We describe significantly improved long-distance measurements in biomolecules by use of the new multipulse double electron-electron spin resonance (DEER) illustrated with the example of a five-pulse DEER sequence. In this sequence, an extra pulse at the pump frequency is used compared with standard four-pulse DEER. The position of the extra pulse is fixed relative to the three pulses of the detection sequence. This significantly reduces the effect of nuclear spin-diffusion on the electron-spin phase relaxation, thereby enabling longer dipolar evolution times that are required to measure longer distances. Using spin-labeled T4 lysozyme at a concentration less than 50 μM, as an example, we show that the evolution time increases by a factor of 1.8 in protonated solution and 1.4 in deuterated solution to 8 and 12 μs, respectively, with the potential to increase them further. This enables a significant increase in the measurable distances, improved distance resolution, or both.
We describe significantly improved long-distance measurements in biomolecules by use of the new multipulse double electron-electron spin resonance (DEER) illustrated with the example of a five-pulse DEER sequence. In this sequence, an extra pulse at the pump frequency is used compared with standard four-pulse DEER. The position of the extra pulse is fixed relative to the three pulses of the detection sequence. This significantly reduces the effect of nuclear spin-diffusion on the electron-spin phase relaxation, thereby enabling longer dipolar evolution times that are required to measure longer distances. Using spin-labeled T4 lysozyme at a concentration less than 50 μM, as an example, we show that the evolution time increases by a factor of 1.8 in protonated solution and 1.4 in deuterated solution to 8 and 12 μs, respectively, with the potential to increase them further. This enables a significant increase in the measurable distances, improved distance resolution, or both.
Pulsed dipolar ESR spectroscopy
(PDS), represented by double-electron electron resonance (DEER or
PELDOR)[1] and double-quantum coherence electron
spin resonance (DQC ESR),[2−6] has been developed into a versatile biophysical method of studying
structure and function of biomolecules[5−10] on the nanoscale, (typically 1–9 nm) by measuring the strength
of the electron spindipole–dipole interaction between paramagnetic
centers (tags). This enables the study of a variety of systems including
membrane proteins,[11−13] large multiunit protein complexes;[14,15] proteins that undergo structural transformations,[16] and oligonucleotides and their complexes with proteins.[17,18] It is also being applied to study colloids and polymers,[19] supramolecular constructs,[20] and other nano-objects.[21,22] The electron
spins are those of paramagnetic tags, usually nitroxide labels but
also metal ions,[23] selectively introduced
into desired positions of the biomolecule, although structural information
has also been obtained by measuring distances between endogenous paramagnetic
centers in proteins.[11,24−27]Even though PDS technology
has enjoyed an explosive growth, there
are sensitivity issues because typical measurements usually can take
∼12 h and still do not provide sufficient SNR or distance resolution.
Thus,[14,28−30] the need for improved
efficiency is great, especially in the case of long distances of 5
nm or more. An order of magnitude improvement in concentration sensitivity
has been achieved by conducting the experiment using spectrometers
with high-power sources operating at Ku band or higher,[31−33] but the intrinsic properties of the sample contribute another problem.
