Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2022 Aug 10.
Published in final edited form as: Int J Biol Macromol. 2019 Aug 8;139:1002–1008. doi: 10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2019.08.075

Table 2.

Enzymatic properties of CE orthologs from different species.

CE Optimum pH Optimum temperature (°C) Specific activity (epimerization) (U mg−1) Specific activity (isomerization) (U mg−1) Ratio (E/I) Tm Lactose
Cellobiose
Reference
kcat (s−1) Km (mM) kcat/Km (mM−1 s−1) kcat (s−1) Km (mM) kcat/Km (mM−1 s−1)
Dith-CE 7 75 160.1 ± 6.5 3.52 ± 0.23 45 92.15 441.4 5232 0.844 320.0 354.9 0.902 This study
Thth-CE 7 60 82.1 ± 3.1 Less than 0.08 70.3 200 420.5 0.478 247.0 186.0 1.328 This study
Casa-CEa 7 65 90.4 ± 4.8 2.38 ±0.18 38 84.14 229.8 491.1 0.468 227.2 350.7 0.648 This study
Caob-CE 7.5 70 118 2.81 42 86.7 233.4 301.7 0.773 233.7 164.5 1.421 25
Rual-CE 7.5 30 38.8b 0.001b 38,800 - 52.1 33 1.6 63.8 13.8 4.6 26
Bafr-CE 7.5 45 76.8b 0.0005b 153,600 - 79.5 6.56 12.1 67.6 3.75 18 27
Fljo-CE 8.4 35 48.5b 0.0005b 97,000 - 17.5 34.9 0.501 39.9 53.2 0.75 28

Bafr, Bacteroides fragilis (Q5LH66); Fljo, Flavobacterium johnsoniae (A5FA14); Rual, Ruminococcus albus (P0DKY4).

a

Remeasured in this study.

b

Remeasured by Kuschel et al. [29].