Pair your accounts.

Export articles to Mendeley

Get article recommendations from ACS based on references in your Mendeley library.

Pair your accounts.

Export articles to Mendeley

Get article recommendations from ACS based on references in your Mendeley library.

You’ve supercharged your research process with ACS and Mendeley!

STEP 1:
Click to create an ACS ID

Please note: If you switch to a different device, you may be asked to login again with only your ACS ID.

Please note: If you switch to a different device, you may be asked to login again with only your ACS ID.

Please note: If you switch to a different device, you may be asked to login again with only your ACS ID.

MENDELEY PAIRING EXPIRED
Your Mendeley pairing has expired. Please reconnect
ACS Publications. Most Trusted. Most Cited. Most Read
Comment on: “Computer Simulations Reveal an Entirely Entropic Activation Barrier for the Chemical Step in a Designer Enzyme”
My Activity
  • Free to Read
Correspondence/Rebuttal

Comment on: “Computer Simulations Reveal an Entirely Entropic Activation Barrier for the Chemical Step in a Designer Enzyme”
Click to copy article linkArticle link copied!

Open PDF

ACS Catalysis

Cite this: ACS Catal. 2023, 13, 15, 10527–10530
Click to copy citationCitation copied!
https://doi.org/10.1021/acscatal.3c01906
Published July 28, 2023

Copyright © 2023 American Chemical Society. This publication is available under these Terms of Use.

Abstract

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

Activation heat capacity has been proposed as an important factor in enzyme evolution and thermoadaptation. We previously demonstrated that the emergence of curved activity–temperature profiles during the evolution of a designer enzyme was due to the selective rigidification of its transition state ensemble that induced an activation heat capacity. Åqvist challenged our findings with molecular dynamics simulations suggesting that a change in the rate-limiting step underlies the experimental observations. As we describe here, Åqvist’s model is not consistent with the experimental trends observed for the chemical step of the catalyzed reaction (kcat). We suggest that this discrepancy arises because the simulations performed by Åqvist were limited by restraints and short simulation times, which do not allow sampling of the motions responsible for the observed activation heat capacity.

This publication is licensed for personal use by The American Chemical Society.

Copyright © 2023 American Chemical Society

Introduction

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

De novo enzyme design has long been sought after to exploit the selectivity and activity of enzymes in “green” synthesis. (1) However, current design protocols produce only modestly active biocatalysts that require additional optimization by directed evolution. (2) Previously, we improved the de novo designed Kemp eliminase 1A53-2 by 9 rounds of mutagenesis and screening, leading to Kemp eliminase 1A53-2.9. Evolution boosted activity by more than 3 orders of magnitude. Unexpectedly, directed evolution also introduced curvature in the temperature dependence of activity. (3) We used MD simulations to show that this curvature is due to an activation heat capacity (ΔCp) rooted in a more rigid transition state (TS) compared to the ground state (GS) ensemble. (4) The observation that evolution selectively rigidifies the TS while improving activity suggests that the negative ΔCp represents an evolutionary trade-off by which efficiency at optimal growth temperatures was improved at the cost of high-temperature activity. (5,6)
In his recent paper (ref (7)), Åqvist questions our conclusion that the curvature in the activity–temperature dependence of 1A53-2.5 is due to a ΔCp effect. He presents empirical valence bond (EVB) simulations of the chemical reaction at a range of temperatures, which suggest that the reaction follows a linear Eyring plot (Figures 1b and 2b in ref (7)). Based on his observation of an unreactive substrate-complex (ES′) during MD, he analyzed the temperature dependence of the active–inactive substrate equilibrium (ES′ ⇌ ES) and likewise observed linear Eyring behavior. Finally, he constructed a three-state model (eq 1) involving substrate binding, reactive complex formation, and the chemical reaction. To analyze the reaction kinetics, this model was fitted to the experimental kcat/KM values, the simulated equilibrium between the reactive and unreactive Michaelis complex (ES′ ⇌ ES), and his calculated reaction barriers (ES → EP). Åqvist’s model indicated a change in the rate-limiting step from substrate binding to the chemical reaction at 308 K (Figure 4c in ref (7)), which he proposed to be the actual cause of the curved Eyring plots of 1A53-2.5. A change in heat capacity on substrate binding (E + S ⇌ ES′) was also suggested as a possible cause for the experimental observation but was discarded based on subsequent work from Åqvist and van der Ent. (8)
E+SESESE+P
(1)

