Which oxidant is really responsible for sulfur oxidation by cytochrome P450?
Research output: Journal Publications and Reviews (RGC: 21, 22, 62) › 21_Publication in refereed journal › peer-review
Author(s)
Detail(s)
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 8168-8170 |
| Journal / Publication | Angewandte Chemie - International Edition |
| Volume | 46 |
| Issue number | 43 |
| Publication status | Published - 2007 |
| Externally published | Yes |
Link(s)
Abstract
(Figure Presented) Clarifying a conundrum: The question of whether Compound I or Compound 0 (Cpd I or Cpd 0) is the reactive oxidant in the sulfoxidation of thiafatty acids by P450 is addressed by theory, which demonstrates that Cpd I leads to an extremely fast process, while Cpd 0 is at least six orders of magnitude slower. Most likely, thiafatty acids promote Cpd I formation even in the T→A mutant of P450BM3. © 2007 Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA.
Research Area(s)
- Cytochromes, Density functional calculations, Fatty acids, Ferric hydroperoxide, Oxidation
Citation Format(s)
Which oxidant is really responsible for sulfur oxidation by cytochrome P450? / Li, Chunsen; Zhang, Lixian; Zhang, Chi et al.
In: Angewandte Chemie - International Edition, Vol. 46, No. 43, 2007, p. 8168-8170.Research output: Journal Publications and Reviews (RGC: 21, 22, 62) › 21_Publication in refereed journal › peer-review
