Cytochrome f (Cyt f) and plastocyanin (Pc) form a highly transient complex as part of the photosynthetic redox chain. The complex from Nostoc sp. PCC 7119 was studied by NMR relaxation spectroscopy with the aim of determining the orientation of Pc relative to Cyt f. Chemical-shift-perturbation analysis showed that the presence of spin labels on the surface of Cyt f does not significantly affect the binding of Pc. The paramagnetic relaxation enhancement results are not consistent with a single orientation of Pc, thus indicating that multiple orientations must occur and suggesting that an encounter state represents a large fraction of the complex.
Cytochrome f (Cyt f) and plastocyanin (Pc) form a highly transient complex as part of the photosynthetic redox chain. The complex from Nostoc sp. PCC 7119 was studied by NMR relaxation spectroscopy with the aim of determining the orientation of Pc relative to Cyt f. Chemical-shift-perturbation analysis showed that the presence of spin labels on the surface of Cyt f does not significantly affect the binding of Pc. The paramagnetic relaxation enhancement results are not consistent with a single orientation of Pc, thus indicating that multiple orientations must occur and suggesting that an encounter state represents a large fraction of the complex.
The concept of protein–protein complex formation is evolving towards a view in
which an encounter state is in dynamic equilibrium with the well-defined specific
complex.The initial approach of the proteins and subsequent formation of the encounter state
are thought to be mainly driven by long-range electrostatic forces, whereas the
well-defined complex is stabilized by short-range interactions, like hydrogen bonds
and van der Waals forces.[1] Until recently it
was not possible to characterize the encounter state experimentally. However,
several existing methods have been adapted for this purpose, like double-mutant
cycles combined with measurements of association kinetics,[2] flash photolysis kinetics[3] and paramagnetic relaxation enhancement (PRE) NMR spectroscopy.[4,5] The first complex of electron transfer (ET) proteins characterized by
this approach was that of cytochrome c (Cyt c) and
cytochrome c peroxidase (CcP). The solution structure of this
complex has been determined by PRE NMR,[6]
which showed that Cyt c and CcP have the same relative orientation
in the complex as in the crystal structure.[7]
At the same time, the PRE data provided evidence of dynamics within the complex,
thus suggesting that the encounter complex was significantly populated. By combining
PRE data and Monte Carlo docking, the encounter state was visualized, and its
fraction was established to be 30 %.[8]
This approach opens the door for the characterization of encounter states in other
transient redox complexes.[9]Plastocyanin (Pc) and cytochrome f (Cyt f) form a
redox complex in oxygenic photosynthesis. Pc shuttles electrons from Cyt
f of the cytochrome
b6f complex to P700 in photosystem
I (PS I). The surface charge properties of Pc and Cyt f, which vary
significantly between the different species, influence the relative orientation of
the interaction partners in the well-defined complex. Two general orientations have
been described, dubbed “side-on” and “head-on”. The
side-on orientation has been observed in plant complexes.[10,11] The
plant proteins exhibit a favorable electrostatic interaction because of the presence
of negatively and positively charged amino acid patches on Pc and Cyt
f, respectively. The patches align the long sides of Pc and Cyt
f, thereby enabling rapid ET by bringing a hydrophobic patch on
Pc close to the haem in Cyt f.[10] In the cyanobacterial complex from Phormidium
laminosum, Pc approaches Cyt f
“head-on”.[12] Within the
complex, Pc is oriented perpendicular to the haem plane and only its hydrophobic
patch participates in the interaction. Electrostatic interactions play a smaller
role in P. laminosum than in plants,[13] although kinetics studies[14,15] suggested that
charge interactions contribute to the formation of the encounter state. In the
cyanobacterial complexes from Nostoc sp. PCC 7119[16] and Prochlorothrix
hollandica,[17] where the charge
distribution is reversed compared to that in plants, again the
“side-on” orientation was observed. The solution models of the
complexes have been determined by rigid-body docking of the structures of the
individual proteins on the basis of binding chemical shift perturbations and
intermolecular pseudocontact shifts (PCSs) of Pc nuclei induced by the paramagnetic,
oxidized iron of Cyt f.[10]
In the case of the Nostoc complex, site-directed mutagenesis
studies on the influence of charges on the kinetics of complex formation highlighted
how the loss of either positive charges on Pc[18] or negative charges on Cyt f
[19] resulted in a decreased association rate
constant. It could be shown that for Pc several charges are pivotal for the
interaction.[18,19] On the other hand, the charges on Cyt
f are more spread out over the surface, and no “hot
spots” were identified in either Nostoc[19] or P. laminosum,[15] thus suggesting that the encounter state might have an
important role in these complexes. To obtain independent restraints for the
refinement of the well-defined state and to establish whether the encounter state is
significantly populated, the Pc-Cyt f complex from
Nostoc was studied by PRE NMR spectroscopy. The data cannot be
described by the structure determined by PCSs alone, or indeed by any single
structure, thus indicating that the encounter ensemble must represent quite a
significant fraction of the complex.