Comments

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

Åqvist’s Model in Ref (7) Is Not Consistent with Experimental Data

Åqvist’s analysis focuses on the curved T dependence of kcat/KM, but curvature is also seen for kcat. Åqvist’s model does not reproduce this curvature for kcat (Figure 1A, Figure S6 of ref (3), Extended Data Figure 1 of ref (4)). Åqvist’s conclusion regarding a change in the rate-limiting step arises from fitting MD results to the experimentally determined rates on kcat/KM (Figure 1B). As a mathematical consequence of excluding ΔCp while fitting to kcat/KM values with curvature around 310 K, Åqvist’s model requires curvature in the T dependence of kcat below 250 K (Figure 1). Thus, the Åqvist model cannot simultaneously satisfy the experimentally observed curvature in kcat and kcat/KM around 310 K. We note that Åqvist does not determine substrate-binding rates directly. His analysis only indirectly infers binding rates, which further questions the main finding that a change in the rate-limiting step in favor of substrate-binding causes ΔCp.

Figure 1

Figure 1. (A) Åqvist’s model for the Kemp eliminase T dependence disagrees with the experimental kcat values (Figure S6 in ref (3), Extended Data Figure 1 in ref (4)). (B) Åqvist’s model was derived by fitting the data on kcat/KM (Figure 4B in ref (7)). 1A53-2.9 is shown here because T-dependent kcat values are only available for this variant. We note that Kemp eliminase 1A53-2.9 has a similar ΔCp as 1A53-2.5 but a 2-fold higher kcat. The red fit represents Åqvist’s model, and the blue fit reflects our model involving ΔCp from ref (3).

As pointed out by Åqvist, the kcat/KM data suggest that any step up to or including the reaction could cause curvature in the activity–temperature profile (i.e., binding, reactive complex formation, or the chemical reaction; see eq 1). (7) However, the experimental data for kcat also imply that either the chemical step, going from the Michaelis complex to the TS, or a subsequent step causes the curvature. Thus, it is likely that the experimental effect is caused by a ΔCp affecting the chemical reaction and not by a change in the rate-limiting step.
Comparison with the Kemp eliminase HG3 family further questions the possibility of rate-limiting binding causing the apparent ΔCp in the evolved 1A53-2 variants. (9) Substrate binding is not rate-limiting in any HG3 variant, as shown conclusively by kinetic isotope effects (10) and inhibitor-binding experiments. (11) Even HG3.17, one of the most efficient Kemp eliminases engineered to date, is not limited by substrate binding. Coincidentally, Kemp eliminase HG3.7 has a kcat/KM similar to 1A53-2.9 (Figure 2A). For binding (kon) to be rate-limiting in 1A53-2.9 at 55 °C, kon must be ≥2 orders of magnitude slower than for HG3.7 at 25 °C (Figure 2A). This is unlikely because the HG3 and 1A53-2 variants have comparable substrate affinities as indicated by KM and similarly wide substrate-entry channels (Figure 2B). Thus, binding is probably not rate-limiting in the evolved 1A53-2 variants over the studied temperature range.

Figure 2

Figure 2. Substrate binding in Kemp eliminases. (A) Binding would need to be ≥2 orders of magnitude slower in 1A53-2.9 at 55 °C (blue) compared to HG3.7 at 25 °C (red) to be rate limiting (gray). (B) The substrate-entry channel is comparably wide in HG3.7 and 1A53-2.5. (Channels were calculated with CARVER 3.0 (12) from the crystal structures (PDB accession codes: 4BS0, 7K4X, 7K4Q, and 6NW4; hydrogens added with PyMol).

Restraints in the Simulations in Ref (7) Limit Conformational Sampling

Åqvist considerably restrained the protein dynamics by running simulations in a spherical system where the surface solvent atoms are positionally restrained. These restraints even included 4% of the protein, further hindering sampling. Such treatment considerably restricts the protein dynamics, which in turn affects the relatively large conformational changes observed for the solvent-accessible loops, (4) and probably conceals any conformational sampling contributing to ΔCp. Moreover, previous work from Åqvist et al. has shown that surface dynamics can substantially affect the temperature dependence of catalysis. (13) Thus, in contrast to our previous simulations, (4,14) which did not significantly restrain the protein dynamics, it is unlikely that the dynamically restrained simulations presented in ref (7) can accurately reproduce the experimentally observed temperature profile and ΔCp effect of 1A532.5.