The PDS experiment is typically performed on frozen glassy solutions
in the temperature range of 10 to 80 K to maximize SNR by optimizing
spin–lattice relaxation time, T1, and phase memory time, Tm, for various
spin tags, with Tm being the major factor
limiting the sensitivity and the range of distances that can be measured.[3] The main source of phase relaxation in most cases
is echo dephasing caused by the fluctuating hyperfine coupling to
the surrounding protons of the solvent and the biomolecule.[6,7,34,35] In spin-labeled proteins, buried residues usually have a Tm in the range of 0.6 to 2.0 μs, and relaxation
is by a simple exponential decay, exp(−2t/Tm), (so that Tm = T2 in this case), mainly due to protons of rotating
methyl groups in the protein and the alkyl chains of lipids in membranes.[35,36] Spin labels attached to solvent-exposed residues have somewhat longer Tm values of about 2 to 3 μs because their
relaxation for t ≳ 2 μs is dominated
by nuclear spin diffusion in the protonated solvent, which contributes
a temperature-independent relaxation decay exp[−(2t/Tm)κ], with κ
≅ 1.5–3.5; the value of 2 being typical.[37] In H2O, Tm is ∼4
μs; therefore, the maximum evolution time, t (tmax), cannot be significantly
greater than ∼5 μs even for the most sensitive DEER spectrometers
available today. For 1.75 periods of dipolar oscillation (Td) required for accurate distance analysis,[7] the maximum Td corresponds
to 4.5 to 5.5 nm. Somewhat less accurate measurements using tmax ≈ 1.25Td can be used to estimate distances up to 5 to 6 nm. Any further improvement
in accessible distances necessitates reducing the effect of nuclear
spin diffusion, which for exposed residues is typically accomplished
by using a deuterated solvent when possible. However just solvent
deuteration rarely permits tmax exceeding
7 to 8 μs[38−42] because there are protons of the biomolecule itself. Ultimately,
the protein can be deuterated in some cases,[39,40] but this is a costly and laborious solution, which may not always
be practical or feasible for eukaryotic proteins or other cases.[43,44]The current level of sensitivity (see, for example, Figure
S1 in
the Supporting Information (SI)) helps
one to measure distances <5 nm more efficiently (Figure 2 and Figure S6 in the SI), which is important for spin tags in a hydrophobic environment,
but only a very small improvement can be obtained beyond ∼3
μs for longer distances, where the exponent in t becomes quadratic or greater. A well-known solution to this problem
is to minimize such relaxation by applying a pulse sequence that periodically
refocuses the transverse magnetization.[45] For a sequence of n equally spaced (by 2τ)
refocusing pulses, the echo decays by exp[−n(2τ/nTm)κ] = exp[−(2τ/Teff)κ], where the effective Tm becomes Teff = Tmn(1–1/κ). For n and κ equal 2, this gives a factor
of 21/2 increase in Tm, but
it doubles if n is 4.
Figure 2
Comparison of the echo amplitude for the
same sample of 40 μM
T4L 8/44, recorded as a function of dipolar evolution time period, tm, with standard four-pulse DEER (in blue) and
five-pulse DEER (in red) (cf. Figure 1). The
five-pulse DEER signal decays much slower as the pulse sequence expands
in time, leading to an increase in the time period, tmax, available for recording the dipolar signal factor
by the factor of 1.83 for H2O (a) and 1.4 for D2O (b). The echo amplitude shown is in mV and is the receiver output
for constant gain.
Here we describe how
such a multipulse approach is implemented
in PDS, illustrating this with the example of a novel five-pulse DEER
sequence, which allows the expansion of tmax with or without using deuterated solvent, thereby enabling accurate
measurement of distances up to ∼8 to 9 nm. It can be used as
a basic building block for prospective multipulse sequences realizing n > 1, as shown in the SI.The standard four-pulse DEER sequence π/2–t1–π–t2–π–(t2–t1)–echo, shown in Figure 1a, uses two refocusing pulses at the detection frequency
ω1; therefore, it has the potential to increase Tm as described above if t2 = 2t1. The modulation of the
echo amplitude V(t), due to the
electron spindipole–dipole coupling (or the “dipolar
signal” for short), is produced by the “pump”
π-pulse, applied at the frequency ω2, by varying
its position, t, between the two π-pulses at
the detection frequency, yielding V(t) = cos[A(t – t1)]. Here A = ωd(1 –
3 cos2 θ), with ωd = μ0γe2ℏ/4πr3 being the line splitting produced by
the static dipolar interaction between the two electron spins separated
by distance, r, and θ being the angle between r and the external magnetic field. We assumed the weak coupling
regime: ωd ≪ |ω1–ω2|, which is appropriate for the description of DEER or for
long distances in general.[3,10] Averaging V(t) over all orientations in A (represented
by angular brackets) leads to decaying oscillations according to V4(t) = ⟨cos[A(t – t1)]⟩ (Figure 1a, green curve) with a maximum at t = t1, at which time the dipolar coupling is “refocused”;
that is, the cosine has zero argument for all A.