Results and Discussion
Characterisation of MTS-tagged Cyt f
To study the complex of Cyt f and Pc with PRE NMR spectroscopy,
three sites for probe attachment were selected. The positions of the mutations
were selected on the basis of the solution structure of the wild-type complex as
determined by NMR spectroscopy, on the basis of PCS and chemical shift
perturbations.[16] The rationale of
the work followed that of Volkov et al.[6]
for the complex of CcP and Cyt c, that is, to obtain
constraints for structure determination and to improve the precision of the
solution structure that was based on PCS. Residues N71, Q104, and S192, which
are located around the Pc binding site, were mutated to cysteine (Figure 1). In order to preserve the
overall electrostatic potential in the complex only polar, uncharged amino acid
residues were selected.
Figure 1
Locations of the spin labels on Nostoc sp. PCC 7119
Pc-Cyt f complex (PDB ID: 1TU2, model 1[16]). Pc is shown as ribbons with
the copper as a sphere. Cyt f is shown as a surface.
The spin labels were modeled on the structure (sticks). Images of
molecular structures were made with Discovery Studio Visualizer 2.5
(Accelrys, San Diego, CA).
Locations of the spin labels on Nostoc sp. PCC 7119
Pc-Cyt f complex (PDB ID: 1TU2, model 1[16]). Pc is shown as ribbons with
the copper as a sphere. Cyt f is shown as a surface.
The spin labels were modeled on the structure (sticks). Images of
molecular structures were made with Discovery Studio Visualizer 2.5
(Accelrys, San Diego, CA).15N-enriched Pc was produced in a cytoplasmic expression system (see
the Experimental Section) with a ZnII ion in the copper binding site
to eliminate the paramagnetic effect of CuII and possible
interference from electron transfer reactions.[20] To establish whether the introduction of a probe interferes
with the Pc–Cyt f interaction, chemical shift analyses
were carried out for all variants. First, Zn-substituted [15N]Pc was
titrated with wild-type Cyt f, and HSQC spectra were acquired
at each titration point. The binding constant was obtained by fitting the
chemical shift perturbation curves for the most affected amide groups (Figure 2 A), thereby yielding a
Kd of 8(3)×10−5
m (estimated experimental error in parentheses), similar to the
reported values of 3.8(0.1)×10−5
m for Cu-Pc[21] and
6.2(0.9)×10−5
m for Cd-substituted Pc.[21]
Figure 2
The interaction of Nostoc Zn-substituted Pc with wt Cyt
f and MTS-conjugated variants. A) Binding curves
for selected residues were fitted globally to a 1:1 binding model [Eq.
(2)]. B) Chemical shift perturbation maps of Zn-substituted Pc in the
presence of wild-type and MTS-conjugated Cyt f,
color-coded on a surface model of Pc (PDB ID: 2CJ3). Red,
Δδavg≥0.10 ppm;
orange, Δδavg≥0.05 ppm;
yellow, Δδavg≥0.02 ppm;
blue, Δδavg<0.02 ppm.
