H5_5 GH7 GH10 GH3/3 3/4 4/6 1/2/3 2/3 4/6 0/2/3 4/4 4/6 3/3/3 1/4 3/5

H5_5 GH7 GH10 GH3/3 3/4 4/6 1/2/3 2/3 4/6 0/2/3 4/4 4/6 3/3/3 1/4 3/5 1/3/3 3/3 5/6 1/3/3 3/3 4/6 1/3/3 3/4 5/7 2/2/4 4/4 4/7 1/Each cell includes (the IDO2 supplier number of detected GH members of the family)/(the number of annotated GH members of the family within the genome)(TlGH12A; 10 SCs, 127/126 = 31), and a GH5_7 enzyme (LsGH5_7A; three SCs, 127/126 = 52) for recombinant production. Homologues of all of these were detected as components above the cut-off in pulldowns from numerous fungal species. Every single sequence was codon optimized for P. pastoris, synthesized and cloned into pPICZ using a C-terminal six is tag, and native signal peptide replaced together with the -factor secretion tag. They were transformed into Pichia pastoris X-33 and made below methanol induction in shake flasks, providing high yields of electrophoretically pure enzymes (Added file 11: Fig. S11). To establish a basis for an inhibition assay we measured hydrolytic DP list activity towards 4-methylumbelliferyl cellobioside (4MU-GG). LsGH5_5A, LsGH10A, and TlGH12A all showed detectable hydrolytic activity towards 4MU-GG (Further file 11: Table S2, Fig. S12), though LsGH5_7A didn’t. As an initial test of specificity, we compared activity towards 4MU-GG and 4-methylumbelliferyl xylobioside (4MU-Xyl2), finding no detectable activity towards 4MU-Xyl2 amongst LsGH5_5A and TlGH12A, as well as a robust preferential activity towards 4MU-Xyl2 for LsGH10A (Further file 11: Table S2). Utilizing 4MU-GG as substrate, we measured inhibition of LsGH5_5A, LsGH10A, and TlGH12A with time by glucosyl-(1,four)-cyclophellitol [36] (GGcyc) at inhibitor concentrations as high as 50 M beneath optimal buffer situations (see Additional file 11: Figs. S13 and S14 for effects of buffer and pH on enzyme activity). This revealed clear time-dependent inhibition of LsGH5_5A, TlGH12A, and LsGH10A by GGcyc (Additional file 11: Figs. S15 17) with related performance constants (ki/KI, Further file 11: Table S3), offering an explanation for the comparable detections of GH5, GH10, and GH12 enzymes in the pulldown. Comparison to inhibition with xylosyl-(1,4)-xylocyclophellitol [35] (XXcyc) supplied further evidence, the LsGH5_5A and TlGH12A are precise endo–glucanases, although LsGH10A is aspecific endo–xylanase (Added file 11: Table S3). The move from GGcyc to ABP-Cel somewhat reduced potency towards TlGH12A when compared with GGcyc and had no apparent impact on reactivity with LsGH5_5A. In contrast, Biotin-ABP-Xyn bound to LsGH10A noncovalently with 21 nM affinity, but no covalent inhibition was discernable just after 1 h, similar to previously reported behaviour amongst GH10 xylanases [35]. Therefore, the addition of Biotin-ABP-Xyn to a secretome-labelling reaction can serve as a way to “block” GH10 active websites, but doesn’t efficiently label xylanases around the time scales made use of in this assay, preventing pulldown and identification of xylanases utilizing Biotin-ABP-Xyn. To assess enzyme polysaccharide specificity, decreasing end-based activity assays have been performed using a panel of -glucan, -xylan, and -mannan substrates (Table 2). TlGH12A showed powerful activity towards CMC and bMLG with only weak xyloglucanase activity, suggesting that this is indeed a cellulase-type GH12. LsGH10A showed robust activity towards wheat arabinoxylan (wAX), with weak activity towards bMLG and CMC, confirming that it does have cellulase activity, even though it truly is primarily a xylanase. LsGH5_7A showed dominant activity towards carob galactomannan (cGM), in line with previous observation that GH