We have investigated the membrane remodeling capacity of the N-terminal membrane-binding domain of α-synuclein (α-Syn100). Using fluorescence correlation spectroscopy and vesicle clearance assays, we show that α-Syn100 fully tubulates POPG vesicles, the first demonstration that the amphipathic helix on its own is capable of this effect. We also show that at equal density of membrane-bound protein, α-Syn has dramatically reduced affinity for, and does not tubulate, vesicles composed of a 1:1 POPG:POPC mixture. Coarse-grained molecular dynamics simulations suggested that the difference between the pure POPG and mixture results may be attributed to differences in the protein's partition depth, the membrane's hydrophobic thickness, and disruption of acyl chain order. To explore the importance of these attributes compared with the role of the reduced binding energy, we created an α-Syn100 variant in which we removed the hydrophobic core of the non-amyloid component (NAC) domain and tested its impact on pure POPG vesicles. We observed a substantial reduction in binding affinity and tubulation, and simulations of the NAC-null protein suggested that the reduced binding energy increases the protein mobility on the bilayer surface, likely impacting the protein's ability to assemble into organized pretubule structures. We also used simulations to explore a potential role for interleaflet coupling as an additional driving force for tubulation. We conclude that symmetry across the leaflets in the tubulated state maximizes the interaction energy of the two leaflets and relieves the strain induced by the hydrophobic void beneath the amphipathic helix.
We have investigated the membrane remodeling capacity of the N-terminal membrane-binding domain of α-synuclein (α-Syn100). Using fluorescence correlation spectroscopy and vesicle clearance assays, we show that α-Syn100 fully tubulates POPG vesicles, the first demonstration that the amphipathic helix on its own is capable of this effect. We also show that at equal density of membrane-bound protein, α-Syn has dramatically reduced affinity for, and does not tubulate, vesicles composed of a 1:1 POPG:POPC mixture. Coarse-grained molecular dynamics simulations suggested that the difference between the pure POPG and mixture results may be attributed to differences in the protein's partition depth, the membrane's hydrophobic thickness, and disruption of acyl chain order. To explore the importance of these attributes compared with the role of the reduced binding energy, we created an α-Syn100 variant in which we removed the hydrophobic core of the non-amyloid component (NAC) domain and tested its impact on pure POPG vesicles. We observed a substantial reduction in binding affinity and tubulation, and simulations of the NAC-null protein suggested that the reduced binding energy increases the protein mobility on the bilayer surface, likely impacting the protein's ability to assemble into organized pretubule structures. We also used simulations to explore a potential role for interleaflet coupling as an additional driving force for tubulation. We conclude that symmetry across the leaflets in the tubulated state maximizes the interaction energy of the two leaflets and relieves the strain induced by the hydrophobic void beneath the amphipathic helix.
α-Synuclein (α-Syn) is a 140 amino
acid, intrinsically
disordered neuronal protein whose N-terminal domain (residues 1–93)
adopts an amphipathic helix (AH) upon binding to membranes.[1−5] It is well-established that full-length α-Syn is capable of
dramatic remodeling of lipid bilayers. In vivo, α-Syn has recently
been shown to induce mitochondrial fragmentation and fission.[6,7] In vitro, biophysical experiments have shown that α-Syn induces
externally protruding membrane tubules from synthetic lipid vesicles
and can cause full fragmentation at high enough protein concentrations.[8,9] Combining X-ray scattering with coarse-grained molecular dynamics
(CGMD) simulations, we have recently shown that α-Syn thins
membranes and induces complex curvature fields.[10] In general, amphipathic helices like that of α-Syn
can both sense and induce curvature upon binding a membrane,[3,8,10−18] and the biophysical mechanisms by which they do so have been widely
studied.[16,19−32] The 47 C-terminal residues of α-Syn are known to remain disordered
upon binding of the AH,[3−5,33,34] but whether these residues are necessary for tubulation has not
been established. Similarly, a potential role of the important hydrophobic
non-amyloid component (NAC) domain (best known for its role in protein
aggregation) in tubulation has not been explored in the context of
the full membrane-binding domain.[35]At high concentrations, α-Syn causes complete tubulation
and fragmentation of negatively charged 1-palmitoyl-2-oleoyl-sn-glycero-3-phosphoglycerol (POPG) giant unilamellar vesicles
(GUVs) but has a negligible effect on neutral 1-palmitoyl-2-oleoyl-sn-glycero-3-phosphocholine (POPC) GUVs.[8] This difference is attributed to a very low binding affinity
of α-Syn for POPClipids.[14] Less
aggressive tubulation (compared with pure POPG bilayers) has also
been observed in vesicles with a mixed anionic and zwitterionic lipid
composition [e.g., POPG:POPC, POPG:1-palmitoyl-2-oleoyl-sn-glycero-3-phosphoethanolamine (POPE), or 1-palmitoyl-2-oleoyl-sn-glycero-3-phosphate (POPA):POPC].[8,9] This
finding, however, is considerably more provocative because, unlike
in the case of POPC, the cause of reduced tubulation has not been
attributed to reduced binding affinity.We previously used fluorescence
correlation spectroscopy (FCS)
to show that in 1:1 1-palmitoyl-2-oleoyl-sn-glycero-3-phosphoserine
(POPS):POPC vesicles, the α-Syn binding site is made up of ∼20
lipids (∼40 lipids if one includes both leaflets). Furthermore,
we showed that the size of this binding site is independent of KD and vesicle size.[14] Our experimentally measured value of ∼20 lipids per bound
α-Syn corresponds very well with the number of lipids required
to accommodate an extended α-helical α-Syn on the bilayer,
consistent with our recent all-atom and CGMD calculations.[10,15] Thus, it has been reasonably concluded that at very high concentrations
of bound protein, the membrane surface area—not the lipid charge
or number of defects—limits the density of α-Syn at saturation.