Prolines and residues with overlapping resonances are shown in gray.
The interaction of Nostoc Zn-substituted Pc with wt Cyt
f and MTS-conjugated variants. A) Binding curves
for selected residues were fitted globally to a 1:1 binding model [Eq.
(2)]. B) Chemical shift perturbation maps of Zn-substituted Pc in the
presence of wild-type and MTS-conjugated Cyt f,
color-coded on a surface model of Pc (PDB ID: 2CJ3). Red,
Δδavg≥0.10 ppm;
orange, Δδavg≥0.05 ppm;
yellow, Δδavg≥0.02 ppm;
blue, Δδavg<0.02 ppm.
Prolines and residues with overlapping resonances are shown in gray.Also the binding map is similar, with the largest perturbations observed for
residues L14, G94, and A95, corresponding to the hydrophobic interaction patch,
and H92 and R93 of the basic patch (Figure 2
B, wt).Similar titrations of Pc and the cysteine mutants of Cyt f
conjugated with the diamagnetic control label
(1-acetoxy-2,2,5,5-tetramethyl-δ-3-pyrroline-3-methyl)methanethiosulfonate
(MTS) yielded the dissociation constants listed in Table 1. The binding curves and maps are shown in Figure 2. Clearly, the mutations and
attachment of MTS have very little effect on the affinity and the binding
map.
Table 1
Dissociation constants of the complexes formed between
Zn-substituted Pc and wt or MTS-conjugated Cyt
f.
Cyt f mutant
Kd
[10−5m][a]
Cyt f mutant
Kd
[10−5m][a]
wt
8 (3)
Q104C-MTS
3 (1)
N71C-MTS
4 (1)
S192C-MTS
4 (1)
Estimated experimental errors are indicated in parentheses.
Dissociation constants of the complexes formed between
Zn-substituted Pc and wt or MTS-conjugated Cyt
f.Estimated experimental errors are indicated in parentheses.
Paramagnetic relaxation enhancements of Pc nuclei
The aim of this study was to gather distance restraints from PREs to refine the
published solution structure. The residues selected for mutation to cysteine and
tagging with the spin label are located around binding site for Pc on Cyt
f in the solution structure model. The spin labels at these
positions were thus expected to yield PRE of nuclei on different sides of Pc.
For this purpose, a spin label
(1-oxyl-2,2,5,5-tetramethyl-δ-3-pyrroline-3-methyl)methanethiosulfonate
(MTSL) was attached to the three Cyt f mutants, and the tagged
protein was added to Pc at a Cyt f/Pc molar ratio of 0.3:1.
Under these conditions, the fraction of bound Pc was 24 %. Large PREs
were observed already at this ratio for numerous Pc amide groups for each
variant of Cyt f-MTSL, as illustrated in Figure 3.
Figure 3
PRE maps of Zn-substituted Pc bound to MTSL-conjugated Cyt
f, color-coded on a surface model of Pc (PDB ID:
2CJ3) according to the three classes of restraints defined for the
docking: residues with
Ip/Id<0.10
(red),
0.100.95
(yellow). Prolines and residues with overlapping resonances are shown in
grey.
PRE maps of Zn-substituted Pc bound to MTSL-conjugated Cyt
f, color-coded on a surface model of Pc (PDB ID:
2CJ3) according to the three classes of restraints defined for the
docking: residues with
Ip/Id<0.10
(red),
0.100.95
(yellow). Prolines and residues with overlapping resonances are shown in
grey.Some resonances were broadened beyond detection. It is clear from the Cyt
f titrations that Pc binding is in the fast exchange
regime, so an observed PRE is a weighted average of free Pc (no PRE), the
encounter state (the AB* ensemble) and the final complex, AB, Equation (1).The fraction of free Pc (f1) is 0.76, and that of
bound Pc (f2+f3)
is 0.24. By dividing the observed PRE by 0.24, the PRE for 100 % bound Pc
is obtained. These extrapolated PREs are plotted in Figure 4 (green symbols) against the Pc residue number.
