Proteorhodopsins are an extensive family of photoactive membrane proteins found in proteobacteria distributed throughout the world's oceans which are often classified as green- or blue-absorbing (GPR and BPR, respectively) on the basis of their visible absorption maxima. GPR and BPR have significantly different properties including photocycle lifetimes and wavelength dependence on pH. Previous studies revealed that these different properties are correlated with a single residue, Leu105 in GPR and Gln105 in BPR, although the molecular basis for the different properties of GPR and BPR has not yet been elucidated. We have studied the unexcited states of GPR and BPR using resonance Raman spectroscopy which enhances almost exclusively chromophore vibrations. We find that both spectra are remarkably similar, indicating that the retinylidene structure of GPR and BPR are almost identical. However, the frequency of a band assigned to the retinal C13-methyl-rock vibration is shifted from 1006 cm (-1) in GPR to 1012 cm (-1) in BPR. A similar shift is observed in the GPR mutant L105Q indicating Leu and Gln residues interact differently with the retinal C13-methyl group. The environment of the Schiff base of GPR and BPR differ as indicated by differences in the H/D induced down-shift of the Schiff base vibration. Residues located in transmembrane helices (D-G) do not contribute to the observed differences in the protein-chromophore interaction between BPR and GPR based on the Raman spectra of chimeras. These results support a model whereby the substitution of the hydrophilic Gln105 in BPR with the smaller hydrophobic Leu105 in GPR directly alters the environment of both the retinal C13 group and the Schiff base.
Proteorhodopsins are an extensive family of photoactive membrane proteins founn class="Chemical">d in proteobacteria distributed throughout the world's oceans which are often classified as green- or blue-absorbing (GPR and BPR, respectively) on the basis of their visible absorption maxima. GPR and BPR have significantly different properties including photocycle lifetimes and wavelength dependence on pH. Previous studies revealed that these different properties are correlated with a single residue, Leu105 in GPR andGln105 in BPR, although the molecular basis for the different properties of GPR and BPR has not yet been elucidated. We have studied the unexcited states of GPR and BPR using resonance Raman spectroscopy which enhances almost exclusively chromophore vibrations. We find that both spectra are remarkably similar, indicating that the retinylidene structure of GPR and BPR are almost identical. However, the frequency of a band assigned to the retinalC13-methyl-rock vibration is shifted from 1006 cm (-1) in GPR to 1012 cm (-1) in BPR. A similar shift is observed in the GPR mutant L105Q indicating Leu andGln residues interact differently with the retinalC13-methyl group. The environment of the Schiff base of GPR and BPR differ as indicated by differences in the H/D induceddown-shift of the Schiff base vibration. Residues located in transmembrane helices (D-G) do not contribute to the observeddifferences in the protein-chromophore interaction between BPR and GPR based on the Raman spectra of chimeras. These results support a model whereby the substitution of the hydrophilic Gln105 in BPR with the smaller hydrophobic Leu105 in GPR directly alters the environment of both the retinalC13 group and the Schiff base.
Authors: Andrei K Dioumaev; Leonid S Brown; Jennifer Shih; Elena N Spudich; John L Spudich; Janos K Lanyi Journal: Biochemistry Date: 2002-04-30 Impact factor: 3.162
Authors: O Béjà; L Aravind; E V Koonin; M T Suzuki; A Hadd; L P Nguyen; S B Jovanovich; C M Gates; R A Feldman; J L Spudich; E N Spudich; E F DeLong Journal: Science Date: 2000-09-15 Impact factor: 47.728
Authors: Dikla Man; Weiwu Wang; Gazalah Sabehi; L Aravind; Anton F Post; Ramon Massana; Elena N Spudich; John L Spudich; Oded Béjà Journal: EMBO J Date: 2003-04-15 Impact factor: 11.598
Authors: José R de la Torre; Lynne M Christianson; Oded Béjà; Marcelino T Suzuki; David M Karl; John Heidelberg; Edward F DeLong Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2003-10-17 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Thomas Friedrich; Sven Geibel; Rolf Kalmbach; Igor Chizhov; Kenichi Ataka; Joachim Heberle; Martin Engelhard; Ernst Bamberg Journal: J Mol Biol Date: 2002-08-30 Impact factor: 5.469
Authors: Erik Malmerberg; Ziad Omran; Jochen S Hub; Xuewen Li; Gergely Katona; Sebastian Westenhoff; Linda C Johansson; Magnus Andersson; Marco Cammarata; Michael Wulff; David van der Spoel; Jan Davidsson; Alexandre Specht; Richard Neutze Journal: Biophys J Date: 2011-09-20 Impact factor: 4.033
Authors: Sina Reckel; Daniel Gottstein; Jochen Stehle; Frank Löhr; Mirka-Kristin Verhoefen; Mitsuhiro Takeda; Robert Silvers; Masatsune Kainosho; Clemens Glaubitz; Josef Wachtveitl; Frank Bernhard; Harald Schwalbe; Peter Güntert; Volker Dötsch Journal: Angew Chem Int Ed Engl Date: 2011-10-27 Impact factor: 15.336
Authors: Matthew J Ranaghan; Sumie Shima; Lavosier Ramos; Daniel S Poulin; Gregg Whited; Sanguthevar Rajasekaran; Jeffery A Stuart; Arlene D Albert; Robert R Birge Journal: J Phys Chem B Date: 2010-11-11 Impact factor: 2.991
Authors: Adrian Yi; Hai Li; Natalia Mamaeva; Roberto E Fernandez De Cordoba; Johan Lugtenburg; Willem J DeGrip; John L Spudich; Kenneth J Rothschild Journal: Biochemistry Date: 2017-04-10 Impact factor: 3.162
Authors: Jason J Amsden; Joel M Kralj; Vladislav B Bergo; Elena N Spudich; John L Spudich; Kenneth J Rothschild Journal: Biochemistry Date: 2008-10-09 Impact factor: 3.162
Authors: Erica C Saint Clair; John I Ogren; Sergey Mamaev; Daniel Russano; Joel M Kralj; Kenneth J Rothschild Journal: J Phys Chem B Date: 2012-12-11 Impact factor: 2.991
Authors: John I Ogren; Sergey Mamaev; Daniel Russano; Hai Li; John L Spudich; Kenneth J Rothschild Journal: Biochemistry Date: 2014-06-16 Impact factor: 3.162