Protein reengineering of cellular retinoic acid binding protein II (CRABPII) has yielded a genetically addressable system, capable of binding a profluorophoric chromophore that results in fluorescent protein/chromophore complexes. These complexes exhibit far-red emission, with high quantum efficiencies and brightness and also exhibit excellent pH stability spanning the range of 2-11. In the course of this study, it became evident that single mutations of L121E and R59W were most effective in improving the fluorescent characteristics of CRABPII mutants as well as the kinetics of complex formation. The readily crystallizable nature of these proteins was invaluable to provide clues for the observed spectroscopic behavior that results from single mutation of key residues.
Protein reengineering of cellular retinoic acid binding protein II (CRABPII) has yielded a genetically addressable system, capable of binding a profluorophoric chromophore that results in fluorescent protein/chromophore complexes. These complexes exhibit far-red emission, with high quantum efficiencies and brightness and also exhibit excellent pH stability spanning the range of 2-11. In the course of this study, it became evident that single mutations of L121E and R59W were most effective in improving the fluorescent characteristics of CRABPII mutants as well as the kinetics of complex formation. The readily crystallizable nature of these proteins was invaluable to provide clues for the observed spectroscopic behavior that results from single mutation of key residues.
The
impact of fluorescent protein tags in molecular and cellular
biology has stimulated wide interest in optimizing current systems
or developing fundamentally new methodologies. The two basic strategies
for fluorescent protein labeling so far employed are fluorescent proteins
and site-specific chemical labeling systems (an acceptor peptide motif
that couples with an exogenous chromophore), as summarized in a number
of excellent reviews.[1] The use of fluorescent
proteins such as GFP and its many variants has the advantage of genetic
addressability, without the requirement for exogenous chromophores.[2] On the other hand, more diverse fluorophores
are available with site-specific chemical labeling systems. In these
methods, an organic small molecule can be conjugated to an acceptor
peptide via enzymatic action [HaloTag,[3] SNAP/CLIP,[4] and LpIA acceptor peptide[5] as examples], direct binding [PYP-Tag,[6] TMP-Tag,[7] fluorogen
activating proteins (FAPs)],[8] or through
bioorthogonal reactions [FLAsH and ReAsH biarsenical based dyes,[9] Staudinger ligation,[10] click reactions,[11] and tetrazine-based
cycloadditions[12]]. The fluorophores or
fluorogenic molecules can, in principle, be altered to generate various
peptide-dye reporters for a variety of applications.Noteworthy
are examples of two systems that differ from the latter
two subgroups by utilizing endogenous molecules, which upon complexation
with their target proteins produce fluorescent species. UnaG, isolated
from a Japanese eel, belongs to the fatty acid binding protein family.
Binding of bilirubin with UnaG turns on fluorescence.[13] The second example is the bacteriophytochromes that bind
biliverdin, leading to fluorescence in the near IR range.[14] The photophysical characteristics of these complexes
have proven optimal for in vivo imaging applications as infrared fluorescent
proteins (IFPs). From the compilation of recent advances in the use
of fluorescence in molecular and cellular biology, one can argue that
the union of a genetically addressable system (proteins) with the
flexibility in attaining the desired spectroscopic characteristics
(small molecules) would provide a conceivably limitless array of protein
fusion tags that could be optimized for a variety of applications.Our interest in this area was piqued by our recent success in controlling
the absorptive properties of protein-embedded chromophores, specifically
the chromophore of vision, retinal.[15] The
iminium-based pigment is generated with retinal and an active site
Lys residue. This inspired us to consider a system that not only requires
the union of a molecule and a protein for ultimate flexibility (as
alluded to above) but also utilizes a nonfluorescent molecule that
becomes fluorescent only upon binding and reaction with the target
protein. This “turn-on” approach would have the advantage
of low background since the unbound molecule is not fluorescent. The
initial foray, disclosed herein, describes the pairing of a merocyanine
dye precursor with a family of cellular retinoic acid binding protein
II (CRABPII) mutants, exhibiting red-shifted emission (605–619
nm), with high quantum efficiencies (up to 39%) and brightness.
