Journal of Chemistry

Journal of Chemistry / 2018 / Article

Research Article | Open Access

Volume 2018 |Article ID 7462697 |

J. Juárez-Gómez, E. S. Rosas-Tate, G. Roa-Morales, P. Balderas-Hernández, M. Romero-Romo, M. T. Ramírez-Silva, "Laccase Inhibition by Mercury: Kinetics, Inhibition Mechanism, and Preliminary Application in the Spectrophotometric Quantification of Mercury Ions", Journal of Chemistry, vol. 2018, Article ID 7462697, 7 pages, 2018.

Laccase Inhibition by Mercury: Kinetics, Inhibition Mechanism, and Preliminary Application in the Spectrophotometric Quantification of Mercury Ions

Academic Editor: Murat Senturk
Received13 Mar 2018
Accepted08 May 2018
Published04 Jun 2018


The noncompetitive inhibition of laccase by mercury ions is reported, in particular focusing their effect over the enzyme catalytic activity. The enzymatic kinetics were obtained for different substrates (caffeic acid, gallic acid, and catechol), where caffeic acid displayed the greatest enzymatic activity. The laccase inhibition by mercury ions permitted to establish the inhibition effect through a mixed model (that actually displayed a behavior closer to that of the noncompetitive inhibitors) when evaluated by means of UV-Vis spectrophotometry, using caffeic acid as an electron donor. A mercury concentration of 2 mM led to 35% enzymatic inhibition after only a 2-minute incubation period. This method was used for quantification of mercury ions in aqueous solution, showing a detection limit of 15 ± 1 ppm. Therefore, this work presented a novel perspective for the determination of the toxic Hg(II) ions that can be readily implemented into environmental remediation methods.

1. Introduction

Laccase is a multicopper enzyme commonly found in plants, fungi, and bacteria [1]; this enzyme is related to diverse functions, such as lignin synthesis and plant protection structures, sporulation, lignin degradation, and pathogenesis (fungi), of the mentioned organisms [2, 3]. The laccases have been studied for possible applications in the paper industry, due to their lignin degradation capacity [4], as well as in the treatment of wastewater contaminated by phenolic compounds [5]. This enzyme also has the capacity to oxidize polyphenols, diamines, and other types of compounds [6]. The transformation of the substrate is carried out by means of redox processes of the copper atoms distributed in three catalytic centers: type 1, strong absorption in the visible region ε > 3,000 M−1·cm−1 at 600 nm, spectrum of EPR with A|| < 95 × 10−4 cm−1; type 2 or normal center, undetectable UV absorption, line of the EPR having a typical shape corresponding to low molecular weight Cu complexes; and type 3 or coupled binuclear center, strong absorption in the near UV with λmax = 330 nm, with no EPR signal, which occurs through coupling of the two antiferromagnetic copper ions [7, 8]. These catalytic centers have been characterized by means of electron paramagnetic resonance (EPR) [8, 9].

The measurement of the enzymatic activity and the inhibiting effects should lead to a betterment of the biologic catalyst knowledge and its possible applications in the near future. There are certain organic and inorganic compounds that inhibit the enzymatic activity, such as Mn2+, Hg2+, Co2+, and Cd2+, sulfates, nitrates and chlorides, fatty acids, sulfhydryl groups, quaternary ammonium detergents, and cysteine [1012].

The presence of these metal ions in the environment has dangerously damaged it and given rise to various harmful effects to human health, all of them sharing a common anthropogenic origin, since they derive from mining and coal burning industrial activities [13]. Mercury exists in various forms: inorganic (ionic and metallic), to which humans are exposed to as an occupational hazard, and organic (ethylmercury, methylmercury, and phenylmercury, mainly). These forms differ in their degree of toxicity and the effects on the nervous, digestive, and immunologic systems, as well as on lungs, kidneys, skin, and eyes [1416].