Therefore, on the basis of measured KD values, equal and saturating surface density of α-Syn can
be achieved in purely anionic lipids or 1:1 mixtures by adjusting
the amount of protein added to solution for each lipid composition.[14]While previous α-Syn tubulation
studies were done at extremely
high protein concentrations, they did not account for potential differences
between the KD values for pure POPG and
POPG:POPC (PG:PC) mixtures.[8,9] This presents a complication
in confidently elucidating the sources of the reduction in tubulation
propensity in the mixture, which may simply be attributed to a subthreshold
density of protein bound to the vesicle surface. As recently discussed,
simply immersing a vesicle in a protein solution does not result in
membrane-bound protein concentrations equal to the protein concentration
in bulk.[36] Indeed, we will show a striking
reduction in α-Syn’s apparent binding affinity for the
lipid mixture under dilute conditions.[18,36] It was therefore
absolutely essential that we design our tubulation experiments under
conditions where an equal amount of α-Syn was bound regardless
of vesicle composition.As will be elaborated throughout, theory
and simulations have recently
emphasized the importance of (1) protein insertion depth in dictating
curvature induction[29] and (2) binding energy
in promoting protein organization, curvature, and membrane disruption.[20,37] In that context, in the present study we have first demonstrated
that the C-terminal residues of α-Syn are not necessary for
tubulation, showing instead that tubulation can be achieved solely
by the membrane-bound AH. Second, we have confirmed that the reduction
of α-Syn-induced tubulation of 1:1 PG:PC bilayers, compared
with pure POPG bilayers, can be attributed to differences in the protein’s
interaction with the lipid matrix (including depth of partition and
mobility) and not dismissed as a consequence of a subthreshold density
of bound protein. Third, we have investigated the role of the NAC
domain on binding affinity and tubulation by engineering an α-Syn
variant lacking the hydrophobic core of the domain (NAC-null).We then used CGMD simulations in an effort to correlate the macroscopic
experimental observation (tubulation) with molecular-scale perturbations
of the membrane and protein mobility. Although CGMD simulations may
lack the detail and sampling to definitively explain our experimental
findings, these models do provide insight that can guide speculation
regarding the relative roles of protein partition depth and binding
energy.[10] In the context of an already
rich simulation literature regarding protein-induced membrane remodeling,[10,15,19,22,37−43] we have asked the following questions: What differences in the lipid
behavior are observable when α-Syn is bound to a pure POPG bilayer
as compared with a 1:1 PG:PC mixture? Also, are there observable differences
between wild-type and NAC-null α-Syn that can shed light on
the mechanism of tubulation? Our experimental results, supported by
our simulations, provide strong support for the importance of both
binding energy and partition depth, as has been recently emphasized.[20,29,37] We also highlight a new finding
regarding lipid chain order as a potential additional driving force
for tubulation.All of the experiments and simulations involved
the 100 N-terminal
residues of either α-Syn (α-Syn100) or of designed
α-Syn variants. For 100% POPG and 1:1 PG:PC vesicles, the α-Syn100 binding affinity was assayed with FCS. Then bound protein
was equalized by adjusting for measured KD values, and vesicle clearance assays were performed to monitor α-Syn100-induced membrane remodeling.[8] Simulations studies were performed on the membrane-bound helical
form of the protein. We used the GROMACS v4.5.3 simulation package[44,45] and the MARTINI[46,47] CGMD force field. Simulations
were performed in the isothermal–isobaric (constant temperature
and pressure, NPT) ensemble (1 bar and 303 K, respectively)
with the xy and z dimensions semi-isotropically
coupled to independent barostats, resulting in a tensionless membrane.[48] Membrane tubulation by α-Syn100 is a complex process that involves binding, folding, partitioning,
and membrane remodeling events, each with its own energetic barrier
and kinetic threshold. The MARTINI force field requires a predefined
protein secondary structure, precluding the simulation of both the
binding and folding stages. Nevertheless, our previous α-Syn100 study using the MARTINI force field demonstrated good agreement
with our experimental X-ray measurements of α-Syn100-induced membrane remodeling.[10]We simulated a total of 18 systems: four pure lipid systems (POPC,
1:3 PG:PC, 1:1 PG:PC, and POPG), each with 3200 lipids, 70 400
CG waters, and counterions; eight low-density α-Syn100 systems, each with 3200 lipids, two proteins, 70 400 CG waters,
and counterions; three high-density (∼400:1 lipid:protein)
systems, each with 3016 lipids and eight proteins; and three tubule-nucleation
systems, each with 85 296 lipids, 48 proteins, 3 996 000
CG waters, and counterions. The α-Syn100 protein
was modeled as an extended helix with residues 1–93 as α-helical
and residues 94–100 as a random coil.[10] Full details of the simulation run parameters and system construction
are presented in the Supporting Information (SI). The 14 small systems were simulated for a total of 12 μs
(actual simulation time), with the last 5 μs used for analysis.
For the 12 low-density (1600:1 lipid:protein) systems, the two α-Syn100 proteins were positioned on opposite leaflets in remote
regions of the membrane, ensuring a globally symmetric system without
any a priori global area mismatch between the two leaflets while removing
competing transverse protein–protein interactions (see Supplemental Figure 1C). The ∼85 000-lipid
systems were constructed to explore α-Syn100-induced
tubule nucleation. Instead of using a free-floating membrane—where
tubulation is the result of protein rolling up a floppy bilayer—we
starting with a periodically coupled, flat bilayer and introduced
three different protein structures, each with 48 α-Syn100 that were arranged radially (“spoke” geometry), in
concentric circles (“circumferential” geometry), or
as a linear arrayed patch (“carpet” geometry). We removed
23 lipids per protein from the protein monolayer to minimize the global
area mismatch, an approach we have used previously.[10] The rationale for how we designed the various systems will
be discussed in the context of how our findings complement and advance
existing understanding of AH-induced membrane remodeling.[10]
Results
Headgroup Charge Density
Dictates Tubulation Capacity
FCS was used to determine the
relative affinity of α-Syn100 for large unilamellar
vesicles (LUVs) composed of 100%
POPG or 1:1 (mol/mol) PG:PC under dilute conditions. Binding of fluorescently
labeled protein to unlabeled vesicles results in a shift in the autocorrelation
curves to the right (longer diffusion times) (Figure 1A); the autocorrelation curves can then be fit to extract
the fraction of bound protein and to determine an apparent binding
affinity, KD (see Materials and Methods
in the SI for details). These measurements
found that α-Syn100 binds to 100% POPG vesicles with
∼60 times greater affinity than to 1:1 PG:PC vesicles (KD = 2.25 and 136.9 μM, respectively) under
our buffer conditions. This result agrees with previous studies showing
that α-Syn100 binding to lipids is driven primarily
by electrostatic interactions between anionic lipid headgroups and
positively charged lysine residues in the membrane-binding region
of the protein,[14,49−51] although the
complex roles of hydrophobic lipid–protein interactions and
entropy cannot be ruled out.
