Timely ligation of one or more chemical cofactors at preselected locations in proteins is a critical preamble for catalysis in many natural enzymes, including the oxidoreductases and allied transport and signaling proteins. Likewise, ligation strategies must be directly addressed when designing oxidoreductase and molecular transport functions in man-made, first-principle protein constructs intended to operate in vitro or in vivo. As one of the most common catalytic cofactors in biology, we have chosen heme B, along with its chemical analogues, to determine the kinetics and barriers to cofactor incorporation and bishistidine ligation in a range of 4-α-helix proteins. We compare five elementary synthetic designs (maquettes) and the natural cytochrome b562 that differ in oligomeric forms, apo- and holo-tertiary structural stability; qualities that we show can either assist or hinder assembly. The cofactor itself also imposes an assembly barrier if amphiphilicity ranges toward too hydrophobic or hydrophilic. With progressive removal of identified barriers, we achieve maquette assembly rates as fast as native cytochrome b562, paving the way to in vivo assembly of man-made hemoprotein maquettes and integration of artificial proteins into enzymatic pathways.
Timely ligation of one or more chemical cofactors at preselected locations in proteins is a critical preamble for catalysis in many natural enzymes, including the oxidoreductases and allied transport and signaling proteins. Likewise, ligation strategies must be directly addressed when designing oxidoreductase and molecular transport functions in man-made, first-principle protein constructs intended to operate in vitro or in vivo. As one of the most common catalytic cofactors in biology, we have chosen heme B, along with its chemical analogues, to determine the kinetics and barriers to cofactor incorporation and bishistidine ligation in a range of 4-α-helix proteins. We compare five elementary synthetic designs (maquettes) and the natural cytochrome b562 that differ in oligomeric forms, apo- and holo-tertiary structural stability; qualities that we show can either assist or hinder assembly. The cofactor itself also imposes an assembly barrier if amphiphilicity ranges toward too hydrophobic or hydrophilic. With progressive removal of identified barriers, we achieve maquette assembly rates as fast as native cytochrome b562, paving the way to in vivo assembly of man-made hemoprotein maquettes and integration of artificial proteins into enzymatic pathways.
One ambition of synthetic
biology is the creation of man-made enzymes
with prescribed physical characteristics and performance specifications
engineered for work in vitro and eventually in living cells. As with
any practical machine, a natural enzyme molecule comprises a consortium
of component parts reflecting production, assembly, and service engineering
that supports the functionally active parts. The sharing of residues,
structural motifs, and domains by these parts contributes to the complexity
of natural proteins. This complexity is amplified by the unplanned
modifications from repeated blind natural selection over evolutionary
time, which confounds reliable extraction of essential elements of
natural enzyme activity for translation into man-made reproductions.
Our approach to the creation of man-made oxidoreductases and
related proteins thus seeks to minimize complexity by combining first
principles established for protein folding with those for engineering
electron-transfer and oxidation–reduction systems.[1] We avoid the common practice of designing man-made
proteins by mimicking natural proteins.Our method to functionalize
oxidoreductase maquettes endeavors
to keep the cofactor assembly process much simpler than is evident
in natural systems.[2,3] In the cell, the import and ligation
of the large, complex Mg/Zn and Fetetrapyrrole structures of chlorins
and hemes, respectively, of photosynthesis, respiration, and oxidative
and reductive metabolism employ elaborate engineering to regulate
tetrapyrrole production and delivery into the apoprotein.[4−9] In the laboratory, the analogous in vitro equipping of man-made
apoprotein designs with tetrapyrroles has to date been a matter of
empirically finding satisfactory conditions of mixing tetrapyrroles
in organic solution with the apoprotein in aqueous media with minor
attention to the essential details of the assembly process.[10−12] As maquettes, man-made 4-α-helical proteins designed with
simple oxidoreductase functions that match key characteristics
of their natural counterparts,[13] continue
to advance to include multi-cofactor combinations and more sophisticated
catalysis, it becomes important to learn how the assembly of tetrapyrrole
and protein proceeds and to develop strategies to ensure competent
integration of all cofactors into a designed host protein.The
staged, step-by-step developmental approach toward construction
of heme maquettes displaying oxidoreductive activities has generated
an extensive family of related 4-α-helical proteins.[14] Five of these are selected for their markedly
different oligomeric and topological forms and the degree of structuring
of their apo and holo heme-ligated states (Table 1). Together with the bacterial 4-α-helix hemoprotein
cytochrome b562,[15,16] they offer a useful palette with which to determine the time scales
and barriers governing tetrapyrrole partition from aqueous medium
into the hydrophobic interior of the protein followed by positioning
at a preselected location by bis-His ligation. In the present work,
we begin comparing tetrapyrrole binding using the common natural cofactor
Fe-protoporphyrin IX (heme B), which binds to all the selected
proteins with similar nanomolar affinities (dissociation constants, KD).[1,13,17,18] The study is then extended beyond
heme B to examine time scales of binding of a series of related heme
analogues differing in peripheral substitutions and hydrophobicity
to clarify the influence of cofactor physical chemistry on the assembly
process.
