A versatile equation to describe reversible enzyme inhibition and activation kinetics: Modeling β-galactosidase and butyrylcholinesterase
Introduction
Neurodegenerative disorders such as Alzheimer's disease (AD), exhibit changes in the activities of cholinesterases that control levels of the cholinergic neurotransmitter acetylcholine [1], [2], [3]. Low levels of acetylcholine lead to cognitive and behavioural dysfunction and current symptomatic treatment for AD involves the use of drugs that inhibit cholinesterases [4]. Conversely, the stimulation of cholinesterase activity may be considered deleterious towards the integrity of the cholinergic system [5]. A number of lines of evidence have indicated that butyrylcholinesterase (BuChE, EC 3.1.1.8) may be an important enzyme in the functioning of the cholinergic system [6], [7], [8], [9], [10]. BuChE hydrolysis of choline esters has been found to be stimulated by the presence of homocysteine thiolactone, and this metabolite of homocysteine may be the active derivative of the amino acid that makes the latter a risk factor for dementia and vascular diseases [11], [12], [13], [14].
Considering the opposing effects on BuChE produced by homocysteine thiolactone and cholinesterase inhibitors [4], [5], [15], it is imperative to have a better understanding of how these molecules interact with this enzyme because of their potential importance in the management of disorders such as dementia.
Cholinesterases, although usually described using Michaelis–Menten kinetic parameters, do not strictly adhere to this model, which assumes that, at fixed enzyme concentration, catalysis occurs at a single maximum reaction rate [16]. This is not the case for cholinesterases because, at elevated substrate concentrations, substrate binding to an allosteric site on the enzyme results in modification of the catalytic rate. In acetylcholinesterase (EC 3.1.1.7), this allosteric binding results in inhibition [17]. For BuChE, allosteric substrate binding results in stimulation of catalytic activity [18]. The dependence of catalytic reaction rate on substrate-induced changes in cholinesterase activity presents a problem when modeling the effect of reversible inhibitors or stimulators on these enzymes.
Although an equation to describe the substrate activation of BuChE has been described (Eq. (1), Table 1) [19], this equation does not lend itself to the description of additional non-substrate reversible inhibition or activation events that affect this cholinesterase. The effect of inhibitors on enzymes that obey Michaelis–Menten kinetics has been extensively investigated. However, even with such enzymes, anomalous modes of inhibition occur that are not adequately described by conventional equations. The inhibition of β-galactosidase by imidazole represents such a case, and this system was employed to test the use of a global fitting methodology to develop equations to describe experimental data provided by enzymes with unusual kinetic behaviour.
The mathematical description of enzyme catalysis is based on the formation of an enzyme–substrate complex (ES) and the subsequent conversion of substrate into products [16]. The Michaelis–Menten equation (Eq. (2), Table 1), which describes the rate of product formation, is defined by the steady state substrate affinity constant (Km), and the maximum velocity for substrate conversion to product (Vmax) [20]. The substrate affinity constant (Km) represents the equilibrium constant for breakdown of the ES complex into enzyme and substrate, hence, the larger the numerical value, the lower the affinity. The term maximum velocity (Vmax) could imply that an enzyme may operate at multiple catalytic rates. Instead, Vmax is known to be proportional to the concentration of the enzyme present [16]. At constant enzyme concentration, the observed reaction rate is dependent on the proportion of the enzyme population in the catalytically-active ES state. The Michaelis–Menten equation is a measure of the amount of the enzyme population in this state and is directly dependent on the substrate affinity constant (Km) and the substrate concentration. Increasing substrate concentration produces a hyperbolic rise in the reaction rate by changing the proportion of the enzyme population found in the ES state from 0 to 100%, when Vmax is achieved.
For many enzymes, the rate of the product formation can be affected by the presence of molecules that either inhibit or activate the enzyme [21]. Reversible enzyme inhibitors are molecules that transiently interact with the enzyme and decrease the catalytic conversion of substrate to product [22], [23], [24]. This interaction is characterized by an increase in the Km, a decrease in the Vmax, or a change in both Km and Vmax, depending on the type of inhibition. Differences in the way inhibitors interfere with catalysis led to their earlier categorization as competitive or non-competitive inhibitors [22], [23], [24]. In competitive inhibition (Eq. (3), Table 1), substrate and inhibitor compete for the same site on the enzyme. In the competitive model, inhibition decreases the affinity of the enzyme for substrate, producing a linear increase in the Km value, which, theoretically, can increase to infinity in response to increasing inhibitor concentration. In contrast, for non-competitive inhibition, the inhibitor binds to a site on the enzyme distinct from that for substrate binding and does not alter Km. The non-competitive inhibition model reflects a decrease in the Vmax of the enzyme-catalyzed reaction and produces a hyperbolic decrease in enzyme activity with increasing inhibitor concentration, independent of substrate concentration. The non-competitive inhibition equation (Eq. (4), Table 1) implies that the degree of enzyme inhibition is directly proportional to the percent of the enzyme population associated with the non-competitive inhibitor, and that this fraction of the enzyme population has zero catalytic activity.