Figure 1
(A) FCS traces for α-Syn100 in the absence (black)
or presence of equal concentrations of 1:1 PG:PC (blue) or 100% POPG
(red) LUVs. The greater shift to the right in the 100% POPG curve
reflects a larger fraction of α-Syn100 bound relative
to the 1:1 PG:PC curve. (B) α-Syn100 tubulation capacities
for 1:1 PG:PC and 100% POPG at equal bound density, compared with
buffer. The inset shows the corresponding absorbance traces for systems
with 1:1 PG:PC or 100% POPG and buffer or α-Syn100.
(A) FCS traces for α-Syn100 in the absence (black)
or presence of equal concentrations of 1:1 PG:PC (blue) or 100% POPG
(red) LUVs. The greater shift to the right in the 100% POPG curve
reflects a larger fraction of α-Syn100 bound relative
to the 1:1 PG:PC curve. (B) α-Syn100 tubulation capacities
for 1:1 PG:PC and 100% POPG at equal bound density, compared with
buffer. The inset shows the corresponding absorbance traces for systems
with 1:1 PG:PC or 100% POPG and buffer or α-Syn100.In order to test the effect of
headgroup charge on α-Syn100-induced tubulation at
equal bound-protein density, we adjusted
the added protein concentration on the basis of the measured KD value. Again, because of our previous measurements
under saturating conditions, this ensured equal density of bound protein.[14] The ability of α-Syn100 to
tubulate liposomes was assayed by monitoring the change in the amount
of scattered light from a liposome solution in the presence of α-Syn100.[8] We quantified α-Syn100’s tubulation capacity by determining the ratio of
the initial scattering intensity before addition of protein to the
near-final scattering intensity (t = 2400 to 2500
s) for each absorbance trace. Figure 1B shows
the dramatic loss of α-Syn100-induced tubulation
in the 1:1 PG:PC mixture compared with the 100% POPG vesicles. While
α-Syn100 causes a rapid decrease in the amount of
light scattered by 100% POPG vesicles (Figure 1B inset), the signal change for the 1:1 PG:PC vesicles is equivalent
to that of the control.[18] Thus, we have
confirmed that previous reports of reduced tubulation in 1:1 mixtures
hold under conditions of equally bound protein.[8,9] As
we will explore in depth below, this does not necessarily mean that
the difference in binding energy does not dominate the biophysics
of tubulation.In order to begin to understand the remodeling
phenomena that take
place in 100% POPG yet are deficient in the 1:1 mixture, we turned
to CGMD simulations. Time-averaged height surfaces, ⟨h(x, y)⟩,
reflect the spontaneous curvature of a system by removing long-wavelength
temporal fluctuations of the membrane.[10] ⟨h(x, y)⟩ was determined using the method of our previous α-Syn
study (see the SI).[10,52] Figure 2A presents ⟨h(x, y)⟩ for α-Syn100 bound to pure POPG and 1:1 PG:PC bilayers determined over
the last 5 μs of the simulations. α-Syn100 induces
positive spontaneous curvature in both bilayers. We quantified ⟨h(x, y)⟩
by determining the percent excess area for each system as (1 – A/A) ×
100%, where A is the area along the height surface and A is the projected area (see
the SI).[53] There
is a significant increase in the percent excess area (Figure 2B, blue) in the POPG system (0.51%) compared with
the 1:1 mixture (0.30%) (see Supplemental Table
1). On a per-protein basis, the magnitude of the induced spontaneous
curvature appears to be small on the scale of global membrane remodeling.
However, the cumulative effect imparted by multiple proteins organizing
in a localized membrane region could induce enough curvature stress
to breach the energy threshold required for membrane remodeling. As
will be discussed below, recent work by the Voth group shed light
on an important phenomenon where linear aggregation of N-BAR domain
proteins occurs prior to macroscopic membrane remodeling.[37] A similar mechanism for protein aggregation/alignment
may occur for α-Syn100, acting as local nucleation
points for tubule formation. An additional set of simulations presented
below will expand on this point.
Figure 2
(A) Time-averaged height surfaces, ⟨h(x, y)⟩,
for 1:1 PG:PC (left)
and POPG (right), determined over the last 5 μs of the simulations.
Color map units are nm. (B) Percent excess area per protein (blue)
and integrated total lipid order (green) for 1:1 PG:PC and POPG. (C)
Lipid-component number density profiles for 1:1 PG:PC (top) and POPG
(bottom) (solvent, gray; headgroup, cyan; carbonyl-glycerol, green;
acyl-chain, magenta; α-Syn100, black line). (D) Local
total order parameter S(x̅, y̅) for the membrane
near the protein (top) and opposite the protein (bottom) in 1:1 PG:PC
(left) and POPG (right) (warm colors = more ordered, cool colors =
more disordered). The insets correspond to pure lipid S(x̅, y̅) for each lipid composition. The location of the
N-terminus of α-Syn100 is indicated with ★
(the protein itself is not shown).
(A) Time-averaged height surfaces, ⟨h(x, y)⟩,
for 1:1 PG:PC (left)
and POPG (right), determined over the last 5 μs of the simulations.