Table 1
Topology and Physical Properties of
the Six Heme Binding Protein Sequencesa
Sequences are shown in Supplementary
Table 1. Heme dissociation values
(KD) from previous works.[1,13,17,18] Absence of structure refers to NMR characterization of a molten
globular state for the five maquettes and a random coil for the natural
cytochrome b562.[1,18,25−27]
Sequences are shown in Supplementary
Table 1. Heme dissociation values
(KD) from previous works.[1,13,17,18] Absence of structure refers to NMR characterization of a molten
globular state for the five maquettes and a random coil for the natural
cytochrome b562.[1,18,25−27]
Materials and Methods
Supplies
All chemicals
were purchased from Sigma Aldrich
unless otherwise noted.
Heme Preparation
Iron protoporphyrin
IX (hemin)
and the other porphyrins were purchased from Frontier Scientific.
2,6-Dinitrileporphyrin was synthesized as described.[19] Heme A was extracted and purified as described.[20] All porphyrins were dissolved in dimethyl sulfoxide
(DMSO) with the concentration determined via weight, except for hemin
whose concentration was determined via the hemochrome assay utilizing
the extinction coefficient at 556 nm.[21] Each porphyrin was diluted into the appropriate aqueous buffer minutes
before each experiment.
Protein Preparation
Proteins E and
F were prepared
at 0.1 mmol scale on a CEM Liberty microwave peptide synthesizer using
standard fluorenylmethyloxycarbonyl (FMOC)/tBu protection protocols.[22] Amino
acids were purchased from Nova Biochem. The side chain protecting
groups were as follows: Cys (trt), Lys (Boc), His (Boc), and Asp/Glu
(OtBu). After synthesis, the protein was cleaved
from the resin by incubating it with a mixture of trifluoroacetic
acid (TFA), ethanedithiol, anisole, and thioanisole in
a 9:0.2:0.5:0.3 ratio for 2.5 h protected from light. After excess
reagent removal via rotovap, protein was precipitated with methyl t-butyl ether and purified using a reverse-phase Waters
HPLC equipped with a C18 column running a linear gradient of acetonitrile
with 0.1% (v/v) TFA and water with 0.1% (v/v) TFA. The products were
verified with MALDI mass spectroscopy using a sinapinic acid matrix.The other proteins used in this paper were obtained as follows.
The genes for the protein were ordered from DNA2.0 containing a His-tag,
a linker with a TEV site, and the protein in PJ414 vector. DNA was
transformed into BL-21DE3 strain Escherichia coli cells (New England Biolabs). These BL-21DE3 cells were grown in
4 L of media (12 g/L bacto-peptone, 24 g/L bacto-yeast extract, 4
mL/L glycerol, and 14 g/L KH2PO4, pH 7.5) until
the OD600 was at 0.6 au. Overexpression was induced by
addition of IPTG to a final concentration of 1 mM. The cells overexpressed
the protein for 4.5 h and were spun down to a pellet. The pellet was
then resuspended in lysis buffer (300 mM NaCl, 50 mM NaH2PO4, 10 mM imidazole, pH 7) and sonicated at an amplitude
of 90 (5 times, 20 s each time) in a Misonix sonicator (S-4000 with
microtip attachment). The lysate was spun down for 1 h at 20 000g. The supernatant was then run through a GE-Histrap column.
The histidine tag was removed by incubating the eluate with TEV protease
(1 mM dithiothreitol, 1 unit TEV enzyme purchased from Invitrogen
per 100 μL volume, overnight) and rerun on the Histrap column
to separate cleaved from uncleaved. The flowthrough of this second
column was dialyzed into N-cyclohexyl-2-aminoethanesulfonic
acid (CHES) buffer (20 mM CHES, 150 mM KCl, pH 9).The concentration
for all protein variants was determined by the
monitoring absorbance at 280 nm using an extinction coefficient of
22 500 M–1 cm–1.All proteins in this paper were purified by HPLC, and the masses
were verified by MALDI as described above (Supplemental
Figures 1–12).
