Axial Cu-S(Met) bonds in electron transfer (ET) active sites are generally found to lower their reduction potentials. An axial S(Met) bond is also present in cytochrome c (cyt c) and is generally thought to increase the reduction potential. The highly covalent nature of the porphyrin environment in heme proteins precludes using many spectroscopic approaches to directly study the Fe site to experimentally quantify this bond. Alternatively, L-edge X-ray absorption spectroscopy (XAS) enables one to directly focus on the 3d-orbitals in a highly covalent environment and has previously been successfully applied to porphyrin model complexes. However, this technique cannot be extended to metalloproteins in solution. Here, we use metal K-edge XAS to obtain L-edge like data through 1s2p resonance inelastic X-ray scattering (RIXS). It has been applied here to a bis-imidazole porphyrin model complex and cyt c. The RIXS data on the model complex are directly correlated to L-edge XAS data to develop the complementary nature of these two spectroscopic methods. Comparison between the bis-imidazole model complex and cyt c in ferrous and ferric oxidation states show quantitative differences that reflect differences in axial ligand covalency. The data reveal an increased covalency for the S(Met) relative to N(His) axial ligand and a higher degree of covalency for the ferric states relative to the ferrous states. These results are reproduced by DFT calculations, which are used to evaluate the thermodynamics of the Fe-S(Met) bond and its dependence on redox state. These results provide insight into a number of previous chemical and physical results on cyt c.
Axial Cu-S(Met) bonds in electron transfer (ET) active sites are generally found to lower their reduction potentials. An axial S(Met) bond is also present in cytochrome c (cyt c) and is generally thought to increase the reduction potential. The highly covalent nature of the porphyrin environment in heme proteins precludes using many spectroscopic approaches to directly study the Fe site to experimentally quantify this bond. Alternatively, L-edge X-ray absorption spectroscopy (XAS) enables one to directly focus on the 3d-orbitals in a highly covalent environment and has previously been successfully applied to porphyrin model complexes. However, this technique cannot be extended to metalloproteins in solution. Here, we use metal K-edge XAS to obtain L-edge like data through 1s2p resonance inelastic X-ray scattering (RIXS). It has been applied here to a bis-imidazole porphyrin model complex and cyt c. The RIXS data on the model complex are directly correlated to L-edge XAS data to develop the complementary nature of these two spectroscopic methods. Comparison between the bis-imidazole model complex and cyt c in ferrous and ferric oxidation states show quantitative differences that reflect differences in axial ligand covalency. The data reveal an increased covalency for the S(Met) relative to N(His) axial ligand and a higher degree of covalency for the ferric states relative to the ferrous states. These results are reproduced by DFT calculations, which are used to evaluate the thermodynamics of the Fe-S(Met) bond and its dependence on redox state. These results provide insight into a number of previous chemical and physical results on cyt c.
A common structural motif across electron
transfer (ET) metalloprotein active sites is the presence of an axial
metal-thioether bond, where this ligand is provided by an endogenous
methionine residue.[1] These are found in
the mononuclear type one copper (T1 Cu), binuclear CuA, and cytochrome
(cyt c and cyt b) containing ET
metalloproteins. In T1 Cu and CuA active sites, the function of the
Cu–S(Met) bond is now well understood:[2−4] the presence
of the axial S(Met) ligand lowers E0 due to the stronger
stabilization energy (i.e., larger axial ligand bond strength) in
the oxidized than in the reduced state,[5] while not greatly affecting the reorganization energy.[2−4]Interestingly, in contrast to T1 Cu and CuA, the Fe–S(Met)
bond in cyt c is generally thought to be stronger
in the reduced (ferrous) rather than the oxidized (ferric) state.
This consideration for cyt c is based on the decrease
in E0 when the Fe–S(Met) bond is lost,[6,7] ligand competition[8,9] and binding,[10−12] protein folding
studies,[10,13−15] and the shorter Fe(II)-S(Met)
bond (2.29 Å) relative to Fe(III)-S(Met) (2.33 Å) from extended
X-ray absorption fine structure (EXAFS).[16,17] Loss or rupture of the Fe–S(Met) bond in cyt c is also functionally relevant. Besides carrying out ET, cyt c is also involved in programmed cell death or apoptosis.[18] During this process, cyt c switches
function from an ET protein to a peroxidase enzyme. This functional
switch is correlated to the loss of the axial Fe–S(Met) bond
and the formation of an open coordination sphere for the activation
of H2O2 in the peroxidation of cardiolipin.[19−21] In addition, the Fe(II)-S(Met) bond can be photodissociated, while
the Fe(III)-S(Met) bond cannot.[22−25] Clearly, the difference in metal–ligand bonding,
and thus bond strengths for the Fe(II) and Fe(III) states, is directly
related to both functions of cyt c: ET and lipid
peroxidation.In order to understand these differences in bonding,
it is necessary to employ a spectroscopic method that directly probes
the electronic structure of the Fe site; however, the highly covalent
porphyrin obscures the optical spectral features associated with the
Fe–S(Met) bond. S K-edge X-ray absorption spectroscopy (XAS)
has proven to be a powerful spectroscopic tool to quantitate the covalency
of thiolate-metal bonds in proteins and models through the intensity
of the pre-edge feature (i.e., the 1s → 3d transition(s)).[26] However, the higher Zeff of the thioethersulfur relative to a thiolate increases the energy
of the pre-edge transition such that it is located within the envelope
of the edge transitions (i.e., the 1s → valence np).The direct way to investigate the electronic structure of a heme
protein, where the Fe is in the highly covalent porphyrin environment,
would be to probe the unoccupied valence orbitals of the central Fe
ion by Fe L-edge XAS. This is a powerful method to extract the differential
orbital covalency (DOC, differences in the covalency of the different
symmetry sets of d orbitals)[27−30] that is particularly important for heme complexes
and enzyme intermediates. However, the Fe L-edge excitation energy
lies in the soft X-ray energy region (≈710 eV), which requires
ultrahigh vacuum conditions and generally involves the detection of
electrons within 10 Å of the surface of the sample due to the
low electron escape depth. The escape depth can be enlarged to a few
micrometers by detecting the fluorescence decay. However, this can
suffer from significant self-absorption effects, mainly for the L3-edge. These restrictions make it challenging to apply high-resolution
metal L-edge XAS to metalloproteins and enzymes.Metal K-edge
XAS does not have these restrictions due to the high excitation energy
in the hard X-ray region (the Fe K-pre-edge is at ≈7110 eV).
However, due to the short lifetime of the 1s core-hole, the broadening
of the 1s → 3d transitions is significantly larger than for
the 2p → 3d transitions. Since the 1s → 3d transitions
are quadrupole allowed, they often gain intensity from small amounts
of 4p mixing into the d orbitals in noncentrosymmetric ligand environments,
while 2p → 3d transitions are electric dipole allowed and their
intensities are a direct probe of the metal d-character in valence
orbitals involved in bonding. Thus, by going from soft to hard X-rays,
one wins on experimental conditions, but loses resolution and insight
into bonding.The desired combination of accessible experimental
conditions, higher resolution, and d-orbital covalency can be realized
by applying Kα resonant inelastic X-ray scattering (1s2p RIXS).[31−36]Here, a 1s electron is excited into an unoccupied 3d orbital (1s
→ 3d) via a quadrupole transition to a 1s12p63d intermediate state and the
subsequent electric dipole allowed decay of a 2p electron into the
1s hole (2p → 1s) to the 1s22p53d final state, is detected by its photon
emission. Thus, L-edge absorption and 1s2p RIXS reach the same final
state configurations[34,37] and allow a direct comparison,
but with complementary selection rules.[38] Varying the incident X-ray energies and collecting the respective
emission spectra, allows one to generate the RIXS plane. “L-edge-like”
spectra are obtained as vertical cuts through the RIXS plane (i.e.,
at fixed K-edge excitation energies), providing the energies of the
same final state configurations that could be reached through direct
L-edge XAS, but via an intermediate state.It has been recently
shown that the valence bond configuration interaction (VBCI) model
with the same parameters reproduces both L-edge XAS and RIXS results,
but with selection rules[38] involving the
intermediate states in RIXS, as described by the Kramers–Heisenberg
scattering equation.[31,32]where Ω and
ω are the incident and emission energy, respectively, with Ω
– ω being the energy transfer, that gives “L-edge-like”
spectra.To investigate the electronic structure of Fe in a
covalent porphyrin environment, and in particular the Fe–S(Met)
bonding properties of ferrous and ferriccyt c, 1s2p
RIXS was applied to this protein, which cannot be reasonably studied
by L-edge XAS. Parallel RIXS data were collected on tetraphenyl porphyrin
(TPP) complexes with bisimidazole axial ligands (FeTPP(ImH)2. These complexes have already been studied by L-edge XAS.[29] The two main differences in the structures of
cyt c and FeTPP(ImH)2, include replacement
of one axial imidazole ligand with a thioether (Met-80), and the porphyrin
ring is cross-linked to two cysteine derived thioether bonds (cys-14
and cys-17) (see Figure 1). Here, RIXS data
on FeTPP(ImH)2 are correlated to the L-edge XAS data and
to 1s2p RIXS data on ferrous and ferriccyt c, and
analyzed using the VBCI multiplet model. These results are then used
to correlate to DFT calculations on large models to distinguish specific
contributions to bonding. Truncated models, which reasonably represent
the large models (see Figure S1 in Supporting
Information), are then used to explore the thermodynamic differences
between the Fe–S(Met) and Fe–N(His) bond in the ferrous
and ferric states. The results of these studies are then related to
past experimental results on thioether-Fe bonding.
