Enzyme Research

Enzyme Research / 2012 / Article

Research Article | Open Access

Volume 2012 |Article ID 845465 | https://doi.org/10.1155/2012/845465

Vinod Kumar, Gopal Singh, A. K. Verma, Sanjeev Agrawal, "In Silico Characterization of Histidine Acid Phytase Sequences", Enzyme Research, vol. 2012, Article ID 845465, 8 pages, 2012. https://doi.org/10.1155/2012/845465

In Silico Characterization of Histidine Acid Phytase Sequences

Academic Editor: Jose M. Guisan
Received27 Aug 2012
Accepted19 Nov 2012
Published05 Dec 2012


Histidine acid phytases (HAPhy) are widely distributed enzymes among bacteria, fungi, plants, and some animal tissues. They have a significant role as an animal feed enzyme and in the solubilization of insoluble phosphates and minerals present in the form of phytic acid complex. A set of 50 reference protein sequences representing HAPhy were retrieved from NCBI protein database and characterized for various biochemical properties, multiple sequence alignment (MSA), homology search, phylogenetic analysis, motifs, and superfamily search. MSA using MEGA5 revealed the presence of conserved sequences at N-terminal “RHGXRXP” and C-terminal “HD.” Phylogenetic tree analysis indicates the presence of three clusters representing different HAPhy, that is, PhyA, PhyB, and AppA. Analysis of 10 commonly distributed motifs in the sequences indicates the presence of signature sequence for each class. Motif 1 “SPFCDLFTHEEWIQYDYLQSLGKYYGYGAGNPLGPAQGIGF” was present in 38 protein sequences representing clusters 1 (PhyA) and 2 (PhyB). Cluster 3 (AppA) contains motif 9 “KKGCPQSGQVAIIADVDERTRKTGEAFAAGLAPDCAITVHTQADTSSPDP” as a signature sequence. All sequences belong to histidine acid phosphatase family as resulted from superfamily search. No conserved sequence representing 3- or 6-phytase could be identified using multiple sequence alignment. This in silico analysis might contribute in the classification and future genetic engineering of this most diverse class of phytase.

1. Introduction

Phytate (myo-inositol 1,2,3,4,5,6-hexakisphosphate; IP6) is the major storage form of phosphorus (P), representing approximately 80% of P in soil [1], 65–80% of total P in grains [2], and up to 80% of P in manures from monogastric animals [3]. Phytate exists primarily as metal phytate complex with nutritionally important cations, that is, Ca2+, Fe2+, and Zn2+ [4].

Phytases (IP6 phosphohydrolase) are a class of phosphatases which catalyses hydrolysis of phytate to inositol phosphates, inorganic phosphorus, and myo-inositol [5], also lowers down affinity of phytate to associated minerals and proteins [6], and thus increases bioavailability of P, minerals, and proteins for growth and development of plants and animals [79].

Phytases are widely distributed among plants [10, 11], certain animal tissues, and microbial cells [1215]. To date, four classes of phytases have been characterized in terrestrial organisms: histidine acid phytase (HAPhy), cysteine phytase (CPhy), purple acid phosphatase (PAP), and -propeller phytase (BPPhy) [16, 17]. HAPhys are the most studied and diverse class of phytase. Most bacterial, fungal, and plant phytases belong to histidine acid phosphatases (EC which are further classified as 3-phytase (EC or 6-phytase (EC due to their high specific activity for phytate and position specific initial hydrolysis of phytate.

Phytases have been extensively reviewed for various industrial and biotechnological applications [1821], biochemical properties [22], and consensus phytase construct [23]. Conserved amino acid residues are reported in HAPhy sequences at N-terminal “RHGXRXP,” C-terminal “HD,” and eight cysteine residues in around sequence [16, 24, 25]. It is a well-adopted fact that all phytases have not similar and common active site; hence the initial classification system is based on catalytic mechanism [22]. Still, there is a need to devise a taxonomic system to accommodate new types of phytases with novel catalytic mechanism.