Stopped-Flow Spectroscopy
Millisecond
time scale measurements
were made on an OLIS RSM 1000 stopped flow spectrophotometer,
which takes a full visible spectrum every millisecond. The tetrapyrrole
and protein were added to separate syringes and shot together, and
the absorbance was monitored in a 2 cm flow cell. Temperature was
controlled with a Fischer-Scientific IsoTemp 3031 water bath attached.
Individual wavelengths were selected for further kinetic analysis.
All experiments were performed in triplicate, and the data were averaged
together for further analysis.
Data Fitting
Initial
rates were determined by fitting
the first 20 ms to a linear regression and dividing this slope by
the extinction coefficient.Pseudothermodynamic parameters
of the transition state were derived using eq 1 for the temperature-dependent rates.where k is the rate
of the
reaction at a certain temperature, kB is
Boltzmann’s constant, T is the temperature
in Kelvin, and h is Planck’s constant; κ
is the transmission coefficient, which is set to 1 for all reactions
in this paper, indicating all reactions that reach the transition
state proceed to completion. ΔS⧧ is the entropy change between the transition state and the reactants,
ΔH⧧ is the enthalpy change
between the transition state and the reactants, and R is the gas constant in units of cal K–1 mol–1.[23] The linearized form
(eq 2) is used in the Eyring plot of Figure 2:
Figure 2
Eyring plot of the temperature dependence of
the initial rates
of the various proteins studied. A (gray), B (green), C (red), and
E (pink) share similar slopes and intercepts of their temperature
dependence. F (black) has a higher transition state enthalpy of formation
and D (blue) a higher transition state entropy of formation: 20 mM
CHES, 150 mM KCl buffer, pH 9; protein at 5 μM, heme at 10 μM.
UV/Vis Spectroscopy
A Varian Cary-500 spectrophotometer
measured slower than millisecond kinetics. Data were collected between
200 and 800 nm. The spectrophotometer was blanked to the buffer
used in the experiment.
Partition Coefficients
Partition
coefficients were
determined by first dissolving the chromophore in 1-octanol and taking
a spectrum.[24] This solution was then mixed
with an equal volume 50 mM CHES, 150 mM KCl buffer, pH 9, vortexed,
and allowed to sit for 1 h at room temperature. After the incubation,
spectra of the octanol layer were taken again. The concentration of
porphyrin in the aqueous layer was calculated as the concentration
in octanol before incubation minus the concentration in octanol after
incubation. The partition coefficient (log P) was
then determined as the log of the ratio of the concentration of porphyrin
in the octanol layer to the aqueous layer.
Results
Heme B Binding to the Selected Maquette Proteins
There
are many structural factors that can govern speed of cofactor assembly
in proteins. In this work, we focus on the effect of structural elements
at the higher tertiary and quaternary levels without changing the
lower primary and secondary structural elements. Specifically, our
maquette selections maintain the same positioning of bis-His heme
ligation sites and the similarity of surrounding amino acids (see Supporting Information Table 1). The α-helical
secondary structure content of maquettes remains similar and comparable
to b562 (see Table 1). Differences at the tertiary and quaternary levels for our set
of six selected comparison sequences are illustrated in Table 1. The tertiary structure is altered by (a) helical
constraint via connecting loops, (b) the ability or inability of helices
to orient parallel versus antiparallel (syn vs anti conformations),
and (c) the relative mobility or rigidity of interior amino acids
packing between helices in the apo state, as assayed by NMR and X-ray
crystallography.[1,18,25−27] To test for the effects of differences in quaternary
structure, we vary the nature of the connection of the helical pair
units, that is, whether or not they are linked to other helical pair
units through covalent loops and/or disulfide bonds and whether helical
pair units associate tightly or relatively loosely in the apo state.Specifically, maquettes B, C, and D have identical helical sequences
but differ in the number and position of interhelix loops and the
presence or absence of a disulfide link between loops. Maquettes D,
E, and F are unlinked and capable of dissociating into separate helical
pair subunits and associating in two distinct syn or anti forms based
on the relative positions of the connecting loops to one another (Table 1) though remain as 4-helix units when in the apo
state.[28,29] In this regard, maquette D has the greatest
tendency to dissociate under the conditions used here.[30]Table 1 shows that,
despite the differences
in tertiary and quaternary structure evident in the set of proteins,
all sequences display KD values for heme
binding in the tight nanomolar range, which makes the binding effectively
irreversible.[1,31,32] The heme binding reaction is monitored by a characteristic spectral
shift of the ferric heme Soret absorption from 395 nm in the aqueous
phase to 412 nm on bis-His ligation. The heme binding process is straightforward
and the heme-bound state stable beyond 20 h.