Figure 1
Molecular structures
of (a) FeTPP(ImH)2, and (b) its active side counterpart
in cyt c.
Molecular structures
of (a) FeTPP(ImH)2, and (b) its active side counterpart
in cyt c.
Experimental and Computational Methods
Sample
Preparation
Ferrous and ferricFeTPP(ImH)2 and
cyt c were prepared in-house following standard procedures.
Details about the sample preparation are given in the Supporting Information.
Experimental Methods
Three experimental methods have been employed: soft X-ray L-edge
XAS, as well as hard X-ray K-edge XAS and 1s2p RIXS. These experiments
have been performed at the Stanford Synchrotron Radiation Lightsource
(SSRL) at beamlines 10–1(L-edge XAS), 7–3 (K-edge) and
6–2 (1s2pRIXS),[39] as well as the
Advanced Photon Source beamline 9-ID.[40,41] Experimental
details on all methods are given in the Supporting
Information. All data sets (L-edge, K-edge, 1s2p RIXS) have
been measured at minimum twice to ensure reproducible and reliable
data.The pre-edge in a 1s2p RIXS experiment includes the tail
of the intense 1s → 4p excitations at around 15 eV higher energy.
This leads to an increase of the pre-edge background and further complicates
a direct comparison of L-edge data with constant incident energy (CIE,
i.e., vertical) cuts through the RIXS plane. In order to estimate
the RIXS intensity from the tail of the rising-edge, the data were
carefully fit to extract the true pre-edge region as described in
the Supporting Information and in the literature.[37]
Computational Methods
To simulate
all X-ray spectra, charge transfer multiplet calculations, that properly
take the core-hole into account, were performed.[42−45] Covalent mixing of ligand character
is modeled using a valence bond configuration interaction (VBCI) approach,
using a three configuration model including a ligand-to-metal charge
transfer (LMCT) configuration d and a metal-to-ligand
charge transfer (MLCT) configuration dL– mixed
into the d configuration
in the ground state. ( =
ligand with an e– hole, L– = ligand with an additional electron)
The corresponding charge transfer energies are Δ (LMCT) and
Δ* (MLCT). All calculations have been performed in D4 effective symmetry for all four complexes.
In the ferrous case, the x2 – y2/z2 energy splitting
and covalencies are properly reflected in this approximation. In the
ferrous case, the x2 – y2/z2 energy splitting
is reflected properly in D4 symmetry. In the ferric case, there is one 3d? hole, and thus
the quantification only reflects the covalency of this hole. The covalency
value for each of the symmetry blocks was generated via the projection
method[27] leading to the differential orbital
covalency (DOC).Ground state DFT calculations and geometry
optimizations were performed using Gaussian 09[46] for a range of functionals and basis sets. Unoccupied metal
d-character has been determined by subtracting the sum of their contribution
to all occupied orbitals from 100%. The ligand donor character has
been obtained from the occupied fragment orbital character summed
over the unoccupied orbitals. Further details are given in the Supporting Information.
Results and Analysis
Ferrous
Spectroscopy
Ferrous TPP-bisIm
Figure 2 presents a collection of data sets comparing the
1s2p RIXS, L-edge and K-edge XAS data. Figure 2(a) shows the full 1s2p RIXS plane, while Figure 2(b) gives the result with the rising edge subtracted as described
in the Supporting Information. The features
at an incident energy of ≈7112 eV and energy transfers of ≈706.5
and ≈720 eV reflect excitations into the K-pre-edge. The L3- and L2-edge-like features on the energy transfer
axis are split by the spin–orbit coupling within the 2p core-hole
in the final state. The intense feature starting at ≈7115 eV
originates from the tail of the strong dipole allowed 1s–4p
transition at ≈7130 eV. Note that possible shakeup features
due to σ+π-donation and π-back-bonding could be
present at the onset of the main-edge tail that have been neglected
in the background subtracted RIXS in Figure 2(b).
Figure 2
Fe(II)TPP(ImH)2: (a) Full 1s2p RIXS plane, (b) rising-edge
subtracted 1s2p RIXS plane, (c) comparison of the CEE cut through
the uncorrected plane (red line in (a)) with the direct K-edge, (d)
comparison of the CIE cut along the red line in (b) with the direct
L-edge experimental data.
Fe(II)TPP(ImH)2: (a) Full 1s2p RIXS plane, (b) rising-edge
subtracted 1s2p RIXS plane, (c) comparison of the CEEcut through
the uncorrected plane (red line in (a)) with the direct K-edge, (d)
comparison of the CIEcut along the red line in (b) with the direct
L-edge experimental data.Figure 2(c) compares the K-edge XAS
of the Fe(II)TPP(ImH)2 model complex with the constant
emission energy (CEE) cut through the RIXS plane as indicated by the
diagonal red line in Figure 2(a). Both spectra
show the same structure that is better resolved in the CEE spectrum
(this is often also referred to as HERFD). The peak at 7112.2 eV involves
excitation to the 1s13d63d1 final state, while the second weak peak at 7115.3 eV likely originates
from π back-bonding. The existence of a small π back-bonding
contribution (10%) in the ground state has already been observed in
L-edge XAS and is present in DFT calculations.[29]The x2 – y2 and z2 orbitals
are separated in energy due to the difference in axial and equatorial
bonding, associated with effective D4 symmetry. Since the xy and xz/yz orbitals are occupied, the K-pre-edge
is dominated by excitations into these empty x2 – y2 and z2 orbitals. To estimate the maximum D4 final state splitting, the Fe(II)TPP(ImH)2 result was compared to the 1s2p RIXS of Fe(II)-tacn, which
has O local symmetry
and thus only one possible K-pre-edge peak (see Figure S2 in the Supporting Information).[47] This comparison limits the possible e peak splitting to ≤0.4 eV.While no
spectroscopic difference is observed between the K-edge XAS and CEE
RIXS, this is not the case in comparing the L-edge XAS data with a
CIEcut at hν = 7112.2 eV through the RIXS
plane (red vertical line in Figure 2(b)). Figure 2(d) presents the Fe(II)TPP(ImH)2 L-edge
XAS data together with the CIEcut through the main RIXS peak.The CIEcut shows additional intensity at lower energies for both
the L3- and L2-like curves (hν = 707.3 and 719.6 eV) and a reduced relative intensity at
the L-edge main peak at hν = 708.2 eV. The
high energy L3-edge shoulder in the CIEcut at 710.2 eV
is also less pronounced compared to the corresponding L-edge feature.
