We examine the structural changes during the primary photoreaction in blue-absorbing proteorhodopsin (BPR), a light-driven retinylidene proton pump, using low-temperature FTIR difference spectroscopy. Comparison of the light-induced BPR difference spectrum recorded at 80 K to that of green-absorbing proteorhodopsin (GPR) reveals that there are several differences in the BPR and GPR primary photoreactions despite the similar structure of the retinal chromophore and all-trans --> 13-cis isomerization. Strong bands near 1700 cm(-1) assigned previously to a change in hydrogen bonding of Asn230 in GPR are still present in BPR. However, additional bands in the same region are assigned on the basis of site-directed mutagenesis to changes occurring in Gln105. In the amide II region, bands are assigned on the basis of total (15)N labeling to structural changes of the protein backbone, although no such bands were previously observed for GPR. A band at 3642 cm(-1) in BPR, assigned to the OH stretching mode of a water molecule on the basis of H2(18)O substitution, appears at a different frequency than a band at 3626 cm(-1) previously assigned to a water molecule in GPR. However, the substitution of Gln105 for Leu105 in BPR leads to the appearance of both bands at 3642 and 3626 cm(-1), indicating the waters assigned in BPR and GPR exist in separate distinct locations and can coexist in the GPR-like Q105L mutant of BPR. These results indicate that there exist significant differences in the conformational changes occurring in these two types proteorhodopsin during the initial photoreaction despite their similar chromophore structures, which might reflect a different arrangement of water in the active site as well as substitution of a hydrophilic for hydrophobic residue at residue 105.
We examine the structural changes during the primary photoreaction in blue-absorbing proteorhon class="Chemical">dopsin (BPR), a light-driven retinylidene proton pump, using low-temperature FTIR difference spectroscopy. Comparison of the light-inducedBPRdifference spectrum recorded at 80 K to that of green-absorbing proteorhodopsin (GPR) reveals that there are several differences in the BPR and GPR primary photoreactions despite the similar structure of the retinal chromophore and all-trans --> 13-cis isomerization. Strong bands near 1700 cm(-1) assigned previously to a change in hydrogen bonding of Asn230 in GPR are still present in BPR. However, additional bands in the same region are assigned on the basis of site-directed mutagenesis to changes occurring in Gln105. In the amide II region, bands are assigned on the basis of total (15)N labeling to structural changes of the protein backbone, although no such bands were previously observed for GPR. A band at 3642 cm(-1) in BPR, assigned to the OH stretching mode of a water molecule on the basis of H2(18)O substitution, appears at a different frequency than a band at 3626 cm(-1) previously assigned to a water molecule in GPR. However, the substitution of Gln105 for Leu105 in BPR leads to the appearance of both bands at 3642 and 3626 cm(-1), indicating the waters assigned in BPR and GPR exist in separate distinct locations and can coexist in the GPR-like Q105L mutant of BPR. These results indicate that there exist significant differences in the conformational changes occurring in these two types proteorhodopsin during the initial photoreaction despite their similar chromophore structures, which might reflect a different arrangement of water in the active site as well as substitution of a hydrophilic for hydrophobic residue at residue 105.
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: Eleonora S Imasheva; Sergei P Balashov; Jennifer M Wang; Andrei K Dioumaev; Janos K Lanyi Journal: Biochemistry Date: 2004-02-17 Impact factor: 3.162
Authors: J Craig Venter; Karin Remington; John F Heidelberg; Aaron L Halpern; Doug Rusch; Jonathan A Eisen; Dongying Wu; Ian Paulsen; Karen E Nelson; William Nelson; Derrick E Fouts; Samuel Levy; Anthony H Knap; Michael W Lomas; Ken Nealson; Owen White; Jeremy Peterson; Jeff Hoffman; Rachel Parsons; Holly Baden-Tillson; Cynthia Pfannkoch; Yu-Hui Rogers; Hamilton O Smith Journal: Science Date: 2004-03-04 Impact factor: 47.728
Authors: Dikla Man-Aharonovich; Gazalah Sabehi; Oleg A Sineshchekov; Elena N Spudich; John L Spudich; Oded Béjà Journal: Photochem Photobiol Sci Date: 2004-03-31 Impact factor: 3.982
Authors: Erica C Saint Clair; John I Ogren; Sergey Mamaev; Joel M Kralj; Kenneth J Rothschild Journal: J Biol Phys Date: 2011-12-10 Impact factor: 1.365
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: John I Ogren; Adrian Yi; Sergey Mamaev; Hai Li; Johan Lugtenburg; Willem J DeGrip; John L Spudich; Kenneth J Rothschild Journal: Biochemistry Date: 2014-12-18 Impact factor: 3.162
Authors: Jonathan R Church; Gil S Amoyal; Veniamin A Borin; Suliman Adam; Jógvan Magnus Haugaard Olsen; Igor Schapiro Journal: Chemistry Date: 2022-04-05 Impact factor: 5.020