing effects of two osmolytes—trehalose and glycerol—on thermal inactivation of rabbit muscle 6-phosphofructo-1-kinase. Mol. Cell. Biochem. 2005, 269, 203–207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  154. Lerbret, A.; Affouard, F.; Hédoux, A.; Krenzlin, S.; Siepmann, J.; Bellissent-Funel, M.-C.C.; Descamps, M. How strongly does trehalose interact with lysozyme in the solid state? Insights from molecular dynamics simulation and inelastic neutron scattering. J. Phys. Chem. B 2012, 116, 11103–11116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  155. Zelent, B.; Bialas, C.; Gryczynski, I.; Chen, P.; Chib, R.; Lewerissa, K.; Corradini, M.G.; Ludescher, R.D.; Vanderkooi, J.M.; Matschinsky, F.M. Tryptophan Fluorescence Yields and Lifetimes as a Probe of Conformational Changes in Human Glucokinase. J. Fluoresc. 2017, 27, 1621–1631. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  156. Priev, A.; Almagor, A.; Yedgar, S.; Gavish, B. Glycerol decreases the volume and compressibility of protein interior. Biochemistry 1996, 35, 2061–2066. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  157. Almagor, A.; Priev, A.; Barshtein, G.; Gavish, B.; Yedgar, S. Reduction of protein volume and compressibility by macromolecular cosolvents: Dependence on the cosolvent molecular weight. Biochim. Biophys. Acta—Protein Struct Mol. Enzymol. 1998, 1382, 151–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  158. Somogyi, B.; Karasz, F.E.; Trón, L.; Couchma, P.R. The effect of viscosity on the apparent decomposition rate on enzyme-ligand complexes. J. Theor. Biol. 1978, 74, 209–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  159. Yedgar, S.; Tetreau, C.; Gavish, B.; Lavalette, D. Viscosity dependence of O2 escape from respiratory proteins as a function of cosolvent molecular weight. Biophys. J. 1995, 68, 665–670. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  160. Lavalette, D.; Tetreau, C. Viscosity-dependent energy barriers and equilibrium conformational fluctuations in oxygen recombination with hemerythrin. Eur. J. Biochem. 1988, 177, 97–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  161. Findsen, E.W.; Friedman, J.M.; Ondrias, M.R. Effect of solvent viscosity on the heme-pocket dynamics of photolyzed (carbonmonoxy) hemoglobin. Biochemistry 1988, 27, 8719–8724. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  162. Kumar, R.; Jain, R.; Kumar, R. Viscosity-dependent structural fluctuation of the M80-containing Ω-loop of horse ferrocytochrome c. Chem. Phys. 2013, 418, 57–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  163. Kleinert, T.; Doster, W.; Leyser, H.; Petry, W.; Schwarz, V.; Settles, M. Solvent composition and viscosity effects on the kinetics of CO binding to horse myoglobin. Biochemistry 1998, 37, 717–733. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  164. Rivera-Moran, M.A. The Viscosity of Trehalose Solutions and Its Effect on Enzyme Kinetics of Pyruvate Kinase from Geobacillus Stearothermophilus. Master’s Thesis, Licenciatura en Biofísica, Instituto de Física, Universidad Autónoma de San Luis Potosí, San Luis Potosí, México, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  165. Hottiger, T.; De Virgilio, C.; Hall, M.N.; Boller, T.; Wiemken, A. The role of trehalose synthesis for the acquisition of thermotolerance in yeast. II. Physiological concentrations of trehalose increase the thermal stability of proteins in vitro. Eur. J. Biochem. 1994, 219, 187–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  166. Uversky, V.N.; Dunker, A.K. Intrinsically Disordered Protein Analysis; Methods in Molecular Biology; Uversky, V.N., Dunker, A.K., Eds.; Humana Press: Totowa, NJ, USA, 2012; Volume 895, ISBN 978-1-61779-926-6. [Google Scholar]