Time Course of Heme B Binding to Maquettes and Cytochrome b562
Under all experimental conditions
used, the assembly process can be regarded as a movement of the heme
B from the aqueous phase into the apoprotein and ending after the
heme has found and bis-His-ligated at the site.Figure 1a presents time courses of heme B ligation to cytochrome b562 (A) and maquettes B–F under comparable
conditions of one heme B per ligation site. Rate constants at 30 °C
(Figure 1) are summarized in Table 2. Heme B ligation to the six proteins covers a broad
range of time, proceeding to completion following time courses characteristic
of a second-order (Figure 1b), but not a first-order,
reaction with equimolar reactants (Supplementary
Figures 13 and 14).[33] The linear
dependence of the initial rate of binding for 20 μM excess heme
combined with variable protein concentrations of 1, 2, 3, and 4 μM
confirmed a second-order process in all cases except for the untethered
D, which was ambiguous (Supplementary Figure 15). Similarly, the linear dependence of the initial rate for 30 μM
excess maquette B protein with variable heme B concentrations of 6,
9, 12, and 18 μM confirmed a second-order process (Supplementary Figure 16). The single-chain monomer
maquette B, unstructured in the apo state and structured in the holo
state,[1] displays the most rapid time course
of heme ligation, proceeding to completion on a subsecond time scale
with a second-order rate constant of 3.04 × 105 M–1 s–1 (see Table 2 and Figure 1), the same rate as natural
protein A. Rates for binding heme at different sites are equivalent
for this maquette, as well (Supplemental Figure
17).
Figure 1
(a) Heme binding kinetics at 412 nm for proteins A–F. All
data were collected at 30 °C in 20 mM CHES, 150 mM buffer, pH
9. Protein at 5 μM, heme at 10 μM. Data normalized to
final overnight absorbance to ensure completion of the reaction. (b)
Heme binding of maquette A at various temperatures fit to both a first-order
(dashed lines) and second-order (solid lines) kinetic time course.
Table 2
Binding Rate Constants
and Transition
State Parameters of Sequences A–Fa
protein
rate constant
at 303 K (M–1 s–1)
ΔH⧧ (kcal/mol)
ΔS⧧ (cal/mol K)
–TΔS⧧ (kcal/mol)
ΔG⧧ (kcal/mol)
A
3.04 × 105 ± 1.7 × 104
11.53 ± 1.1
–42.89 ± 3.8
13.0
24.5
B
3.04 × 105 ± 6.4 × 103
10.62 ±
1.0
–46.22 ± 3.4
14.0
24.6
C
1.73 × 105 ± 3.3 × 103
8.73 ± 1.3
–53.44 ± 4.6
16.2
24.9
D
3.24 × 103 ± 5.5 × 102
–1.56 ± 0.6
–94.94 ± 2.1
28.8
27.2
E
2.68 × 104 ± 2.2 × 103
11.2 ±
0.8
–48.3 ± 2.8
14.6
25.8
F
7.3 × 103 ± 1.8 × 103
17.87 ± 1.0
–28.85 ± 3.5
8.74
26.6
Reference
temperature is 30 °C.
The bold/italic numbers denote the predominant barrier for each protein.
(a) Heme binding kinetics at 412 nm for proteins A–F. All
data were collected at 30 °C in 20 mM CHES, 150 mM buffer, pH
9. Protein at 5 μM, heme at 10 μM. Data normalized to
final overnight absorbance to ensure completion of the reaction. (b)
Heme binding of maquette A at various temperatures fit to both a first-order
(dashed lines) and second-order (solid lines) kinetic time course.Reference
temperature is 30 °C.