Several mercury(II) ion inhibition studies have been reported using various enzymes, such as laccase (Daedalea quercina, Leptographium qinlingensis), where mercury turned out to be the most potent inhibitor, attaining up to 98% inhibition at an ion concentration of 10 mM [10, 11]; cellulose (Schizophyllum commune), which exhibits high sensibility toward mercury and modifies the spectrophotometric features of the enzyme [17]; invertase (yeast), which gives a larger inhibition respect to Ag+ ions and an inhibition from 10−7 M [18]; α-amylase (Paecilomyces variotii), which displays a relative activity of 77% when adding a 10 mM Hg2+ concentration [19]; 5-aminolevulinic dehydratase acid (corn), where the mercury(II) ions modify the affinity toward the substrate and reaction rate, with the results based on the evaluation of Km and Vmax [20]; and xylanase (Trichoderma inhamatum), which displays an enzymatic activity of 14.4% (2 mM) and 4.0% (10 mM) for xylanase type 1, as well as an activity of 15.6% (2 mM) and 5.9% (10 mM) mercury(II) [21].

This work presents the results concerning the spectrophotometric study of laccase from Trametes versicolor with three different substrates (caffeic acid, gallic acid, and catechol), evaluating their activity and inhibition degrees in the presence of mercury(II), and observing that millimolar mercury concentrations can reduce the laccase reaction extent. The assessment of the enzymatic activity and the effects of the inhibitors will allow a better knowledge of the biologic catalyst and its possible future applications, like the indirect quantification of the inhibitor itself.

2. Materials and Methods

Laccase from Trametes versicolor (EC, with an activity of 13.6 U/mg, was obtained from Sigma; sodium acetate trihydrate was from JT Baker; acetic acid glacial was from Laboratorios Lutz, México, 60.05%; caffeic acid, gallic acid, and catechol were from Fluka; ethanol was from Sigma-Aldrich (HPLC degree); Hg(NO3)2 was from Sigma-Aldrich; and deionized water was from a MilliQ Millipore equipment.

2.1. Kinetic Analyses and Enzymatic Inhibition

The kinetic UV-Vis tests were carried out in a Perkin Elmer Spectrometer Lambda 20. The absorbance of the caffeic acid oxidation was monitored at 410 nm using different substrate concentrations (10–250 µM); the catechol oxidation absorbance was monitored at 390 nm with different substrate concentrations (100–1400 µM); the gallic acid oxidation absorbance was monitored at 385 nm with different substrate concentrations (100–1400 µM). The Hg(II) concentrations for laccase inhibition were 0.05, 0.1, 0.5, 1, 2, 3, and 4 mM. The incubation times for inhibition were 2, 5 and 10 contact minutes. The laccase concentration was 10 µg·mL−1 for all cases. All tests were carried out at ambient temperature in 1 cm optical path quartz cells in an acetate buffer (0.1 M pH 4.5). The experimental conditions were chosen based on studies reported by our working group [22, 23].

3. Results and Discussion

The laccase is considered a nonspecific enzyme, capable of oxidizing a wide variety of phenolic compounds, which is why this work used substrates like the caffeic acid, gallic acid, and catechol for the kinetic studies.

The system was characterized through UV-Vis spectroscopy from 800 to 200 nm; the results are shown in Figure 1(a): it can be observed that Trametes versicolor laccase (TvL) displayed two maximum absorption bands at 210 and 275 nm, whereas the caffeic acid (CA) shows three maximum absorption bands at 241, 285, and 322 nm. The (CA) oxidation product (caffeoquinone, labeled as CAQ) presents three absorption maxima at 250, 322, and 410 nm. The signal of the CAQ at 410 nm allows quantifying the enzymatic reaction product to enable the kinetic studies without interferences. The remaining substrates were also characterized as well as the oxidation products: the catechol (CT) exhibited two absorption bands with maxima at 227 and 270 nm, while the o-quinone (Q) presents a maximum absorption at 390 nm. The gallic acid (GA) showed only one maximum absorption band at 260 nm, and its oxidation product showed absorption maxima at 256 and 395 nm.