  167. Takagi, A.; Kamijo, M.; Ikeda, S. Darier disease. J. Dermatol. 2016, 43, 275–279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  168. Pace, C.N.; Hebert, E.J.; Shaw, K.L.; Schell, D.; Both, V.; Krajcikova, D.; Sevcik, J.; Wilson, K.S.; Dauter, Z.; Hartley, R.W.; et al. Conformational stability and thermodynamics of folding of ribonucleases Sa, Sa2 and Sa3. J. Mol. Biol. 1998, 279, 271–286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  169. Pradeep, L.; Udgaonkar, J.B. Diffusional barrier in the unfolding of a small protein. J. Mol. Biol. 2007, 366, 1016–1028. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  170. Santoro, M.M.; Bolen, D.W. Unfolding free energy changes determined by the linear extrapolation method. 1. Unfolding of phenylmethanesulfonyl alpha-chymotrypsin using different denaturants. Biochemistry 1988, 27, 8063–8068. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  171. Ghosh, K.; De Graff, A.M.R.; Sawle, L.; Dill, K.A. Role of proteome physical chemistry in cell behavior. J. Phys. Chem. B 2016, 120, 9549–9563. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  172. Ajito, S.; Iwase, H.; Takata, S.; Hirai, M. Sugar-mediated stabilization of protein against chemical or thermal denaturation. J. Phys. Chem. B 2018, 122, 8685–8697. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  173. Sampedro, J.G.; Cortés, P.; Muñoz-Clares, R.A.; Fernández, A.; Uribe, S. Thermal inactivation of the plasma membrane H+-ATPase from Kluyveromyces lactis. Protection by trehalose. Biochim. Biophys. Acta Protein Struct. Mol. Enzymol. 2001, 1544, 64–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  174. Sekiguchi, S.; Hashida, Y.; Yasukawa, K.; Inouyey, K. Stabilization of bovine intestine alkaline phosphatase by sugars. Biosci. Biotechnol. Biochem. 2012, 76, 95–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  175. Yang, J.L.; Mu, H.; Lü, Z.R.; Yin, S.J.; Si, Y.X.; Zhou, S.M.; Zhang, F.; Hu, W.J.; Meng, F.G.; Zhou, H.M.; et al. Trehalose has a protective effect on human brain-type creatine kinase during thermal denaturation. Appl. Biochem. Biotechnol. 2011, 165, 476–484. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  176. Barreca, D.; Bellocco, E.; Galli, G.; Laganà, G.; Leuzzi, U.; Magazù, S.; Migliardo, F.; Galtieri, A.; Telling, M.T.F. Stabilization effects of kosmotrope systems on ornithine carbamoyltransferase. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2009, 45, 120–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  177. Neves, V.A.; Da Silva, M.A. Polyphenol oxidase from yacon roots (Smallanthus sonchifolius). J. Agric. Food Chem. 2007, 55, 2424–2430. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  178. Baptista, R.P.; Cabral, J.M.S.; Melo, E.P. Trehalose delays the reversible but not the irreversible thermal denaturation of cutinase. Biotechnol. Bioeng. 2000, 70, 699–703. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  179. Meyer-Fernandes, J.R.; Arrese, E.L.; Wells, M.A. Allosteric effectors and trehalose protect larval Manduca sexta fat body glycogen phosphorylase B against thermal denaturation. Insect Biochem. Mol. Biol. 2000, 30, 473–478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  180. Liyaghatdar, Z.; Emamzadeh, R.; Rasa, S.M.M.; Nazari, M. Trehalose radial networks protect Renilla luciferase helical layers against thermal inactivation. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2017, 105, 66–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  181. Sola-Penna, M.; Meyer-Fernandes, J.R. Protective role of trehalose in thermal denaturation of yeast pyrophosphatase. Zeitschrift für Naturforsch. Sect. C J. Biosci. 1994, 49, 327–330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  182. Barreca, D.; Laganà, G.; Magazù, S.; Migliardo, F.; Gattuso, G.; Bellocco, E. FTIR, ESI-MS, VT-NMR and SANS study of trehalose thermal stabilization of lysozyme. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2014, 63, 225–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  183. Yadav, J.K.; Prakash, V. Thermal stability of α-amylase in aqueous cosolvent systems. J. Biosci. 2009, 34, 377–387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  184. Zhang, Y.; Xin, Y.; Yang, H.; Zhang, L.; Xia, X.; Tong, Y.; Chen, Y.; Wang, W. Thermal inactivation of xanthine oxidase from Arthrobacter M3: Mechanism and the corresponding thermostabilization strategy. Bioprocess Biosyst. Eng. 2014, 37, 719–725. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  185. Gheibi, N.; Saboury, A.A.; Haghbeen, K.; Moosavi-Movahedi, A.A. The effect of some osmolytes on the activity and stability of mushroom tyrosinase. J. Biosci. 2006, 31, 355–362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  186. Guerrero-Mendiola, C.; Oria-Hernández, J.; Ramírez-Silva, L. Kinetics of the thermal inactivation and aggregate formation of rabbit muscle pyruvate kinase in the presence of trehalose. Arch. Biochem. Biophys. 2009, 490, 129–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  187. Felix, C.F.; Moreira, C.C.; Oliveira, M.S.; Sola-Penna, M.; Meyer-Fernandes, J.R.; Scofano, H.M.; Ferreira-Pereira, A. Protection against thermal denaturation by trehalose on the plasma membrane H+-ATPase from yeast. Synergetic effect between trehalose and phospholipid environment. Eur. J. Biochem. 1999, 266, 660–664. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  188. Ruiz-Granados, Y.; De La Cruz-Torres, V.; Sampedro, J. The oligomeric state of the plasma membrane H+-ATPase from Kluyveromyces lactis. Molecules 2019, 24, 958. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  189. Zoldák, G.; Zubrik, A.; Musatov, A.; Stupák, M.; Sedlák, E. Irreversible thermal denaturation of glucose oxidase from Aspergillus niger is the transition to the denatured state with residual structure. J. Biol. Chem. 2004, 279, 47601–47609. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  190. Tang, X.; Pikal, M.J. Measurement of the kinetics of protein unfolding in viscous systems and implications for protein stability in freeze-drying. Pharm. Res. 2005, 22, 1176–1185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  191. Baptista, R.P.; Pedersen, S.; Cabrita, G.J.M.; Otzen, D.E.; Cabral, J.M.S.; Melo, E.P. Thermodynamics and mechanism of cutinase stabilization by trehalose. Biopolymers 2008, 89, 538–547. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  192. Rhee, Y.M.; Pande, V.S. Solvent viscosity dependence of the protein folding dynamics. J. Phys. Chem. B 2008, 112, 6221–6227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  193. Klimov, D.K.; Thirumalai, D. Viscosity dependence of the folding rates of proteins. Phys. Rev. Lett. 1997, 79, 317–320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  194. Qiu, L.; Hagen, S.J. A limiting speed for protein folding at low solvent viscosity. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2004, 126, 3398–3399. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  195. Hagen, S.J. Solvent viscosity and friction in protein folding dynamics. Curr. Protein Pept. Sci. 2010, 11, 385–395. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  196. de Sancho, D.; Sirur, A.; Best, R.B. Molecular origins of internal friction effects on protein-folding rates. Nat. Commun. 2014, 5, 4307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  197. Sekhar, A.; Vallurupalli, P.; Kay, L.E. Folding of the four-helix bundle FF domain from a compact on-pathway intermediate state is governed predominantly by water motion. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2012, 109, 19268–19273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  198. Paz-Alfaro, K.J. Thermal Inactivation of Glucose Oxidase from Aspergillus niger. Stabilization by Trehalose. Master’s Thesis, Licenciatura en Nutrición, Universidad Autónoma del Estado de Hidalgo, Pachuca, Hidalgo, México, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  199. Pace, C.N. Measuring and increasing protein stability. Trends Biotechnol. 1990, 8, 93–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  200. Niranjani, G.; Murugan, R. Theory on the mechanism of DNA renaturation: Stochastic nucleation and zipping. PLoS ONE 2016, 11, e0153172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  201. Sikorav, J.L.; Orland, H.; Braslau, A. Mechanism of thermal renaturation and hybridization of nucleic acids: Kramers’ process and universality in watson-crick base pairing. J. Phys. Chem. B 2009, 113, 3715–3725. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  202. Lannan, F.M.; Mamajanov, I.; Hud, N.V. Human telomere sequence DNA in water-free and high-viscosity solvents: G-quadruplex folding governed by Kramers rate theory. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2012, 134, 15324–15330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  203. Dupuis, N.F.; Holmstrom, E.D.; Nesbitt, D.J. Tests of Kramers’ theory at the single-molecule level: Evidence for folding of an isolated RNA tertiary interaction at the viscous speed limit. J. Phys. Chem. B 2018, 122, 8796–8804. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  204. Hori, N.; Denesyuk, N.A.; Thirumalai, D. Frictional effects on RNA folding: Speed limit and Kramers turnover. J. Phys. Chem. B 2018, 122, 11279–11288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
Figure 1. Energy landscape of diffusion-dependent protein processes. High medium viscosity (η) increases the free energy height (red line) of the interconversion between conformational states in proteins (blue line). (a) Structural conformational states in enzyme catalysis, (b) conformational equilibrium between the T and R states in a cooperative enzyme regarding the model of Monod, Wyman, and Changeux [69,70], (c) three-state protein unfolding (N ↔ I ↔ U); formation of the intermediary (I) may involve the dissociation of monomers from the oligomer, (d) two-state protein unfolding (N ↔ U).
Figure 1. Energy landscape of diffusion-dependent protein processes. High medium viscosity (η) increases the free energy height (red line) of the interconversion between conformational states in proteins (blue line). (a) Structural conformational states in enzyme catalysis, (b) conformational equilibrium between the T and R states in a cooperative enzyme regarding the model of Monod, Wyman, and Changeux [69,70], (c) three-state protein unfolding (N ↔ I ↔ U); formation of the intermediary (I) may involve the dissociation of monomers from the oligomer, (d) two-state protein unfolding (N ↔ U).
Catalysts 10 00659 g001
Figure 2. Dependence of enzyme catalysis (30 °C) on medium viscosity as described by Kramers’ theory. (a) Viscosity dependence of Vmax of plasma membrane H+-ATPase from Kluyveromyces lactis. Adapted with permission from Sampedro et al. [31]. Copyright © 2020, American Society for Microbiology; (b) viscosity dependence of Vmax of lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) from rabbit muscle. Adapted with permission from Hernández-Meza and Sampedro [130]. Copyright © 2020, American Chemical Society.
Figure 2. Dependence of enzyme catalysis (30 °C) on medium viscosity as described by Kramers’ theory. (a) Viscosity dependence of Vmax of plasma membrane H+-ATPase from Kluyveromyces lactis. Adapted with permission from Sampedro et al. [31]. Copyright © 2020, American Society for Microbiology; (b) viscosity dependence of Vmax of lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) from rabbit muscle. Adapted with permission from Hernández-Meza and Sampedro [130]. Copyright © 2020, American Chemical Society.
Catalysts 10 00659 g002
Figure 3. Plot of the activation energy (Ea) of enzyme catalysis versus trehalose concentration. (a) Plasma membrane H+-ATPase [31]. Reprinted with permission from Sampedro et al. [31]. Copyright © 2020, American Society for Microbiology; (b) LDH [130]. Reprinted with permission from Hernández-Meza and Sampedro [130]. Copyright © 2020, American Chemical Society. The activation energies were calculated as described by the Arrhenius equation ( k c a t = A · e E a / R · T ) using the enzymes Vmax values (Vmax = kcat·[Et]).
Figure 3. Plot of the activation energy (Ea) of enzyme catalysis versus trehalose concentration. (a) Plasma membrane H+-ATPase [31]. Reprinted with permission from Sampedro et al. [31]. Copyright © 2020, American Society for Microbiology; (b) LDH [130]. Reprinted with permission from Hernández-Meza and Sampedro [130]. Copyright © 2020, American Chemical Society. The activation energies were calculated as described by the Arrhenius equation ( k c a t = A · e E a / R · T ) using the enzymes Vmax values (Vmax = kcat·[Et]).
