Weixue Wang1, Stephen J Lippard. 1. Department of Chemistry, Massachusetts Institute of Technology , Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139, United States.
Abstract
The regulatory component (MMOB) of soluble methane monooxygenase (sMMO) has a unique N-terminal tail not found in regulatory proteins of other bacterial multicomponent monooxygenases. This N-terminal tail is indispensable for proper function, yet its solution structure and role in catalysis remain elusive. Here, by using double electron-electron resonance (DEER) spectroscopy, we show that the oxidation state of the hydroxylase component, MMOH, modulates the conformation of the N-terminal tail in the MMOH-2MMOB complex, which in turn facilitates catalysis. The results reveal that the N-terminal tail switches from a relaxed, flexible conformational state to an ordered state upon MMOH reduction from the diiron(III) to the diiron(II) state. This observation suggests that some of the crystallographically observed allosteric effects that result in the connection of substrate ingress cavities in the MMOH-2MMOB complex may not occur in solution in the diiron(III) state. Thus, O2 may not have easy access to the active site until after reduction of the diiron center. The observed conformational change is also consistent with a higher binding affinity of MMOB to MMOH in the diiron(II) state, which may allow MMOB to displace more readily the reductase component (MMOR) from MMOH following reduction.
The regulatory component (MMOB) of soluble methane monooxygenase (sMMO) has a unique N-terminal tail not found in regulatory proteins of other bacterial multicomponent monooxygenases. This N-terminal tail is indispensable for proper function, yet its solution structure and role in catalysis remain elusive. Here, by using double electron-electron resonance (DEER) spectroscopy, we show that the oxidation state of the hydroxylase component, MMOH, modulates the conformation of the N-terminal tail in the MMOH-2MMOB complex, which in turn facilitates catalysis. The results reveal that the N-terminal tail switches from a relaxed, flexible conformational state to an ordered state upon MMOH reduction from the diiron(III) to the diiron(II) state. This observation suggests that some of the crystallographically observed allosteric effects that result in the connection of substrate ingress cavities in the MMOH-2MMOB complex may not occur in solution in the diiron(III) state. Thus, O2 may not have easy access to the active site until after reduction of the diiron center. The observed conformational change is also consistent with a higher binding affinity of MMOB to MMOH in the diiron(II) state, which may allow MMOB to displace more readily the reductase component (MMOR) from MMOH following reduction.
Soluble methane monooxygenase
(sMMO) is a multicomponent enzyme that hydroxylates a wide range of
hydrocarbons.[1,2] To accomplish this task, the enzyme
finely orchestrates reactions involving four substrates, including
protons, electrons, dioxygen, and the hydrocarbon (methane, for example):The chemistry
is effected by the interplay among three protein
components.[1−3] For sMMO from Methylococcus capsulatus (Bath), a 251-kilodalton (kDa) dimeric (α2β2γ2) hydroxylase designated MMOH houses a
non-hemediiron active site in the α-subunit of each monomer.[4] A 38.6-kDa reductase known as MMOR is responsible
for reduction of the diiron center, transferring two electrons from
NADH through its flavin adenine dinucleotide cofactor and [Fe2S2] cluster.[5] The third
component is a 15.9-kDa cofactorless regulatory protein, MMOB, which
has a unique N-terminal sequence composed of approximately 35 residues.[6−8] MMOB induces many effects upon binding to MMOH, including decreasing
the redox potential of MMOH,[9] changing
the coordination of Fe2 as well as the global conformation of the
reduced enzyme,[10] and increasing the yield
and rate of hydrocarbon hydroxylation.[11,12]X-ray crystal
structure of Hox–2B complex (Protein
Data Bank (PDB) ID 4GAM). (a) View of the structure, with MMOH in cyan and MMOB in magenta.
There is a second MMOB bound on the other side of MMOH. (b) Structure
of the spin label, MTSL. Also depicted is MMOB in the Hox–2B complex, indicating two positions (N63C and D36C) within
the core and three (S5C, G11C, and L15C) on the N-terminal tail, labeled
for MMOB core-to-tail distance determinations.How MMOB exerts these regulatory effects is enigmatic. The
structure
and function of its N-terminal sequence are of particular interest.