The bold/italic numbers denote the predominant barrier for each protein.Compared to natural protein
A, the temperature dependence for heme
binding to single-chain maquette B (presented in Eyring plots of Figure 2) balances a slightly
smaller enthalpic (10.6 vs 11.5 kcal/mol) with a slightly larger entropic
(14.0 vs 13.0 kcal/mol at 30 °C) component. Despite markedly
different primary sequences, natural sequence A and maquette B appear
to present a common barrier height to heme entry, ligation, and establishment
of a singular structure.Eyring plot of the temperature dependence of
the initial rates
of the various proteins studied. A (gray), B (green), C (red), and
E (pink) share similar slopes and intercepts of their temperature
dependence. F (black) has a higher transition state enthalpy of formation
and D (blue) a higher transition state entropy of formation: 20 mM
CHES, 150 mM KCl buffer, pH 9; protein at 5 μM, heme at 10 μM.Dimeric maquette C shares the
same sequence as monomeric maquette
B and also assumes a singular structure in the holo state but has
a different tertiary topology of helical tethering that involves removal
of the loop connecting helices 2 and with the addition of a disulfide
bond connecting the loops at the opposite end of the bundle (Table 1). The maquette C has a more exaggerated enthalpic
and entropic counterbalancing (8.7 and 16.2 kcal/mol) with a
net effect of only a 2-fold slowing of the second-order rate constant.
The enhanced mobility at one end of the helical bundle in C appears
to increase the entropic term while lowering the activation enthalpy.
Individual site knockouts of protein C unveil peculiar kinetics (Supplemental Figure 17). The site farthest away
from the tether (H42F) assembles at a rate 3 times faster than the
site nearest the tether (H7F). This could also be due to a combination
of cofactor access to the indivdual sites and differences in the level
of apo structure of maquette C.[25] This
also manifests in the affinity, showng two separate KD values.[13]The simple
removal of the disulfide tether in C to create the untethered
helix–loop–helix homodimer D substantially lowers the
second-order rate constant by 50-fold. The Eyring plot reveals a dramatically
different rate-limiting barrier for the dominant slow phase. Figure 2 and Table 2 show that the
heme B ligation process for D slows slightly with increasing temperature,
yielding a modest enthalpic term of −1.54 kcal/mol, with a
dominating entropic term (28.8 kcal/mol). This suggests a distinctly
different rate-limiting process that may be responding to the freedom
of the apo-maquette helical pairs to pack parallel or antiparallel
in a syn or anti conformation and/or the repelling effect of the high
net charge on each of the homodimers (−8 charge per one helix–loop–helix
motif).The untethered homodimer E with neutral net charge has
a similar
enthalpic but larger entropic contribution than natural sequence A.
This slows the second-order rate constant ∼10-fold. Although
also net-neutral charge, the untethered homodimer F, the only sequence
that is structured (X-ray[29] and NMR[18]) in the apo form, reverses the thermodynamic
trend, raising the enthalpic term (17.9 kcal/mol) and lowering the
entropic term (8.7 kcal/mol), for a net slowing of the binding rate
by ∼40-fold. These results separate D and F from the others
as clearly rate-limited, respectively, by diffusion between heme B
and the weakly coupled homodimers or a higher thermal activation barrier
to access the heme into a singular structured apoprotein.
Ligation of
Fe-Porphyrin Variants
In complementary
trials, we kept the maquette sequence constant (B) but varied the
Fe-porphyrin to test whether the transfer of cofactor from the aqueous
phase into the maquette interior limits the rapid time course of ligation
and to assess the effect of porphyrin aggregation in aqueous solution.
Figure 3a presents a family of synthetic Fe-porphyrins
with marked variance in their overall degree of hydrophobicity or
hydrophilicity and in the pattern of polar and nonpolar groups around
the porphyrin macrocycle (affinity data in Supplemental
Table 2). We used [n-octanol]/[water] partition
coefficients P(24,34) as a guide to the effect
of the porphyrin macrocycle substitution on the relationship between
the aqueous phase and the hydrophobic interior of the maquette B (Figure 3a). Figure 3b displays typical
spectra of three heme variants covering the experimental range of
log P values at the concentrations of aqueous solutions
used for the binding kinetic measurement. We assayed the solubility
of the hemes and their tendency to form multimers in aqueous solution
by UV–visible spectroscopy. In the left panel of Figure 3b, the visible spectrum of heme in pH 9 aqueous
buffer (green) is dominated by the broad 350–400 nm Soret peak
and the 605 nm peak characteristic of the π–π dimer
described by Asher et al.[35] The approximately
0.5 μM aqueous dimer to monomer dissociation constant reported
by this group[36] indicates that a substantial
fraction of heme monomer is also present. There is no indication of
the μ-oxo heme dimer, reported decades ago by Brown et al.,
who also reported stronger heme dimer dissociation constants.[37] The left panel also shows that heme dissolved
in DMSO (black) has the narrow Soret absorption band at 405 nm characteristic
of heme in monomeric form.[35] The Soret
absorption remains narrow and red shifts to 412 nm on bis-His ligation
in the maquette (blue). Heme variants with higher log P, such as protoporphyrin IX dimethyl ester, show the broad
spectra of multimer formation in aqueous solution (Figure 3b, middle), while hemes equipped with highly polar
substituents and low log P values (diacetyl deuteroporphyrin
IX) exhibit simple monomeric solutions in water (Figure 3b, right).