Figure 1(b) shows the absorbance at 410 nm as a function of time for different CA concentrations. It can be observed that, for each CA concentration, the absorbance increases linearly until attaining reaction equilibrium, where the absorbance remains constant; the time to reach equilibrium increases with the substrate concentration, although it can be stated that at 8 minutes, all concentrations reached equilibrium. Furthermore, it is also observed that the slope of the linear segment increases with substrate concentration up to 100 μM, where the said slope ceases to increase, indicating enzymatic saturation. The slope of the linear segments in these kinetic plots represents the absorbance change as a function of time; hence, in accordance with the Lambert–Beer law [24], the slope represents also a concentration change of the reaction product as a function of time, in other words, the enzymatic reaction rate.

Figure 1(c) shows the results of fitting the Michaelis–Menten kinetic model into the initial enzymatic reaction rate as a function of the CA concentration [2529], giving a Km = 43 ± 4 μM and a Vmax = 90 ± 3 μM·s−1. Figure 1(d) shows the initial enzymatic reaction rate as a function of the GA and CT concentration also with the Michaelis–Menten fitting; the kinetic constants obtained for these substrates were 85 ± 1 μM and 307 ± 18 μM, respectively, whereas the maximal rates were 24 ± 7 and 33 ± 6 μM·s−1. These results indicate that the TvL exhibits a greater affinity toward CA since the Km for this substrate is the smallest. Notwithstanding the saturation for the GA and CT happened at higher substrate concentrations, for both cases, the initial rates are small as compared with those of the CA, which exhibits high rates at small concentrations. Therefore, the CA was chosen as the substrate for all subsequent studies.

3.1. Inhibition Time

In order to enable an adequate proposal for the same incubation time for TvL inhibition by Hg (II) ions, a study was carried out at 2-, 5-, and 10-minute incubation with constant concentrations of 1 mM mercury. The results are shown in Figure 2, where it can be graphically observed that the kinetic behaviors did not display a significant change for the studied inhibition times. It can also be observed that the 1 mM mercury concentration was capable of inhibiting by about 25% of the catalytic activity of the TvL. The Michaelis–Menten (Km) constants for the different inhibition times are shown in Table 1 together with their maximal rates (Vmax), the catalytic constants (Kcat), and the catalytic efficiencies (kcat/Km). All these values show that there is no meaningful difference among the different inhibition times since all the constant values are statistically equal. Therefore, 2-minute incubation will be the contact time for the forthcoming sections.

Inhibition time (minutes)Km (μM)Vmax (μM·s−1)Kcat (μMmL·μg−1)kcat/Km (mL·μg−1)

043 ± 490 ± 39.0 ± 0.30.28 ± 0.03
255 ± 553 ± 25.3 ± 0.20.10 ± 0.01
558 ± 751 ± 35.1 ± 0.30.09 ± 0.04
1057 ± 556 ± 35.6 ± 0.30.10 ± 0.03

3.2. Effect of the Inhibitor Concentration

Figure 3(a) shows the effect of the mercury ion concentrations on the TvL catalytic efficiency as a function of varying concentrations of the metal ion (0–4 mM). The enzyme contact time with the inhibitor was 2 minutes for all concentrations with 10 μg·mL−1·TvL, for each experiment. It can be clearly noted that the mercury concentration increments resulted in Vmax decrements (Figure 3(a) and Table 2). Further, the Michaelis–Menten constant increased lightly, which indicates a mixed inhibition mechanism [30, 31]. In order to further clarify this inhibition mechanism, the Lineweaver–Burk double-reciprocal plots were evaluated for different inhibitor concentrations (Figure 3(b)).