The maximum time interval available for recording V4(t) is (t2 – t1), which is close to t2 in a typical experiment in which one sets t2 ≫ t1 to
maximize the range of t, over which the dipolar evolution
is obtained. The relaxation decay R(t) of the echo in this pulse sequence due to nuclear spin diffusion
is R(t) = exp[−(2t1/Tm)κ – (2(t2 – t1)/Tm)κ].
Thus in the typical implementation t2 ≫ t1 and R(t)
≈ exp[−(2t2/T)κ].
Figure 1
(a) Standard four-pulse
DEER sequence with the respective dipolar
modulation pattern plotted in green. (b) The four-pulse sequence modified
for t2 = 2t1 ≡ 2τ to minimize nuclear spin diffusion, thus, increasing
the signal, but this shifts the dipolar modulation (in blue) to the
middle of the second interval, thereby losing half of the dipolar
modulation because the halves are identical. (c) Placing the second
pump pulse, 5, after the pulse 4 shifts dipolar modulation toward
pulse 4, thereby recovering the full time span, 2τ. The dipolar
modulation (green) is reversed in time compared with panel a. Pulse
5 could also be placed at position 5′ before pulse 2, reversing
the modulated time trace. Note that time period, tm, available for recording the dipolar signal is (a) t2 and (b,c) 2τ.
(a) Standard four-pulse
DEER sequence with the respective dipolar
modulation pattern plotted in green. (b) The four-pulse sequence modified
for t2 = 2t1 ≡ 2τ to minimize nuclear spin diffusion, thus, increasing
the signal, but this shifts the dipolar modulation (in blue) to the
middle of the second interval, thereby losing half of the dipolar
modulation because the halves are identical. (c) Placing the second
pump pulse, 5, after the pulse 4 shifts dipolar modulation toward
pulse 4, thereby recovering the full time span, 2τ. The dipolar
modulation (green) is reversed in time compared with panel a. Pulse
5 could also be placed at position 5′ before pulse 2, reversing
the modulated time trace. Note that time period, tm, available for recording the dipolar signal is (a) t2 and (b,c) 2τ.In the case of t2 =
2t1, the maximum is in the middle of the
second interval
(Figure 1b), and only half of the time trace
can be recorded. This more than offsets the gain that could be achieved
by “stretching” the sequence in panel b by a factor
of ∼21/2 enabled by the longer Tm compared with the sequence in panel a. This situation,
however, is remedied by adding to the sequence b an additional π
pulse at ω2 placed at a fixed position right after
pulse 4. The pulse is denoted as 5 in Figure 1c. The dipolar signal is recorded in a manner similar to panel b
by varying the position of pulse 3 to span the same interval between
detection pulses 2 and 4. The time interval t2 is again set to 2t1 to minimize
the phase relaxation caused by the nuclear spin diffusion by refocusing
the primary echo exactly in the middle of the interval of 2tm made by the first π/2 pulse and the
refocused primary echo, (i.e., at tm).
This new five-pulse DEER sequence (DEER-5) however, utilizes for the
dipolar evolution all the time from the first pulse to the spin echo,
enabling its expansion to longer tm (half
the distance from pulse 1 to the refocused echo for all three pulse
sequences shown). The dipolar modulation is given by V5(t) = ⟨cos[A(t – δT)]⟩, where δT ≈
50–100 ns to ensure zero dead-time. The derivation of this
result can be found in the SI, and its
discussion appears later in the text. The four-pulse block of the
sequence enclosed in red brackets can be repeated to provide a train
of n = 2N refocusing pulses at ω1, as does the Carr–Purcell (CP) sequence,[45] but it also has 2N pump pulses
at ω2, with the position of every other pulse fixed
and the rest spanning their respective intervals, exactly as does
the first block. This results in the principal dipolar signal with
the form V5(t) = ⟨cos[AN(t–δT)]⟩A (see SI). The present study has
its focus on the case N = 1 (n =
2), that is, just the basic five-pulse DEER, but two- or three-frame
sequences (N = 2,3), with n equals
4 or 6, may also be practical (see SI).