The in silico characterization of protein sequences of industrially important enzymes has been reported recently [2628]. Biochemical features, homology search, multiple sequence alignment, phylogenetic tree construction, motif, and superfamily distribution of alkaline proteases have been analyzed using various bioinformatics tools [28]. A total of 121 protein sequences of pectate lyases were subjected to homology search, multiple sequence alignment, phylogenetic tree construction, and motif analysis [26]. Malviya et al. [27] collected forty-seven full-length amino acid sequences of PPO from bacteria, fungi, and plants and subjected them to multiple sequence alignment (MSA), domain identification, and phylogenetic tree construction.

In the present study, we performed in silico analysis of 50 HAPhy protein sequences. The biochemical features, homology search, multiple sequence alignment, phylogenetic tree construction, motif, and superfamily distribution have been analyzed using various bioinformatics tools.

2. Material and Methods

Representative genes from histidine acid phytases (E. coli AppA, GenBank accession number P07102; Aspergillus niger PhyA and PhyB, P34752 and P34754) were used as probes to BLAST microbial genome database from NCBI (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/). The protein sequences in FASTA format from RefSeq entries, which were shown to exhibit phytase activities, were selected for further in silico study.

Physiochemical data were generated from various tools in the EXPASY proteomic server (ClustalW, ProtParam, protein calculator, Compute pI/Mw, ProtScale) [29]. The molecular weights (kDa) of the various histidine acid phytases were calculated by the addition of average isotopic masses of amino acid in the protein and deducting the average isotopic mass of one water molecule. The pI of enzyme was calculated using pK values of amino acid according to Bjellqvist et al. [30].

The evolutionary history was inferred using the Neighbor-Joining method [31]. The tree is drawn to scale, with branch lengths in the same units as those of the evolutionary distances used to infer the phylogenetic tree. The evolutionary distances were computed using the Poisson correction method [32] and are in the units of the number of amino acid substitutions per site. All positions containing gaps and missing data were eliminated. There were a total of 303 positions in the final dataset. Evolutionary analyses were conducted in MEGA5 [33]. For domain search, the Pfam site (http://www.sanger.ac.uk/resources/software/) was used. Domain analysis was done using MEME (http://meme.nbcr.net/meme/) [34]. The conserved protein motifs deduced by MEME were characterized for biological function analysis using protein BLAST, and domains were studied with InterProScan providing the best possible match based on the highest similarity score.

3. Result and Discussion

The 50 protein sequences of HAPhy were retrieved from NCBI. The accession number of retrieved sequences along with species names is listed in Table 1. The sequences were characterized for homology search, multiple sequences alignment, biochemical features, phylogenetic tree construction, motifs, and superfamily search using various bioinformatics tools. Out of 50 sequences 12 sequences belong to HAPhy gene AppA, 26 sequences to PhyA, and 12 sequences to PhyB.

S. no.Source organismAccession numberTotal sequences

1Escherichia coli P07102.2, NP_415500.1, ZP_07105303.1, YP_001462212.14
2Shigella boydii YP_408643.11
3Shigella flexneri YP_688514.11
4Shigella dysenteriae ZP_07681338.1, YP_402619.12
5Escherichia albertii ZP_02904404.11
6Escherichia fergusonii YP_002384142.11
9Citrobacter freundii AAR89622.11
10Aspergillus niger P34752.1, XP_001401713.2, P34754.1, XP_001393206.14
11Aspergillus oryzae XP_001821210.11
12Aspergillus awamori P34753.11
13Aspergillus flavus XP_002376973.11
14Aspergillus fumigates XP_751964.21
15Aspergillus terreus XP_001214511.11
16Neosartorya fischeri XP_001267160.11
17Aspergillus nidulans XP_659289.11
18Aspergillus clavatus XP_001271757.1, XP_001271709.12
19Penicillium chrysogenum XP_002561094.11
20Penicillium marneffei XP_002148821.11
21Ajellomyces dermatitidis XP_002629272.11
22Botryotinia fuckeliana XP_001554147.11
23Uncinocarpus reesii XP_002542954.11
24Ajellomyces capsulatus XP_001538598.11
25Sclerotinia sclerotiorum XP_001589324.11
26Coccidioides posadasii XP_003065081.11
27Trichophyton rubrum XP_003233631.11
28Arthroderma otae XP_002849736.11
29Talaromyces stipitatus XP_002483691.11
30Podospora anserina XP_001906589.11
31Trichophyton verrucosum XP_003021635.11
32Arthroderma gypseum XP_003169494.11
33Penicillium marneffei XP_002150501.11
34Arthroderma benhamiae XP_003015622.11
35Candida albicans XP_713416.11
36Candida dubliniensis XP_002421792.1, XP_002419861.12
37Candida albicans XP_713478.11
38Candida tropicalis XP_002546108.11
39Debaryomyces hansenii XP_458051.21
40Komagataella pastoris XP_002490985.11
41Saccharomyces cerevisiae NP_009650.11
42Coccidioides posadasii XP_003072016.11