Strikingly, the patterns are qualitatively similar for the three spin label
positions, thus indicating that the same patches of Pc are strongly affected.
When the fraction of AB* is neglected
(f2≈0), the PRE can be predicted from the
model of the final complex. By using model 1 from PDB ID: 1TU2, the
PREAB values were predicted for each amide in Pc (Figure 4, blue symbols). Clearly, the
model alone cannot account for the observed PREs. Also, docking calculations
were performed with distances derived from the PREs as restraints. Apart from a
van der Waals repulsion function (to avoid steric collisions) no other
interactions were included. The ensemble of the ten best structures is shown in
Figure 5 and compared with the model
based on PCS. In both cases, Pc is bound in the region close to the haem, but
the orientation differs. However, also the PRE-based model alone cannot account
for the observed PREs and the back calculated distances (Figure 4, red symbols in the left panel, red line in the
right panel).
Figure 4
A)–C) Observed and predicted PRE values for amide protons in Pc
bound to MTSL-conjugated Cyt f variants. The observed
PREs were extrapolated to represent the 100 % bound state of Pc
(green dots). PREs at 400 s−1 represent lower limits.
The PREs calculated from the NMR solution structure based on PCS (PDB
ID: 1TU2, model 1[16]) are shown
as blue symbols. The PREs calculated from the NMR solution structure
based on PREs are shown as red symbols. D)–F) Experimental and
back-calculated distances between Pc amide protons and MTSL-conjugated
Cyt f variants. The white circles and black line
represent the distances calculated from the experimental PREs (which
were extrapolated to 100 % bound Pc); gray area: error margins.
The distances derived from the NMR solution structure based on PREs are
shown as a red line. The distances derived from the NMR solution
structure based on PCS (PDB ID: 1TU2, model 1[16]) are shown as a blue line.
Figure 5
A) Model of the Pc–Cyt f complex obtained with
PREs restraints. Cyt f is shown in ribbons and Pc as
Cα trace. The ten lowest-energy structures are shown. B) Overlay
of Pc molecules from the NMR solution structure based on PREs (black
Cα trace) and the NMR solution structure based on PCS (PDB ID:
1TU2, model 1,[16] light
gray).
A)–C) Observed and predicted PRE values for amide protons in Pc
bound to MTSL-conjugated Cyt f variants. The observed
PREs were extrapolated to represent the 100 % bound state of Pc
(green dots). PREs at 400 s−1 represent lower limits.
The PREs calculated from the NMR solution structure based on PCS (PDB
ID: 1TU2, model 1[16]) are shown
as blue symbols. The PREs calculated from the NMR solution structure
based on PREs are shown as red symbols. D)–F) Experimental and
back-calculated distances between Pc amide protons and MTSL-conjugated
Cyt f variants. The white circles and black line
represent the distances calculated from the experimental PREs (which
were extrapolated to 100 % bound Pc); gray area: error margins.