In the bacterial multicomponent monooxygenase (BMM) superfamily, the
presence of an N-terminal tail in the regulatory protein is unique
to sMMO,[6] the only enzyme capable of oxidizing
methane.[1,2] The tail is required for steady-state catalytic
activity[8,13] as well as for the generation of reaction
intermediates Hperoxo and Q.[13] Solution-state nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) spectroscopic studies
revealed that free MMOB has a well-folded core, but that the N-terminal
sequence is largely unstructured.[7,14] As discovered
in a recent crystal structure determination (Protein Data Bank (PDB)
ID 4GAM) of
two MMOB proteins complexed to one MMOH (H–2B complex), the
MMOB core docks into the canyon region on each side of MMOH, while
the N-terminal tail, strikingly, forms an unusual ring-like conformation
on the surface of MMOH (Figure 1a), contacting
helices H and 4.[8] The MMOB core together
with the N-terminal tail exert allosteric effects within MMOH, connecting
cavities in MMOH for the ingress of gaseous substrates, and closing
a pore proposed as the proton transfer pathway from MMOH surface to
the diiron center.[8] The oxidation state
of the iron atoms in the H–2B complex could not be determined
unambiguously from the crystal structure; coordination of residue
E243 is similar to that of MMOH in the diiron(II) state (Hred), but the Fe···Fe and Fe–O distances are closer
to those in the diiron(III) state (Hox).[8]
Figure 1
X-ray crystal
structure of Hox–2B complex (Protein
Data Bank (PDB) ID 4GAM). (a) View of the structure, with MMOH in cyan and MMOB in magenta.
There is a second MMOB bound on the other side of MMOH. (b) Structure
of the spin label, MTSL. Also depicted is MMOB in the Hox–2B complex, indicating two positions (N63C and D36C) within
the core and three (S5C, G11C, and L15C) on the N-terminal tail, labeled
for MMOB core-to-tail distance determinations.
To gain a more dynamic, solution-state view of the
complex, and
to study how MMOB responds to MMOH reduction priming the complex for
catalysis, we used double electron–electron resonance (DEER)
spectroscopy. DEER is a pulsed electron paramagnetic resonance technique
that accurately determines distances between paramagnetic centers
typically in the 1.8–6 nm range in frozen solution.[15] In the present study, pairs of 1-oxyl-2,2,5,5-tetramethyl-Δ3-pyrroline-3-methyl
methanethiosulfonate spin labels (MTSL, Figure 1b inset) were attached to pairs of amino acids strategically positioned
in the MMOB core and its N-terminal tail, through the introduction
of site-directed double cysteine mutations (Figure 1b). Five labeling positions, two on the core region (N63C
and D36C) and three on the N-terminal tail (L15C, G11C, and S5C),
were selected for measuring core-to-tail distances, which define the
conformation of MMOB. The labeling positions are all solvent-exposed
and not on the hydroxylase-binding surface, based on the NMR study[7] and the X-ray crystal structure.[8] Mutations at these positions cause minimal structural perturbation,
as evidenced by the high catalytic activity retained by the spin-labeled
MMOB mutants (Figure S1, Supporting Information [SI]).We first investigated the solution conformation of
MMOB in the
oxidized complex, Hox–2B, and compared the DEER
results with the crystal structure. With the spin-labeled L15C/N63C
mutant in the absence of MMOH, the DEER-derived core-to-tail distance
measurement featured a very broad distribution with multiple peaks/shoulders,
ranging from less than 3 nm to more than 6 nm (Figure S2a, SI), consistent with disorder in the N-terminal
tail as indicated by NMR spectroscopy.[7,14] On forming
the Hox–2B complex, the distance distribution narrowed,
and a major peak emerged, centered at 3.6 nm (Figure 2a), a value in good agreement with that derived from a rotamer
analysis of spin-labeled side chains of the L15C/N63C mutant based
on the H–2B crystal structure (Figure 2a, right panel, red dashed line). This result suggests that, in solution,
the N-terminal tail of MMOB adopts the crystallographically observed
ring-like conformation upon binding to MMOH, at least for residues
from L15 to the MMOB core. A minor peak centered at approximately
5 nm indicated the presence of other conformational states in solution.