Multiple sequence alignment showed presence of conserved sites for HAPhy N-terminal “RHG/NXRXP” and C-terminal “HD” in all sequences as reported by other coworkers [25]. This is consistent with Pfam analysis of predicted active site residues, which in all sequences is shown to be N-terminal histidine residue present in conserved region and C-terminal aspartic acid. The histidine in N-terminal region seems as a nucleophile in the formation of a covalent phosphohistidine intermediate [35]. Aspartic acid at C-terminal “HD” sequence acts as a proton donor to the oxygen atom of the scissile phosphomonoester bond [36, 37]. No conserved sequence representing 3- or 6-phytase could be identified using multiple-sequence alignment.

The phylogenetic tree based on protein sequences revealed three major clusters. Cluster 1, a larger cluster containing 26 sequences under study, includes the majority of Aspergillus sp., Penicillium sp., Ajellomyces sp., Arthroderma sp., Trichophyton sp., Sclerotinia sp., Uncinocarpus sp., and Coccidioides sp. (Figure 1). Biochemical features for this cluster are listed in Table 2. The total number of amino acid residues ranged from 441 to 539 with variable molecular weights. pI values of this cluster ranged from 4.87 to 8.53. Variations among various phytase in this group in terms of other physiochemical parameters like positively charged and negatively charged residues, hydropathicity (GRAVY) are given in Table 2.

S. no.Accession numberSource organismsNumber of amino acidsMolecular weightTheoretical pITotal number of negatively charged residues (Asp + Glu)Total number of positively charged residues (Arg + Lys)Instability indexAliphatic indexGRAVYPredictive active sites by Pfam