The distances derived from the NMR solution structure based on PREs are
shown as a red line. The distances derived from the NMR solution
structure based on PCS (PDB ID: 1TU2, model 1[16]) are shown as a blue line.A) Model of the Pc–Cyt f complex obtained with
PREs restraints. Cyt f is shown in ribbons and Pc as
Cα trace. The ten lowest-energy structures are shown. B) Overlay
of Pc molecules from the NMR solution structure based on PREs (black
Cα trace) and the NMR solution structure based on PCS (PDB ID:
1TU2, model 1,[16] light
gray).Thus, it can be concluded that a single orientation is insufficient to describe
the Pc–Cyt f complex. It is now well-established that
PREs are very sensitive to lowly populated states. The poor fit between the PRE
data and the modeled structure indicates that other orientations of Pc within
the complex contribute to the PRE data. This conclusion is supported by the
similarity of the PRE maps in Figure 3
for the Cyt f variants. If the Pc were in a single orientation
in the complex, different patches of Pc residues would have been affected by
PRE, because the spin labels are located around the binding site (e.g., red
symbols in Figure 4). Yet, for each spin
label position, the same Pc surface region is affected by PREs; this also
matches the side with the largest chemical shift perturbations. These
observations suggest that Pc samples a large area of the surface of Cyt
f with its hydrophobic patch. Our results are in accord
with kinetic experiments that indicated that the interaction site of Pc depends
on a few specific residues, whereas for Cyt f the residues
relevant in the association are more spread over the protein surface.[18,19] The formation of the encounter complex reduces the
dimensionality of the diffusional search for the binding site that enables rapid
ET.[1] It has been suggested that the
population balance between the encounter state and the well-defined state
depends on whether rapid ET can occur in encounter-state orientations.[8] In complexes of small proteins the redox
centers can get sufficiently close for ET in many of the protein orientations,
but in larger complexes fast ET can only occur through certain areas of the
protein surface, thus requiring the formation of a well-defined complex. Both
Cyt f and Pc have elongated shapes, and the metal ion is close to only a small
part of the surface. Thus, it seems likely that a degree of specificity in the
interaction is required for this complex to be active. Earlier studies suggested
that the degree of dynamics varies between Cyt f–Pc
complexes. Those of P. laminosum[12] and Pr. hollandica[17] appeared to be particularly dynamic. From the data
presented in this study, the fraction of the encounter complex cannot be
established, but it is clear that it is significant, even though the complex in
Nostoc spp. would be categorized as well-defined given the
earlier NMR data, that is the intermolecular PCS from the Cyt f
haem to Pc.[16] Both PCS and PRE are
sensitive to minor states populating the encounter complex, in the case in which
the minor state experiences a much stronger paramagnetic effect than the major
state. In the opposite case (where the major orientation is most affected by
paramagnetism), the presence of minor states might well go unnoticed, because it
only leads to a small reduction in the observed effect. Here, the PCSs are
large, particular for the major state, which is close to the paramagnetic haem,
whereas the PREs will be dominated by those orientations that bring the nucleus
close to the spin label; thus, the PREs describe better the combination of the
final complex and the encounter ensemble. Therefore, a good fit of the PCS data
was obtained with a single structure in the study of Diaz et al.,[16] while the same structure is
insufficient to account for all PREs here. More extensive spin labeling covering
a large area of the surface will enable a detailed description of the encounter
complex, as was shown for the ET complex of Cyt c and CcP.[8] Such experiments are underway.
Experimental Section
Protein production and purification: The plasmid pEAP-WT, containing the
gene encoding Pc in Nostoc sp. PCC 7119, was kindly provided by
Prof. Dr. Miguel A. De la Rosa (University of Seville). The leader sequence (34
amino acids) was removed in order to achieve cytoplasmic expression of the mature Pc
(as defined in UniProt entry O52830). An N-terminal Met residue was
added to initiate translation. This gene was obtained by PCR with the following
primers.FWD: 5′-ctgtgcaaccatggaaacatacacagtaaaactaggtagcg-3′REV: 5′-ctgtgcaactcgagttagccggcgacagtgattttacc-3′.NcoI and XhoI restriction sites were introduced in the forward and reverse primers,
respectively, and are indicated with bold letters. The former incorporates the ATG
codon for the initiation Met residue. The amplified gene and the vector pET28a were
doubly digested with these enzymes before ligation. The construct (pSS01) was
verified by DNA sequencing.Uniformly 15N-labeled Pc was produced in E. coli BL21
freshly transformed with pSS01. A single colony was inoculated in lysogeny broth
(LB, 2 mL) with kanamycin (25 mg L−1) and cultured until the
OD600 reached 0.6. From this, an aliquot (50 μL) was
inoculated into 15N M9 minimal medium (50 mL), in which
[15N]-NH4Cl (0.3 g L−1) was the only
source of nitrogen, with kanamycin (25 mg L−1), and the culture
was incubated overnight. An aliquot (5 mL) was transferred into 15N
minimal medium (0.5 L), and incubated until the OD600 reached 0.6. All
cultures were incubated at 37 °C with shaking at 250 rpm. Expression of the
gene encoding Pc was induced with isopropyl
β-d-1-thiogalactopyranoside (IPTG, 1 mm) at 22 °C.
