. 2015 Aug 25;83(5):753–769. doi: 10.1111/tpj.12935

Table 1.

Turnover number (k _cat) and catalytic efficiency (k _cat/K _M) of Equisetum HTG compared with XTHs having predominantly XET activity

Enzyme	Donor substrate (mg ml⁻¹)	Acceptor substrate	k _cat (min⁻¹)	K _M (μm) for the indicated acceptor substrate			k _cat/K _M (mm ⁻¹ min⁻¹)
Enzyme	Donor substrate (mg ml⁻¹)	Acceptor substrate	k _cat (min⁻¹)	XET activity	MXE activity	CXE activity	k _cat/K _M (mm ⁻¹ min⁻¹)
HTG ex Pichia	5.0^a	XXXG		3.9 ± 0.5	1.4 ± 0.1
HTG ex Pichia	5.0^a	XXXGol	0.266^e	3.4 ± 0.4	0.52 ± 0.06		510^e
HTG ex Pichia	1.5^a	XXXGol		0.77 ± 0.13	0.85 ± 0.07
HTG ex Pichia	0.5^a	XXXGol		0.91 ± 0.04	0.58 ± 0.14
HTG ex Pichia	Approximately 900^b	XXXGol				2.7 ± 0.5
Native Equisetum HTG^c	MLG, 5.0	XXXGol	0.086, 0.069		[0.52]^d		170, 130
HTG ex Pichia	MLG, 5.0	XXXG	0.270		[0.52]^d		520
Poplar XET^f	XyG	Glc₈‐based XGO mixture	4.8	400			12
Barley HvXET5^g	XyG	XXXGol	0.34, 0.38	69			4.9, 5.6

Soluble donor substrate: tamarind xyloglucan or barley MLG, as appropriate.

Insoluble donor substrate: 18.6 mg cellulose (alkali‐washed paper) + 20 μl total aqueous solution.

Data for two independent preparations of Equisetum fluviatile HTG.

Assumed.

The value given is for MXE activity.

Data from Baumann et al. (2007).

Data from the erratum to Hrmova et al. (2007).