[Hg(II)] (mM)Km (μM)Vmax (μM·s−1)Kcat (μMmL·μg−1)kcat/Km (mL·μg−1)

043 ± 490 ± 39.0 ± 0.30.28 ± 0.03
0.0146 ± 395 ± 39.5 ± 0.20.20 ± 0.01
0.0549 ± 388 ± 28.8 ± 0.30.20 ± 0.02
0.157 ± 479 ± 27.9 ± 0.20.13 ± 0.01
153 ± 454 ± 25.4 ± 0.20.11 ± 0.01
255 ± 553 ± 25.3 ± 0.20.10 ± 0.01
356 ± 652 ± 55.2 ± 0.50.09 ± 0.01
454 ± 553 ± 35.3 ± 0.30.10 ± 0.01

The convergence of the data series on the y-axis of the Lineweaver–Burk plots is typical of a competitive inhibition mechanism, in which the value of Km increases although Vmax does not, whereas the data convergence on the x-axis indicates a noncompetitive mechanism, which in this case Km does not change, but Vmax diminishes. The analyses of the Lineweaver–Burk double-reciprocal plots indicate that the mercury inhibition mechanism by TvL is carried out through a mix of the previous models (mixture of the competitive and noncompetitive). However, the nonlinear regressions (Figure 3(a) and Table 2) seem to suggest that the inhibition model is closer to the noncompetitive model. It can also be observed from Figure 3(c) that a mercury concentration of 0.05 mM inhibited the enzymatic response to 7% and the 0.1 mM concentration did so to 12%, whereas the 1 mM concentration inhibited to 25%. Lastly, for 2, 3, and 4 mM metal concentrations, an inhibition of approximately 35% was attained without significant change.

Table 2 shows the enzymatic activity parameters for TvL after being inhibited with different mercury ion concentrations, from which it can be said that, at 2, 3, and 4 mM inhibitor concentrations, effectively the response remains constant. Also, the Michaelis–Menten constant shows a small increase with the mercury concentration, and from 2 mM mercury, it is statistically identical. As expected, the maximum rate value decreases with increasing inhibitor concentration, which proves also that the enzyme is being inhibited. It can also be noted that the catalytic constant (kcat) and the catalytic efficiency (kcat/Km) diminish with increasing mercury concentration until it remained constant at higher inhibitor concentrations. All these results reveal the possibility to use the TvL inhibition for the mercury(II) quantification in aqueous solution.

3.3. Mercury(II) Determination in Synthetic Samples

Several calibration plots were built in order to determine mercury(II) in synthetic samples as a function of the metal ion concentration, keeping the TvL concentration constant at 10 μg·mL−1 and 2 minutes in contact with the inhibitor. For this test, synthetic mercury solutions containing 30, 110, and 200 ppm were prepared by dissolving mercury nitrate in deionized water. Figure 4 shows the calibration plot; the method rendered a detection limit of 15 ± 1 ppm and a linear range of 10 to 120 ppm. The detection limit () was calculated using the equation , where represents the typical error and represents the slope of the calibration plot. A summary of the results of the mercury(II) determination in synthetic samples is shown in Table 3. For mercury concentrations of 30, 110, and 200 ppm, the percent recovery were as follows: 100, 96.4, and 80.0%, respectively, with errors smaller than 7%.

[Hg(II)]0 (ppm)Inhibition (%)[Hg(II)]rec. (ppm)Recovery %

305.4 ± 0.330 ± 2100 ± 3.3
11018.5 ± 0.4106 ± 696.4 ± 5.4
20029.1 ± 1.4160 ± 1480.0 ± 7.0

3.4. Comparison with the Literature

Table 4 shows a comparison between the methods proposed in the literature and that described in the present work for determining mercury(II) in aqueous solution, all of them based on the same enzymatic inhibition principle. It is worthwhile to state that there are only a few methods based on this principle of using free enzymes (not immobilized).

Detection methodLOD (ppm)Linear interval (ppm)pHIncubation time (min)CommentRef.

Invertase biosensorAmperometric0.0010.01–0.040.1 M NaOH10Biosensor coupled to a batch injection analysis[32]
Invertase immobilizedThermometric0.0050.005–0.087.02–6Coupling to FIA[33]
GOx biosensorAmperometric0.052–327.0Nafion- and MnO2-modified CPE[34]
Invertase-mutarotase-GOx biosensorConductimetric0.0056.510–20[35]
GOx freeColorimetric0.0150.005–15.02[36]
Alcohol ox. and horseradish peroxidase freeFluorescence2.5 × 10−65.0 × 10−6–0.057.520[37]
Sucrose biosensorAmperometric0.002–0.26.020[38]
GOx biosensorAmperometric7.030[39]
GOx and laccase biosensorAmperometric0.035.0[40]
Laccase freeColorimetric1510–1204.52This work