Color map units are nm. (B) Percent excess area per protein (blue)
and integrated total lipid order (green) for 1:1 PG:PC and POPG. (C)
Lipid-component number density profiles for 1:1 PG:PC (top) and POPG
(bottom) (solvent, gray; headgroup, cyan; carbonyl-glycerol, green;
acyl-chain, magenta; α-Syn100, black line). (D) Local
total order parameter S(x̅, y̅) for the membrane
near the protein (top) and opposite the protein (bottom) in 1:1 PG:PC
(left) and POPG (right) (warm colors = more ordered, cool colors =
more disordered). The insets correspond to pure lipid S(x̅, y̅) for each lipid composition. The location of the
N-terminus of α-Syn100 is indicated with ★
(the protein itself is not shown).It has been proposed that subtle changes in the depth of
partitioning
of an AH into the hydrophobic acyl-chain region can dramatically alter
the induced (local) curvature and that this curvature is dependent
on the membrane’s hydrophobic thickness.[29] Figure 2C shows that α-Syn100 partitions slightly deeper in the PG:PC mixture when the
depth is measured relative to the lipid component density (Zpep) (results for all of the other 1600:1 α-Syn100 systems are presented in Supplemental
Figure 2). However, Zpep is not
the most relevant measure of partition depth in the context of curvature
induction.[29] We define the hydrophobic
thickness of the membrane, 2DC, as the z distance between the points with equal probability for
acyl-chain or solvent densities. There are two structural parameters
that dictate the magnitude and sign of the induced spontaneous curvature:
(1) the monolayer hydrophobic thickness DC and (2) the extent to which the protein partitions into DC.[29] Interestingly,
for a given protein density (1600:1 or 400:1), regardless of the PC
mole percent, the protein partitions to the same depth relative to DC (see Supplemental Table
1). However, what does change with PC mole percent is the hydrophobic
thickness (both in pure and protein systems), which increases by 0.16
nm in POPG relative to the 1:1 PG:PC mixture (see Supplemental Table 1). Although this shift is quite small—below
the resolution of the MARTINI CG beads—current theory on AH
curvature suggests that with equal relative partition depth, changes
in hydrophobic thickness of 0.2 nm are capable of doubling the spontaneous
curvature.[29] Thus, these data suggest a
strong correlation between hydrophobic thickness and curvature induction.A shift in the membrane’s hydrophobic thickness modulates
how other structural features of the membrane respond to α-Syn100’s relative partition depth, particularly the acyl-chain
order parameter. We characterized the acyl-chain conformations around
α-Syn100 using a local total lipid order parameter, S(x̅, y̅) (see the SI for details of the method). Figure 2D illustrates S(x̅, y̅) for the region of the monolayer near
the protein (top) and opposite the protein (bottom) for the systems
with 1:1 PG:PC (left) and POPG (right), with the corresponding data
for protein-free bilayers given in the insets (see Supplemental Figures 2 and 3 for complete results for other
1600:1 α-Syn100 systems). The lipids near the protein
are equally disordered for both systems, but the change relative to
the bulk is much greater for POPG.When we quantified S(x̅, y̅) as a function
of distance from the protein, we observed an asymmetry across the
bilayer, ΔS = S – S. This asymmetry extends
out to distances of 5 nm (Supplemental Figure
3E,F), with the largest asymmetry developing in the POPG system.
When only the first shell of lipids is considered (by integration
out to 1 nm from the protein), the order asymmetry shows a strong
correlation with the excess area, where the POPG system again experiences
twice the effect relative to the 1:1 mixture (Figure 2B, green bars). We speculate that because of the increased DC in POPG, there is a greater volume beneath
the protein that must be accommodated by the neighboring lipid’s
acyl chains, leading to more disordering of the lipids and giving
rise to increased order asymmetry.
Exploring the Role of Binding
Affinity
The simulation
data comparing α-Syn100 in 100% PG and the 1:1 PG:PC
mixture suggest, but in no way prove, a direct correlation between
the depth of partition relative to the hydrophobic thickness, the
order parameter asymmetry across the leaflets, the induced positive
curvature, and tubulation. However, this correlation does not take
into account the difference between the binding affinities for 100%
POPG and the 1:1 PG:PC mixture. One explanation for the role of the
affinity difference relates to the electrostatic repulsion between
PG headgroups, which is lessened in the mixture. As a result, the
100% POPG membrane is under greater lateral pressure than that of
the mixture. Binding of α-Syn can relieve this pressure by screening
lipid–lipid interactions through Lys–PG salt bridges.
Although current theory[29] focuses on the
importance of protein partition depth relative to hydrophobic thickness,
it is possible that the protein inserts at the optimal Zpep position (Figure 2C) for tubulation
in the 100% PG bilayer.Parsing the relative contributions of
these driving forces—binding energy, partition depth, hydrophobic
thickness, and order perturbations—is far from trivial. In
an effort to isolate the binding-energy component, we engineered a
minimally altered variant of α-Syn100 that would
partition to the same depth in pure POPG bilayers (maintaining a constant DC and local curvature induction) but have a
reduced KD. α-Syn’s membrane
binding domain comprises seven imperfect heptad repeats with consensus
sequence XKTKEGVXXXX (X = any residue).[54] We replaced the hydrophobic NAC domain (the sixth heptad)
with a replicate of the fifth heptad (GAVVTGVTAVA →
EKTKEQVTNVG). The anticipated effect on KD and the depth was uncertain, as the alteration reduces
the hydrophobicity while adding extra charged residues (zero change
in net charge). Because Lys residues in α-Syn associate strongly
with PG headgroups, we suggest that any reduction in measured binding
affinity should be attributed to the loss in hydrophobicity.We first tested the depth of partition and the order parameter
asymmetry of this NAC-null protein using simulations, and Figure 3A shows that indeed the engineered variant has nearly
identical binding depth and order parameter asymmetry as α-Syn100. The NAC-null variant actually partitions slightly less
deeply, and this is manifested in a slightly greater curvature field
(Supplemental Table 1 and Supplemental Figure
4A–C). Experimentally, we found that the binding affinity
of NAC-null was reduced 6-fold, which is considerably less of an effect
than the lipid headgroup charge with the native α-Syn100 sequence but significant nonetheless. We also found that at equal
bound protein density, the NAC-null variant induced an approximately
50% reduction in tubulation (Figure 3B and Supplemental Figure 4D), also a smaller but significant
effect. Thus, on the basis of the similar partition depths and order
asymmetry along with the reduced KD, the
results for the engineered NAC-null construct strongly suggest that
while there may be a range of partition depths over which tubulation
is possible, the binding energy is a major player in dictating whether
tubulation occurs.
Figure 3
(A) Comparison of protein partition depths and integrated
order
parameter asymmetries for α-Syn100 (left) and NAC-null
(right) proteins. (B) Experimental tubulation capacities at equal
bound protein density for POPG + buffer (black), POPG + α-Syn100 (blue), and POPG + NAC-null (red). (C) Comparison of excess
areas per protein for the low-density (1600:1, blue) and high-density
(400:1, green) systems for α-Syn100 (left) and NAC-null
(middle) in POPG and α-Syn100 in 1:3 PG:PC (right).
(D) Time-averaged height surfaces for high-density (400:1) α-Syn100 (left) and NAC-null (middle) systems in POPG and α-Syn100 in 1:3 PG:PC (right). The average protein position is indicated
with white spheres, and the N-terminus of the protein is indicated
with ★.
(A) Comparison of protein partition depths and integrated
order
parameter asymmetries for α-Syn100 (left) and NAC-null
(right) proteins. (B) Experimental tubulation capacities at equal
bound protein density for POPG + buffer (black), POPG + α-Syn100 (blue), and POPG + NAC-null (red). (C) Comparison of excess
areas per protein for the low-density (1600:1, blue) and high-density
(400:1, green) systems for α-Syn100 (left) and NAC-null
(middle) in POPG and α-Syn100 in 1:3 PG:PC (right).