Figure 3
(a) Various protoporphyrin IX analogues used to
depict the
effect of changing the ring substituents on the assembly rate. Partition
coefficient (log P) values in parentheses. (b) Spectra
of three selected porphyrin in DMSO (black), 20 mM CHES, 150 mM KCl,
pH 9, buffer (green), and bound to protein B (blue). Heme B (left),
protoporphyrin IX dimethyl ester (middle), and diacetyl deuteroporphyrin
IX (right).
(a) Various protoporphyrin IX analogues used to
depict the
effect of changing the ring substituents on the assembly rate. Partition
coefficient (log P) values in parentheses. (b) Spectra
of three selected porphyrin in DMSO (black), 20 mM CHES, 150 mM KCl,
pH 9, buffer (green), and bound to protein B (blue). Heme B (left),
protoporphyrin IX dimethyl ester (middle), and diacetyl deuteroporphyrin
IX (right).Figure 4 shows time courses of binding of
members of the family of Fe-porphyrins to maquette B, while Figure 5 summarizes the effect of log P on the binding rate (linear time scale in Supplemental
Figure 18). Compared to heme B, the slightly less polar deuteroporphyrin
and mesoporphyrin bind to maquette B several-fold faster. On
the other hand, making the Fe-porphyrin more polar by substituting
the heme B vinyls with structurally comparable nitriles (2,6-dinitrileporphyrin)
or adding polar hydroxyls (isohematoporphyrin) or carbonyls
(diacetyl deuteroprotoporphyrin) slows the rate of binding.
This suggests that the rate-limiting step of heme ligation to maquette
B lies in the initial steps of partitioning into the hydrophobic interior
of the maquette.
Figure 4
Assembly kinetics for the above series of Fe-porphyrins
with the
monomer protein fit to a second-order reaction (orange line). Rates
were collected upon rapid mixing of protein B (24 μM) with porphyrin
(5 μM) at 25 °C in 20 mM CHES, 150 mM KCl buffer, pH 9.
Figure 5
Comparison of protein B assembly rates with n-octanol/water
log P values at pH 9 for the above series of Fe-porphyrins.
Assembly kinetics for the above series of Fe-porphyrins
with the
monomer protein fit to a second-order reaction (orange line). Rates
were collected upon rapid mixing of protein B (24 μM) with porphyrin
(5 μM) at 25 °C in 20 mM CHES, 150 mM KCl buffer, pH 9.Comparison of protein B assembly rates with n-octanol/water
log P values at pH 9 for the above series of Fe-porphyrins.On the other hand, increasing
the log P above
a threshold value of about 0.75 by either removing the heme B propionates
(etioporphyrin) or esterifying them (protoporphyrin IXdimethyl ester) leads to greater spectral evidence of porphyrin aggregation
and significantly lowers the binding rates. This could reflect a lowering
of the heme monomer concentration free in solution and/or a limiting
rate of porphyrin disaggregation.
Discussion
Scheme 1 summarizes the hurdles that can
stand in the way of Fe-porphyrin cofactor self-assembly into protein,
starting in an aqueous medium and ending in a binding site in the
interior of a protein that provides strong, effectively irreversible
bishistidine ligation for the hemeiron. The first barrier is
associated not with the protein but with the polarity balance and
aggregation state of the Fe-porphyrin cofactor. Mesoporphyrin shows
an optimal Fe-porphyrin amphiphilicity for rapid cofactor binding.
Increased log P, indicating higher hydrophobic character,
shifts the equilibrium toward the aggregated Fe-porphyrin in solution,
a form unable to ligate to the proteins. Decreased log P, indicating an increase in hydrophilic character, slows the rate
by making partition of the unligated Fe-porphyrin in the hydrophobic
core less favorable.
Scheme 1
Protein–Tetrapyrrole
Binding Reaction
The various proteins are limited
in their assembly by either entropic or enthalpic barriers related
to protein mobility, while the porphyrin is limited by amphiphilicity.
The entropic barrier of D is shown as flipping in this scheme, while
F is shown as a tightly packed cartoon that opens up for assembly.