Results
and Discussion
CRABPII as the Protein Fusion Tag
CRABPII, a retinoic
acid chaperone, is a member of the intracellular lipid binding protein
family (iLBPs). It is a small (15.6 kDa) cytosolic protein with a
relatively large binding cavity that can accommodate a diverse set
of ligands[16] and is remarkably tolerant
of mutations, similar to several other members of the iLBP family.[17] As such, it provides an ideal framework for
applications in protein redesign. This was demonstrated in our previous
work in which CRABPII and other proteins of the iLBP family were re-engineered
to generate a protonated Schiff base (PSB) with all-trans-retinal, analogous to rhodopsin.[15]Structure of
a typical cyanine dye (in dashed box). Merocyaninealdehyde 1 binds to an active site Lys residue to generate
the red-shifted cyanine dye. UV–vis spectra of 1 (orange), Schiff base of 1 with n-butylamine
(blue), and the protonated Schiff base of 1 with n-butylamine (magenta) [all in PBS].
Choice of the Fluorophore
Cyanine dyes, which have
a rich history in spectroscopy, were chosen as the target fluorophore.
Various cyanine dyes have also played a central role in spectroscopic
applications related to molecular biology, and are by in large innocuous
and well behaved in biological systems.[18] The precursor cyanine aldehyde 1 is not fluorescent
leading to negligible background fluorescence from unbound free aldehydes.
Formation of the iminium yields a permanent resonating cation, resulting
in a fluorophoric entity (merocyanine 2). This push–pull
system, which terminates at the nitrogen atoms at the two ends of
the polyene, leads to a bathochromically shifted chromophore (ideal
for biological applications) with an absorption profile distinct from
its parent aldehyde (Figure 1).[19] Furthermore, the mode of fluorescence activation,
namely the formation of an iminium, ideally suits our engineered protein
systems. The cyanines are also attractive because the polyene tail
structurally mimics the retinylidene ligands already shown to bind
strongly to CRABPII mutants. Lastly, the quantum efficiency of cyanine
dyes is affected environmentally. In comparison to common fluorophores,
most are mildly fluorescent, probably due to their backbone flexibility.
An increase in quantum efficiency is observed in viscous solvents,
such as cold glycerol, that reduce torsional freedom.[20] Thus, we hypothesized that binding of the fluorophore with
CRABPII could rigidify the molecule, leading to enhancement of fluorescence.
We could also enhance the fluorescence through mutations that would
reduce “wiggle” room in the binding pocket. This element
adds yet another mode for reducing background, since only the molecule
that is bound to its engineered target would yield high signal-to-noise
fluorescence.
Figure 1
Structure of
a typical cyanine dye (in dashed box). Merocyanine
aldehyde 1 binds to an active site Lys residue to generate
the red-shifted cyanine dye. UV–vis spectra of 1 (orange), Schiff base of 1 with n-butylamine
(blue), and the protonated Schiff base of 1 with n-butylamine (magenta) [all in PBS].
Merocyanine aldehyde 1 absorbs maximally
at 492 nm in phosphate buffered saline (PBS), while the corresponding
Schiff base (formed by reaction with n-butyl amine)
blue shifts to 425 nm. Acidification results in a large red shift
in the UV–vis spectrum, consistent with the formation of the
iminium (λmax at 574 nm, Figure 1). As expected, the resulting merocyanine-PSB 2 becomes mildly fluorescent in buffer solution (ϕF = 4%, λex = 565 nm, λem = 604
nm), with photophysical properties similar to sulfoindocyanines and
unsymmetrical imine-based trimethine and pentamethine cyanine dye
analogues.[20b,21]
CRABPII/1 Fluorescent Complexes
Incubation of nonfluorescent
merocyanine aldehyde 1 with CRABPII mutants triggers
the in situ formation of a cyanine dye and generates
pigments that exhibit remarkable bathochromicity and narrow absorption
bands with large extinction coefficients (Table 1). Time dependent binding of the R132K:R111L mutant (KL) with merocyaninealdehyde 1 shows a clear isosbestic point (Figure 2a), indicating homogeneous formation of the PSB.