(D) Time-averaged height surfaces for high-density (400:1) α-Syn100 (left) and NAC-null (middle) systems in POPG and α-Syn100 in 1:3 PG:PC (right). The average protein position is indicated
with white spheres, and the N-terminus of the protein is indicated
with ★.Because the NAC-null
variant shows decreased affinity relative
to α-Syn100 in POPG despite the presence of extra
Lys residues, it is likely that binding of the native protein (and
possibly the stability of the bound protein–lipid complex)
is in part driven by the hydrophobicity of the protein. Furthermore,
given the ∼60-fold reduction in affinity of α-Syn100 for 1:1 PG:PC versus POPG, an effect that has previously
been shown to be electrostatically driven[14,50,55] these findings strongly suggest at least
a two-stage binding process: (1) electrostatically driven adsorption
of the unfolded protein and (2) a combination of electrostatic and
hydrophobic stabilization of the α-helical bound state.[56] We note that whereas our experiments capture
the full-binding process, the simulations probe only the second stage.
The implications of this two-stage binding will be discussed further.Binding energy not only dictates the equilibrium distribution of
bound and unbound protein but also reflects the strength (stability)
of the interaction between the protein and the lipids in its solvation
shell. A tighter coupling—be it between charged (Lys/PG) or
hydrophobic groups—should be manifested as a larger, more stable
complex whose diffusion in the membrane will be slowed by size. This
may increase the likelihood of stable, nucleating assemblies of proteins.
In an attempt to more deeply understand the binding energy difference
that dictates the reduced tubulation in the NAC-null variant, we simulated
the two proteins (α-Syn100 and NAC-null) at high
density on pure PG bilayers (for details, see Materials and Methods
in the SI).Figure 3D shows the calculated curvature
fields for α-Syn100 (left) and NAC-null (middle).
The α-Syn100 system shows a broad area of positive
spontaneous curvature spanning well beyond the local region of a single
protein (it should be noted that these images show a larger region
of membrane than those in Figure 2A). The position
and size of this curvature profile suggests stable protein–protein
alignment that reinforces the curvature fields between proteins. Even
though NAC-null induces a similar low-density curvature field and
has the same depth and same order parameter asymmetry (Supplemental Figure 4), at high density it does
not display the same curvature-field reinforcement as α-Syn100 (Figure 3D, middle). Quantification
of these surfaces shows a 50% decrease in curvature capacity for high-density
NAC-null (Figure 3C), matching the experimentally
observed decrease in tubulation (Figure 3B)
remarkably well.Figure 3C shows that
in the case of the
native α-Syn100 sequence, the high-density per-protein
curvature field recovers that of the low-density (single-protein)
case. This recovery is absent in the case of NAC-null, suggesting
a loss of time-averaged helical alignment compared with the native
sequence. We quantified this effect by time-averaged distance matrices
for amino acids in nearest-neighbor protein–protein pairs (Supplemental Figure 5). By observing the temporal
stability within these distance matrices (or lack thereof), we asked
the following question: Does the stability of specific protein–protein
alignment motifs (which may correlate with binding energy) correlate
with stabilization of long-range curvature fields? Despite limited
sampling, the data are consistent with the notion that the reinforcement
of the curvature fields in α-Syn100 correlates with
stabilization of protein–protein alignments. As hypothesized,
in the case of α-Syn100 the proteins sample a relatively
tight window of possible alignment states (25.2% unique states sampled).
Most interestingly, the NAC-null results show a marked increase in
the transitions between states (50.4%).
Depth of Partition/Hydrophobic
Thickness or Binding Affinity?
The most recent theory for
AH-induced curvature induction suggests
a small range of depths over which positive curvature will be induced
for a given hydrophobic thickness. As proteins partition more deeply
into the bilayer, the effect is lost and can even be reversed to produce
negative curvature.[29] The data presented
thus far do not directly address this because relative to DC the simulated proteins all partitioned to
the same depth. In a purely computational experiment, we manipulated
this partitioning by artificially varying the charge of α-Syn100 (via computational point mutations) within the same lipid
mixture (i.e., the same DC). Indeed, the
results confirmed a high sensitivity of the curvature to subtle changes
in depth. For example, we showed the ability to turn a 100% PC bilayer
with α-Syn100 (deep partitioning, small DC, low curvature) into a PG-like bilayer (shallow partitioning,
small DC, high curvature). While α-Syn100 does not bind pure PC bilayers in the fluid phase, this
computational exercise is valuable in the context of understanding
the driving forces for curvature induction. These data are presented
in Supplemental Figure 6.In this
context, interpretation of the lost tubulation in the PG:PC mixture,
where the protein depth relative to DC is invariant, is complicated by the concomitant decreases in curvature
and affinity. In order to exaggerate the relationship among depth,
hydrophobicity, and curvature, we simulated a 400:1 system in a 1:3
PG:PC mixture. In this mixture, the protein again partitions to the
same position relative to DC as in POPG.
Surprisingly, when we calculated the distance matrix for interacting
proteins in PG:PC mixtures, we found similar (or even reduced) mobility
as in the wild type (Supplemental Figure 5D). Similar to the 400:1 POPG system, this reduced mobility is accompanied
by a reinforcement of local curvature fields (Figure 3C,D), although the stabilized curvature field is less than
half as intense. We can explain the reduced curvature intensity as
a result of a 0.14 nm reduction in DC in
going from the 400:1 POPG system to the 1:3 PG:PC system. This explanation
is appealing in light of the lost tubulation. However, in view of
the dramatically reduced binding affinity that we measured experimentally,
along with the observation of increased mobility of NAC-null, the
reduced mobility of the protein was perplexing. However, in the context
of a two-stage binding process and the fact that our experiments were
performed at equal bound protein density, interpretation of the data
becomes possible. The loss in binding affinity likely reflects a loss
in electrostatic attraction between the unfolded, soluble protein
and the lipid headgroups. However, once adsorbed, the folded and bound
protein is stabilized by a solvating lipid shell, primarily through
Lys–PG contacts. In 100% PG, the lipids are free to bind and
unbind the protein without great penalty, as the Lys groups can be
immediately stabilized by another PG. On the other hand, in the PG:PC
mixture, lipid exchange is likely slowed by the penalty of replacing
a Lys–PG contact with a Lys–PC contact. Thus, lipid
diffusion (binding/unbinding) could be expected to be slowed in the
PG:PC mixture. On average this may slow protein diffusion because
the time-averaged lipid–protein complex will be more stable.