The cells were harvested after 20 h by centrifugation using a Fiberlite*
F10-6x500y rotor in a Sorvall RC6+ centrifuge at 6400 g for
20 min. The pellet was resuspended in sodium phosphate buffer (NaPi; 10
mL, 1 mm, pH 7). Phenylmethylsulfonyl fluoride (PMSF, 1 mm), DNase
(0.2 mg mL−1), and ZnCl2 (250 μm) were
then added. Cells were lysed by using a French Press. The cell lysate was separated
by ultracentrifugation using a Kontron TFT 55.38 rotor in a Centrikon T-1170
ultracentrifuge at 120 000 g for 30 min at 4 °C, and the
supernatant was dialyzed overnight against NaPi (1 mm, pH 7)
with ZnCl2 (25 μm). The solution was cleared by
ultracentrifugation and loaded on a carboxymethyl (CM) celluloseSephadex Fast Flow
column (Amersham Biosciences) equilibrated with NaPi (1 mm, pH
7). The elution was carried out with a gradient of NaPi (1–25
mm, pH 7). The fractions containing Pc were loaded once again on the
column and eluted under the same conditions. The concentration of the protein was
determined by absorbance spectroscopy (ε280=5
mm−1 cm−1). The yield of pure
protein was 10 mg per liter of culture. The absence of Cu was verified by UV/Vis
spectroscopy (absence of the characteristic band at 595 nm under oxidizing
conditions). The presence of Zn was verified by atomic absorption spectroscopy.The pEAF-WT plasmid, containing the gene of the soluble domain (residues
1–254) of Nostoc sp. PCC7119 Cyt f, was
kindly provided by Prof. Dr. Miguel A. De la Rosa (University of Seville). pEAF-WT
was used as template to obtain Cyt f mutants. Mutations to cysteine
were introduced by using the QuikChange Site-Directed Mutagenesis kit (Stratagene).
The primers used for the mutations at the positions N71 and Q104 were as described
before.[22] The primers employed for the
introduction of a cysteine at position S192 were:FWD:
5′-ggcgaagatggttgcgttaaatatttagtcgacatc-3′REV:
5′-gatgtcgactaaatatttaacgcaaccatcttcgcc-3′For S192C, a silent mutation (bold) introduced an extra SalI restriction site,
located close to the 3′ end of the forward primer. Codon-changing mutations
are underlined. The mutant genes were verified by DNA sequencing.Truncated Cyt f was produced in E. coli MV1190,
(D(lac-proAB), thi,
supE, D(srl-recA) 306::Tn10
(tetr) [F′:traD36,
proAB+, lacIqZ?M15]) or mutant
plasmids and co-transformed with pEC86,[23]
which contains a cassette for c-type cytochrome overexpression. A
single colony was inoculated into LB (50 mL) containing chloramphenicol (20 mg
L−1) and ampicillin (100 mg L−1), and
cultured (37 °C, 250 rpm, 5–6 h). Culture (5 mL) was used to inoculate
LB (1.7 L) with the same antibiotics in a 2 L Erlenmeyer flask. The culture was
incubated (25 °C, 150 rpm, 20 h), then further chloramphenicol (20 mg
L−1) and ampicillin (100 mg L−1) were added.