The Michaelis–Menten-derived equations for competitive (Eq. (3)) and non-competitive (Eq. (4)) inhibitors represent the most basic models for enzyme–inhibitor interactions that affect either Km (Eq. (3)) or Vmax (Eq. (4)) [22], [23], [24]. However, many inhibitors are found to alter enzyme catalysis in ways not readily described by Eqs. (3) and (4). For example, the mixed non-competitive equation (Eq. (5), Table 1) has been developed to model inhibitors that alter both Km and Vmax, while the partial competitive Eq. (6) describes an inhibitor that binds to the same site as the substrate but does not completely block substrate access to the catalytic site [22], [23], [24]. Other equations have also been generated to deal with other exceptions to the two basic modes of inhibition (i.e. Eqs. (3), (4)) [22], [23], [24], [25]. This partitioning of expressions to describe each particular form of inhibition has led to an increasing number of equations for enzyme inhibition.
While equations for inhibition are numerous, equations that describe enzyme stimulation have received much less attention [25], [26]. However, the kinetic description of inhibition and stimulation are known to be closely related [24], prompting an examination of the inhibitory term associated with competitive inhibition Eq. (3) and non-competitive inhibition Eq. (4). This examination suggested an expandable equation, based on the mass action binding of modifiers to an enzyme, that allowed for the mathematical description of both inhibition and stimulation events. Furthermore, this basic equation was sufficiently flexible to model the additional complex substrate activation phenomenon exhibited by BuChE. Global fitting of observed kinetic data to this versatile equation led to the observation that both the inhibitor galantamine, and the activator homocysteine thiolactone, exert their modifying effects primarily on the non-substrate-activated form of BuChE.
Section snippets
General materials and reagents
β-Galactosidase (EC 3.2.1.23 from Lactis kluveromyces), brand name Lactaid® (5000 units per gram, as described by the supplier), was from McNeil Consumer Healthcare. Imidazole, o-nitrophenyl-β-d-galactopyranoside (ONPG), butyrylthiocholine and 5, 5′-dithio-bis (2-nitrobenzoic acid) (DTNB) were from Sigma-Aldrich. Homocysteine thiolactone was from Fisher Scientific. Galantamine was provided by Janssen-Ortho Inc. at our request, through a Material Transfer Agreement. Butyrylcholinesterase (BuChE,
Results and discussion
The process of developing equations to describe multiple modification events on enzyme catalysis is greatly facilitated by using global data fitting methods [29]. Before applying this methodology to kinetic analysis of BuChE, that is subject to activation at high substrate concentrations, this technique was first tested to describe the inhibition of β-galactosidase by imidazole. Although this latter system exhibits some unusual kinetic features not readily described by conventional equations,
Conclusions
The results of this study indicate that the use of enzyme kinetic modifier terms, based on the mass action assumptions of the Michaelis–Menten Eq. ((2), Table 1) can be successfully applied to model a variety of enzyme-modifying interactions. In addition, the success of an equation to model experimental data can be readily tested by global fitting methodology. Thus, Eq. (12), developed in this way, was able to model the inhibition of β-galactosidase by imidazole. Extension of these principles
Acknowledgements
Vascular Health and Dementia Initiative (DOV-78344) through partnership of Canadian Institutes of Health Research (Institutes of Aging, Neurosciences, Mental Health and Addiction and Rx&D Research Program), Heart & Stroke Foundation of Canada, CIHR, the Alzheimer Society of Canada and Pfizer Canada Inc., Capital District Health Authority Research Fund, Nova Scotia Health Research Foundation, Brain Tumour Foundation of Canada, the Committee on Research and Publications of Mount Saint Vincent
References (35)
- et al.
Acetylcholinesterase knockouts establish central cholinergic pathways and can use butyrylcholinesterase to hydrolyze acetylcholine
Neuroscience
(2002) - et al.