The main distinction from a CP or CPMG (Carr–Purcell–Meiboom–Gill[46]) sequence is that this sequence is designed
for measuring the dipolar interaction.Comparison of the echo amplitude for the
same sample of 40 μM
T4L 8/44, recorded as a function of dipolar evolution time period, tm, with standard four-pulse DEER (in blue) and
five-pulse DEER (in red) (cf. Figure 1). The
five-pulse DEER signal decays much slower as the pulse sequence expands
in time, leading to an increase in the time period, tmax, available for recording the dipolar signal factor
by the factor of 1.83 for H2O (a) and 1.4 for D2O (b). The echo amplitude shown is in mV and is the receiver output
for constant gain.Because the echo relaxation decay is a function
of tm and the positions of refocusing
pulses at ω1 (cf. Figure 1), Figure 2 compares
the standard
DEER-4 (Figure 1a) to DEER-5 (Figure 1c) by plotting the spin–echo amplitude as
a function of tm for the T4-lysozyme (T4L)
mutant spin-labeled at sites 8 and 44 and prepared in 40 μM
concentration in H2O and D2O buffers with 30%
(w/v) glycerol or glycerol-d8. The data
were taken at 17.3 GHz and 60 K. The maximum time in tm, tmax, was expanded by a
factor of ∼1.83 in H2O, whereas only a factor of
1.52, corresponding to κ ≈ 2.5 determined for this sample,
was expected.[47] The maximum time is taken
at the point in tm where the spin–echo
drops to the “sensitivity threshold” level, which is
defined as corresponding to a SNR ∼10 in the modulated part
of the complete DEER record after ∼3 h of data averaging. Because
the echo amplitude at the threshold (horizontal dashed line) is only
∼0.003 of its value for tm <
1 μs for the H2O sample (equivalent to a ∼0.2
μM protein with Tm = ∞),
this is the “hard limit”.We next show in Figure 3a the result from
the DEER-5 experiment conducted under the same conditions but with
a sample of T4-lysozyme with MTS spin labels incorporated at positions
65 and 128 and prepared in D2O buffer containing 30% w/v
glycerol-d8. In Figure 3b, this signal is shown after standard DEER baseline subtraction
together with the data obtained on this sample using the standard
DEER-4. In this case, standard DEER-4 can be recorded to very good
SNR up to ∼7 to 8 μs,[41] whereas
DEER-5 was recorded on a 12 μs time scale, which allows distances
up to 8 nm to be reliably determined using just matrix deuteration.
We do show in the SI measurements of 8
nm in a fully protonated system (cf. Figure S6 in the Supporting Information). (Note that the DEER-5
signal in Figure 3a was preprocessed to remove
the residual unwanted dipolar signal, as explained later in the text).
Figure 3
(a) DEER-5
signal recorded in D2O buffer is shown after
subtracting the residual unwanted DEER-4 type dipolar signal. (b)
After standard baseline removal, the DEER-5 data (in black) are plotted
together with standard four-pulse DEER data (in red), normalized according
to the literature.[41]
(a) DEER-5
signal recorded in D2O buffer is shown after
subtracting the residual unwanted DEER-4 type dipolar signal. (b)
After standard baseline removal, the DEER-5 data (in black) are plotted
together with standard four-pulse DEER data (in red), normalized according
to the literature.[41]We describe the issues underlying the pulse method
developed in
this work, including the details of dipolar evolution and the respective
signals in a multipulse sequence in the SI. Here we simply note that when more than one π-pulse is applied
at the pump frequency the situation leads to more than one dipolar
signal and they generally have different time dependences. Because
in DEER each π-pulse is selective, it changes the direction
of the dipolar evolution for some spins at ω2, thus
branching the dipolar evolution into two “dipolar pathways”,
that is, those that are flipped and those that are not. For n pump π-pulses there are 2 pathways. They generally have different time variables and
sets of refocusing points. Five-pulse DEER thus has four dipolar pathways.