Splaying open (E and C) is used as a pictorial representation of an
open state capable of heme binding. A and B are not thought to be
limited substantially by the protein structure. Porphyrins limit the
assembly through their amphiphilic character.
Heme association across our range of maquettes
shows assembly on
the 100 ms to tens of seconds time scale, much faster than the tens
of minutes time scale reported by Kuzelova et al. for heme binding
to natural proteins albumin and hemopexin.[38] Kuzelova interpreted the observed rates around 0.001 s–1 to reflect rate-limiting heme dimer dissociation. Our distinctly
faster assembly rates with all maquettes suggest that heme dimer dissociation
is in fact much faster. While the assembly of most heme variants is
well fit by a second-order time course, Fe-tetracarboxyphenyl
porphyrin (TCP) displays unusual biphasic kinetics, with a burst phase
extent of ∼20% of unknown origin (Supplemental
Figure 19). This may reflect some heterogeneity in the TCP
dimer charge resulting from the pK values of 9.6
reported by Stong et al.[39]
Protein–Tetrapyrrole
Binding Reaction
The various proteins are limited
in their assembly by either entropic or enthalpic barriers related
to protein mobility, while the porphyrin is limited by amphiphilicity.
The entropic barrier of D is shown as flipping in this scheme, while
F is shown as a tightly packed cartoon that opens up for assembly.
Splaying open (E and C) is used as a pictorial representation of an
open state capable of heme binding. A and B are not thought to be
limited substantially by the protein structure. Porphyrins limit the
assembly through their amphiphilic character.We show two distinct ways protein structure can slow cofactor self-assembly.
The first way is to impose a large entropic reorganization barrier,
best demonstrated by protein D. Entropic barriers associated with
minimal temperature dependence of the rate is a characteristic of
structural rearrangements.[40] Structurally,
this could reflect two separate untethered monomeric helix–loop–helix
halves associating from solution to form the four-helix dimer that
favorably buries the hydrophobic core of each monomer and enables
heme binding. At extremely low nanomolar concentrations of protein,
this might be the case, as heme binding is profoundly slowed. However,
at micromolar concentrations, there is a conspicuous rapid burst phase
of heme binding that indicates preformed dimers are available. On
the other hand, the untethered monomers are free to associate in a
helical bundle geometry (syn) that does not bring the histidines close
enough together to form a bis-His heme ligation site. Similar geometry
changes are seen in the H10S24 protein maquette of Grosset et al.[41] Her work clearly shows a protein capable of
reorganizing between syn and anti conformations on seconds time scale
initiated by a change in heme redox states. In the case of maquette
D, conformational change would impose a barrier wherein the maquette
must search structural space in order to find one state suitable for
cofactor assembly.The addition of a simple tether, the disulfide
bond linking loops
in C, for example, can restrict the conformational freedom of the
heme binding segments such that the two monomers cannot rearrange
or diffuse away from one another, lowering the entropic barrier to
moderate levels and speeding the rate of binding (Table 2). Protein C still retains residual conformational freedom
associated with the smaller entropic barrier at the unlinked end of
the bundle, while the increased structuring imposed by the tether
adds to an enthalpic barrier.The second way protein structure
can slow cofactor self-assembly
is to impose a large enthalpic barrier associated with apoprotein
structuring. Protein F is highly structured in the apo state as seen
in the crystal structure.[29] This structuring
interferes with heme entry to the core as various packing interactions
and internal hydrogen bonds must be broken. Such structural destabilization
requires substantial amounts of thermal energy, thus giving protein
F its strong temperature dependence.These foregoing conclusions
clearly demonstrate the power of maquettes
to uncover the relevant physical chemical principles of protein design
without complexity brought on by evolution. The stepwise redesign
of maquettes from early multichain forms to a final single chain form
that are sufficiently malleable in the apo state has increased the
rate of cofactor self-assembly to a point comparable to natural proteins
and limited by the physical chemical properties of the porphyrin itself.
Like the maquette B, natural cytochromes b562 and b5 and oxygen transport proteins
such as myoglobin are predominantly unstructured in the apo state,
becoming substantially more structured when heme is bound.[26,42] In all cases, there is a small amount of structure in the apo state
that restricts the conformational freedom of the unstructured regions.
Apocytochrome b562 retains two intact
helices, while the helices that bind heme are random coil. Moreover,
in apocytochrome b5, only a small region
has any secondary structure, while the majority of the protein is
random coil and unstructured. Though myoglobin is expressed as a single-chain
protein, there is no published apo structure to reveal if there are
minor structural elements restricting the conformational freedom.