Similar observations hold true for the L2-edge energy region,
together with the observation of a smaller L3–/L2– peak intensity ratio in comparing the CIE RIXS cut
to the direct L-edge XAS for Fe(II)TPP(ImH)2.In
our earlier 1s2p RIXS experiments on O samples, additional intensity in the CIE RIXS cuts
relative to L-edge XAS was found to originate from electric dipole
forbidden excitations[38] that are allowed
in 1s2p RIXS (see eq 1 and Figure 3(a)). In the Fe(II)TPP(ImH)2 model complex, the
Fe local symmetry is approximately D4 with an A1g ground state. In D4 symmetry, the L-edge electric
dipole transition operator has a2 and e symmetry
so that only A2 and E final states are allowed
(Figure 3(b)). In the 1s2p RIXS experiment,
one excites via a 1s → 3d quadrupole transition, having a1 and b1 character,
into intermediate states with A1 (Fe d) and B1 (Fe d) symmetry,
respectively. The 2p → 1s decay from these final states again
has electric dipole character, thus a2 and e symmetry, which allows 1s2p RIXS intensity to final states with B2, A2 and E symmetry (Figure 3(b)). Final states
with E symmetry can
be reached both from A1g and B1g intermediate
states resulting in different final state energies. Thus, the additional
intensity found in the 1s2p RIXS cuts throughout the main intensity
peaks originates from both final states that cannot be reached in
L-edge XAS and also from the splitting of the x2 – y2/z2 orbitals in the effective D4 symmetry of the porphyrin complex.
Figure 3
Possible excitation pathways
for an L-edge and 1s2p RIXS experiment of a ferrous low-spin system
for (a) O and (b) D4 symmetry. The pathways through B2 and E intermediate states in (b) have been omitted
for clarity.
Possible excitation pathways
for an L-edge and 1s2p RIXS experiment of a ferrous low-spin system
for (a) O and (b) D4 symmetry. The pathways through B2 and E intermediate states in (b) have been omitted
for clarity.
Ferrous cyt c
Figure 4 presents the 1s2p RIXS
plane of ferrous cyt c. Figure 4(a) shows the full RIXS plane as measured, while in (b) the rising
edge has been subtracted. The pre-edge peak structure contains mainly
one broad intensity region at the L3- and L2-like energies, with an intense tail to higher energies. This tail
however is weaker in intensity compared to the ferrous model RIXS
plane (Figure 2(b)). In (c) we compare the
CEEcuts of ferrous cyt c with that of the Fe(II)TPP(ImH)2 complex. Both have very similar pre-edge intensities and
peak widths, as well as additional intensity at ≈7115.3 eV,
likely due to π back-bonding. However, ferrous cyt c shows a steeper rising edge, which overlays the π* region.
Both curves merge at higher energies, reflecting the common spin and
valence state (see Figure S4 in the Supporting
Information). A direct comparison of the CIEcuts for the Fe(II)TPP(ImH)2 and ferrous cyt c, is presented in (d).
Two characteristic changes in spectral features are visible: Fe(II)cyt c has lower intensity in the shoulder at 710
eV, but higher intensity in the L2 relative to the L3-edge.
Figure 4
Ferrous cyt c: (a) Full 1s2p RIXS plane,
(b) rising-edge subtracted 1s2p RIXS plane, (c) comparison of the
CEE cut through the uncorrected plane (red line in (a)) with the CEE
cut of Fe(II)TPP(ImH)2, (d) comparison of the CIE cut along
the red line in (b) with the CIE cut of Fe(II)TPP(ImH)2.
Ferrous cyt c: (a) Full 1s2p RIXS plane,
(b) rising-edge subtracted 1s2p RIXS plane, (c) comparison of the
CEEcut through the uncorrected plane (red line in (a)) with the CEEcut of Fe(II)TPP(ImH)2, (d) comparison of the CIEcut along
the red line in (b) with the CIEcut of Fe(II)TPP(ImH)2.
Ferrous Multiplet Simulations
For quantitative analysis, the experimental data have been simulated
using charge-transfer multiplet calculations within the VBCI framework.
(see Supporting Information) The best fit
to Fe(II)TPP(ImH)2 is shown in Figure 5: (a) K-edge and K-edge-like CEEcut, (b) the 1s2p RIXS plane,
and (c) the L-edge and L-edge-like CIEcut. The corresponding parameter
set is given in Table S1. The simulations
reproduce the experimental results well for all three experimental
methods. In line with the experiment, the simulated 1s2p RIXS cut
is broader than the L-edge XAS simulation. The peak in the L-edge
XAS simulation at 710 eV is reduced to a shoulder in the RIXS cut,
and the ratio of the L3/L2-peak maxima is lower
in the 1s2p RIXS cut. The projection of the VBCI ground state gives
70.4% d, 77.2% dz metal, and 8.1% dπ* back-bonding
character (Table 1).
Figure 5
Fe(III)TPP(ImH)2 simulations: (a) comparison of the CEE cut along the red line in
(b) with the simulated K-edge, (b) 1s2p RIXS plane simulation, (c)
comparison of the CIE cut along the vertical red line in (b) with
the direct L-edge simulation.
Table 1
Unoccupied
Metal d-Character Derived from DFT Calculations Using the BP86 Functional
with 0, 10, and 20% Hartree–Fock (HF) for the Full Molecule,
20% HF for the Truncated Model, and VBCI Simulationsa
dx2–y2 [%]
dz2 [%]
π* [%]
d(π) [%]
model
protein
model
protein
model
protein
model
protein
ferrous:
full molecules:
BP86
71.3
71.6
71.8
70.4
9.3
9.2
BP86 + 10% HF
75.0
74.8
75.8
73.6
7.2
7.0
BP86 + 20% HF
77.3
77.3
78.5
76.5
5.2
4.8
truncated models:
BP86 + 20%
HF
77.7
77.6
78.5
77.9
5.2
5.2
VBCI simulations:
70.4
73.4
77.2
70.4
8.1
7.1
ferric:
full molecules:
BP86
65.5
66.2
65.0
62.2
2.5
3.3
86.4
82.1
BP86 + 10% HF
67.3
68.0
66.5
63.7
1.6
1.9
90.9
87.7
BP86 + 20% HF
69.0
68.9
68.0
65.3
1.1
1.2
92.6
91.4
truncated models:
BP86 + 20%
HF
69.1
68.9
67.8
65.7
1.1
1.2
93.4
91.4
VBCI simulations:
68.8
71.5
66.7
62.3
2.8
2.5
75.0
71.0
Note that the full molecule cyt c is optimized with the Fe–S(met) distance constrained at 2.29
(Fe(II)) and 2.33 Å (Fe(III)), while the truncated model is fully
optimized, and that the dz metal d-character includes the influence of both axial ligands.
Fe(III)TPP(ImH)2 simulations: (a) comparison of the CEEcut along the red line in
(b) with the simulated K-edge, (b) 1s2p RIXS plane simulation, (c)
comparison of the CIEcut along the vertical red line in (b) with
the direct L-edge simulation.From the group theory considerations in Figure 3(b), B2 final
states are forbidden in direct L-edge XAS. In addition, final states
with E symmetry can
be reached through the z2 and x2 – y2 intermediate
states that are split in energy due to the tetragonal geometry. Thus,
the E final states are
also split in energy by the crystal field splitting of the dσ
orbitals. To identify all contributions to the 1s2p RIXS plane, we
separate the excitations into their individual pathways as shown in
Figure 6(b–e). Since intermediate states
of different symmetries do not interfere, the full RIXS plane is given
by a summation of all four pathways, which are compared to the L-edge
XAS spectral splittings in Figure 6(a).
Figure 6
Comparison
of the final state L-edge XAS simulation (a), and the four 1s2p RIXS
pathways carrying most intensity (b–e). Pathways through the
intermediate state with B2 and E are omitted
for clarity.