1P07102.2Escherichia coli 52356118.96.07514345.9586.25−0.22139(H), 326(D)
2NP_415500.1Escherichia coli str. K-12 43247056.86.26403738.0893.08−0.15739(H), 326(D)
3ZP_07105303.1Escherichia coli MS 119-7 442480816.09413739.7192.08−0.14749(H), 336(D)
4YP_001462212.1Escherichia coli E24377A 43247029.86.09403638.5693.31−0.13839(H), 326(D)
5ZP_07141224.1Escherichia coli MS 182-1 442480816.26413839.5292.08−0.14849(H), 336(D)
6YP_408643.1Shigella boydii Sb227 43247063.86.09403637.9992.41−0.14139(H), 326(D)
7YP_688514.1Shigella flexneri 43247105.95.94403538.292.87−0.13139(H), 326(D)
8ZP_07681338.1Shigella dysenteriae 1617 43447354.15.55423438.5793.99−0.14241(H), 328(D)
9YP_402619.1Shigella dysenteriae Sd197 434473285.55423438.5793.09−0.15241(H), 328(D)
10ZP_02904404.1Escherichia albertii 43948000.69.35334437.7896.88−0.09446(H), 333(D)
11YP_002384142.1Escherichia fergusonii 42846608.58.37323540.7993.48−0.13239(H), 322(D)
12AAR89622.1Citrobacter freundii 43348506.56.29494735.0986−0.32239(H), 325(D)
13P34752.1Aspergillus niger 467510864.94513444.7276.62−0.21182(H), 382(D)
14P34753.1Aspergillus awamori 46751074.94.89523342.7376.85−0.22182(H), 382(D)
15XP_001401713.2Aspergillus niger 49754579.15.25533844.7477.69−0.225112(H), 392(D)
16XP_001821210.1Aspergillus oryzae 46651257.14.87573934.8970.49−0.31681(H), 361(D)
17XP_002376973.1Aspergillus flavus 49654729.25.11604635.7272.7−0.31111(H), 391(D)
18XP_751964.2Aspergillus fumigates 49854538.88.53485329.3177.59−0.197114(H), 393(D)
19XP_001214511.1Aspergillus terreus 46651088.15.12513335.372.94−0.22682(H), 382(D)
20XP_001267160.1Neosartorya fischeri 46450787.16.17474331.3373.17−0.20680(H), 359(D)
21XP_659289.1Aspergillus nidulans 46351816.25.35523932.0972.48−0.28780(H), 358(D)
22XP_001271757.1Aspergillus clavatus 46551531.37.14525229.9472.6−0.33281(H), 360(D)
23XP_002561094.1Penicillium chrysogenum 48353668.67.11515146.2769.65−0.39396(H), 378(D)
24XP_002148821.1Penicillium marneffei 465508785.19483732.3773.46−0.17280(H), 360(D)
25XP_002629272.1Ajellomyces dermatitidis 52858565.26.2155494480.49−0.167140(H), 420(D)
26XP_001554147.1Botryotinia fuckeliana 52957902.25.08554240.669.38−0.329140(H), 423(D)
27XP_002542954.1Uncinocarpus reesii 50156117.48.51525733.6870.08−0.448108(H), 388(D)
28XP_001538598.1Ajellomyces capsulatus 44149342.65.88463544.4879.59−0.23853(H), 333(D)
29XP_001589324.1Sclerotinia sclerotiorum 46550709.34.88452938.7573.25−0.18876(H), 359(D)
30XP_003065081.1Coccidioides posadasii 53960239.37.93616329.6675.25−0.368145(H), 425(D)
31XP_003233631.1Trichophyton rubrum 47452142.76.23545041.8669.22−0.33187(H), 362(D)
32XP_002849736.1Arthroderma otae 46651429.85.58534540.3767.04−0.3385(H), 360(D)
33XP_002483691.1Talaromyces stipitatus 52358182.24.9654242.5578.7−0.26129(H), 409(D)
34XP_001906589.1Podospora anserina 51457367.65.55635336.9177.8−0.396125(H), 406(D)
35XP_003021635.1Trichophyton verrucosum 45650332.66.27534941.166.36−0.37269(H), 344(D)
36XP_003169494.1Arthroderma gypseum 47352338.96.33545138.2567.06−0.35386(H), 361(D)
37XP_002150501.1Penicillium marneffei 51057067.85.07644540.0474.18−0.345116(H), 396(D)
38XP_003015622.1Arthroderma benhamiae 45650490.76.14544943.265.72−0.469(H), 344(D)
39P34754.1Aspergillus niger 47952611.54.65482834.0471.96−0.27982(H), 382(D)
40XP_001393206.1Aspergillus niger 47952486.24.62492733.7171.17−0.28982(H), 382(D)
41XP_001271709.1Aspergillus clavatus 46050746.94.61543139.6479.96−0.1769(H), 329(D)
42XP_713416.1Candida albicans 46151283.15.8484329.8774.27−0.4473(H), 335(D)
43XP_002421792.1Candida dubliniensis 46251275.95.44484128.0272.62−0.41173(H), 335(D)
44XP_713478.1Candida albicans 462513055.57484227.771.99−0.42673(H), 335(D)
45XP_002546108.1Candida tropicalis 46552540.64.41673533.6567.74−0.54373(H), 337(D)
46XP_458051.2Debaryomyces hansenii 46451835.75.13523739.6573.1−0.40473(H), 337(D)
47XP_002419861.1Candida dubliniensis 45752259.65.2574636.4170.55−0.49373(H), 332(D)
48XP_002490985.1Komagataella pastoris 46852690.74.41683337.2584.19−0.2784(H), 346(D)
49NP_009650.1Saccharomyces cerevisiae 46752776.54.43673630.8271.46−0.37375(H), 338(D)
50XP_003072016.1Coccidioides posadasii 40345575.25.82514231.2470.97−0.4734(H), 269(D)

Aliphatic index analysis reveals uniformity in this group of phytases within the range of except for some sequences of Arthroderma sp. (XP_002849736.1, XP_003169494.1, XP_003015622.1) and Trichophyton sp. (XP_003021635.1). Aliphatic index of protein measures the relative volume occupied by aliphatic side chains of the amino acids: alanine, valine, leucine, and isoleucine. Globular proteins with high aliphatic index have high thermostability, and an increase in aliphatic index increases protein thermostability [38, 39].

