| Literature DB >> 24867491 |
S Saif Hasan1, Stanislav D Zakharov, Adrien Chauvet, Valentyn Stadnytskyi, Sergei Savikhin, William A Cramer.
Abstract
TheEntities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2014 PMID: 24867491 PMCID: PMC4067154 DOI: 10.1021/jp501165k
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Phys Chem B ISSN: 1520-5207 Impact factor: 2.991
Figure 1(A) Cytochrome b6f complex structure from Nostoc PCC 7120 (PDB ID 4H44). Ribbon diagram of polypeptide subunits and redox active groups. Cytochrome b6 subunit, yellow; subunitIV, orange; cytochrome f, red; Rieske [2Fe–2S] iron–sulfur protein, blue; PetG, pink; PetL, wheat; PetM, cyan; PetN, white. Hemes bp and bn (green, red, and blue), cn (black, red, and blue), f (gray, red, and blue), chlorophyll-a (dark green and blue), and β-carotene (yellow) are shown as sticks. The components of the [2Fe–2S] cluster of the Rieske iron–sulfur protein are depicted as spheres (Fe, brown; sulfur, yellow). (B) Geometry of hemes within the trans-membrane domain of cytochrome b6f (PDB 4H44). Edge–edge and center–center (Fe–Fe, in parentheses) distances are shown.
Relative Contribution of b-Heme Pairs to the CD Signal in the Dimeric Cytochrome b6f Complexa
| heme pair | center–center distance (Å) | interplanar angle (deg) | relative contribution to CD spectrum (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 20.6 | 52.0 | +50.8% | |
| +50.8% | |||
| 22.0 | 17.2 | –3.5% | |
| 33.8 | 48.4 | +3.2% | |
| +3.2% | |||
| 34.9 | 18.9 | –4.5% |
Center-to-center distances, interplanar angles, and calculation of relative CD amplitudes determined from the crystal structure (PDB ID 4H44).
Additional numerical subscripts in b-heme notation used to distinguish the hemes in the two monomers of the dimeric complex.
Figure 2Absorbance spectra of dithionite-reduced cytochrome b6f complex; simultaneous kinetics of reduction of hemes bn and bp in dimeric b6f complex. (A) Room temperature α-band absorbance spectra of cytochromes f and b6, with room temperature absorbance spectra, respectively, at 554 and 563 nm, as a function of time of dimeric b6f complex initially oxidized by ferricyanide (FeCy; 20 μM), reduced by ascorbate (Asc; 0.1 mM), and reduced subsequently by dithionite (Dth, final concentration 2–3 mM). Buffer, 30 mM HEPES, pH 7.5, 50 mM NaCl, 0.1 mM EDTA, 0.045% UDM. Dimeric b6f complex containing 0.8 μM cytochrome f. (B, C) Time course of (B) heme b reduction by dithionite and (C) increase in amplitude of the split CD spectrum in dimeric b6f complex; kinetics of heme b reduction by dithionite. The dimeric b6f complex contained 1.6 μM cytochrome f. Dithionite was added to a concentration of 3–4 mM, and 27 consecutive OD and CD spectra (420–440 nm) were simultaneously measured (16 s per spectrum). Measurement of all CD and OD difference spectra was started 10 (blue), 74 (pink), 138 (green), 234 (red), and 410 (brown) s after addition of dithionite. (D) Measured kinetics induced by dithionite addition to the dimeric b6f complex: absorbance increase at 432 nm (triangles, black); amplitude of Soret band circular dichroism (CD) signals at 428 nm (circles, blue) and 437 nm (squares, blue).
Figure 3Calculated CD interaction between all reduced heme pairs: p1–n1 or p2–n2 (red trace), which are the dominant interactions; calculated spectra are shown for the other heme pairs, p1–n2, p2–n1 (purple), p1–p2 (blue), and n1–n2 (green).