After further incubation (2 h), gene expression was induced with IPTG (1
mm). The cells were harvested 96 h after induction. The purification of the
protein was performed as previously reported.[18] Dithiothreitol (DTT, 3 mm) was added to the buffers during
the purification to prevent the dimerisation of the cysteine mutants. It was removed
immediately before spin labeling by buffer exchange on a PD10 column (GE
Healthcare), equilibrated with 2-(N-morpholino) ethanesulfonic acid
(MES) buffer (20 mm, pH 6). The ferrous form of the Cyf f
cysteine mutants (20–80 μm) was used for attachment of MTS or
MTSL. A 20-fold molar excess of MTS(L) was added, and the solution was incubated for
one hour on ice. A 100-fold molar excess of K3Fe(CN)6 was then
added to oxidize the haem iron and prevent reduction of the nitroxyl group or the
disulfide bridge by the ferrous heme.The sample was concentrated by ultrafiltration to a volume of 0.5 mL and loaded on a
Superdex75 gel filtration column (GE Healthcare) equilibrated with MES buffer (20
mm, pH 6). The fractions containing MTS(L)-Cyt f were
concentrated and the buffer was exchanged by ultrafiltration to MES (20 mm,
pH 6), K3Fe(CN)6 (0.5 mm). The attachment of the spin
label was verified by mass spectrometry, and the presence of the nitroxyl radical
was checked by EPR spectroscopy. The concentration of the protein was determined by
absorbance spectroscopy (ε556=31.5
mm−1 cm−1 for ferrous Cyt
f).NMR: All NMR samples contained MES (20 mm, pH 6) and 6 %
D2O for lock. Cyt f was kept in the ferric state by
addition of K3Fe(CN)6 (50 μm). The pH of the
sample was adjusted with HCl (0.5 m) and NaOH (0.5 m). For the
chemical shifts perturbation experiments Cyt f was titrated into
Zn-substituted [15N]Pc (50 μm). Spectra were recorded at
multiple Cyt f/Pc molar ratios (0.1, 0.2, 0.4, 0.6, 0.8, 1.0, 2.5,
and 5.0). Samples for PRE measurements contained Cyt f (66
μm) labeled with either MTS or MTSL and Zn-substituted
[15N]Pc (200 μm). All NMR spectra were recorded at
298 K on an Avance III 600 MHz spectrometer equipped with a TCI-Z-GRAD CryoProbe
(Bruker). The 1H,15N HSQC spectra were acquired with 1024 and
80 complex points in the direct and indirect dimensions, respectively.Data analysis: The NMR spectra were processed with NmrPipe[24] and analyzed with CcpNMR.[25] The assignments for the
Zn–[15N]Pc amide resonances were kindly provided by Dr.
Mathias A. S. Hass. The assignments for residues K6 and V29 could not be made
because of overlap of the corresponding peaks in the HSQC spectra. The chemical
shift perturbations (Δδbind) of Pc
resonances resulting from complex formation with Cyt f were plotted
against the molar ratio of Cyt f/Pc (R). Note that
the perturbations include both the effect of binding and the PCS caused by the
ferric hemeiron, in all samples. The entire perturbation was used in the analysis;
the PCS was not used separately in this study.The corresponding titration curves were fitted in OriginLab 8.1 (http://www.originlab.com) with
a non-linear least square fit to a 1:1 binding model, Equation (2).[26]Here is the chemical shift
perturbation for 100 % bound Pc, P0 is the
starting concentration of Pc and C0 is the stock
concentration of Cyt f. A global fit with a single binding constant
(Ka=K) for the data of
several residues was used.The binding maps were obtained by extrapolation of the
Δδbind values at the 5:1
Cytf/Pc molar ratio of all residues to 100 % bound Pc
when using the Kd. These extrapolated perturbations were
averaged for the nitrogen (ΔδN) and hydrogen
(ΔδH) atoms of each amide, thereby
yielding Δδavg, according to Equation (3):The PREs were determined according to the procedure of Battiste and Wagner.[27] The intensity ratio
Ip/Id of the Pc
resonances in the presence of MTSL-Cyt f
(Ip) and MTS-Cyt f
(Id) were normalized by dividing them by the average