Cluster 2 includes 12 protein sequences and represents PhyB gene sequences including the majority of Candida sp., S. cerevisiae, C. posadasii, and D. hansenii. Total number of sequences in this group is in the range of 457 to 479, and the pI values range from 4.41 to 5.82. It has less variation in its pI as compared to cluster 1 sequences (PhyA). Aliphatic index of this cluster sequences is uniform in the range of except for Candida tropicalis (XP_002546108.1) with a value of 67.74 and Komagataella pastoris (XP_002490985.1) with a value of 84.19.

Cluster 3 represents protein sequences from phytase gene AppA, also abbreviated as PhyC [22], which includes E. coli (in majority) along with various Shigella sp. and Citrobacter freundii. Various biophysical parameters for this group of sequences reveal amino acid residues ranging from 428 to 523, while pI value of the majority of sequences is in range of 5.5 to 6.5 except for E. albertii (9.35) and E. fergusonii (8.37). Aliphatic index of this group of sequences reveals highest thermostability among all three clusters. Predominantly positively charged amino acids are present in all three clusters.

The instability index is used to measure in vivo half-life of a protein [40]. The proteins which have been reported as in vivo half-life of less than 5 hours showed instability index greater than 40, whereas those having more than 16 hours half-life [41] have an instability index of less than 40. Instability index of HAP sequences under the study is found higher than 40 (Table 2) for 15 sequences including fully characterized E. coli and A. niger phytases, indicating an in vivo half-life of less than 5 hours. Superfam tool on ExPASy server for superfamily analysis of phytase sequences reveals the identity of all sequences to histidine acid phosphatase family belonging to phosphoglycerate mutase-like superfamily [42] (Table 3).

FamilySuperfamilyAccession number (range of amino acids residues)

Histidine acid phosphatasePhosphoglycerate mutase-likeXP_001401713.2 (61–496), P07102.2 (26–429), NP_415500.1 (26–429), ZP_07105303.1 (36–439), YP_001462212.1 (26–429), ZP_07141224.1 (36–439), YP_408643.1 (26–429), YP_688514.1 (26–429), ZP_07681338.1 (28–431), YP_402619.1 (28–431), ZP_02904404.1 (33–436) YP_002384142.1 (27–424), AAR89622.1 (27–427), P34752.1 (30–466), P34753.1 (31–466), XP_001821210.1 (29–465), XP_002376973.1 (59–495), XP_751964.2 (62–497), XP_001214511.1 (32–466), XP_001267160.1 (28–463), XP_659289.1 (28–461), XP_001271757.1 (30–464), XP_002561094.1 (45–482), XP_002148821.1 (28–464), XP_002629272.1 (89–527), XP_001554147.1 (90–527), XP_002542954.1 (57–495), XP_001538598.1 (6–440), XP_001589324.1 (26–463), XP_003065081.1 (97–532), XP_003233631.1 (36–469), XP_002849736.1 (35–466), XP_002483691.1 (87–517), XP_001906589.1 (76–512), XP_003021635.1 (23–451), XP_003169494.1 (35–468), XP_002150501.1 (73–505), XP_003015622.1 (23–451), P34754.1 (35–470), XP_001393206.1 (35–470), XP_001271709.1 (23–452), XP_713416.1 (28–455), XP_002421792.1 (28–455), XP_713478.1 (28–455), XP_002546108.1 (28–457), XP_458051.2 (28–451), XP_002419861.1 (28–445), XP_002490985.1 (42–464), NP_009650.1 (34–460), XP_003072016.1 (1–393)

Histidine acid phytase from all three clusters shares a large / and a small -domain [22]. MEME analysis results in frequently observed 10 motifs (Table 4). A set of 41 amino acid residues “SPFCDLFTHEEWIQYDYLQSLGKYYGYGAGNPLGPAQGIGF” representing motif 1 were conserved and uniformly observed in 38 phytase protein sequences from clusters 1 and 2, that is, PhyA and PhyB, revealing their identity with HP_HAP like, histidine acid phosphatase superfamily. Other motifs are associated with HAP superfamily (Table 2). Cluster 3, representing AppA, does not have motif 1 in its sequences, but it does contain a 50 amino acid residues long unique motif 9 “KKGCPQSGQVAI IADVDERTRKTGEAFAAGLAPDCAITVHTQADTSSPDP.” Motif 5 “YAFLKTYNYSL GADDLTPFGEQQLVDSGIKFYQRYESLAKDIVPFIRASG” is present in all protein sequences representing PhyA cluster 1. PhyB protein sequences also contain a unique 41 amino acid residues long motif 8 “ETSPENSEGPYAGTTNALRHGAAFRARY GSLYDENSTLPVF.”