Figure 2
X-band DEER
of spin-labeled MMOB double cysteine mutants in Hox–2B
complex and the corresponding distance distributions.
Left panels, background subtracted DEER data (black) and simulated
fits (red) for spin-labeled MMOB double mutants L15C/N63C, L15C/D36C,
G11C/N63C, and S5C/N63C in Hox–2B complex. Right
panels, the corresponding distance distributions derived from the
DEER data (black) and from the crystal structure of Hox–2B complex (red dashed lines). DEER data were processed by
using DeerAnalysis 2011.[16] The distance
distributions derived from the crystal structure were modeled by using
MMM program package 2011.2.[17]
We next placed the spin label on the core at another position,
D36, by preparing the L15C/D36C mutant. In the absence of MMOH, this
mutant again exhibited a broad distance distribution ranging from
less than 2 to 5 nm, with a major peak centered at 2.8 nm (Figure
S2b, SI). Upon binding to MMOH in the diiron(III)
state, the major peak shifted to 2.3 – 2.4 nm (Figures 2b), in good agreement with the 2.5 nm distance derived
from the crystal structure (Figure 2b, right
panel, red dashed line). The width of the distance distribution, however,
was broader than that compatible with the crystal structure, suggesting
a more flexible N-terminal tail in solution.As the labeling
position on the N-terminal tail was moved closer
to the N-terminus, wide distance distributions were observed for the
Hox–2B complex. With the spin-labeled G11C/N63C
mutant, a broad distance distribution was observed with three major
peaks ranging from 2 to 5.5 nm (Figure 2c),
whereas a single peak at 2.9 nm is expected for this mutant based
on the crystal structure (Figure 2c, red dashed
line). The distance distribution obtained with spin-labeled S5C/N63C
(Figure 2d) was again much wider than that
expected based on the crystal structure (Figures 2d, right panel, red dashed line).These results indicate
that the structure of the first several
residues, at least from the N-terminus to G11, are highly flexible
in the Hox–2B complex in solution, in contrast to
the well-ordered structure observed crystallographically. Therefore,
some of the key interactions between the N-terminal tail of MMOB and
MMOH observed in the crystal structure are unlikely to be maintained
stably in the Hox–2B complex in solution. In particular,
in the crystalline state, Y8 of MMOB forms hydrogen bonds with R307
and E299 in MMOH, reorienting W308. These interactions together with
those between the MMOB core and MMOH connect the cavities for gaseous
substrates ingress.[8] The importance of
Y8 for catalysis was evidenced by the approximately 70% decrease in
catalytic activity exhibited by the MMOB mutant with the first eight
residues truncated,[8] whereas full activity
was achieved when only the first five residues were truncated (Figure
S1, SI). In the solution state, however,
Y8 is unlikely to form stable hydrogen bonding interactions with MMOH
residues in the Hox–2B complex because S5 and G11
of MMOB are both highly flexible. This argument raises the possibility
that the substrate ingress cavities are largely disconnected in the
Hox–2B complex in solution, blocking O2 and possibly CH4 access to the diiron(III) center.X-band DEER
of spin-labeled MMOB double cysteine mutants in Hox–2B
complex and the corresponding distance distributions.
Left panels, background subtracted DEER data (black) and simulated
fits (red) for spin-labeled MMOB double mutants L15C/N63C, L15C/D36C,
G11C/N63C, and S5C/N63C in Hox–2B complex. Right
panels, the corresponding distance distributions derived from the
DEER data (black) and from the crystal structure of Hox–2B complex (red dashed lines). DEER data were processed by
using DeerAnalysis 2011.[16] The distance
distributions derived from the crystal structure were modeled by using
MMM program package 2011.2.[17]Upon reduction of MMOH from the diiron(III) to
the diiron(II) state,
however, the MMOB core-to-tail distance distributions in the Hred–2B complex narrowed significantly. With spin-labeled
L15C/N63C and L15C/D36C mutants, single peaks at 3.6 and 2.1 nm, respectively,
were observed (Figures 3a, b), in general agreement
with the 3.6 and 2.5 nm distances derived from the crystal structure.