Our simulations are not sampled well enough to test this long-time-scale
phenomenon with statistical certainty.Figure 4 summarizes much of the relevant
data presented thus far. As stated above, there is a systematic increase
in hydrophobic thickness of native α-Syn100-containing
bilayers as the PG density increases (Figure 4, black dashed line). As the hydrophobic thickness decreases from
∼2.0 to ∼1.9 nm, there is reduced lipid order asymmetry
that correlates with a reduction in curvature and is consistent with
loss of tubulation capacity. When we incorporate the data for the
NAC-null systems, in particular the result at high density, this correlation
fails. The NAC-null protein partitions less shallow than α-Syn100, inducing an even greater hydrophobic thickness and lipid
order asymmetry (curvature) (Figure 4, black
★); experimentally, however, NAC-null has a reduced tubulation
capacity. For these reasons, we conclude that lipid order asymmetry
(lost in the native sequence at 1:3 PG:PC) is necessary but not sufficient
(present in NAC-null) for tubulation.
Figure 4
Excess area as a function of hydrophobic
thickness. Colors demarcate
low-density (1600:1, black) vs high-density (400:1, blue). Symbols
indicate lipid composition: ● = POPC; ▼ = 1:3 PG:PC;
■ = 1:1 PG:PC; ⧫ = POPG. The ★ denotes NAC-null.
Annotations are as described in the text.
Excess area as a function of hydrophobic
thickness. Colors demarcate
low-density (1600:1, black) vs high-density (400:1, blue). Symbols
indicate lipid composition: ● = POPC; ▼ = 1:3 PG:PC;
■ = 1:1 PG:PC; ⧫ = POPG. The ★ denotes NAC-null.
Annotations are as described in the text.Figure 4 also reiterates the point
that
at high density (400:1), PG:NAC-null and 1:3 PG:PC + α-Syn100 induce approximately the same amount of per-protein curvature.
This shows that these induced curvature fields alone do not directly
correlate with tubulation, as the NAC-null variant does tubulate vesicles
(albeit 50% less than pure PG). How can we reconcile this apparent
disparity in induced curvature and tubulation capacity? The data suggest
that even if a protein partitions to the appropriate depth in a membrane
with sufficient hydrophobic thickness (and therefore imparts sufficient
lipid order asymmetry), the tubulation capacity is reduced if stable
protein–lipid complex interactions are not established (as
in NAC-null). However, in the 400:1 1:3 PG:PC + α-Syn100 system, stable protein–lipid complex interactions are formed,
as evidenced by the stabilized curvature field (Figure 3D) and the reduced protein mobility (Supplemental
Figure 5D), yet reduced lipid order asymmetry reduces the stress
on the membrane below the tubulation threshold. Therefore, we conclude
that stability of the protein in the bound state (lost in NAC-null)
is a necessary but not sufficient (present in the native sequence
at 1:3 PG:PC) component of the tubulation mechanism.Thus, it
appears that two constraints must be met in order for
α-Syn100 to tubulate a vesicle: (1) it must bind
with sufficient energy to slow the protein/lipid dynamics and allow
for nucleation of pretubule assemblies[37] and (2) it must bind in a narrow window of depths, inducing a particular
hydrophobic thickness that can promote sufficient per-protein curvature.
Furthermore, because the NAC-null variant still maintains some tubulation
activity, there must be a driving force present in the NAC-null and
POPG α-Syn100 systems but not in 1:3 PG:PC, one that
is not dependent on strong binding affinity and drives the formation
of a tubule. We propose that this driving force is the energetic penalty
of induced lipid order asymmetry across the leaflets.
Relief of Order
Parameter Asymmetry as an Additional Driving
Force for Tubulation
For α-Syn100 to induce
tubulation of a large vesicle, the local effects of a single α-Syn100 must propagate to neighboring proteins.[37,57] We speculate that there exists a reinforced/nucleating α-Syn100 structure with high order asymmetry and that resolution
of this asymmetry may drive tubulation. No experimental information
is available to suggest that such structures exist or to provide hints
concerning what those structures might look like. In a modest effort
to gain insight into how large-scale assemblies may promote tubulation,
we ran three simulations with hand-built assemblies (consisting of
48 proteins) embedded in a POPG membrane. We recognize that these
tubule simulations sample only three possible nucleating structures
and acknowledge that other computational techniques (including more
aggressive coarse graining[58] and mesoscopic
modeling[59,60]) may be better-suited for such investigations.
Nonetheless, this approach has allowed us to investigate the possible
behaviors of acyl chains in the remodeling process. Each system contained
85 296 lipids (5 200 608 total CG beads) and
48 proteins arranged in one of three unique conformations (spoke,
circumferential, and carpet). The local protein density for each system
(defined as the protein:lipid ratio within 1 nm of the protein) was
set at ∼1:50, just below the experimental saturation density
observed with anionic and zwitterionic/anionic lipid mixtures.Figure 5 displays the initial starting configuration
and the final snapshot for the spoke conformation. The circumferential
and carpet conformations are presented in Supplemental
Figure 7. For all three protein conformations, membrane remodeling
occurred very rapidly. During the first ∼40 ns, an initial
invagination spanned the central ring of the membrane encompassing
the inner 5 nm of the protein spokes. By 100 ns, the initial depression
inverted and the budding tubule began to take shape. By ∼300
ns there was a fully formed nascent tubule (∼25 nm in height)
surrounded by undulating POPG bilayer. This structure changed only
slightly between 300 and 850 ns. It is possible that if these simulations
were allowed to run for much longer times, the highly ordered protein
conformation might diffuse apart. While we cannot rule this out, we
do note that after 300 ns the carpet conformation began to realign
into radial (spoke) and circumferential orientations to orient α-Syn
to the tubule’s curvature field (Supplemental
Figure 9D).
Figure 5
(A) Top-down view of the spoke starting configuration.
The system
includes 48 α-Syn100 proteins (yellow) and 85 296
POPG lipids (blue). Waters have been removed for clarity. The N-terminus
of each protein is indicated by ●. (B) Snapshot at 300 ns simulation
time. The budding tubule extends ∼25 nm above the bulk lipid
bilayer.
(A) Top-down view of the spoke starting configuration.