Catalysts 10 00659 g003
Figure 4. Activation of pyruvate kinase (PK) from G. stearothermophilus by trehalose [164]. (a) Cooperative kinetics of PK in the absence (○) and presence (●) of trehalose. Considering the model of Monod, Wyman, and Changeux [69] in enzyme kinetics analysis: Vmax = 112 and 118 μmoles PEP·(min·mg protein)−1 in the absence and presence of trehalose, respectively. Affinity constants: KT = 328 and 11, and KR = 40 × 10−4 and 5 × 10−4 mM phosphoenolpyruvate (PEP) in the absence and presence of trehalose, respectively. The Hill number (n) was ≈1.5, both in the absence and presence of trehalose. The ratio [T0]/[R0] (L) increases ~13 times in the presence of trehalose. (b) Hill plot of PK cooperative kinetics of data in a (symbols as in a). The slope (n) value in both straight lines is ≈1.5. Adapted with permission from Rivera-Moran [164]. Copyright © 2020, M.A. Rivera Moran.
Figure 4. Activation of pyruvate kinase (PK) from G. stearothermophilus by trehalose [164]. (a) Cooperative kinetics of PK in the absence (○) and presence (●) of trehalose. Considering the model of Monod, Wyman, and Changeux [69] in enzyme kinetics analysis: Vmax = 112 and 118 μmoles PEP·(min·mg protein)−1 in the absence and presence of trehalose, respectively. Affinity constants: KT = 328 and 11, and KR = 40 × 10−4 and 5 × 10−4 mM phosphoenolpyruvate (PEP) in the absence and presence of trehalose, respectively. The Hill number (n) was ≈1.5, both in the absence and presence of trehalose. The ratio [T0]/[R0] (L) increases ~13 times in the presence of trehalose. (b) Hill plot of PK cooperative kinetics of data in a (symbols as in a). The slope (n) value in both straight lines is ≈1.5. Adapted with permission from Rivera-Moran [164]. Copyright © 2020, M.A. Rivera Moran.
Catalysts 10 00659 g004
Figure 5. Trehalose prevents the release of FAD during thermal inactivation/unfolding of glucose oxidase (GOx) from Aspergillus niger [198]. (a) Thermal inactivation mechanism of GOx [151,189]; (b) Effect of trehalose on the release of FAD from GOx during thermal inactivation; Trehalose (○) 0.0, and (●) 0.6 M. The data were fitted to the Pace equation [199] by non-linear regression; T1/2 = 61.3 and 64.3 °C in the absence and presence of 0.6 M trehalose, respectively. Adapted with permission from Paz-Alfaro [198]. Copyright © 2020, K.J. Paz-Alfaro.
Figure 5. Trehalose prevents the release of FAD during thermal inactivation/unfolding of glucose oxidase (GOx) from Aspergillus niger [198]. (a) Thermal inactivation mechanism of GOx [151,189]; (b) Effect of trehalose on the release of FAD from GOx during thermal inactivation; Trehalose (○) 0.0, and (●) 0.6 M. The data were fitted to the Pace equation [199] by non-linear regression; T1/2 = 61.3 and 64.3 °C in the absence and presence of 0.6 M trehalose, respectively. Adapted with permission from Paz-Alfaro [198]. Copyright © 2020, K.J. Paz-Alfaro.
Catalysts 10 00659 g005

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Sampedro, J.G.; Rivera-Moran, M.A.; Uribe-Carvajal, S. Kramers’ Theory and the Dependence of Enzyme Dynamics on Trehalose-Mediated Viscosity. Catalysts 2020, 10, 659. https://doi.org/10.3390/catal10060659

AMA Style

Sampedro JG, Rivera-Moran MA, Uribe-Carvajal S. Kramers’ Theory and the Dependence of Enzyme Dynamics on Trehalose-Mediated Viscosity. Catalysts. 2020; 10(6):659. https://doi.org/10.3390/catal10060659

Chicago/Turabian Style

Sampedro, José G., Miguel A. Rivera-Moran, and Salvador Uribe-Carvajal. 2020. "Kramers’ Theory and the Dependence of Enzyme Dynamics on Trehalose-Mediated Viscosity" Catalysts 10, no. 6: 659. https://doi.org/10.3390/catal10060659

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop