Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2021 Mar 1.
Published in final edited form as: Cancer Chemother Pharmacol. 2020 Jan 8;85(3):573–583. doi: 10.1007/s00280-019-04018-7

Table 1.

Comparison of substrate activity of TvPNP and EcPNP

Substrate TvPNP EcPNP

nmoles/mg-h
Adenosine 501,000 398,000
9-β-D-arabinofuranosyl adenine 38,000 620
2-F-adenosine 185,000 215,000
2-F-2′-deoxyadenosine (F-dAdo) 400,000 435,000
9-β-D-arabinofuranosyl-2-F-adenine (F-araA, fludarabine) 32,000 1,300
2-Cl-2′-deoxyadenosine (cladribine) 350,000 39,000
Inosine 154,000 342,000
2′-deoxyinosine 660,000 664,000
9-β-D-arabinofuranosyl-hypoxanthine 48 61
Guanosine 14,000 156,000
9-β-D-arabinofuranosyl-guanine 16 310
9-β-D-ribofuranosyl-6-methylpurine 155,000 92,000
9-[2-deoxy-β-D-ribofuranosyl]-6-methylpurine (MeP-dR) 484,000 461,000
9-β-D-arabinofuranosyl-6-methylpurine 570 14

Enzymes were incubated with 100 μM of each compound and cleavage rate determined using reverse phase HPLC to separate base from nucleoside. The results with EcPNP have been reported previously [23] except for guanosine, 9-β-D-arabinofuranosyl-guanine, and 9-β-D-arabinofuranosyl-6-methylpurine. Each value is the mean of at least two determinations which exhibited good agreement.