Motifs numberMotif present in number of sequenceMotif widthSequenceDomain

13841SPFCDLFTHEEWIQYDYLQSLGKYYGYGAGNPLGPAQGIGFHP_HAP_like, histidine phosphatases superfamily
24929VPPGCKITFVQVLSRHGARYPTKSKSKMYHistidine phosphatase superfamily
44929TLYADFSHDNDMTSIFTALGLYNGTEPLSHistidine phosphatase superfamily
64929RLNKALPGVNLTSADVVSLMDMCSFETVAHistidine phosphatase superfamily
74821GYSAAWTVPFGARAYFEKMQCHistidine phosphatase superfamily

4. Conclusion

Phylogenetic clustering and variation among biochemical features of different phytases might contribute in further classification of highly diverse HAPhys and their selection for various application purposes. Conserved sequences in motifs may be utilized for designing specific degenerate primers for identification and isolation of type and class of phytase (HAPhy) as numerous phytases are being isolated to fulfill the need of efficient phytase for feed application in various systems. Variation in biochemical features may be a key source of information for the screening of novel phytases and comparison with other classes of phytases. Functional attributes are needed to verify experimentally for conserved motifs found. This in silico analysis might be used for future genetic engineering of industrially important phytase.


  1. B. L. Turner, M. J. Papházy, P. M. Haygarth, and I. D. McKelvie, “Inositol phosphates in the environment,” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, vol. 357, no. 1420, pp. 449–469, 2002. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  2. J. N. A. Lott, I. Ockenden, V. Raboy, and G. D. Batten, “Phytic acid and phosphorus in crop seeds and fruits: a global estimate,” Seed Science Research, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 11–33, 2000. View at: Google Scholar
  3. G. M. Barnett, “Phosphorus forms in animal manure,” Bioresource Technology, vol. 49, no. 2, pp. 139–147, 1994. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  4. K. Asada, K. Tanaka, and Z. Kasai, “Formation of phytic acid in cereal grains,” Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, vol. 165, no. 2, pp. 801–814, 1969. View at: Google Scholar
  5. M. Wyss, R. Brugger, A. Kronenberger et al., “Biochemical characterization of fungal phytases (myo-inositol hexakisphosphate phosphohydrolases): catalytic properties,” Applied and Environmental Microbiology, vol. 65, no. 2, pp. 367–373, 1999. View at: Google Scholar
  6. D. B. Mitchell, K. Vogel, B. J. Weimann, L. Pasamontes, and A. P. G. M. Van Loon, “The phytase subfamily of histidine acid phosphatases: isolation of genes for two novel phytases from the fungi Aspergillus terreus and Myceliophthora thermophila,” Microbiology, vol. 143, no. 1, pp. 245–252, 1997. View at: Google Scholar
  7. N. R. Augspurger, D. M. Webel, X. G. Lei, and D. H. Baker, “Efficacy of an E. coli phytase expressed in yeast for releasing phytate-bound phosphorus in young chicks and pigs,” Journal of Animal Science, vol. 81, no. 2, pp. 474–483, 2003. View at: Google Scholar
  8. O. A. Olukosi, A. J. Cowieson, and O. Adeola, “Age-related influence of a cocktail of xylanase, amylase, and protease or phytase individually or in combination in broilers,” Poultry Science, vol. 86, no. 1, pp. 77–86, 2007. View at: Google Scholar
  9. S. M. Rutherfurd, T. K. Chung, and P. J. Moughan, “The effect of microbial phytase on ileal phosphorus and amino acid digestibility in the broiler chicken,” British Poultry Science, vol. 43, no. 4, pp. 598–606, 2002. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  10. D. M. Gibson and A. H. J. Ullah, “Purification and characterization of phytase from cotyledons of germinating soybean seeds,” Archives of Biochemistry and Biophysics, vol. 260, no. 2, pp. 503–513, 1988. View at: Google Scholar