Short Simulations in Ref (7) Prevent Adequate Sampling

The EVB simulations performed by Åqvist are performed over a relatively short time scale. Each replicate was simulated for ≈1 ns (as concluded from the methods section), whereas we previously ran multiple 500 ns MD simulations to analyze heat capacity changes. (4,14) Simulation length can considerably impact thermodynamic properties, (15) as sufficient time must be allowed for the system to explore all low-energy areas of phase space with reasonable frequency. To result in a meaningful ΔCp in silico, the system requires enough time to equilibrate to the TS or GS. We emphasize that while the actual TS is short-lived, longer-lived reactive conformations akin to the (ES′ ⇌ ES) equilibrium probably provide sufficient time for equilibrating the protein dynamics in vitro.
To illustrate the effect of time scale, we determined the conformational space explored by our previously published (4) GS or TS-bound simulations of 1A53-2.5 using principal component analysis (PCA, Figure 3A and B). PCA of the backbone Cα positions was performed for both the first 1 ns to mimic the simulations from Åqvist and the last 450 ns analogous to our previous work. As expected, PCA clearly shows that the 1 ns simulations sample a much narrower conformational space than the 450 ns set. Since the potential energy depends on atomic positions, restricting the conformational distribution will perturb all thermodynamic parameters calculated from such short simulations. Furthermore, the PCA analysis of the extended time scale simulations shows that for 1A53-2.5, the conformational distribution of the protein is different for the GS and TS. Specifically, the distribution is narrower for the TS state. This observation probably relates to ΔCp, where, as the reaction progresses, the width of the sampled conformational space and thus the associated energy distribution decreases. (4,5,14) The sampling issue is likely aggravated by the fact that Åqvist equilibrates all systems bound to the TS, which further diminishes the dynamic differences between the GS and the TS conformational ensemble during EVB simulations. The conformational effects described here suggest that thermodynamic information drawn from short simulations such as those performed by Åqvist is insufficient to detect a ΔCp effect.

Figure 3

Figure 3. Short time scales limit sampling. (A) Kemp eliminase mechanism. (B) Conformational landscape of 1A53-2.5 over 1 ns (black lines) and 450 ns (red and blue shading) of simulation time for both the ground state (GS) and transition state (TS). (C) ΔCp calculated using the variance formula (16) based on either a 1 ns or 50 ns (ref (4)) moving window average over the 450 ns set. Errors are calculated by bootstrapping over ten replicates.

To illustrate the effects of restricted sampling on the thermodynamics of the system, we calculated the heat capacity effect for the 1 ns set from the difference in energy variance between the TS and GS (eq 2, Figure 3C). Within 1 ns, no significant ΔCp effect was observed (−18.0 ± 32.9 kJ mol–1 K–1). To validate that this is not due to insufficient data, we calculated ΔCp using a 1 ns moving window for the 450 ns set. The moving window approach allows for calculating fluctuations over short time scales from longer simulations and likewise provides a close-to-zero ΔCp (1.6 ± 2.4 kJ mol–1 K–1). As published previously, (4) only larger window sizes reflecting the time scale of conformational change result in significant ΔCp values (−19.7 ± 8.6 kJ mol–1 K–1 for a 50 ns window). Given that simulation time scale strongly affects the sampled conformational space, it is unlikely that the 1 ns EVB simulations performed in ref (7) can accurately capture the conformational sampling contributing to ΔCp. However, with more extended simulations and sampling, such effects become measurable, as we have demonstrated before. As discussed previously, (4) our simulations overestimate ΔCp because solvent is not included in the calculation of the energetic fluctuations. We stress that─in contrast to Åqvist’s model─our analysis does not rely on generating rate constants by fitting computational results to experimental data. (4,14)
ΔCp=(δHTS2δHGS2kT2)
(2)