value of the ten largest
Ip/Id values (1.13 for
N71C and Q104C; 1.06 for S192C). The PRE (Γ2)
values were calculated according to the formula [Eq. (4)]:The transverse relaxation rates in the diamagnetic sample
(R2d) were calculated from the line width at half
height obtained from a Lorentzian peak fit in the direct dimension, by using MestReC
(http://www.metsrelab.com). The
symbol t denotes the time for transverse relaxation during the
pulse sequence (9 ms).Structure calculations: The PREs were converted into distances for
structure calculations by using Equation
(5):Here r is the distance between the oxygen atom of MTSL and the Pc
amide proton, γ is the proton gyromagnetic ratio,
g is the electronic g-factor, β is the
Bohr magneton, ωh is the Larmor frequency of the
proton and τc is the rotational correlation time
of the MTSLoxygen-proton vector. τc was taken to
be 30 ns on the basis of the HYDRONMR[28]
prediction of the rotational correlation time for the Pc–Cyt
f complex. In the docking procedure this value gave rise to the
lowest energy structures in comparison with τc
values of 20, 25, 35, and 40 ns.Three classes of restraints were included in the calculations. 1) For residues with
Ip/Id < 0.1
(including those for which the resonances disappeared from the spectrum), the upper
bound was set to 14 Å. 2) For residues with
Ip/Id > 0.95, the
lower bound was set to 22 Å. 3) For residues with
Ip/Id between 0.1 and
0.95, the distances calculated from Equation
(5) were used with upper and lower bounds of 4 Å. The structure
calculations were done in Xplor-NIH.[29] Cyt
f and Pc were both considered as rigid bodies, the coordinates
of Cyt f were fixed, and Pc was allowed to move in a restrained
rigid-body molecular dynamics calculation. The structure of the soluble domain of
Cyt f used for the calculation was taken from the crystal structure
of the cytochrome b6f complex from
Nostoc sp. PCC 7120 (PDB ID: 2ZT9).[30] The amino acidic sequences of Cyt f from
Nostoc sp. PCC 7120 and sp. PCC 7119 are identical. Mutations
and spin labels were modeled on the structure of Cyt f. Four
conformations were used to represent the mobility of the spin label,[31] and the distances to the Pc nuclei were
r−6 averaged for these MTSL conformers. The structure of Pc
was taken from PDB ID: 2CJ3. At each cycle, Pc was placed at a random position and
the protein was docked as rigid body on the basis of only experimental restraints
and a van der Waals repulsion function to avoid steric collision. Two hundred
approaches were performed, thereby yielding 155 structures with restraint energies
below a given threshold. The ten lowest-energy structures were selected, and they
showed an average rmsd of 0.83 Å to the mean structure.
Authors: Cristina Albarrán; José A Navarro; Fernando P Molina-Heredia; Piedad del S Murdoch; Miguel A De la Rosa; Manuel Hervás Journal: Biochemistry Date: 2005-08-30 Impact factor: 3.162
Authors: Alexander N Volkov; Jonathan A R Worrall; Elodie Holtzmann; Marcellus Ubbink Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2006-12-04 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Irene Díaz-Moreno; Antonio Díaz-Quintana; Miguel A De la Rosa; Peter B Crowley; Marcellus Ubbink Journal: Biochemistry Date: 2005-03-08 Impact factor: 3.162
Authors: Wim F Vranken; Wayne Boucher; Tim J Stevens; Rasmus H Fogh; Anne Pajon; Miguel Llinas; Eldon L Ulrich; John L Markley; John Ionides; Ernest D Laue Journal: Proteins Date: 2005-06-01
Authors: Sashary Ramos; Amanda L Le Sueur; Rachel E Horness; Jonathan T Specker; Jessica A Collins; Katherine E Thibodeau; Megan C Thielges Journal: J Phys Chem B Date: 2019-02-21 Impact factor: 2.991
Authors: Martin van Son; Jesika T Schilder; Antonella Di Savino; Anneloes Blok; Marcellus Ubbink; Martina Huber Journal: Chemphyschem Date: 2020-04-17 Impact factor: 3.102