A voltammetric study of interdomain electron transfer within sulfite oxidase

Journal of the American Chemical Society

Volumn 124, Issue 39, 2002, Pages 11612-11613

  Elliott, Sean J ^a   McElhaney, Anne E ^b   Feng, Changjian ^b   Enemark, John H ^b   Armstrong, Fraser A ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD   (United Kingdom)

^b University of Arizona   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

HEME DERIVATIVE; SULFITE OXIDASE;

ARTICLE; CATALYSIS; CONFORMATION; ELECTROCHEMICAL ANALYSIS; ELECTRON TRANSPORT; ENZYME ACTIVITY; OXIDATION REDUCTION REACTION; POTENTIOMETRY; PROTEIN DOMAIN; PROTEIN INTERACTION; PROTEIN SECONDARY STRUCTURE; REDUCTION;

CATALYSIS; ELECTROCHEMISTRY; ELECTRODES; ENZYMES, IMMOBILIZED; GOLD; KINETICS; MOLYBDENUM; OXIDATION-REDUCTION; OXIDOREDUCTASES ACTING ON SULFUR GROUP DONORS; PROTEIN STRUCTURE, TERTIARY; SULFITES;

EID: 0037010013     PISSN: 00027863     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1021/ja027776f     Document Type: Article

References (24)

1. Rajagopalan, K. V. Nutr. Res. 1987, 45, 321-328. Hille, R. Chem. Rev. 1996, 96, 2757-2816.
2. Rajagopalan, K. V. Nutr. Res. 1987, 45, 321-328. Hille, R. Chem. Rev. 1996, 96, 2757-2816.
3. Kisker, C.; Schindelin, H.; Pacheco, A.; Wehbi, W.; Garrett, R. M.; Rajagopalan, K. V.; Enemark, J. H.; Rees, D. C. Cell 1997, 91, 973-983.
4. Johnson, J. L.; Rajagopalan, K. V. J. Biol. Chem. 1977, 252, 2017-2025.
5. Pacheco, A.; Hazzard, J. T.; Tollin, G.; Enemark, J. H. J. Biol. Inorg. Chem. 1999, 4, 390-401.
6. Feng, C.; Kedia, R. V.; Hazzard, J. T.; Hurley, J. K.; Tollin, G.; Enemark, J. H. Biochemistry 2002, 41, 5816-5821.
7. Codd, R.; Astashkin, A. V.; Pacheco, A.; Raitsimring, A. M.; Enemark, J. H. J. Biol. Inorg. Chem. 2002, 7, 338-350.
8. Sucheta, A.; Cammack, R.; Weiner, J. H.; Armstrong, F. A. Biochemistry 1993, 32, 5455-5465.
9. Armstrong, F. A.; Heering, H. A.; Hirst, J. Chem. Soc. Rev. 1997, 26, 169-179.
10. Heering, H. A.; Weiner, J. H.; Armstrong, F. A. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1997, 119, 11628-11638.
11. Heffron, K.; Léger, C.; Rothery, R. A.; Weiner, J. H.; Armstrong, F. A. Biochemistry 2001, 40, 3117-3126.
12. Léger, C.; Heffron, K.; Pershad, H. R.; Maklashina, E.; Luna-Chavez, C.; Cecchini, G.; Ackrell, B. A. C.; Armstrong, F. A. Biochemistry 2001, 40, 11234-11245.
13. Armstrong, F. A. J. Chem. Soc., Dalton Trans. 2002, 661-671.
14. Jeuken, L. J. C.; McEvoy, J. P.; Armstrong, F. A. J. Phys. Chem. B 2002, 106, 2304-2313.
15. 13 All buffers were 20 mM in each of MES, HEPES, and TAPS and contained 10-20 mM sodium acetate as additional supporting electrolyte.
16. Coury, L. A.; Yang, L.; Murray, R. W. Anal. Chem. 1993, 65, 242-246.
17. Abass, A. K.; Hart, J. P.; Cowell, D. Sens. Actuators, B 2000, 62, 148-153.
18. Spence, J. T.; Kipke, C. A.; Enemark. J. H.; Sunde, R. A. Inorg. Chem. 1991, 30, 3011-3015.
19. Laviron, E. In Electroanalytical Chemistry; Bard, A. J., Ed.; Marcel Dekker: New York, 1982; Vol. 12, pp 53-157.
20. Specifically, the midpoint potentials for the Fe(III/II), Mo(VI/V), and Mo-(V/IV) couples for the low pH Cl, inhibited form (and the high pH. uninhibited form) were reported as 90 mV (51 mV), 131 mV (-57 mV), and 86 mV (-233 mV), respectively, all versus the hydrogen electrode (ref 17)
21. tot the calculated surface coverage, A is the area of the electrode surface, and n is the stoichiometric number of electrons passed.
22. Brody, M. S.; Hille, R. Biochemistry 1999, 38, 6668-6677.
23. As found for the nonturnover experiments, the behavior is identical on both graphite and modified-gold surfaces, indicating that the electrochemistry is not influenced by surface effects.
24. Hass, A. S.; Pilloud, D. L.; Reddy, K. S.; Babcock, G. T.; Moser, C. C.; Blasie, J. K.; Dutton, P. L. J. Phys. Chem. B 2001, 105, 11351-11362.