Comparison
of the final state L-edge XAS simulation (a), and the four 1s2p RIXS
pathways carrying most intensity (b–e). Pathways through the
intermediate state with B2 and E are omitted
for clarity.Note that the full molecule cyt c is optimized with the Fe–S(met) distance constrained at 2.29
(Fe(II)) and 2.33 Å (Fe(III)), while the truncated model is fully
optimized, and that the dz metal d-character includes the influence of both axial ligands.The E final states contribute at energies above
and below the main peak with the excitation through the z2 (a1) orbital
being lower in energy than through the x2 – y2 (b1) orbital, reflecting the ligand field energy
splitting of these orbitals with the z2 being lower in energy. The 1s2p RIXS final state splitting however
is significantly larger than the ground state energy splitting (≈
1.1 eV as compared to ≈0.4 eV,[29] respectively), which results from the strong 2p3d repulsive interaction.
The E core-hole final state has mainly p, p character (p is mixed into the wave function through 2p spin–orbit
coupling), which have a lower spatial overlap with the z2 than with the x2 – y2 orbital, leading to the increased energy splitting.
This is a characteristic of 1s2p RIXS, which is inaccessible through
L-edge XAS due to the large differences in the electric dipole matrix
elements for absorption.[48] In direct L-edge
XAS, the transition matrix element p → d is four times stronger than p → d, leading to an intensity distribution
mainly at higher energies (Figure 6(a)).The other two final state symmetries are energetically located between
the E states. Both the B2 and A2 core-hole final states (Figure 3(b)) have mainly p character, which now has stronger spatial overlap
with the z2 orbital. Thus, the crystal
field and 2p core-hole repulsion influences on the energy oppose each
other with the core-hole being dominant, which inverts the excitation
energy order relative to the E states.For ferrous cyt c, simulations
of the K-edge, 1s2p RIXS, and CIEcut comparisons are shown in Figure 7. All relative changes are reproduced, however they
are less pronounced than in the experiment. Both K-edge simulations
have equal peak widths, in line with the experimental result. The
CIEcuts along the red line in the 1s2p RIXS plane in Figure 7(c) show slightly higher intensity in the shoulder
at 710 eV for the model complex, while the L2 intensity
is higher for the ferrous cyt c simulation.
Figure 7
Ferrous cyt c simulations: (a) comparison of the CEE cut along the red
line in (b) with the CEE cut of the model complex simulation, (b)
1s2p RIXS plane simulation, (c) comparison of the CIE cut along the
vertical red line in (b) with the CIE cut of the model complex simulation.
Ferrous cyt c simulations: (a) comparison of the CEEcut along the red
line in (b) with the CEEcut of the model complex simulation, (b)
1s2p RIXS plane simulation, (c) comparison of the CIEcut along the
vertical red line in (b) with the CIEcut of the model complex simulation.In order to reproduce these spectral
differences, the covalent mixing of the d orbital must be increased in cyt c (see Table S1). This leads to a projection
of the VBCI ground state of 73.4% d, 70.4% d metal, and 7.1% dπ* back-bonding character (Table 1). Thus, in going from Fe(II)TPP(ImH)2 to Fe(II)cyt c, the d metal character decreases, while the d increases and the π back-bonding character slightly
decreases due to the normalized wave function.
Ferric Spectroscopy
Ferric
TPP-bisIm
Figure 8 presents the experimental
results of Fe(III)TPP(ImH)2 plotted as for the ferrous
complexes: Figure 8(a) shows the full 1s2p
RIXS plane, while Figure 8(b) is the rising-edge
subtracted plane. As a clear difference relative to the ferrous results,
a well separated feature is visible at 7111.2 eV incident energy and
706 eV energy transfer in the L3-edge-like region (7111.2/718.6
eV in the L2-edge-like region). The high intensity feature
around 7112.9/708.1 eV (7112.9/720.6 eV) is similar to the low-spin
ferrous case. Figure 8(c) gives a comparison
of the direct K-edge XAS to the CEEcut along the diagonal red line
in Figure 8(a). In K-edge XAS, the low energy
peak at 7111.2 eV appears as a weak shoulder, while two peaks are
well resolved in the CEEcut. This is an intrinsic advantage of the
two-dimensional plane as given by 1s2p RIXS and not due to experimental
resolution, since the CIE integrated RIXS plane (which represents
the K-edge) overlays with the direct K-edge spectrum (see Figure S5).
Figure 8
Fe(III)TPP(ImH)2: (a) Full
1s2p RIXS plane, (b) rising-edge subtracted 1s2p RIXS plane, (c) comparison
of the CEE cut through the uncorrected plane (red line in (a)) with
the direct K-edge, (d) comparison of the CIE cuts along the green
and red lines in (b) with the direct L-edge experimental data.
Fe(III)TPP(ImH)2: (a) Full
1s2p RIXS plane, (b) rising-edge subtracted 1s2p RIXS plane, (c) comparison
of the CEEcut through the uncorrected plane (red line in (a)) with
the direct K-edge, (d) comparison of the CIEcuts along the green
and red lines in (b) with the direct L-edge experimental data.One of the main advantages of
1s2p RIXS is the ability to select a specific incident energy (i.e.,
a specific K-pre-edge transition) and record the corresponding L-edge-like
spectrum associated with this pre-edge peak. When exciting with 7111.2
eV incident energy, the low lying dπ hole (in
the ferric d5 configuration) is probed,
while exciting at an incident energy of 7112.7 probes dσ character in the L-edge-like spectrum. Note that due to the weak
1s3d interaction, little mixing occurs and pre-edge peak interpretation
in terms of specific d orbital excitations is reasonable,[47] which is not the case for 2p L-edge final states.[30]In Figure 8(d),
the direct L-edge XAS data are compared to two CIEcuts taken through
the two features in the rising-edge subtracted RIXS plane (Figure 8(b)) along the green and red lines at 7111.2 (π)
and 7112.9 eV (σ character), respectively. While the low energy
cut aligns well with the lowest energy L-edge XAS feature, the higher
energy cut has its maximum at a lower transfer energy than the main
peak of the L-edge XAS spectrum, similar to what was observed above
for the ferrous TPP(ImH)2 complex.
Ferric cyt c
Figure 9(a) and (b) presents
the 1s2p RIXS results for ferriccyt c, Figure 9(a) gives the full 1s2p RIXS plane, while Figure 9(b) is the rising-edge subtracted plane. Three main
differences relative to the ferric TPP(ImH)2 model complex
RIXS data (Figure 8) are observed: (1) The
π feature at 7111.1 eV incident energy is weaker for the protein;
(2) the strong σ feature around 7112.6 eV is shifted down in
incident energy by 0.3 eV toward the π region; and (3) the L2-like σ region at 7112.6/720.3 eV is higher in intensity
relative to the L3-like σ region.
Figure 9
Ferric cyt c: (a) Full 1s2p RIXS plane, (b) rising-edge subtracted 1s2p RIXS
plane, (c) comparison of the CEE cut through the uncorrected plane
(red line in (a)) with the CEE cut of Fe(III)TPP(ImH)2,
(d) comparison of the CIE cuts along the green and red lines in (b)
with the corresponding CIE cuts of the ferric model complex.
Ferriccyt c: (a) Full 1s2p RIXS plane, (b) rising-edge subtracted 1s2p RIXS
plane, (c) comparison of the CEEcut through the uncorrected plane
(red line in (a)) with the CEEcut of Fe(III)TPP(ImH)2,
(d) comparison of the CIEcuts along the green and red lines in (b)
with the corresponding CIEcuts of the ferric model complex.The first two points are also
visible in Figure 9(c) where the two CEEcuts
of Fe(III)cyt c and TPP(ImH)2 are compared.
The low energy peak is slightly less intense and the main peak is
shifted to lower incident energy.In Figure 9(d), the L-edge-like cuts through the cyt c RIXS plane (solid lines) are compared to the corresponding cuts
through the ferric Fe(III)TPP(ImH)2 RIXS plane (dashed
lines). Comparing the two CIE spectra associated with π excitation
(cuts along the green lines in Figures 8 and 9(b)), three observations can be made: (1) The peak
position of the low energy feature is the same at 706 eV; (2) the
protein peak is slightly lower in intensity; and (3) the shoulder
at 708.2 eV is higher in intensity. CIEcuts associated with σ
excitation (cuts along the red lines in Figures 8 and 9(b))) reveal two distinct differences:
(1) The Fe(III)cyt cCIE spectrum is shifted toward
lower energies by 0.3 eV at both the L3- and L2-edge; (2) the L3/L2 peak intensity ratio is
lower for Fe(III)cyt c. Note that the lower L3/L2 peak intensity ratio was also found for the
Fe(II) complexes, while the shift to lower energy of the σ excitation
decay spectrum is only observed in the ferric complex comparison.