Conclusion

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

The proposal of Åqvist that a change in the rate-limiting step from substrate binding (E + S → ES′) to chemistry (ES → E + P) causes the apparent ΔCp in 1A53-2.5 is questionable. The experimental data (Figure 1) clearly show nonlinearity in kcat and kcat/KM around 310 K, which Åqvist’s model cannot reproduce. Moreover, the substrate-binding rates essential to the proposed change in the catalytic bottleneck have only been indirectly inferred by Åqvist. We propose two possible causes of the discrepancy between the Åqvist model and experiment: constrained dynamics and limited simulation time scales. Both factors severely restrict the amount of conformational sampling and mask the ΔCp effect. Nevertheless, Åqvist’s observation of an unreactive substrate-bound state might be necessary to fully understand the catalytic ramifications of ΔCp. A negative ΔCp effect generally results from broader conformational sampling in the GS compared to the TS ensemble. The two-state model (ES′ ⇌ ES) proposed by Åqvist fulfills this requirement, (7) and the observation of an ES′ state might be key to determining the benefit─if any─provided by the evolution of ΔCp.
In conclusion, the constrained 1 ns EVB simulations performed by Åqvist cannot capture the catalytically relevant conformational sampling that gives rise to ΔCp. Based on the experimental and simulation evidence, the activity–temperature dependence of 1A53-2.5 is most likely caused by a ΔCp and not by a change in the rate-limiting step.

Author Information

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

Acknowledgments

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

HAB and AJM thank EPSRC (EP/M013219/1 and EP/M022609/1) and with JLRA BBSRC (BB/M000354/1) for funding. MWvdK thanks BBSRC for funding (BB/M026280/1). VLA and AJM thank the Marsden Fund of New Zealand (16-UOW-027). This work is part of a project that has received funding from the European Research Council under the European Horizon 2020 research and innovation program (PREDACTED Advanced Grant Agreement no. 101021207) to AL and AJM. HAB thanks the SNSF for funding (P5R5PB_210999). VLA is a James Cook Research Fellow (Royal Society of New Zealand). This work was conducted using the computational facilities of the Advanced Computing Research Centre, University of Bristol.

References

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

This article references 16 other publications.