Conversely, there are numerous methods reported using enzymes immobilized on a polymer network to modify Pt, Au, glassy carbon, carbon paste, and printed electrodes, among others. It is also important to point out that a large number of works have used enzymes such as glucose oxidase (GOx), invertase, urease, and others, to be inhibited by mercury, although laccase has been much less studied. The method reported here is comparable with some other methods reported insofar as their detection limit, even though this is not the case for the majority of them, because they report detection limits inferior to those in this work. However, the method reported here presents other advantages because the enzyme is free in solution, apart from the fact that the amount of laccase needed for each analysis is very small (10 μg·mL−1) as well as the buffer solution (2 mL), and lastly, the analysis cost is indeed small, because they are coupled to a quick and simple procedure.

4. Conclusions

The laccase enzymatic inhibition through mercury(II) ions was reported, establishing a mixed inhibition model (preferable to a noncompetitive inhibition model) by means of UV-Vis spectrophotometry. The TvL enzyme presents higher activity when using caffeic acid as a substrate, in comparison with gallic acid and catechol, fitting in the Michaelis–Menten with constants of 43 ± 4, 85 ± 1, and 307 ± 18 μM, respectively. Small mercury(II) ion concentrations did inhibit the TvL enzymatic activity in only 2 contact minutes, without meaningful difference at greater times. Then, the mercury laccase inhibition was used for quantification of the metal ion. The method reported here exhibited a detection limit of 15 ± 1 ppm with a linear dynamic interval of 10–120 ppm mercury (R2 = 0.9893). Further, the method is fast and simply implemented into other procedures of environmental remediation.

Data Availability

The data used to support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon request.

Conflicts of Interest

There are no conflicts to declare.


Rosas-Tate thanks CONACYT for the grant given for the master’s degree. J. Juárez-Gómez, G. Roa-Morales, P. Balderas-Hernández, M. Romero-Romo, and M.T. Ramírez-Silva wish to thank the SNI for the distinction of their membership and the stipend received. The authors thank the UAEM for financial support through Project 3736/2014/CID. MTRS and J. Juárez-Gómez thank CONACYT for the “Cátedra” 2159 and for support through Project 237327.