Ferric Multiplet Simulations
In parallel to the ferrous
case, charge-transfer multiplet calculations within the VBCI framework
were performed to simulate the above Fe(III) experimental data. Final
parameters are given in Table S1. The Slater–Condon
parameters were reduced to 70% of the Hartree–Fock derived
values in the initial and to 60% in the final states due to covalency
effects. The difference in ground and final states reduction originates
from the effect of the mixing parameters on the electron distribution
in the VBCI model with and without a 2p core-hole that are thus corrected
using the Slater–Condon parameters. Figure 10 gives the best fits to Fe(III)TPP(ImH)2 spectra:
(a) The K-edge and K-edge-like CEEcut, (b) the 1s2p RIXS plane, and
(c) the L-edge and L-edge-like CIEcut. The simulations reproduce
the experimental results (see Figure 8) for
all three methods. The CEEcut along the diagonal red line in Figure 10(b) (see Figure 10(a)) shows
a higher intensity for the dπ peak at 7111.2 eV compared to
the direct K-edge simulation due to the higher intrinsic resolution
of the two-dimensional RIXS plane. The dσ peak at ≈7113.2
eV appears at 0.3 eV higher energy in the CEEcut than the direct
K-edge simulation, in line with the experimental result in Figure 9.
Figure 10
Fe(III)TPP(ImH)2 simulations: (a) Comparison
of the CEE cut along the red diagonal line in (b) with the simulated
K-edge, (b) 1s2p RIXS plane simulation, (c) comparison of the CIE
cuts along the green and red vertical lines in (b) with the direct
L-edge simulation.
Fe(III)TPP(ImH)2 simulations: (a) Comparison
of the CEEcut along the red diagonal line in (b) with the simulated
K-edge, (b) 1s2p RIXS plane simulation, (c) comparison of the CIEcuts along the green and red vertical lines in (b) with the direct
L-edge simulation.The direct L-edge simulation
shown in Figure 10(c) reproduces the experimental
L-edge, but underestimates the intensity of the lower energy peak
at 706 eV. The dπ and dσ CIEcuts (green and red vertical
lines in Figure 10(b), respectively) follow
the experimental results, with the dπ intensity being slightly
overestimated, while the peak width, shape, and energy splitting match
the experimental results. The main CIE peak at 708.2 eV appears ∼1
eV lower in energy than the L3-edge peak, similar to the
behavior experimentally observed for Fe(II)TPP(ImH)2 above
and in ferric complexes.[38] A DOC quantitative
analysis of the VBCI ground state reveals 69% d, 67% d, 75% dπ metal character, and 3% dπ* back-bonding into the porphyrin.In Figure 11, best fit simulations of ferriccyt c data are compared to the above simulation results for Fe(III)TPP(ImH)2: (a) A comparison of the CEEcut of ferriccyt c (along the diagonal red line in Figure 11(b)) with the CEEcut of Fe(III)TPP(ImH)2 (along the diagonal
red line in Figure 10(b)), (b) the 1s2p RIXS
plane, and (c) a comparison of the CIEcuts at lowest energy through
the dπ regions (along the green vertical lines in Figures 11 and 10(b)), and the cuts
at higher energies through the dσ regions (along the red vertical
lines in Figures 11 and 10(b)).
Figure 11
Ferric cyt c simulations: (a) Comparison of the
CEE cut along the red diagonal line in (b) with the CEE cut of the
model complex simulation, (b) 1s2p RIXS plane simulation, (c) comparison
of the CIE cuts along the green and red vertical lines in (b) with
the CIE cuts of the model complex simulation.
Ferriccyt c simulations: (a) Comparison of the
CEEcut along the red diagonal line in (b) with the CEEcut of the
model complex simulation, (b) 1s2p RIXS plane simulation, (c) comparison
of the CIEcuts along the green and red vertical lines in (b) with
the CIEcuts of the model complex simulation.The CEEcuts of the simulated RIXS planes for both complexes
reproduce the experimental spectral changes well: the intensity of
the dπ peak at 7111.2 eV is decreased for cyt c, while the energy difference between the dπ and the dσ
peak at ≈7113.0 eV is 0.2 eV smaller in the ferriccyt c simulations, in line with the experimental results in
Figure 9.In the L-edge-like CIEcuts
through the simulated RIXS planes of Fe(III)TPP(ImH)2 and
ferriccyt c (Figure 11(c)),
three main changes in the spectral shape are observed: (1) A slight
decrease of the low energy Fe(III)cyt c peak intensity
at 706 eV with an increase in intensity in the shoulder at 708.2 eV
in the CIEcut after π excitation (green curves); (2) a shift
by 0.3 eV toward lower energy for the CIEcuts after σ excitation
for ferriccyt c (red curves); and (3) an increase
of the L2-like σ intensity. All of these characteristic
changes are also observed in the CIEcuts through the experimental
RIXS planes (Figure 9(d)).Similar to
the ferrous case, these changes required an increase in the covalent
mixing of the z2 orbital for ferriccyt c relative to Fe(III)TPP(ImH)2, together with
a lower crystal field (10Dq) and an increased covalent dπ mixing. This leads to a projection analysis of the VBCI ground state
DOC of 69% d, 64% d, 73% dπ metal,
and 3% dπ* back-bonding character in the porphyrin.
Thus, in going from ferricFeTPP(ImH)2 to cyt c, the d and dπ metal character decrease with the
increase of the covalent mixing. As a consequence, the d character increases and the π back-bonding character
slightly decreases due to the normalized wave function.
Density
Functional Calculations
Correlating Electronic Structure Calculations
to 1s2p RIXS Data
As described above, VBCI multiplet calculations
reproduce all observed spectroscopic changes in the 1s2p RIXS planes
when going from both the ferrous and ferricFeTPP(ImH)2 model complex to cyt c. Both the ferrous and ferric
complexes require an increase in the covalent a1 mixing for cyt c resulting
in lower d character (i.e., increased covalency), while for the dπ hole present in the ferric case, the e mixing increases for Fe(III)cyt c, leading to a decrease in dπ character.While VBCI simulations are able to reproduce the experimental results
due to the full multiplet treatment including the 1s and 2p core-holes,
they are unable to distinguish between the two axial ligands and the
specific contributions from the porphyrin, as all contribute to the a1 (dz2) mixing.DFT calculations were performed
to obtain a more detailed description of the ground state. The Fe–S(Met)
distance in cyt c was constrained to the crystal
structure values of 2.29 Å (Fe(II) and 2.33 Å (Fe(III))
since a fully optimized structure leads to an overestimated Fe–S(Met)
bond length by more than 0.1 Å. However, also the fully optimized
structure find a shorter Fe(II)-S axial bond length, in-line with
the experimental multishell EXAFS finding[16] and previous DFT results.[49] The resulting
DFT derived charge densities (orbital differentiated metal d-characters)
are equivalent to the VBCI derived DOC values and are used to couple
the experimental results to the DFT calculations.The results
for the ferrous calculations are shown in Table 1 (top) for three functionals: BP86, BP86 + 10% Hartree–Fock
(HF), and BP86 + 20% HF (in the following labeled as B(XXHF)P86).
All three functionals find unchanged d metal d-character in ferrous cyt c compared to
Fe(II)TPP(ImH)2 and a small, reproducible decrease in d character. The
π* bonding character does not change. These results parallel
the VBCI simulations of the data, where an increase in a1 mixing leads to a decrease in d character. The
associated change in d and π*
back-bonding in the VBCI simulations are due to the normalized nature
of the wave function.A collection of the various ligand characters
for d binding
as derived from a fragment analysis of the DFT results is given in
Table 2 (top). All three functionals give the
same behavior. The decrease in d character is accompanied by a decrease in porphyrin
character and an increase in axial ligand character. This is mainly
due to the exchange of an imidazole by a thioether, resulting in the
ruffling of the porphyrin (the removing of the cross-links do not
significantly contribute to the ruffling[50] and a decrease in the Fe–N(His) bond length).