  1. 1
    Arnold, F. H. Innovation by Evolution: Bringing New Chemistry to Life (Nobel Lecture). Angew. Chem., Int. Ed. 2019, 58 (41), 1442014426,  DOI: 10.1002/anie.201907729
  2. 2
    Lovelock, S. L.; Crawshaw, R.; Basler, S.; Levy, C.; Baker, D.; Hilvert, D.; Green, A. P. The Road to Fully Programmable Protein Catalysis. Nature 2022, 606 (7912), 4958,  DOI: 10.1038/s41586-022-04456-z
  3. 3
    Bunzel, H. A.; Kries, H.; Marchetti, L.; Zeymer, C.; Mittl, P. R. E.; Mulholland, A. J.; Hilvert, D. Emergence of a Negative Activation Heat Capacity during Evolution of a Designed Enzyme. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2019, 141 (30), 1174511748,  DOI: 10.1021/jacs.9b02731
  4. 4
    Bunzel, H. A.; Anderson, J. L. R.; Hilvert, D.; Arcus, V. L.; van der Kamp, M. W.; Mulholland, A. J. Evolution of Dynamical Networks Enhances Catalysis in a Designer Enzyme. Nat. Chem. 2021, 13 (10), 10171022,  DOI: 10.1038/s41557-021-00763-6
  5. 5
    Arcus, V. L.; Prentice, E. J.; Hobbs, J. K.; Mulholland, A. J.; Van der Kamp, M. W.; Pudney, C. R.; Parker, E. J.; Schipper, L. A. On the Temperature Dependence of Enzyme-Catalyzed Rates. Biochemistry 2016, 55 (12), 16811688,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.biochem.5b01094
  6. 6
    Arcus, V. L.; Mulholland, A. J. Temperature, Dynamics, and Enzyme-Catalyzed Reaction Rates. Annu. Rev. Biophys. 2020, 49 (1), 163180,  DOI: 10.1146/annurev-biophys-121219-081520
  7. 7
    Åqvist, J. Computer Simulations Reveal an Entirely Entropic Activation Barrier for the Chemical Step in a Designer Enzyme. ACS Catal. 2022, 12 (2), 14521460,  DOI: 10.1021/acscatal.1c05814
  8. 8
    Åqvist, J.; van der Ent, F. Calculation of Heat Capacity Changes in Enzyme Catalysis and Ligand Binding. J. Chem. Theory Comput. 2022, 18 (10), 63456353,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.jctc.2c00646
  9. 9
    Blomberg, R.; Kries, H.; Pinkas, D. M.; Mittl, P. R. E.; Grütter, M. G.; Privett, H. K.; Mayo, S. L.; Hilvert, D. Precision Is Essential for Efficient Catalysis in an Evolved Kemp Eliminase. Nature 2013, 503 (7476), 418421,  DOI: 10.1038/nature12623
  10. 10
    Kries, H.; Bloch, J. S.; Bunzel, H. A.; Pinkas, D. M.; Hilvert, D. Contribution of Oxyanion Stabilization to Kemp Eliminase Efficiency. ACS Catal. 2020, 10 (8), 44604464,  DOI: 10.1021/acscatal.0c00575
  11. 11
    Otten, R.; Pádua, R. A. P.; Bunzel, H. A.; Nguyen, V.; Pitsawong, W.; Patterson, M.; Sui, S.; Perry, S. L.; Cohen, A. E.; Hilvert, D.; Kern, D. How Directed Evolution Reshapes the Energy Landscape in an Enzyme to Boost Catalysis. Science 2020, 370 (6523), 14421446,  DOI: 10.1126/science.abd3623
  12. 12
    Chovancova, E.; Pavelka, A.; Benes, P.; Strnad, O.; Brezovsky, J.; Kozlikova, B.; Gora, A.; Sustr, V.; Klvana, M.; Medek, P.; Biedermannova, L.; Sochor, J.; Damborsky, J. CAVER 3.0: A Tool for the Analysis of Transport Pathways in Dynamic Protein Structures. PLOS Comput. Biol. 2012, 8 (10), e1002708  DOI: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1002708
  13. 13
    Isaksen, G. V.; Åqvist, J.; Brandsdal, B. O. Enzyme Surface Rigidity Tunes the Temperature Dependence of Catalytic Rates. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 2016, 113 (28), 78227827,  DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1605237113
  14. 14
    van der Kamp, M. W.; Prentice, E. J.; Kraakman, K. L.; Connolly, M.; Mulholland, A. J.; Arcus, V. L. Dynamical Origins of Heat Capacity Changes in Enzyme-Catalysed Reactions. Nat. Commun. 2018, 9 (1), 1177,  DOI: 10.1038/s41467-018-03597-y
  15. 15
    Mey, A. S. J. S.; Allen, B. K.; Macdonald, H. E. B.; Chodera, J. D.; Hahn, D. F.; Kuhn, M.; Michel, J.; Mobley, D. L.; Naden, L. N.; Prasad, S.; Rizzi, A.; Scheen, J.; Shirts, M. R.; Tresadern, G.; Xu, H. Best Practices for Alchemical Free Energy Calculations [Article v1.0]. Living J. Comput. Mol. Sci. 2020, 2 (1), 18378,  DOI: 10.33011/livecoms.2.1.18378
  16. 16
    Prabhu, N. V.; Sharp, K. A. Heat Capacity in Proteins. Annu. Rev. Phys. Chem. 2005, 56 (1), 521548,  DOI: 10.1146/annurev.physchem.56.092503.141202

Cited By

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

This article is cited by 2 publications.

  1. Jake P. Erbez, Griffin H. Rangel, Mia Davila, Jackson A. Englade, Alexander D. Erbez, Jasmine Rattanpal, Haocheng Li, Yuezhou Chen, Michael D. Toney. Activation Heat Capacities in Pyridoxal Phosphate Enzymes. ACS Catalysis 2024, 14 (15) , 11178-11195. https://doi.org/10.1021/acscatal.4c01959
  2. Emma J. Walker, Carlin J. Hamill, Rory Crean, Michael S. Connolly, Annmaree K. Warrender, Kirsty L. Kraakman, Erica J. Prentice, Alistair Steyn-Ross, Moira Steyn-Ross, Christopher R. Pudney, Marc W. van der Kamp, Louis A. Schipper, Adrian J. Mulholland, Vickery L. Arcus. Cooperative Conformational Transitions Underpin the Activation Heat Capacity in the Temperature Dependence of Enzyme Catalysis. ACS Catalysis 2024, 14 (7) , 4379-4394. https://doi.org/10.1021/acscatal.3c05584
Open PDF

ACS Catalysis

Cite this: ACS Catal. 2023, 13, 15, 10527–10530
Click to copy citationCitation copied!
https://doi.org/10.1021/acscatal.3c01906
Published July 28, 2023

Copyright © 2023 American Chemical Society. This publication is available under these Terms of Use.