  1. C. M. Rivera-Hoyos, E. D. Morales-Álvarez, R. A. Poutou-Piñales, A. M. Pedroza Rodríguez, R. Rodríguez-Vázquez, and J. M. Delgado-Boada, “Fungal laccases,” Fungal Biology Reviews, vol. 27, no. 3-4, pp. 67–82, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  2. U. N. Dwivedi, P. Singh, V. P. Pandey, and A. Kumar, “Structure-function relationship among bacterial, fungal and plant laccases,” Journal of Molecular Catalysis B: Enzymatic, vol. 68, no. 2, pp. 117–128, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  3. A. Messerschmidt, L. Mander, and H. W. Liu, Comprehensive Natural Products II, Chemistry and Biology, Elsevier Oxford, Italy, 2010.
  4. H. Catherine, M. Penninckx, and D. Frédéric, “Product formation from phenolic compounds removal by laccasses: a review,” Environmental Technology and Innovation, vol. 5, pp. 250–266, 2016. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  5. J. A. Majeau, S. K. Brar, and R. D. Tyagi, “Laccases for removal of recalcitrant and emerging pollutants,” Bioresource Technology, vol. 107, no. 7, pp. 2331–2350, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  6. C. F. Thurston, “The structure and function of fungal laccases,” Microbiology, vol. 140, no. 1, pp. 19–26, 1994. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  7. E. I. Solomon, U. M. Sundaram, and T. E. Machonkin, “Multicopper oxidases and oxygenases,” Chemical Reviews, vol. 96, no. 7, pp. 2563–2606, 1996. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  8. I. Bento, M. A. Carrondo, and P. F. Lindley, “Reduction of dioxygen by enzymes containing copper,” Journal of Biological Inorganic Chemistry, vol. 11, no. 5, pp. 539–547, 2006. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  9. E. I. Solomon, M. J. Baldwin, and M. D. Lowery, “Electronic structures of active sites in copper proteins: contributions to reactivity,” Chemical Reviews, vol. 92, no. 4, pp. 521–542, 1992. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  10. P. Baldrian, “Purification and characterization of laccase from the white-rot fungus Daedalea quercina and decolorization of synthetic dyes by the enzyme,” Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology, vol. 63, no. 5, pp. 560–563, 2004. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  11. X. Hu, C. Wang, L. Wang, R. Zhang, and H. Chen, “Influence of temperature, pH and metal ions on guaiacol oxidation of purified laccase from Leptographium qinlingensis,” World Journal of Microbiology and Biotechnology, vol. 30, no. 4, pp. 1285–1290, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  12. L. Gianfreda, F. Xu, and J. M. Bollag, “Laccases: a useful group of oxidoreductive enzymes,” Bioremediation Journal, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 1–26, 1999. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  13. K. Hailemariam, P. M. Bolger, and Y. Motarjemi, Toxic Metals: Mercury, Academic Press, Cambridge, MA, USA, 2014.
  14. OMS. Mercurio y Salud, 2016,
  15. J. Pletz, F. Sánchez-Bayo, and H. A. Tennekes, “Dose-response analysis indicating time-dependent neurotoxicity caused by organic and inorganic mercury—implications for toxic effects in the developing brain,” Toxicology, vol. 347–349, pp. 1–5, 2016. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  16. H. C. Hsi, C. B. Jiang, T. H. Yang, and L. C. Chien, “The neurological effects of prenatal and postnatal mercury/methylmercury exposure on three-year-old children in Taiwan,” Chemosphere, vol. 100, pp. 71–76, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  17. A. J. Clarke and L. S. Adams, “Irreversible inhibition of Schizophyllum commune cellulase by divalent transition metal ions,” Biochimica et Biophysica Acta (BBA)-Protein Structure and Molecular Enzymology, vol. 916, no. 2, pp. 213–219, 1987. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  18. D. Mealor and A. Townshend, “Applications of enzyme-catalysed reactions in trace analysis,” Talanta, vol. 15, no. 8, pp. 747–758, 1968. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  19. M. Michelin, T. M. Silva, V. M. Benassi, S. C. Peixoto-Nogueira, L. A. B. Moraes, and J. M. Leão, “Purification and characterization of a thermostable α-amylase produced by the fungus Paecilomyces variotii,” Carbohydrate Research, vol. 345, no. 16, pp. 2348–2353, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  20. P. Gupta, M. Jain, J. Sarangthem, and R. Gadre, “Inhibition of 5-aminolevulinic acid dehydratase by mercury in excised greening maize leaf segments,” Plant Physiology and Biochemistry, vol. 62, pp. 63–69, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  21. L. A. O. Silva, C. R. F. Terrasan, and E. C. Carmona, “Purification and characterization of xylanases from Trichoderma inhamatum,” Electronic Journal of Biotechnology, vol. 18, no. 4, pp. 303–313, 2015. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  22. P. Ibarra-Escutia, J. Juarez Gómez, C. Calas-Blanchard, J. L. Marty, and M. T. Ramírez-Silva, “Amperometric biosensor based on a high resolution photopolymer deposited onto a screen-printed electrode for phenolic compounds monitoring in tea infusions,” Talanta, vol. 81, no. 4-5, pp. 1636–1642, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  23. E. Rodríguez-Sevilla, M. T. Ramírez-Silva, M. Romero-Romo, P. Ibarra-Escutia, and M. Palomar-Pardavé, “Electrochemical quantification of the antioxidant capacity of medicinal plants using biosensors,” Sensors, vol. 14, no. 8, p. 14423, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  24. D. F. Swinehart, “The Beer-Lambert law,” Journal of Chemical Education, vol. 20, no. 7, pp. 333–335, 1962. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  25. K. A. Johnson, “A century of enzyme kinetic analysis,” FEBS Letters, vol. 587, no. 17, pp. 2153–2766, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  26. M. L. Cárdenas, “Michaelis and Menten and the long road to the discovery of cooperativity,” FEBS Letters, vol. 587, no. 17, pp. 2767–2771, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  27. A. Cornish-Bowden, “The origins of enzyme kinetics,” FEBS Letters, vol. 587, no. 17, pp. 2725–2730, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  28. A. Cornish-Bowden, “One hundred years of Michaelis–Menten kinetics,” Perspectives in Science, vol. 4, pp. 3–9, 2015. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  29. G. Wang and W. M. Post, “A note on the reverse Michaelis Menten kinetics,” Soil Biology and Biochemistry, vol. 57, pp. 946–949, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  30. A. Cornish-Bowden, “A simple graphical method for determining the inhibition constants of mixed, uncompetitive and non-competitive inhibitors,” Biochemical Journal, vol. 137, no. 1, pp. 143-144, 1974. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  31. H. Lineweaver and D. Burk, “The determination of enzyme dissociation constants,” Journal of the American Chemical Society, vol. 56, no. 3, pp. 658–666, 1934. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  32. H. Mohammadi, M. E. Rhazi, A. Amine, A. M. Oliveira Brett, and C. M. A. Brett, “Determination of mercury(II) by invertase enzyme inhibition coupled with batch injection analysis,” Analyst.,, vol. 127, no. 8, pp. 1088–1093, 2002. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  33. S. Pirvutoiu, I. Surugiu, E. S. Dey, A. Ciucu, V. Magearu, and B. Danielsson, “Flow injection analysis of mercury(II) based on enzyme inhibition and thermometric detection,” Analyst, vol. 126, no. 9, pp. 1612–1616, 2001. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  34. A. Samphao, H. Rerkchai, J. Jitcharoen, D. Nacapricha, and K. Kalcher, “Indirect determination of mercury by inhibition of glucose oxidase immobilized on a carbon paste electrode,” International Journal of Electrochemical Science, vol. 7, pp. 1001–1010, 2012. View at: Google Scholar
  35. O. O. Soldatkin, I. S. Kucherenko, V. M. Pyeshkova et al., “Novel conductometric biosensor based on three-enzyme system for selective determination of heavy metal ions,” Bioelectrochemistry, vol. 83, pp. 25–30, 2012. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  36. A. Ciucu, “Fast spectrometric method for mercury(II) determination based on glucose-oxidase inhibition,” Analytical Letters, vol. 43, no. 7-8, pp. 1377–1386, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  37. K. Deshpande, R. K. Mishra, and S. Bhand, “A high sensitivity micro format chemiluminescence enzyme inhibition assay for determination of Hg(II),” Sensors, vol. 10, no. 7, pp. 6377–6394, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  38. H. Mohammadi, A. Amine, S. Cosnier, and C. Mousty, “Mercury–enzyme inhibition assays with an amperometric sucrose biosensor based on a trienzymatic-clay matrix,” Analytica Chimica Acta, vol. 543, no. 1-2, pp. 143–149, 2005. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  39. C. Malitesta and M. R. Guascito, “Heavy metal determination by biosensors based on enzyme immobilised by electropolymerisation,” Biosensors and Bioelectronics, vol. 20, no. 8, pp. 1643–1647, 2005. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  40. S. Cosnier, C. Mousty, A. Guelorget, M. Sanchez-Paniagua Lopez, and D. Shan, “A fast and direct amperometric determination of Hg2+ by a bienzyme electrode based on the competitive activities of glucose oxidase and laccase,” Electroanalysis, vol. 23, no. 8, pp. 1776–1779, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  41. M. R. Guascito, C. Malitesta, E. Mazzotta, and A. Turco, “Inhibitive determination of metal ions by an amperometric glucose oxidase biosensor: Study of the effect of hydrogen peroxide decomposition,” Sensors and Actuators B: Chemical, vol. 131, no. 2, pp. 394–402, 2008. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar

Copyright © 2018 J. Juárez-Gómez 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.