Table 2
Collection of Metal and Ligand Characters from a Fragment Analysis
for Three Different Functionals for the Full Molecules as Well as
for the Small Molecule Modelsa
BP86
BP86 + 10% HF
BP86 + 20% HF
small molecule
model
protein
model
protein
model
protein
model
protein
ferrous:
dz2
71.8
70.4
75.8
73.6
78.5
76.5
78.5
77.9
por
9.7
6.5
8.4
6.0
7.3
4.1
7.4
5.0
imh2/met + imh
16.7
20.6
14.3
18.3
11.6
13.8
11.8
16.3
imh
–
10.8
–
9.6
–
7.7
–
8.4
met
–
9.8
–
8.7
–
6.1
–
7.9
ferric: dz2
dz2
65.0
62.2
66.5
63.7
68.0
65.3
67.8
65.7
por
10.3
8.9
10.4
8.7
9.9
8.1
11.1
7.9
imh2/met + imh
19.7
24.8
19.2
23.9
18.4
24.1
18.7
22.9
imh
–
12.5
–
12.0
–
11.6
–
11.2
met
–
12.3
–
12.0
–
12.5
–
11.7
ferric: dπ hole
dπ
86.4
82.1
90.9
87.7
92.6
91.4
93.4
91.4
por
13.3
18.7
9.1
12.8
6.7
10.7
6.9
9.8
imh2/met + imh
2.9
3.1
2.7
1.8
2.2
1.4
2.4
0.0
imh
–
3.1
–
1.8
–
1.4
–
0.0
met
–
0.0
–
0.0
–
0.0
–
0.0
Note that the
full molecule cyt c is optimized with the Fe–S(Met)
distance constrained, while the small molecule is fully optimized.
Note that the
full molecule cyt c is optimized with the Fe–S(Met)
distance constrained, while the small molecule is fully optimized.The results of the DFT calculations
for the ferric complexes for all three functionals are given in Table 1 (bottom). While both the d and π* back-bonding covalencies do not change between
ferriccyt c and Fe(III)TPP(ImH)2, a decrease
in d metal character
is found, similar to the ferrous case. The dπ hole that is present in the ferric complexes also shows a decrease
in metal character for all functionals as found in the VBCI simulations
of the 1s2p RIXS data.The fragment analysis (Table 2 (bottom)) qualitatively gives the same ligand bonding
behavior for the dz orbital
in the ferric as in the ferrous case: a decrease in dz and porphyrin ligand character is compensated
by an increase in axial ligand character due to the exchange of an
imidazole with the more covalent thioether ligand. The dπ bonding is dominating between the dπ hole
and the filled porphyrin 3e orbital, where the decrease in metal dπ character reflects an increase in 3e that is caused by the ruffling of the porphyrin
ring upon the imidazole/thioether exchange. The imidazole bonding
character in the dπ* hole is small and unchanged
between the Fe(III)TPP(ImH)2 and Fe(III)cyt c and there is no Met contribution present in the π* hole in
ferriccyt c.Truncated models with only the
Fe-porphyrin ring and two axial ligands (bis-His and His-Met) were
geometry optimized and compared to the results of the larger calculations.
The last column in Table 2 gives the results
on the truncated models for 20% HF. Importantly, the Fe covalencies
and fragment analyses of the small molecule models quantitatively
reproduce those of the large molecule models that contain the propionates
and thioether linkages using the same functional and basis set. The
small molecule models are thus used below to quantitatively evaluate
the thermodynamics of axial ligand metal bonding.
Axial Ligand
Bond Strengths
In this section, axial ligand bond strengths
are calculated for both N(His) and S(Met) axial ligands in both Fe(II)
and Fe(III) oxidation states. The bond strength is taken as the difference
in energy between the ligand-on and ligand-off forms. Calculations
do not include dispersion corrections; however, this should mainly
affect the absolute binding energies and not the relative bond strengths.A range of functionals and hybrids was evaluated to best reproduce
the proper spin ground state for ligand-on and ligand-off forms for
both redox states. This is described in the Supporting
Information. In the presentation below, we use the B(20HF)P86
hybrid functional. However, all functionals lead to equivalent ligand
binding descriptions.The calculated axial ligand bond strengths
for S(Met) and N(His) in both Fe(II) and Fe(III) oxidation states
are given in Table 3. Note that values are
reported for ligand loss. The axial ligand Fe(II)-S(Met) bond strength
is calculated to be 5.0 kcal/mol (ΔE), while
the Fe(II)-N(His) bond strength is 9.9 kcal/mol; the axial ligand
Fe(III)-S(Met) bond strength is 7.1 kcal/mol, while the Fe(III)-N(His)
bond strength is 16.9 kcal/mol. Thus, the Fe–S(Met) bond is
weaker than the Fe–N(His) in both Fe oxidation states. Interestingly,
from the above 1s2p RIXS data and the differential orbital covalency,
the Fe–S(Met) bond is more covalent than the Fe–N(His)
bond. This apparent discrepancy between covalencies and bond strengths
is addressed in the Discussion. Furthermore,
the Fe(III)-S(Met) bond is stronger than the Fe(II)-S(Met) bond (ΔE = 7.1 vs 5.0 kcal/mol, respectively). This is consistent
with the higher S(Met) character for Fe(III)cyt c from the RIXS data/simulations and DFT calculations presented above.
However, this observation is not consistent with the literature considerations
summarized in the Introduction. Lastly, the difference in Fe(III)
and Fe(II) bond strengths is larger for a N(His) axial ligand than
for S(Met) (Table 3, ΔΔE = 7.0 vs 2.1 kcal/mol, respectively; note the ΔΔG for H2O is also given in Table 3 and is referred to in the Discussion). The stronger bonds to the Fe(III) states are generally consistent
with this higher degree of covalency than in the corresponding Fe(II)
states.
Table 3
Thermodynamics of Ligand Loss from FeII/IIIa
B(20HF)P86b
FeII-S(Met)
FeIII-S(Met)
ΔΔcS(Met)
FeII-N(His)
FeIII-N(His)
ΔΔN(His)
FeII-H2O
FeIII-H2O
ΔΔH2O
ΔE
5.0
7.1
2.1
9.9
16.9
7.0
–0.5
6.7
7.2
ΔH
2.6
5.5
5.5
7.2
14.7
7.5
–2.0
5.3
7.3
ΔG
–13.9
–8.8
5.1
–9.1
–0.4
8.8
–12.3
–4.2
8.1
expd
3.6
0.6
–3.0
4.7
4.9
0.2
exp corr.e
3.6
8.7
5.1
4.7
13.0
8.3
All energies are in kcal/mol.
6-311+G(d,p) basis set for
all atoms and PCM corrections (ε = 4.0).
ΔΔ is the
difference in FeIII and FeII axial ligand bond
strengths.