  11. C. E. Hegeman and E. A. Grabau, “A novel phytase with sequence similarity to purple acid phosphatases is expressed in cotyledons of germinating soybean seedlings,” Plant Physiology, vol. 126, no. 4, pp. 1598–1608, 2001. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  12. R. Greiner, M. L. Alminger, and N. G. Carlsson, “Stereospecificity of myo-inositol hexakisphosphate dephosphorylation by a phytate-degrading enzyme of baker's yeast,” Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, vol. 49, no. 5, pp. 2228–2233, 2001. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  13. Y. O. Kim, J. K. Lee, H. K. Kim, J. H. Yu, and T. K. Oh, “Cloning of the thermostable phytase gene (phy) from Bacillus sp. DS11 and its overexpression in Escherichia coli,” FEMS Microbiology Letters, vol. 162, no. 1, pp. 185–191, 1998. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  14. Y. H. Tseng, T. J. Fang, and S. M. Tseng, “Isolation and characterization of a novel phytase from Penicillium simplicissimum,” Folia Microbiologica, vol. 45, no. 2, pp. 121–127, 2000. View at: Google Scholar
  15. A. H. Ullah and D. M. Gibson, “Extracellular phytase (E.C. from Aspergillus ficuum NRRL 3135: purification and characterization,” Preparative Biochemistry, vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 63–91, 1987. View at: Google Scholar
  16. E. J. Mullaney and A. H. J. Ullah, “The term phytase comprises several different classes of enzymes,” Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications, vol. 312, no. 1, pp. 179–184, 2003. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  17. H. M. Chu, R. T. Guo, T. W. Lin et al., “Structures of Selenomonas ruminantium phytase in complex with persulfated phytate: DSP phytase fold and mechanism for sequential substrate hydrolysis,” Structure, vol. 12, no. 11, pp. 2015–2024, 2004. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  18. S. Afinah, A. M. Yazid, M. H. Anis Shobirin, and M. Shuhaimi, “Phytase: application in food industry,” International Food Research Journal, vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 13–21, 2010. View at: Google Scholar
  19. U. Konietzny and R. Greiner, “Bacterial phytase: potential application, in vivo function and regulation of its synthesis,” Brazilian Journal of Microbiology, vol. 35, no. 1-2, pp. 11–18, 2004. View at: Google Scholar
  20. L. Cao, W. Wang, C. Yang et al., “Application of microbial phytase in fish feed,” Enzyme and Microbial Technology, vol. 40, no. 4, pp. 497–507, 2007. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  21. X. G. Lei and J. M. Porres, “Phytase enzymology, applications, and biotechnology,” Biotechnology Letters, vol. 25, no. 21, pp. 1787–1794, 2003. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  22. B. C. Oh, W. C. Choi, S. Park, Y. O. Kim, and T. K. Oh, “Biochemical properties and substrate specificities of alkaline and histidine acid phytases,” Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology, vol. 63, no. 4, pp. 362–372, 2004. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  23. M. Lehmann, C. Loch, A. Middendorf et al., “The consensus concept for thermostability engineering of proteins: further proof of concept,” Protein Engineering, vol. 15, no. 5, pp. 403–411, 2002. View at: Google Scholar
  24. R. L. Van Etten, R. Davidson, P. E. Stevis, H. MacArthur, and D. L. Moore, “Covalent structure, disulfide bonding, and identification of reactive surface and active site residues of human prostatic acid phosphatase,” Journal of Biological Chemistry, vol. 266, no. 4, pp. 2313–2319, 1991. View at: Google Scholar
  25. E. J. Mullaney and A. H. J. Ullah, “Conservation of cysteine residues in fungal histidine acid phytases,” Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications, vol. 328, no. 2, pp. 404–408, 2005. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  26. A. K. Dubey, S. Yadav, M. Kumar, V. K. Singh, B. K. Sarangi, and D. Yadav, “In silico characterization of pectate lyase protein sequences from different source organisms,” Enzyme Research, vol. 2010, Article ID 950230, 14 pages, 2010. View at: Google Scholar
  27. N. Malviya, M. Srivastava, S. K. Diwakar, and S. K. Mishra, “Insights to sequence information of polyphenol oxidase enzyme from different source organisms,” Applied Biochemistry and Biotechnology, vol. 165, pp. 397–405, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  28. V. K. Morya, S. Yadav, E. K. Kim, and D. Yadav, “In silico characterization of alkaline proteases from different species of Aspergillus,” Applied Biochemistry and Biotechnology, vol. 166, pp. 243–257, 2012. View at: Google Scholar
  29. J. Kyte and R. F. Doolittle, “A simple method for displaying the hydropathic character of a protein,” Journal of Molecular Biology, vol. 157, no. 1, pp. 105–132, 1982. View at: Google Scholar
  30. B. Bjellqvist, G. J. Hughes, C. Pasquali et al., “The focusing positions of polypeptides in immobilized pH gradients can be predicted from their amino acid sequences,” Electrophoresis, vol. 14, no. 10, pp. 1023–1031, 1993. View at: Google Scholar
  31. N. Saitou and M. Nei, “The neighbor-joining method: a new method for reconstructing phylogenetic trees,” Molecular Biology and Evolution, vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 406–425, 1987. View at: Google Scholar
  32. E. Zuckerkandl and L. Pauling, “Evolutionary divergence and convergence in proteins,” in Evolving Genes and Proteins, pp. 97–166, 1965. View at: Google Scholar
  33. K. Tamura, D. Peterson, N. Peterson, G. Stecher, M. Nei, and S. Kumar, “MEGA5: molecular evolutionary genetics analysis using maximum likelihood, evolutionary distance, and maximum parsimony methods,” in Molecular Biology and Evolution, vol. 28, pp. 2731–2739, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  34. T. L. Bailey and C. Elkan, “Fitting a mixture model by expectation maximization to discover motifs in biopolymers,” in Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Intelligent Systems for Molecular Biology, pp. 28–36, AAAI Press, Menlo Park, Calif, USA, 1994. View at: Google Scholar
  35. E. J. Mullaney and A. H. J. Ullah, “Phytases: attributes, catalytic mechanisms and applications,” in Inositol Phosphates: Linking Agriculture and the Environment, pp. 97–110, CAB International, Oxfordshire, UK, 2007. View at: Google Scholar
  36. Y. Lindqvist, G. Schneider, and P. Vihko, “Crystal structures of rat acid phosphatase complexed with the transition-state analogs vanadate and molybdate. Implications for the reaction mechanism,” European Journal of Biochemistry, vol. 221, no. 1, pp. 139–142, 1994. View at: Google Scholar
  37. K. S. Porvari, A. M. Herrala, R. M. Kurkela et al., “Site-directed mutagenesis of prostatic acid phosphatase. Catalytically important aspartic acid 258, substrate specificity, and oligomerization,” Journal of Biological Chemistry, vol. 269, no. 36, pp. 22642–22646, 1994. View at: Google Scholar
  38. A. Ikai, “Thermostability and aliphatic index of globular proteins,” Journal of Biochemistry, vol. 88, no. 6, pp. 1895–1898, 1980. View at: Google Scholar
  39. N. D. Rawlings, F. R. Morton, and A. J. Barrett, “MEROPS: the peptidase database,” Nucleic Acids Research, vol. 34, pp. D270–D272, 2006. View at: Google Scholar
  40. K. Guruprasad, B. V. B. Reddy, and M. W. Pandit, “Correlation between stability of a protein and its dipeptide composition: a novel approach for predicting in vivo stability of a protein from its primary sequence,” Protein Engineering, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 155–161, 1990. View at: Google Scholar
  41. S. Rogers, R. Wells, and M. Rechsteiner, “Amino acid sequences common to rapidly degraded proteins: the PEST hypothesis,” Science, vol. 234, no. 4774, pp. 364–368, 1986. View at: Google Scholar
  42. J. Gough, “The SUPERFAMILY database in structural genomics,” Acta Crystallographica Section D, vol. 58, no. 11, pp. 1897–1900, 2002. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar

Copyright © 2012 Vinod Kumar et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

More related articles

 PDF Download Citation Citation
 Download other formatsMore
 Order printed copiesOrder

Related articles

Article of the Year Award: Outstanding research contributions of 2020, as selected by our Chief Editors. Read the winning articles.