The probability (weight), w, of a given pathway is a product of n terms, s, with s either p or q, which
are the probabilities, p, for pump pulse k to flip the spin or have no effect, q (where q = 1 – p).On the basis of an analysis of possible
dipolar pathways in DEER-5
(see SI), we can write for the intramolecular
part of the dipolar signal in five-pulse DEERThe first and the second terms in eq 1 are
constant in t, so they just contribute a background
∼q3q5; the third term is the unwanted residual of the DEER-4 dipolar signal
that exists in the absence of the fifth pulse. It is present when
⟨p3q5⟩ ≠ 0. The fourth term gives the new DEER-5 specific
dipolar signal. The angular brackets denote averaging over all orientations
and Euler angles for all magnetic tensors. The smaller ⟨p3q5⟩, the
better the suppression of the unwanted signal.On the basis
of eq 1, the intermolecular
contribution to the signal can be derived to be (see SI)Here C is the concentration
of spins, k0 = 2πμ0γe2ℏ/9·31/2 ≈ 0.972 × 10–3 μM–1 μs–1. The angular
brackets denote integration over the ESR spectrum because there is
no orientational correlation with randomly distributed surrounding
spins. The signal V(t) becomes a
product V(t) = Vintra(t)Vinter(t). The eqs 1 and 2 describe the appearance of the raw data in Figure 4a and in the SI.
Figure 4
Isolation of
pure DEER-5 signal. The reference, A, was recorded
in the absence of the fifth pulse and used in the removal of the incompletely
suppressed dipolar signal of A-type from the raw signal, B, recorded
in the presence of the fifth pulse. C indicates the pure five-pulse
dipolar signal produced by subtracting scaled down A from B. A–C
are normalized to unit amplitude at their maxima, with C shifted by
−0.1 for clarity.
Isolation of
pure DEER-5 signal. The reference, A, was recorded
in the absence of the fifth pulse and used in the removal of the incompletely
suppressed dipolar signal of A-type from the raw signal, B, recorded
in the presence of the fifth pulse. C indicates the pure five-pulse
dipolar signal produced by subtracting scaled down A from B. A–C
are normalized to unit amplitude at their maxima, with C shifted by
−0.1 for clarity.Because not all spins flipped by pulse 3 are also
flipped by pulse
5, that is, q5 ≠ 0 for some p3 ≠ 0, the term ⟨p3q5cos[A(t – τ)]⟩ in eq 1 is nonzero, so this incompletely suppressed signal coexists with
the dominant term ⟨p3p5cos[A(t – δT)]⟩ representing the pure DEER-5 specific
signal. It appears as a central hump in the raw signal time trace,
recorded with the five-pulse sequence, although it is significantly
attenuated when a more nonselective higher intensity pulse 5 is applied.
Both signals share the same coherence pathway and cannot be separated
by phase cycling. This undesired signal can be nearly entirely suppressed
by achieving the condition q5 = 0 (or p5 = 1) for all spectral points where p3 ≠ 0; that is, this pulse should provide
uniform selective population inversion, and pulse 3 does not affect
spins outside this uniformly inverted region. It was approximated
in this work by setting pulse 5 to be more intense (12 ns width) than
pulse 3 (26–29 ns width), thereby suppressing the four-pulse
signal by a factor of 3 to 6 (cf. Figures 3 and 4c and the SI). The residual unwanted signal is further reduced by subtracting
out the scaled down pure four-pulse reference signal recorded with
pulse 5 turned off. (This does not noticeably increase data recording
time or degrade SNR if the unwanted modulation is a small fraction
of the reference modulation). The subtraction is illustrated in Figure 3, with more examples shown in the SI. Taken together, these two steps suppress the unwanted
signal by a factor of ∼20 or more, which is down to the typical
level of artifacts and distortions in DEER or DQC.There is
clearly room for improvement, as discussed in the SI. Ultimately, pulse 5 should be shaped (cf. SI Figure S4 for preliminary experiments) to
provide more uniform population inversion and at the same time to
compensate for moderate B1 inhomogeneity,[48,49] thereby simplifying the experiment by making the referencing easier
or removing the need for it.The novel five-pulse DEER method
introduced in this work has considerable
potential to develop into a widely useful technique to study nanoscale
systems, wherein long or more accurate distances need to be measured,
but also it could help to considerably shorten data measurements by
offering greater sensitivity than could be achieved using standard
DEER methods. It can be easily implemented with any modern spectrometer
in its current form. Whereas our data are shown for a working frequency
in the Ku band, similar relative gains are expected for other frequencies
as well, but in each case, the longest distance that could be measured
will be dependent on the concentration sensitivity of the spectrometer.