ΔG0 values obtained from dissociation constants
for AcMet and imidazole.[10]
Experimental values corrected for the
calculated ΔΔG of H2O dissociation
from Fe(III) (i.e., 8.1 kcal/mol)
All energies are in kcal/mol.6-311+G(d,p) basis set for
all atoms and PCM corrections (ε = 4.0).ΔΔ is the
difference in FeIII and FeII axial ligand bond
strengths.ΔG0 values obtained from dissociation constants
for AcMet and imidazole.[10]Experimental values corrected for the
calculated ΔΔG of H2O dissociation
from Fe(III) (i.e., 8.1 kcal/mol)
Discussion
The highly covalent environment
in Fe porphyrin complexes do not allow for most methods to quantitatively
determine the local electronic structure. Fe L-edge XAS using soft
X-rays is a powerful tool to determine the metal d-characters for
all orbitals (i.e., the DOC)[27] including
the ability to separately determine the σ and π donation
and back-bonding.[28,29,51] The soft X-ray nature of Fe L-edge XAS leads to a low lifetime broadening
and a feature rich spectrum, but requires ultrahigh vacuum conditions
and generally involves the detection of electrons within a few Å
of the surface of the sample. The sampling depth can be enlarged to
a few micrometers by detecting the fluorescence decay; however, this
can lead to significant self-absorption effects. Hard X-rays do not
have these restrictions, but give lower resolution spectra due to
the short lifetime of the 1s core-hole as observed in Fe K-edges.[47]1s2p RIXS combines the advantages of both
methods, leading to two-dimensional high resolution spectra for samples
in a variety of environments. The same information regarding the DOC
can be extracted from 1s2p RIXS with the advantage of accessing L-edge
XAS forbidden final states.[38] In complexes
with tetragonal symmetry like FeTPP(ImH)2, where both L-edge
XAS and 1s2p RIXS have been obtained, the broadening of the L-edge-like
(CIE) RIXS cut associated with σ excitation is further enlarged
due to the contribution from the d–d orbital energy
splitting, while this equatorial vs axial splitting is not accessible
in direct L-edge XAS due to the dipole selection rule and strong multiplet
effects.To access the electronic structure of the heme center
in cyt c in its ferrous and ferric form, only 1s2p
RIXS experiments could be performed; these were compared to the results
from corresponding ferrous and ferricFeTPP(ImH)2 model
complexes. In the ferrous case, two characteristic spectral changes
were observed for ferrous cyt c relative to the ferrousbis-imidazole model: A decrease in intensity of the high energy shoulder
of the L3-like peak and an increase of relative intensity
of the L2-like peak in the CIEcut associated with σ
excitation (Figure 4). These changes require
an increase of the z2 covalency. Note
that these spectral changes can only be quantified by including the
whole L-edge-like energy range; often, only the L3-like
energy region is taken into account, which would not have been sufficient
for a unique identification of this increase in z2 covalency. In the ferric complexes, two CIEcuts are
required and their comparison between the ferricbis-imidazole model
and ferriccyt c defines four characteristic spectral
variations: (i) The L2-like relative intensity increases
for ferriccyt c in the CIE RIXS cut associated with
σ excitation, similar to the ferrous case; (ii) the energy positions
of the L3- and L2-like peaks in the σ
cut are shifted toward lower energies, which is different from the
ferrous result; (iii) the main peaks in the CIEcut associated with
π excitation appear at the same energy, but with weaker intensity
for ferriccyt c; and (iv) the intensity of the shoulder
of the main peak in the π cut increases (Figure 8). An increase of z2 covalency
reproduces the increase in L2-like intensity, parallel
to the ferrous case. The shift toward lower energy of the σ
CIEcut is due to a decrease of the crystal field strength, 10Dq,
together with an increase of π covalency, reproducing the other
three observations. From DFT calculations correlated to these data,
the increase of z2 covalency is due to
the axial ligand change from imidazole to methionine, as methionine
has a stronger σ donation than imidazole. The increase of π
covalency is due to the porphyrin ring, which is ruffled due to this
ligand exchange, rather than a π donation interaction with the
methionine ligand. Finally, from the quantitative DOC’s obtained
from the VBCI fit to the 1s2p RIXS data, the axial methionine covalent
interaction is found to be larger in ferric than in ferrous cyt c.The experimental RIXS data and simulations have
indicated that the Fe–S(Met) bond is more covalent than the
Fe–N(His) bond. However, the calculated axial ligand bond strengths
in Table 3 indicated that the Fe–S(Met)
bond is weaker than the Fe–N(His) bond. This difference can
be understood in terms of basic bonding concepts. Within the framework
of perturbation theory, the bond energy (BE) is proportional to (HM–L)2/Δ, where HM–L is the resonance integral between the metal and
the ligand orbitals and Δ is the difference in energy between
these interacting orbitals before bonding. The covalency (i.e., the
coefficient squared of ligand character in the metal d-orbital, α2) is proportional to ((H)/Δ)2. Thus, the
BE can be estimated from the covalency scaled by Δ (i.e., BE
= α2Δ). Thus, the stronger Fe–N(His)
bonds relative to Fe–S(Met), despite their lower covalencies,
can be understood in terms of the difference in their valence donor
orbital energies, where the ImH σ donor bond is 1.1 eV lower
in energy than the Met b1 valence donor
orbital. This results in a significantly larger Δ for N(His)
and thus a stronger M–L bond.[52]It was found above that the Fe(III)-S(Met) bond is stronger than
the Fe(II)-S(Met) bond (7.1 vs 5.0 kcal/mol, respectively, Table 3). The energy of the axial ligand bond was calculated
as the difference in energy between the ligand-on (S = 1/2 and S = 0 for Fe(III) and Fe(II), respectively)
and ligand-off ground states (S = 3/2 quantum mixed and S = 2 for Fe(III) and Fe(II), respectively). Thus,
there can be additional contributions to the calculated bond strengths
due to the different spin states involved in ligand loss. These can
be taken into account using the potential energy surfaces (PESs) of
ligand binding to the Fe(III) and Fe(II) states. Figure 12 gives the PESs for Met ligand loss for the ferrous
state in the gas phase leading to an S = 0 to S = 2 surface crossing. The gas-phase
axial S(Met) ligand bond strength is 5.6 kcal/mol. Note that energies
for the corresponding two-box calculations (i.e., the prophyrin and
axial ligand are calculated separately) are given in parentheses (e.g.,
5.8 kcal/mol for the Fe(II)-S(Met)
bond strength). The energy of ligand loss on the S
= 0 surface is calculated to be 12.3 kcal/mol (Figure 12, right).
The difference in energy for these two processes of ligand loss is
the exchange stabilization energy corresponding to a change in Fe(II)
spin-state (i.e., S = 0 → S = 2) and is calculated to be 6.2 kcal/mol (Figure 12). (Note
that the exchange stabilization energy is taken to be the difference
in energy between the S = 0 and S = 2 spin states without an additional axial ligand
in order to directly compare to Fe(III) case below.) Thus, this exchange
stabilization lowers the calculated value for the axial ligand bond
strength. Analogous calculations for axial ligand loss from the Fe(III)-porphyrin
site give gas-phase axial ligand bond strengths of 8.1 kcal/mol (for the S = 1/2 → S = 3/2 conversion) and
17.8 kcal/mol (for ligand loss along
the S = 1/2 surface) and an exchange
stabilization energy of 9.7 kcal/mol. Thus, even after correcting
the Fe(III) and Fe(II) axial ligand bond strengths for the different
exchange stabilization energies (9.7 vs 6.2 kcal/mol, respectively),
the axial ligand bond in the Fe(III) site is still stronger than that
for the Fe(II) (8.1 vs 5.6 kcal/mol, respectively). Without exchange
stabilization, the difference between the Fe(III) and Fe(II) bond
strengths is even larger (17.8 vs 12.3 kcal/mol). The fact that the
Fe(III)-S(Met) bond is stronger than Fe(II)-S(Met) is consistent with
the higher degree of covalency, as determined above via the 1s2p RIXS
data and simulations.
Figure 12
DFT calculated gas-phase potential energy surfaces of
S(Met) binding to both Fe(II) S = 0 (black line and crosses) and S = 2 (red dashed line and crosses) spin-states. Values for the energetics
are given in kcal/mol. Energetics are calculated from the ligand-off
form either with the porphyrin and methionine in the same calculation
or porphyrin and methionine in separate calculations (in parentheses).
Values for Fe(III) S = 1/2 and S = 3/2 are given in the text.
DFT calculated gas-phase potential energy surfaces of
S(Met) binding to both Fe(II) S = 0 (black line and crosses) and S = 2 (red dashed line and crosses) spin-states. Values for the energetics
are given in kcal/mol. Energetics are calculated from the ligand-off
form either with the porphyrin and methionine in the same calculation
or porphyrin and methionine in separate calculations (in parentheses).
Values for Fe(III) S = 1/2 and S = 3/2 are given in the text.As outlined in the Introduction,
past considerations have concluded that, in cyt c, the Fe(II)-S(Met) bond is stronger than the Fe(III)-S(Met) bond.