More dramatic changes occurred when labeling positions were moved
closer to the N-terminus. With spin-labeled G11C/N63C and S5C/N63C
mutants, single dominant peaks at 3.7 and 3.0 nm, respectively, appeared
(Figures 3c, d), slightly longer than the 2.9
and 2.5 nm distances derived from the crystal structure, but in stark
contrast to the broad, multipeak distance distributions in the diiron(III)
state.
Figure 3
X-band DEER of spin-labeled MMOB double cysteine mutants in the
Hred–2B complex and the corresponding core-to-tail
distance distributions. Left panels, background subtracted DEER data
(black) and simulated fits (red) for spin-labeled MMOB double mutants
L15C/N63C, L15C/D36C, G11C/N63C, and S5C/N63C in the Hred–2B complex. Right panels, the corresponding distance distributions
derived from the DEER data (blue); the DEER derived distance distributions
of the corresponding Hox–2B complex are also shown
(black dashed lines). DEER data were processed by using DeerAnalysis
2011.[16] The distance distributions derived
from the crystal structure were modeled by using MMM program package
2011.2.[17]
X-band DEER of spin-labeled MMOB double cysteine mutants in the
Hred–2B complex and the corresponding core-to-tail
distance distributions. Left panels, background subtracted DEER data
(black) and simulated fits (red) for spin-labeled MMOB double mutants
L15C/N63C, L15C/D36C, G11C/N63C, and S5C/N63C in the Hred–2B complex. Right panels, the corresponding distance distributions
derived from the DEER data (blue); the DEER derived distance distributions
of the corresponding Hox–2B complex are also shown
(black dashed lines). DEER data were processed by using DeerAnalysis
2011.[16] The distance distributions derived
from the crystal structure were modeled by using MMM program package
2011.2.[17]The narrower distance distributions observed with Hred–2B complex indicate that the N-terminal tail of MMOB adopts
a significantly more ordered structure when MMOH is reduced. This
finding has two important implications. First, the allosteric effects
exerted by the MMOB N-terminal tail on the MMOH internal structure
observed crystallographically are most likely relevant to the reduced
form of the complex in the solution state. Such an effect was discussed
above for the interaction between Y8 of the N-terminal tail and MMOH.
It is at this stage, when the hydroxylase is reduced, that formation
of stable interactions with MMOH, triggered by Y8, connect the substrate
ingress cavities, allowing O2 and hydrocarbon access to
the diiron(II) site. Second, the N-terminal tail and/or the entire
MMOB molecule may bind with higher affinity to MMOH in the reduced
state than in the oxidized state. To determine quantitatively how
MMOB binding affinity might change with iron oxidation state, we determined
the Kd values of H–2B complexes
by fluorescence anisotropy titrations using fluorescently labeled
MMOB. The results, shown in Figure 4, reveal
stronger binding of MMOB to reduced MMOH. The titration curves were
well fit, assuming that each MMOH has two noninteracting binding sites
for MMOB. A Kd value of 0.55 ± 0.03
μM was observed for the oxidized complex, comparable to that
previously determined by isothermal titration calorimetry.[3] The Kd value dropped
to 0.17 ± 0.02 μM when the complex was reduced, indicating
tighter binding affinity of MMOB for the reduced MMOH. This change
may allow (i) MMOB more readily to displace the reductase MMOR from
MMOH after MMOH reduction, if they both bind to the canyon region
of MMOH, situated just above the diiron active site, and (ii) the
N-terminal tail of MMOB to form stable contacts with MMOH that allosterically
lead to the connection of substrate ingress cavities and facilitate
catalysis.
Figure 4
MMOB binding to MMOH in the diiron(III) state and the diiron(II)
state. The fluorescence anisotropy of 1 μM 1,5-IAEDANS-labeled
MMOB D36C mutant was recorded as MMOH was titrated in. Titration curves
were fit, assuming each MMOH has two noninteracting MMOB binding sites
(MMOHsite).