Interaction between the peripheral site residues of human butyrylcholinesterase, D70 and Y332, in binding and hydrolysis of substrates
Biochim. Biophys. Acta
(1999) - et al.
A mechanistic model for butyrylcholinesterase
Biochim. Biophys. Acta.
(1979) Generalized kinetics of reversible inhibition and activation
Eur. J. Pharmacol.
(1969)- et al.
A new and rapid colorimetric determination of acetylcholinesterase activity
Biochem. Pharmacol.
(1961) - et al.
Inhibition of beta-glucosidase by imidazoles
Biochim. Biophys. Acta
(1989) - et al.
Inhibition of lysozyme by imidazole and indole derivatives
Arch. Biochem. Biophys.
(1966) - et al.
Alzheimer disease: evidence for selective loss of cholinergic neurons in the nucleus basalis
Ann. Neurol.
(1981) - et al.
The cholinergic hypothesis of geriatric memory dysfunction
Science
(1982) - et al.
Alzheimer's disease: a disorder of cortical cholinergic innervation
Science
(1983)
Cholinesterase inhibitors for Alzheimer's disease
Cochrane Database of Syst. Rev.
Homocysteine thiolactone and human cholinesterases
Cell. Mol. Neurobiol.
Distribution of butyrylcholinesterase in the human amygdala and hippocampal formation
J. Comp. Neurol.
Butyrylcholinesterase: an important new target in Alzheimer's disease therapy
Int. Psychogeriatr.
Neurobiology of butyrylcholinesterase
Nat. Rev. Neurosci.
Differential distribution of butyrylcholinesterase and acetylcholinesterase in the human thalamus
J. Comp. Neurol.
Homocysteine and cognitive decline in healthy elderly
Dement. Geriatr. Cogn. Disord.
Cited by (19)
Antidiabetic activities of chloroform fraction of Anthocleista vogelii Planch root bark in rats with diet- and alloxan-induced obesity-diabetes
2019, Journal of EthnopharmacologyCitation Excerpt :While these inhibitory actions may partly explain the mechanism underlying the antidiabetic effects of CF, there is a need to fully understand the nature of the inhibition. It is known that enzyme inhibitors could mimic an enzyme's normal substrate and compete for the enzyme's binding site in a reversible or irreversible way (Walsh et al., 2007). Inhibitors could also bind to enzyme-substrate complex or bind to the enzyme to reduce its activity while not preventing the binding of the normal substrate (Hostettmann et al., 2006).
Characterization of novel Trichoderma hemicellulase and its use to enhance downstream processing of lignocellulosic biomass to simple fermentable sugars
2017, Biocatalysis and Agricultural BiotechnologyCitation Excerpt :Beyond this level, residual enzyme activity was greatly repressed. Repression of xylanase activity was due to catabolic repression of xylose on xylanase by negative feedback mechanism or non specific allosteric substitution as earlier observed (Ajijolakewu et al., 2016; Lakshmi et al., 2009; Walsh et al., 2007). Several other studies have reported repression of lignocellulosic enzymes’ activities (Kuhad et al., 2011; Subramaniyan and Prema, 2002) due to the accumulation of hydrolytic end-product in the fermentation medium.
Synergistic inhibition of butyrylcholinesterase by galantamine and citalopram
2011, Biochimica et Biophysica Acta - General SubjectsCitation Excerpt :Equation fitting, using the solver feature of Microsoft Excel, was then carried out to minimize the sum of absolute residual values and maximize global data fitting. Unlike AChE, which is known to be inhibited by acetylcholine at high concentrations (> 1 mM), BuChE enzyme activity is stimulated under the same conditions [29,33]. That is, at substrate concentrations below 1 mM, BuChE activity conforms to Michaelis–Menten kinetics and catalytic activity proceeds through a simple enzyme-substrate complex (ES) (Fig. 2).
Probing fundamental film parameters of immobilized enzymes-Towards enhanced biosensor performance. Part II-Electroanalytical estimation of immobilized enzyme performance
2011, Enzyme and Microbial TechnologyCitation Excerpt :This becomes more pronounced as the substrate concentration increases, making it difficult to detect changes in the current at high substrate concentrations. The use of computer-driven non-linear regression has been previously postulated [23,24] and subsequently used in a number of biochemical studies [25] including enzyme kinetics [26–30]. It has the distinct advantage of objectively weighting errors in the data over the whole dataset, rather than exaggerating errors at low substrate concentrations (as occurs when data is normalized to the Lineweaver–Burke and Eadie–Hofstee plots [24] providing more robust overall estimations [23].