One argument for this is the shorter Fe(II)-S(Met) bond (2.29 Å)
relative to Fe(III)-S(Met) (2.33 Å) bond.[16] However, the bond lengths are not necessarily related to
bond strengths, as these are affected differently by the ionic and
covalent contributions to bonding.[30,53] Furthermore,
for considerations related to the decrease in E0 upon Fe–S(Met)
bond loss,[6,7] ligand competition[8,9] and
binding,[10−12] and protein folding studies,[10,13−15] it is essential to define and refer to the reference
state (i.e., S(Met) bound vs either N(His), N(Lys), or H2O axial ligands). Importantly, from Table 3, the ΔΔG for axial ligand binding between
Fe(III) and Fe(II) states for S(Met), N(His), and H2O axial
ligands is 5.1, 8.8, and 8.1 kcal/mol, respectively, and is thus larger
for the N(His) and H2O axial ligands. This difference results
in a decrease in E0 upon loss of the S(Met) ligand and
replacement with either a nitrogen or oxygen based ligand (estimated
to be 160 mV from the ΔΔG for S(Met)
vs N(His), Table 3). This difference in ΔΔG also leads to an apparent increase in S(Met) binding affinity
to Fe(II) relative to Fe(III),[10−12] as binding to the Fe(III) (but
not Fe(II)) state also involves displacement of an axial H2O ligand. The calculated thermodynamics of ligand
loss can be compared to experimental data obtained from the dissociation
constants of AcMet and imidazole measured for N-acetylmicroperoxidase-8
(AcMP8, see Table 3).[10] The ΔG0s of AcMet ligand loss
from Fe(II) and Fe(III) AcMP8 are 3.6 and 0.6 kcal/mol, respectively.
This would give an apparent ΔΔG of −3.0
kcal/mol, with AcMet binding stronger to Fe(II). However, correcting
for water binding/displacement from Fe(III) and not Fe(II) using the
calculated ΔΔG of 8.1 kcal/mol (Table 3) gives an
adjusted ΔΔG of 5.1 kcal/mol. This compares
well to the calculated value of 5.1 kcal/mol as given in Table 3. The same analysis can
be applied to an imidazole axial ligand; this results in an adjusted
ΔΔG of 8.3 kcal/mol, which compares well
to the calculated value of 8.8 kcal/mol. The difference in the ΔΔG for S(Met) vs N(His) or H2O ligands can be
understood through hard/soft acid/base concepts, where the harder
nitrogen- and oxygen-based ligands bind more strongly to the Fe(III)
than Fe(II) oxidation state and while the softer sulfur-based ligand
still binds more strongly to Fe(III), it has a higher relative (to
N and O based ligands) affinity for Fe(II).Previous studies
have defined the function of the axial S(Met) ligand in T1 Cu and
CuA.[2,4,5] The presence
of the axial S(Met) bond lowers E0 due to the stronger
Cu(II)-S(Met) bond relative to Cu(I). This difference in E0 is relative to the absence of axial ligand binding upon S(Met) ligand
loss. A similar function is found here for cyt c,
as the Fe(III)-S(Met) bond is indeed stronger than Fe(II); however,
decreases in E0 are observed upon ligand loss in cyt c due to its replacement by an endogenous (N(His) or N(Lys))
or exogenous ligand (H2O). These ligands have larger ΔGs for Fe(III) vs Fe(II) binding and thus effectively lower
E0 relative to the S(Met). Furthermore, the T1 Cu–S(Met)
bond has been measured experimentally to be weak.[5] Thus, the S(Met) bond would be subject to ligand loss due
to entropic contributions at physiological temperature.[4,5] This has provided insight into the “entatic/rack”[54−57] nature of T1 Cu and CuA ET active sites. Similar behavior is found
here for cyt c, as the axial ligand bond strengths
for both Fe(II) and Fe(III) are weak (i.e., ∼5 kcal/mol) and
on the order of the TΔS free energy of bond
loss. Thus, analogous to T1 Cu, the protein matrix of cyt c provides the opposing free energy necessary to keep the
axial S(Met) bond intact. The axial Fe–S(Met) bond in cyt c can therefore be considered under entatic control. The
weaker Fe(II)-S(Met) bond as compared to the Fe(III)-S(Met) bond is
also consistent with the observed axial ligand photolysis for Fe(II)
but not Fe(III)cyt c. Differentiating bond strength
contributions to the photochemistry and photophysics in cyt c is an aim of current studies.
Conclusion
This
study has employed Fe1s2p RIXS to investigate the electronic structure
of ferrous and ferriccyt c. New insights were obtained
by correlating cyt c to a bis-imidazole porphyrin
model complex to experimentally define the differential orbital covalency
of the iron site in the highly covalent porphyrin environment. They
indicate an increased covalency for the Fe–S(Met) axial bond
relative to Fe–N(His) as well as a higher degree of covalency
for the ferric relative to the ferrous state. DFT calculations correlated
to data further allowed for the evaluation of the relative axial ligand
bond strengths for S(Met) and N(His) in both Fe(II) and Fe(III) redox
states. Importantly, for cyt c, these calculations
indicate that the Fe–N(His) bonds are stronger than the Fe–S(Met)
bonds despite the latter being more covalent. Furthermore, the Fe(III)-S(Met)
bond is stronger than the Fe(II)-S(Met) bond, which provides new insight
into the redox and photophyscial properties of this protein. Finally,
both (Met)S–Fe bonds are weak and an important role of the
protein is in maintaining these bonds under physiological conditions.
Authors: D Sokaras; T-C Weng; D Nordlund; R Alonso-Mori; P Velikov; D Wenger; A Garachtchenko; M George; V Borzenets; B Johnson; T Rabedeau; U Bergmann Journal: Rev Sci Instrum Date: 2013-05 Impact factor: 1.523
Authors: Valerian E Kagan; Vladimir A Tyurin; Jianfei Jiang; Yulia Y Tyurina; Vladimir B Ritov; Andrew A Amoscato; Anatoly N Osipov; Natalia A Belikova; Alexandr A Kapralov; Vidisha Kini; Irina I Vlasova; Qing Zhao; Meimei Zou; Peter Di; Dimitry A Svistunenko; Igor V Kurnikov; Gregory G Borisenko Journal: Nat Chem Biol Date: 2005-08-14 Impact factor: 15.040
Authors: Erik C Wasinger; Frank M F de Groot; Britt Hedman; Keith O Hodgson; Edward I Solomon Journal: J Am Chem Soc Date: 2003-10-22 Impact factor: 15.419
Authors: Nils Schuth; Stefan Mebs; Dennis Huwald; Pierre Wrzolek; Matthias Schwalbe; Anja Hemschemeier; Michael Haumann Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2017-07-24 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: James J Yan; Thomas Kroll; Michael L Baker; Samuel A Wilson; Richard Decréau; Marcus Lundberg; Dimosthenis Sokaras; Pieter Glatzel; Britt Hedman; Keith O Hodgson; Edward I Solomon Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2019-02-04 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Carlos Tejeda-Guzmán; Abraham Rosas-Arellano; Thomas Kroll; Samuel M Webb; Martha Barajas-Aceves; Beatriz Osorio; Fanis Missirlis Journal: J Exp Biol Date: 2018-03-19 Impact factor: 3.312
Authors: Michael W Mara; Ryan G Hadt; Marco Eli Reinhard; Thomas Kroll; Hyeongtaek Lim; Robert W Hartsock; Roberto Alonso-Mori; Matthieu Chollet; James M Glownia; Silke Nelson; Dimosthenis Sokaras; Kristjan Kunnus; Keith O Hodgson; Britt Hedman; Uwe Bergmann; Kelly J Gaffney; Edward I Solomon Journal: Science Date: 2017-06-23 Impact factor: 47.728
Authors: Michael L Baker; Michael W Mara; James J Yan; Keith O Hodgson; Britt Hedman; Edward I Solomon Journal: Coord Chem Rev Date: 2017-02-09 Impact factor: 22.315
Authors: Thomas Kroll; Michael L Baker; Samuel A Wilson; Marcus Lundberg; Amélie Juhin; Marie-Anne Arrio; James J Yan; Leland B Gee; Augustin Braun; Tsu-Chien Weng; Dimosthenis Sokaras; Britt Hedman; Keith O Hodgson; Edward I Solomon Journal: J Am Chem Soc Date: 2021-03-17 Impact factor: 15.419