| Literature DB >> 23555224 |
Frank H Wallrapp1, Alexander A Voityuk, Victor Guallar.
Abstract
The fast development of software and hardware is notably helping in closing the gap between macroscopic and microscopic data. Using a novel theoretical strategy combining molecular dynamics simulations, conformational clustering, ab-initio quantum mechanics and electronic coupling calculations, we show how computational methodologies are mature enough to provide accurate atomistic details into the mechanism of electron transfer (ET) processes in complex protein systems, known to be a significant challenge. We performed a quantitative study of the ET between Cytochrome c Peroxidase and its redox partner Cytochrome c. Our results confirm the ET mechanism as hole transfer (HT) through residues Ala194, Ala193, Gly192 and Trp191 of CcP. Furthermore, our findings indicate the fine evolution of the enzyme to approach an elevated turnover rate of 5.47 × 10(6) s(-1) for the ET between Cytc and CcP through establishment of a localized bridge state in Trp191.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2013 PMID: 23555224 PMCID: PMC3605091 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1002990
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS Comput Biol ISSN: 1553-734X Impact factor: 4.475
Figure 1Catalytic cycle of CcP.
Figure 2Electron transfer region of the CcP/Cytc complex.
The ET pathway proposed by Pelletier and Kraut is shown in red, the ET pathway suggested by Siddarth is shown in blue.
Figure 3Visual output of the QM/MM e-Pathway method applied on a single MD snapshot.
Molecular orbitals (spin densities of electron hole) are labeled by corresponding residue name and iteration of the approach. I.e. Trp191 being identified first, then excluded from QM region, such that Leu177 is identified second, etc. See methods and SI for details on the QM/MM e-Pathway approach.
Figure 4Logo plot summarizing the QM/MM e-Pathway calculations on all 14 snapshots, where the size of a digit d for residue r indicates the relative frequency of residue r being identified as hole acceptor at step d of the iterative approach.
Average distances d in Å, Electronic coupling rmsV in eV, ΔG° in eV, λ in eV and in s−1 calculated for HT between donor and acceptor (DA), donor and bridge (DB), and bridge and acceptor (BA), respectively.
| HT | Step |
|
|
|
|
| Δ |
|
|
| 1-step | DA | 27.2 | 5.81×10−9 (0.68) | 3.04×10−6 (0.85) | 3.71×10−6 (0.28) | 3.99×10−7 (0.45) | −0.92 | 1.38 (0.85) | 8.99×104 |
| 2-step | DB | 21.2 | 1.35×10−7 (0.82) | 2.23×10−5 (0.66) | 1.81×10−5 (0.72) | −0.55 | 0.88 (0.74) | 5.47×106 | |
| BA | 7.1 | 1.47×10−2 (0.81) | −0.37 | 0.19 (0.73) | 1.78×1012 |
The electronic coupling is calculated applying QM setups direct, full, path1 and path2. k is calculated by Marcus theory applying the respective highest electronic coupling of the system. Fluctuations are depicted through the coherence factor given in parentheses.