MMOB binding to MMOH in the diiron(III) state and the diiron(II)
state. The fluorescence anisotropy of 1 μM 1,5-IAEDANS-labeled
MMOB D36C mutant was recorded as MMOH was titrated in. Titration curves
were fit, assuming each MMOH has two noninteracting MMOB binding sites
(MMOHsite).The modulation of protein conformation by the redox state
of the
active-site metal center, as observed with the H–2B complex,
is also used by other enzyme systems as a mechanism to control catalysis.
The heme-containing monooxygenase, cytochrome P450,[18] provides one such example. Cytochrome P450 enzymes activate
O2 at a hemeiron center coordinated by a cysteine thiolate,
which increases the pKa of the iron(IV)
hydroxide intermediate.[19] The two electrons
required for O2 activation[18] are delivered from a redox partner, which also serves as an effector
protein.[20] A recent solution-state study
using DEER spectroscopy revealed that the conformation of the cytochrome
P450cam in complex with its reductase/effector protein putidaredoxin
depends on the oxidation state of the heme center.[21]In summary, our results shed light on how the oxidation
state of
the iron atoms in MMOH modulates the conformation of MMOB, which in
turn facilitates catalysis. The N-terminal tail of MMOB in the H–2B
complex adopts ring-like conformations in solution, similar to that
observed in the crystal structure. A more relaxed, flexible structure
of the N-terminal tail was observed for the Hox–2B
complex in solution, however. This result suggests that the crystallographically
determined allosteric conformational changes triggered by interaction
of Y8 in the MMOB N-terminal tail with MMOH are disfavored in the
Hox–2B complex in solution, and that the substrate
ingress cavities may not be connected until after reduction of the
diiron center. The N-terminal tail switches to an ordered conformation
in response to MMOH reduction to the diiron(II) state, producing more
stable interactions with MMOH and allowing MMOB to exert its allosteric
effects on the reduced MMOH, connecting cavities in MMOH for substrate
ingress. We also demonstrate that, consistent with the observed conformational
change, MMOB binds more tightly to reduced MMOH. This increased binding
affinity may allow MMOB more readily to displace the reductase MMOR
from the reduced MMOH.
Authors: Maarten Merkx; Daniel A. Kopp; Matthew H. Sazinsky; Jessica L. Blazyk; Jens Müller; Stephen J. Lippard Journal: Angew Chem Int Ed Engl Date: 2001-08-03 Impact factor: 15.336
Authors: Natasa Mitić; Jennifer K Schwartz; Brian J Brazeau; John D Lipscomb; Edward I Solomon Journal: Biochemistry Date: 2008-07-16 Impact factor: 3.162
Authors: Vivek Srinivas; Rahul Banerjee; Hugo Lebrette; Jason C Jones; Oskar Aurelius; In-Sik Kim; Cindy C Pham; Sheraz Gul; Kyle D Sutherlin; Asmit Bhowmick; Juliane John; Esra Bozkurt; Thomas Fransson; Pierre Aller; Agata Butryn; Isabel Bogacz; Philipp Simon; Stephen Keable; Alexander Britz; Kensuke Tono; Kyung Sook Kim; Sang-Youn Park; Sang Jae Lee; Jaehyun Park; Roberto Alonso-Mori; Franklin D Fuller; Alexander Batyuk; Aaron S Brewster; Uwe Bergmann; Nicholas K Sauter; Allen M Orville; Vittal K Yachandra; Junko Yano; John D Lipscomb; Jan Kern; Martin Högbom Journal: J Am Chem Soc Date: 2020-08-05 Impact factor: 15.419
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: Jason C Jones; Rahul Banerjee; Manny M Semonis; Ke Shi; Hideki Aihara; John D Lipscomb Journal: Biochemistry Date: 2021-12-15 Impact factor: 3.162
Authors: Julia J Griese; Ramona Kositzki; Peer Schrapers; Rui M M Branca; Anders Nordström; Janne Lehtiö; Michael Haumann; Martin Högbom Journal: J Biol Chem Date: 2015-08-31 Impact factor: 5.157