2003
DOI: 10.1093/protein/gzg047
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Structural and energetic determinants for enantiopreferences in kinetic resolution of lipases

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
13
0

Year Published

2004
2004
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

1
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 35 publications
(14 citation statements)
references
References 1 publication
1
13
0
Order By: Relevance
“…64 A similar, quite recent, study of the resolution of 2a by CaLB indicated that the hydrogen atom and the methyl group at C-1 exchange their positions. 65 It would seem that the mechanistic explanation of lipase enantioselectivity is a good deal more complex and interesting than expected.…”
Section: Lipases: Enantiorecognition Revisitedmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…64 A similar, quite recent, study of the resolution of 2a by CaLB indicated that the hydrogen atom and the methyl group at C-1 exchange their positions. 65 It would seem that the mechanistic explanation of lipase enantioselectivity is a good deal more complex and interesting than expected.…”
Section: Lipases: Enantiorecognition Revisitedmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This loss in mobility corresponds to a loss in binding entropy. In a recent study we could demonstrate experimentally that this loss in molecular motion is an important determinant in descriminating the turnover rate of stereoisomers in chiral resolution [33]. Since rigid molecules will experience a smaller conformational space and will accordingly suffer from smaller entropic losses upon immobilization in a binding pocket, the affinity will scale to some extent with the number of rotatable bonds.…”
Section: A First Attempt: Virtual Screening Focussed On the Most Prommentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This tight binding of substrates to enzyme can lead to a drastic decline in system entropy. Usually, the enzyme that presents higher enantioselectivity has the preferred substrate enantiomer bound in tighter way, thus, results in bigger entropy lose (Bocola et al, 2003). It has been revealed that the entropy difference between enantiomers (DDS 6 ¼ ) has enormous contribution to the reaction DDG 6 ¼ value (Ottosson et al, 2001(Ottosson et al, , 2002Overbeeke et al, 1998).…”
Section: Prediction Errormentioning
confidence: 99%