Figure 4CD (circles, squares, blue) and optical density changes (triangles, black) were measured simultaneously, as described in the Materials and Methods section. Solid curves are kinetic simulations as described in the Results section, with the assumption that dithionite acts as a one-electron donor; the predicted time course for dithionite acting as a two-electron donor is shown in Figure S7 (Supporting Information). Electron transfer to the b6f dimer is described by two rate constants: k1 = 0.017 s–1 (70%) and k2 = 0.33 s–1 (30%); the larger rate constant is attributed to “contaminant” monomer complex in the dimer preparation (Figure S2B, Supporting Information, native gel). Black curve: fit to measured absorbance changes (triangles). Blue curve: expected CD kinetics in the “n–p” model where the intermediate doubly reduced intramonomer (Figure 5B; state N2) dimer has a lower free energy than the intermonomer doubly reduced state in which heme bn is reduced in both monomers (Figure 5A; state N2). Red function: expected time course of the CD change in the “n–n” model in which the intramonomer n1–n2 doubly reduced state has the lowest free energy.
Figure 5Summary of possible electron transfer routes and heme reduction states in the b6f complex. Two different models are considered: (A) n1–n2 model: the doubly reduced state of lowest energy of the dimer corresponds to two electrons residing on the two bn hemes belonging to different subunits (this state produces a weak negative CD signal (Figure 3). (B) n–p model: the lowest doubly reduced state of the dimer corresponds to two electrons residing on the bn and bp hemes belonging to the same subunit (in this state, the amplitude of the positive CD signal is significantly larger than that of any other heme pair). The sequence of four electron transfer events in these two models is illustrated. Reduced hemes are shown as red spheres. State N0 in panels A and B denotes fully oxidized hemes in dimeric complex. N represent states of the dimeric complex in which subscript “i” represents the number of reduced hemes. States N1 and N3 are bypassed if dithionite acts as a 2 e– donor. (C) Summary of conceivable two electron half-reduced states, of which the three states marked by “X” are inferred to be substantially less probable, although they have been documented to exist (refs (14), (15), (17), (19), (21), and (26)).
Figure 6Description of dielectric heterogeneity in the cytochrome b6f complex (PDB ID 4H44). Four interheme dielectric constants, which have different values, are shown: (i) the reference dielectric constant, εn1,n2 ≡ 2.5[15] between the two n-side hemes that bridge the major intermonomer cavity (yellow) that contains a high concentration of lipid (Hasan et al., submitted for publication), (ii) εn1,p1 = εn2,p2 between the intramonomer hemes, (iii) εp1,n2 = εp2,n1 between the p-side heme on one monomer and the n-side heme on the other, and (iv) εp1,p2 between the two p-side hemes. The minimum values of ε necessary for the energetically favored reduction of a particular heme pair among the four possible pairs in the dimeric complex, dependent upon the midpoint redox potential difference (ΔEm) between hemes bn and bp (50, 75, and 100 mV), calculated to the nearest half-integral values using the reference dielectric constant for εn1,n2 of 2.5 and eq 9 are, respectively, εn1,p1 = εn2,p2 > 6.1, 7.8, and 10.8 (Table 2). The corresponding values for the electrostatic interaction between the two hemes on different monomers on opposite sides of the complex, εn1,p2 = εn2,p1, are >3.7, 4.7, and 6.6. Energetically preferred reduction of the p-side heme pair, p1 and p2, corresponding to a ΔEm between hemes bn and bp of 50 and 75 mV, respectively, would require dielectric constants >10.1 and >43.6.
Threshold Interheme Dielectric Constants (ε) in the Dimeric Cytochrome b6f Complexa
| εn1,n2 = 2.5 | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Δ | εn1,p1 | εn1,p2 | εp1,p2 |
| 50 | ≥6.1 | ≥3.7 | ≥10.1 |
| 75 | ≥7.8 | ≥4.7 | ≥43.6 |
| 100 | ≥10.8 | ≥6.6 | * |
As shown in Figure 6: εn1,n2, dielectric constant between hemes bn1 and bn2, εn1,p1 (=εn2,p2), dielectric constant between hemes bn1 (or bn2) and bp1 (or bp2); εn1,p2 (=εn2,p1), dielectric constant between hemes bn1 (or bn2) and bp2 (or bp1); εp1,p2, dielectric constant between hemes bp1 and bp2; ΔEm, mid-point redox potential difference between hemes bp and bn; *, given an unfavorable redox potential difference for storage of two electrons on the two hemes bp, there is no value of the dielectric constant that will satisfy this state.