The system
includes 48 α-Syn100 proteins (yellow) and 85 296
POPGlipids (blue). Waters have been removed for clarity. The N-terminus
of each protein is indicated by ●. (B) Snapshot at 300 ns simulation
time. The budding tubule extends ∼25 nm above the bulk lipid
bilayer.Figure 6A shows the total lipid order parameter S(x̅, y̅) for the protein monolayer (top) and
the opposite monolayer (bottom) calculated over the first 20 ns (left)
and the last 20 ns (right) of the simulation of the spoke conformation
(results for the circumferential and carpet conformations are presented
in Supplemental Figures 8 and 9, respectively).
In all three systems, there is a large shift in the total lipid order
toward greater disorder and eventually the formation of antialigned
chains [i.e., negative S(x̅, y̅)]. As the tubule
forms, this shift in order is accompanied by a transition toward a
symmetric S(x̅, y̅) profile across the
bilayer (Figure 6B,C and Supplemental Figures 8 and 9). By the end of the tubulation
event, the two monolayers have similar S(x̅, y̅) profiles [see Supplemental Figure 10 for the detailed time course of S(x̅, y̅) for
the spoke conformation]. This change is different than the changes
observed for the low-density α-Syn100 systems (Figure 2D and Supplemental Figure 3) where a stable asymmetry is established. Because of the high protein
density, the limited numbers of lipids near the protein are forced
to accommodate the void volume beneath each protein, inducing increased
splay away from the local normal.
Figure 6
(A) S(x̅, y̅) for
the protein-containing leaflet (top)
and opposite leaflet (bottom) at the early stage (0 to 20 ns, left)
and the late tubule stage (830 to 850 ns, right). The color map reference
(black) is set at S for
pure POPG. (B) Time course of the mean S for the protein (black) and opposite (red) monolayers
as the tubule develops. (C) Time course of the average difference
ΔS across the
membrane (ΔS = S – S).
(A) S(x̅, y̅) for
the protein-containing leaflet (top)
and opposite leaflet (bottom) at the early stage (0 to 20 ns, left)
and the late tubule stage (830 to 850 ns, right). The color map reference
(black) is set at S for
pure POPG. (B) Time course of the mean S for the protein (black) and opposite (red) monolayers
as the tubule develops. (C) Time course of the average difference
ΔS across the
membrane (ΔS = S – S).At the core of the protein assembly, the increased
splay is significant
enough to drive antialignment of the acyl chains (chain orientation
orthogonal to the local bilayer normal). This antialignment propagates
across the bilayer, suggesting that a monolayer coupling occurs. We
quantified this monolayer coupling by determining the total number
of interleaflet acyl-chain contacts in regions near the protein and
regions in the bulk membrane. Figure 7 shows
the distance distributions of contacts for the spoke conformation.
The number of first-shell acyl-chain-to-acyl-chain interactions (inset)
exhibits an ∼2-fold increase in the number of contacts near
the protein relative to the bulk. This is a consistent trend for all
three protein conformations (see Supplemental
Figure 11).
Figure 7
Total number of interleaflet contacts (acyl-chain-to-acyl-chain)
for lipids near the protein (black) vs lipids in the bulk (red) in
the spoke conformation. The number of first-shell contacts is quantified
in the inset.
Total number of interleaflet contacts (acyl-chain-to-acyl-chain)
for lipids near the protein (black) vs lipids in the bulk (red) in
the spoke conformation. The number of first-shell contacts is quantified
in the inset.
Discussion
Numerous
computational studies have explored protein-driven membrane
remodeling.[10,15,19,22,26,37−41,43,57,61] A major focus of many of these studies has
been on BAR-domain proteins. BAR-domain proteins are a curvature-inducing
class of proteins that can contain both a rigid scaffolding and an
AH domain, and similar to α-Syn,[8,11] these proteins
have been shown to both sense and generate curvature.[16−18,25,36,42,62] In N-BAR proteins,
the AH plays an essential role in curvature generation and the stability
of the membrane tube by stabilizing dimer–dimer interactions
and propagating the N-BAR lattice along the membrane.[19,39] Furthermore, evidence exists that the AH, and not the scaffolding
domain, is responsible for the protein’s curvature-sensing
abilities.[16,17,24] AH curvature induction can be so extreme as to promote membrane
scission, as is the case for the ENTH domain of epsin[21] and the monomeric family of synucleins (α-Syn, β-Syn,
and γ-Syn[6,8,11]).
There is a balance between the remodeling effects induced by the rigid
scaffold and those driven by the AH, and elucidating the role of each
mechanism remains an active area of investigation.[62]There are several potential complementary mechanisms
for α-Syn-induced
membrane curvature and tubulation. We have shown that at equal bound
density the protein has a dramatically reduced effect on tubulation
of PG:PC mixtures compared with POPG bilayers. We correlated this
effect with an experimentally measured decrease in binding affinity
(∼60-fold) and a simulated increase in hydrophobic thickness,
partition depth, and order parameter asymmetry. This finding raised
the question of whether depth and order asymmetry alone can explain
tubulation differences. To at least in part address this, we designed
an α-Syn variant lacking the NAC domain (NAC-null), which we
predicted would have reduced affinity but partition to approximately
the same depth as wild-type α-Syn in POPG vesicles having consistent
hydrophobic thickness. Removal of the NAC did in fact reduce binding
to POPG vesicles (by ∼1 order of magnitude). This more mild
reduction in affinity correlates with a more mild reduction in tubulation,
despite the fact that the NAC-null mutant partitions to a slightly
less shallow depth than the wild-type protein (and actually slightly
increases the induced curvature field) and has the same impact on
the order parameter asymmetry. This finding suggests that depth and
order asymmetry alone do not explain the reduction in tubulation,
though it certainly does not rule out their potential contribution
in the case of the PG:PC mixture (Supplemental
Figure 5D). Rather, our simulations suggest that the NAC domain
may be essential in stabilizing protein–lipid complexes and,
in so doing, promoting organization on the bilayer surface. Indeed,
a very recent study supports our findings on the importance of the
hydrophobic core of the NAC domain in α-Syn-induced membrane
remodeling. Using supported lipid bilayers, that study shows a loss
of induced membrane defects and reduced membrane-bound protein cluster
size with an α-Syn variant lacking the hydrophobic sixth heptad.[63]In a recent study, Lipowsky discussed
how the adhesion energy of
an adsorbing particle can induce spontaneous membrane curvature.[20] Using N-BAR as an example, the theory predicted
that the remodeling capacity of the N-BAR scaffolding domain is directly
coupled to the adhesion energy it gains upon interacting with the
membrane. If the adsorbing N-BAR protein imparts sufficient adhesion
energy with the membrane (i.e., greater that the bending energy required
to deform the bilayer), the membrane will buckle and adopt the intrinsic
curvature of the protein. Recent work from the Voth group has characterized
the role of binding energy for exactly this N-BAR/membrane system[37]. Using their recently developed hybrid CG model,
the authors varied the CG N-BAR binding affinity for the lipid headgroup.