By further technical development, enabled by modern technology permitting
generation of high-speed complex pulse modulation schemes at mw- and
mm-wave frequencies, the method is expected to be improved and find
wide use in PDS, adding to the established PDS methods of DQC-ESR
and DEER. It may become an enabling technology, for example, to study
eukaryotic proteins and also materials, where, for example, matrix
or solute deuteration is impractical or not feasible.
Experimental Methods
The experiments were conducted
on nitroxide-labeled T4L double
mutants using the ACERT Ku-band (17.3 GHz) PDS spectrometer (both
DEER and DQC). All T4L mutants used in this study were previously
well-characterized by standard four-pulse DEER.[41] Further experimental details and sample preparation protocols
are included in the SI.
Authors: Sang-Youn Park; Peter P Borbat; Gabriela Gonzalez-Bonet; Jaya Bhatnagar; Abiola M Pollard; Jack H Freed; Alexandrine M Bilwes; Brian R Crane Journal: Nat Struct Mol Biol Date: 2006-04-23 Impact factor: 15.369
Authors: Irina Smirnova; Vladimir Kasho; Jun-Yong Choe; Christian Altenbach; Wayne L Hubbell; H Ronald Kaback Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2007-10-09 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Yan Sun; Peter P Borbat; Vladimir M Grigoryants; William K Myers; Jack H Freed; Charles P Scholes Journal: Biophys J Date: 2015-02-17 Impact factor: 4.033
Authors: Maria Giulia Dal Farra; Sabine Richert; Caterina Martin; Charles Larminie; Marina Gobbo; Elisabetta Bergantino; Christiane R Timmel; Alice M Bowen; Marilena Di Valentin Journal: Chemphyschem Date: 2019-03-21 Impact factor: 3.102
Authors: Mahesh Aitha; Abraham J Moller; Indra D Sahu; Masaki Horitani; David L Tierney; Michael W Crowder Journal: J Inorg Biochem Date: 2015-10-22 Impact factor: 4.155
Authors: Gregory E Merz; Peter P Borbat; Ashley J Pratt; Elizabeth D Getzoff; Jack H Freed; Brian R Crane Journal: Biophys J Date: 2014-10-07 Impact factor: 4.033
Authors: Ria Sircar; Peter P Borbat; Michael J Lynch; Jaya Bhatnagar; Matthew S Beyersdorf; Christopher J Halkides; Jack H Freed; Brian R Crane Journal: J Mol Biol Date: 2014-12-20 Impact factor: 5.469
Authors: Virginia Meyer; Michael A Swanson; Laura J Clouston; Przemysław J Boratyński; Richard A Stein; Hassane S Mchaourab; Andrzej Rajca; Sandra S Eaton; Gareth R Eaton Journal: Biophys J Date: 2015-03-10 Impact factor: 4.033
Authors: William R Lindemann; Alexander J Mijalis; José L Alonso; Peter P Borbat; Jack H Freed; M Amin Arnaout; Bradley L Pentelute; Julia H Ortony Journal: Biomacromolecules Date: 2020-06-16 Impact factor: 6.988