Article Views

1786

Altmetric

-

Citations

Learn about these metrics

Article Views are the COUNTER-compliant sum of full text article downloads since November 2008 (both PDF and HTML) across all institutions and individuals. These metrics are regularly updated to reflect usage leading up to the last few days.

Citations are the number of other articles citing this article, calculated by Crossref and updated daily. Find more information about Crossref citation counts.

The Altmetric Attention Score is a quantitative measure of the attention that a research article has received online. Clicking on the donut icon will load a page at altmetric.com with additional details about the score and the social media presence for the given article. Find more information on the Altmetric Attention Score and how the score is calculated.

  • Figure 1

    Figure 1. (A) Åqvist’s model for the Kemp eliminase T dependence disagrees with the experimental kcat values (Figure S6 in ref (3), Extended Data Figure 1 in ref (4)). (B) Åqvist’s model was derived by fitting the data on kcat/KM (Figure 4B in ref (7)). 1A53-2.9 is shown here because T-dependent kcat values are only available for this variant. We note that Kemp eliminase 1A53-2.9 has a similar ΔCp as 1A53-2.5 but a 2-fold higher kcat. The red fit represents Åqvist’s model, and the blue fit reflects our model involving ΔCp from ref (3).

    Figure 2

    Figure 2. Substrate binding in Kemp eliminases. (A) Binding would need to be ≥2 orders of magnitude slower in 1A53-2.9 at 55 °C (blue) compared to HG3.7 at 25 °C (red) to be rate limiting (gray). (B) The substrate-entry channel is comparably wide in HG3.7 and 1A53-2.5. (Channels were calculated with CARVER 3.0 (12) from the crystal structures (PDB accession codes: 4BS0, 7K4X, 7K4Q, and 6NW4; hydrogens added with PyMol).

    Figure 3

    Figure 3. Short time scales limit sampling. (A) Kemp eliminase mechanism. (B) Conformational landscape of 1A53-2.5 over 1 ns (black lines) and 450 ns (red and blue shading) of simulation time for both the ground state (GS) and transition state (TS). (C) ΔCp calculated using the variance formula (16) based on either a 1 ns or 50 ns (ref (4)) moving window average over the 450 ns set. Errors are calculated by bootstrapping over ten replicates.

  • References


    This article references 16 other publications.