In doing so, they were able both to inhibit protein aggregation and
macroscopic membrane remodeling (low adhesion energy) and to induce
disruptions and tears within the membrane (high adhesion energy).
Because α-Syn lacks a scaffolding domain, the notion of adhesion
energy must be taken in a slightly different context. Instead of the
adhesion energy coupling the membrane to a rigid scaffold domain,
weaker binding would increase lipid exchange within the lipid solvent
shell around the protein. Speculatively, this would have the effect
of destabilizing the protein–lipid complex, potentially accelerating
the protein dynamics on the surface and reducing the likelihood of
nucleating stable protein assemblies.This is not to say that
partition depth and hydrophobic thickness
are not significant. It was surprising to us that given similar relative
partition depths, such a small change in the hydrophobic thickness
in the PG:PC mixture (∼0.16 nm thinner than PG) might correspond
to a such a large experimental observable. However, the recent theory
of AH curvature induction developed by May’s group predicts
a partition depth and hydrophobic thickness dependence on the spontaneous
curvature and bending rigidity of a membrane.[29] As the hydrophobic thickness increases, the range and magnitude
of the predicted spontaneous curvature is expanded (e.g., an increase
of 0.2 nm in 2DC—on the order of
the difference we observed between pure PG and the 1:1 mixture—corresponds
to a doubling of the curvature intensity for the same partition depth).[29] All of this leads to the following question:
Are individual curvature fields the necessary piece, or is it organization
of the fields that dominates? Perhaps it is a combination of the two.
Our simulation and experimental results suggest that lipid order asymmetry
(either through protein partition depth or membrane hydrophobicity)
and binding affinity are both necessary but not sufficient components
of the AH tubulation mechanism.More generally speaking, increased
spontaneous curvature is the
result of an area mismatch between monolayers, and it has been shown
experimentally through the use of transiently asymmetric lipid vesicles
(protein-free) that an increase in area mismatch by as little as ∼1%
is enough to initiate the macroscopic remodeling of lipid vesicles.[53,64] In those experiments, the transient asymmetry relaxed with time
as a result of lipid flip-flop. The rate of lipid flip-flop is typically
very low (corresponding to a time scale of minutes to hours) in pure
lipid vesicles. However, AHs have been shown to greatly enhance lipid
flip-flop rates.[65,66] In the case of α-Syn tubulation
experiments, where a high concentration of α-Syn is added to
solution, the relationship among binding kinetics, protein reorganization
(e.g., into organized pretubule structures), the development of local
curvature stresses and the resulting curvature fields, lipid flip-flop,
and tubulation remains unknown. In one scenario, where binding is
presumed to be much faster than tubulation, every lipid in the outer
leaflet of the vesicle would be occupied in forming the solvation
shell of a neighboring protein. In that case, it seems unlikely that
lipid flip-flop would be favorable.Our simulations were designed
to test a second scenario in which
the nucleation of tubules occurs rapidly and locally. Indeed, high
local densities can induce curvature and recruit more proteins.[37] In this case, accelerated local lipid flip-flop
seems likely in order to relieve the local curvature strain. In order
to test this, we eliminated the area mismatch between the leaflets:
the small systems had protein on both leaflets, while in the large
systems (protein in only one leaflet) we eliminated the excess area
by removing lipids. This choice was made in order to probe whether
the proteins themselves can still cause remodeling and tubulation
in the case where there is time for lipid flip-flop. Indeed, we showed
that they can do so.Previous work by our group has focused
on the coupling of lipid
order across the bilayer leaflets, where we identified acyl-chain
interdigitation as central to the propagation of order across monolayers
in phase-separated bilayers.[67] In the case
of the α-Syn tubulation simulations presented here, we have
also observed interleaflet coupling, though the character of the interdigitation
is quite different. As a tubule develops, lipids in both monolayers
adopt an antialigned conformation, increasing favorable chain–chain
interactions between the monolayers (see Figure 6 and Supplemental Figure 11). The drive
toward order parameter symmetry observed in the tubulation simulations,
which is coupled to these additional contacts, may provide an important
additional piece of the biophysical driving force for tubulation.In this study we have discussed α-Syn100-induced
membrane remodeling/tubulation in the context of in vitro studies
showing that α-Syn tubulates synthetic vesicles.[8,68] In vivo, α-Syn has been shown to interact with both the inner
and outer membranes of the mitochondria.[7,69] Overexpressed
α-Syn, which is associated with Parkinson’s disease,[70−72] induces fragmentation of mitochondria and impairs mitochondria complex
1 activity.[7] Mitochondria have ∼15%
anionic lipids, the majority of which is cardiolipin (an anionic lipid
with four acyl chains and a headgroup charge of −2).[73] Indeed, α-Syn has a high binding affinity
for cardiolipin.[73] This association of
α-Syn with mitochondria coupled with its affinity for cardiolipin
lead us to predict that many of the mechanisms discussed here are
at play in this pathological condition. The different structural characteristics
of cardiolipin may result in a unique remodeling capacity relative
to more typical anionic phospholipid mixtures (e.g., POPG:POPC).
Authors: Djurre H de Jong; Gurpreet Singh; W F Drew Bennett; Clement Arnarez; Tsjerk A Wassenaar; Lars V Schäfer; Xavier Periole; D Peter Tieleman; Siewert J Marrink Journal: J Chem Theory Comput Date: 2012-11-28 Impact factor: 6.006
Authors: Jobin Varkey; Jose Mario Isas; Naoko Mizuno; Martin Borch Jensen; Vikram Kjøller Bhatia; Christine C Jao; Jitka Petrlova; John C Voss; Dimitrios G Stamou; Alasdair C Steven; Ralf Langen Journal: J Biol Chem Date: 2010-08-06 Impact factor: 5.157
Authors: Josh V Vermaas; Javier L Baylon; Mark J Arcario; Melanie P Muller; Zhe Wu; Taras V Pogorelov; Emad Tajkhorshid Journal: J Membr Biol Date: 2015-05-22 Impact factor: 1.843