Despite this, NMR analysis of apomyoglobin has allowed Eliezer and
Wright to construct a theoretical model of this protein without heme
B showing, when combined with other literature describing its folding,
that it too adheres to the principles outlined above: a conformationally
restricted structure in which the binding site is malleable to allow
access to heme B.[43,44]The principles outlined
in this article agree with the work of
Shoemaker and Wolynes who describe the effect of molecular disorder
on the binding of cofactors.[45] The authors
from this work predict that disordered apo states have greater rates
of binding in part due to their capture radius, the distance at which
the protein will come into contact with a binding partner. This concept,
referred to as the fly casting mechanism, can be easily applied to
the maquettes in this paper owing to helical fraying and the molten
globular nature of the apo state. However, difficulty in measuring
structure in any localized fashion, due to the repetition in maquette
sequence and minimal change in CD signal between apo and holo states,
makes proving this difficult.[18,25]Beyond insights
into natural proteins, the principles here can
be readily applied to the design of cofactor binding proteins. Rate
limitations can be uncovered through the use of temperature dependencies,
and the structure can be addressed accordingly based on the information
above.Optimizing the ability of proteins to self-assemble with
cofactors
rapidly is as important to natural expression as increasing the affinity.
Rapid cofactor binding can be of critical importance in the cell for
cofactor modification and customization. It also minimizes the cytotoxicity
of free heme B, which generates reactive oxygen species when unbound
in solution.[46−48] Future man-made protein designs that seek to integrate
with and exploit natural biochemical pathways in vivo will benefit
by using these principles to diminish assembly barriers and effectively
compete with host natural proteins for available cofactors described
in this paper. Indeed, recent work utilizing a variant of maquette
B has already been shown to co-opt the natural c-type
machinery to covalently link heme B to an artificial protein.[49]
Authors: F Arnesano; L Banci; I Bertini; J Faraone-Mennella; A Rosato; P D Barker; A R Fersht Journal: Biochemistry Date: 1999-07-06 Impact factor: 3.162
Authors: Lei Zhang; J L Ross Anderson; Ismail Ahmed; Jessica A Norman; Christopher Negron; Andrew C Mutter; P Leslie Dutton; Ronald L Koder Journal: Biochemistry Date: 2011-11-08 Impact factor: 3.162
Authors: J L Ross Anderson; Craig T Armstrong; Goutham Kodali; Bruce R Lichtenstein; Daniel W Watkins; Joshua A Mancini; Aimee L Boyle; Tammer A Farid; Matthew P Crump; Christopher C Moser; P Leslie Dutton Journal: Chem Sci Date: 2013-10-31 Impact factor: 9.825
Authors: Ronald L Koder; J L Ross Anderson; Lee A Solomon; Konda S Reddy; Christopher C Moser; P Leslie Dutton Journal: Nature Date: 2009-03-19 Impact factor: 49.962
Authors: Joshua A Mancini; Goutham Kodali; Jianbing Jiang; Kanumuri Ramesh Reddy; Jonathan S Lindsey; Donald A Bryant; P Leslie Dutton; Christopher C Moser Journal: J R Soc Interface Date: 2017-02 Impact factor: 4.118
Authors: C C Moser; M M Sheehan; N M Ennist; G Kodali; C Bialas; M T Englander; B M Discher; P L Dutton Journal: Methods Enzymol Date: 2016-07-11 Impact factor: 1.600
Authors: Nicholas F Polizzi; Yibing Wu; Thomas Lemmin; Alison M Maxwell; Shao-Qing Zhang; Jeff Rawson; David N Beratan; Michael J Therien; William F DeGrado Journal: Nat Chem Date: 2017-08-21 Impact factor: 24.427
Authors: Goutham Kodali; Joshua A Mancini; Lee A Solomon; Tatiana V Episova; Nicholas Roach; Christopher J Hobbs; Pawel Wagner; Olga A Mass; Kunche Aravindu; Jonathan E Barnsley; Keith C Gordon; David L Officer; P Leslie Dutton; Christopher C Moser Journal: Chem Sci Date: 2016-08-17 Impact factor: 9.825
Authors: Anna Tsargorodska; Michaël L Cartron; Cvetelin Vasilev; Goutham Kodali; Olga A Mass; Jeremy J Baumberg; P Leslie Dutton; C Neil Hunter; Päivi Törmä; Graham J Leggett Journal: Nano Lett Date: 2016-10-10 Impact factor: 11.189