    1. 1
      Arnold, F. H. Innovation by Evolution: Bringing New Chemistry to Life (Nobel Lecture). Angew. Chem., Int. Ed. 2019, 58 (41), 1442014426,  DOI: 10.1002/anie.201907729
    2. 2
      Lovelock, S. L.; Crawshaw, R.; Basler, S.; Levy, C.; Baker, D.; Hilvert, D.; Green, A. P. The Road to Fully Programmable Protein Catalysis. Nature 2022, 606 (7912), 4958,  DOI: 10.1038/s41586-022-04456-z
    3. 3
      Bunzel, H. A.; Kries, H.; Marchetti, L.; Zeymer, C.; Mittl, P. R. E.; Mulholland, A. J.; Hilvert, D. Emergence of a Negative Activation Heat Capacity during Evolution of a Designed Enzyme. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2019, 141 (30), 1174511748,  DOI: 10.1021/jacs.9b02731
    4. 4
      Bunzel, H. A.; Anderson, J. L. R.; Hilvert, D.; Arcus, V. L.; van der Kamp, M. W.; Mulholland, A. J. Evolution of Dynamical Networks Enhances Catalysis in a Designer Enzyme. Nat. Chem. 2021, 13 (10), 10171022,  DOI: 10.1038/s41557-021-00763-6
    5. 5
      Arcus, V. L.; Prentice, E. J.; Hobbs, J. K.; Mulholland, A. J.; Van der Kamp, M. W.; Pudney, C. R.; Parker, E. J.; Schipper, L. A. On the Temperature Dependence of Enzyme-Catalyzed Rates. Biochemistry 2016, 55 (12), 16811688,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.biochem.5b01094
    6. 6
      Arcus, V. L.; Mulholland, A. J. Temperature, Dynamics, and Enzyme-Catalyzed Reaction Rates. Annu. Rev. Biophys. 2020, 49 (1), 163180,  DOI: 10.1146/annurev-biophys-121219-081520
    7. 7
      Åqvist, J. Computer Simulations Reveal an Entirely Entropic Activation Barrier for the Chemical Step in a Designer Enzyme. ACS Catal. 2022, 12 (2), 14521460,  DOI: 10.1021/acscatal.1c05814
    8. 8
      Åqvist, J.; van der Ent, F. Calculation of Heat Capacity Changes in Enzyme Catalysis and Ligand Binding. J. Chem. Theory Comput. 2022, 18 (10), 63456353,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.jctc.2c00646
    9. 9
      Blomberg, R.; Kries, H.; Pinkas, D. M.; Mittl, P. R. E.; Grütter, M. G.; Privett, H. K.; Mayo, S. L.; Hilvert, D. Precision Is Essential for Efficient Catalysis in an Evolved Kemp Eliminase. Nature 2013, 503 (7476), 418421,  DOI: 10.1038/nature12623
    10. 10
      Kries, H.; Bloch, J. S.; Bunzel, H. A.; Pinkas, D. M.; Hilvert, D. Contribution of Oxyanion Stabilization to Kemp Eliminase Efficiency. ACS Catal. 2020, 10 (8), 44604464,  DOI: 10.1021/acscatal.0c00575
    11. 11
      Otten, R.; Pádua, R. A. P.; Bunzel, H. A.; Nguyen, V.; Pitsawong, W.; Patterson, M.; Sui, S.; Perry, S. L.; Cohen, A. E.; Hilvert, D.; Kern, D. How Directed Evolution Reshapes the Energy Landscape in an Enzyme to Boost Catalysis. Science 2020, 370 (6523), 14421446,  DOI: 10.1126/science.abd3623
    12. 12
      Chovancova, E.; Pavelka, A.; Benes, P.; Strnad, O.; Brezovsky, J.; Kozlikova, B.; Gora, A.; Sustr, V.; Klvana, M.; Medek, P.; Biedermannova, L.; Sochor, J.; Damborsky, J. CAVER 3.0: A Tool for the Analysis of Transport Pathways in Dynamic Protein Structures. PLOS Comput. Biol. 2012, 8 (10), e1002708  DOI: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1002708
    13. 13
      Isaksen, G. V.; Åqvist, J.; Brandsdal, B. O. Enzyme Surface Rigidity Tunes the Temperature Dependence of Catalytic Rates. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 2016, 113 (28), 78227827,  DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1605237113
    14. 14
      van der Kamp, M. W.; Prentice, E. J.; Kraakman, K. L.; Connolly, M.; Mulholland, A. J.; Arcus, V. L. Dynamical Origins of Heat Capacity Changes in Enzyme-Catalysed Reactions. Nat. Commun. 2018, 9 (1), 1177,  DOI: 10.1038/s41467-018-03597-y
    15. 15
      Mey, A. S. J. S.; Allen, B. K.; Macdonald, H. E. B.; Chodera, J. D.; Hahn, D. F.; Kuhn, M.; Michel, J.; Mobley, D. L.; Naden, L. N.; Prasad, S.; Rizzi, A.; Scheen, J.; Shirts, M. R.; Tresadern, G.; Xu, H. Best Practices for Alchemical Free Energy Calculations [Article v1.0]. Living J. Comput. Mol. Sci. 2020, 2 (1), 18378,  DOI: 10.33011/livecoms.2.1.18378
    16. 16
      Prabhu, N. V.; Sharp, K. A. Heat Capacity in Proteins. Annu. Rev. Phys. Chem. 2005, 56 (1), 521548,  DOI: 10.1146/annurev.physchem.56.092503.141202