Subsequent addition of retinal does not displace the merocyanine from
the binding site, demonstrating that the covalent linkage between
the chromophore and the protein is stable. Excitation of the KL/1 complex at 565 nm yields a narrow emission spectrum that
peaks at 617 nm, as depicted in Figure 2b.
Base titration of the iminium complex (Figure 2c) reveals a pKa of 9.6 (Figure 2d), well above the physiological pH range.
Table 1
Spectroscopic data
of CRABPII mutants
complexed with 1
fluorescent protein
absorption
λmax (nm)
emission λmax (nm)
quantum yield (%)a
ε (M-1 cm-1)b
brightnessc (% mKate2)
brightness
(% EGFP)
1
mKate2
588
633
40
62 500
100
74
2
mRFPd
584
607
27
50 000
54
40
3
R132K:R111L (KL)
600
617
18
111 700
80
60
4
KL:R59W
602
619
23
140 100
129
95
5
KL:L121E (KLE)
591
612
33
93 200
123
91
6
KL:L121D (KLD)
591
612
30
97 500
117
87
7
KLE:R59W
595
616
39
169 800
265
196
8
KLE:V76W
569
605
33
77 600
102
76
9
KLE:S37W
579
609
30
96 500
116
87
10
KLE:L28W
581
611
31
58 600
73
54
11
KLE:A32W
590
614
31
104 300
129
96
12
KLE:V76W:L28W
571
609
32
67 000
86
63
13
KLE:R59W:L28W
595
619
38
158 400
241
178
14
KLE:R59W:A32W
595
617
39
142 900
223
165
The quantum yields of CRABPII mutants
were determined based on two fluorescent standards (Oxazine-1 and
Oxazine-170).
ε is
the measured extinction
coefficient for each protein complex at their λmax.
Brightness was calculated
as the
product of ε and the fluorescence quantum yield (presented as
% of mKate2 and EGFP brightness).[24]
The quantum yield of mRFP was measured
under the same conditions and calculated as 27.2% (Figure S6).
Figure 2
a. Absorption spectra, taken at 2 min intervals after
addition
of 1 (0.3 equiv) to KL-CRABPII (20 μM). b. Absorption
and emission spectra of KL-CRABPII/1 complex (excitation
at 565 nm). c. Base titration of KL-CRABPII/1 complex.
d. Absorbance of KL-CRABPII/1 complex as a function of
pH with an apparent pKa of 9.6.
With a brightly fluorescent protein in hand, an
effort was made to regulate the absorption and emission spectra of
the complex using strategies developed in our previous work.[15a,15c,15g] These include changing the electrostatic
environment along the chromophore, altering and/or eliminating the
interaction of the counteranion for the PSB, and creating a more enclosed
binding pocket by introducing large hydrophobic residues at the entrance
of the cavity.a. Absorption spectra, taken at 2 min intervals after
addition
of 1 (0.3 equiv) to KL-CRABPII (20 μM). b. Absorption
and emission spectra of KL-CRABPII/1 complex (excitation
at 565 nm). c. Base titration of KL-CRABPII/1 complex.
d. Absorbance of KL-CRABPII/1 complex as a function of
pH with an apparent pKa of 9.6.The quantum yields of CRABPII mutants
were determined based on two fluorescent standards (Oxazine-1 and
Oxazine-170).ε is
the measured extinction
coefficient for each protein complex at their λmax.Brightness was calculated
as the
product of ε and the fluorescence quantum yield (presented as
% of mKate2 and EGFP brightness).[24]The quantum yield of mRFP was measured
under the same conditions and calculated as 27.2% (Figure S6).The
electrostatic environment in the vicinity of the PSB was altered
by introducing a negatively charged residue at position 121; this
mutation was required in our previous work to produce a PSB with retinal.[15c−15e] Placement of a negatively charged residue near the retinylidene
PSB also led to a large blue shift in absorption, as a result of stabilizing
the cationic charge on the iminiumnitrogen atom (less delocalization).
With merocyanine as the chromophore, introduction of a glutamate (R132K:R111L:L121E,
KLE) did cause a slight hypsochromic shift in the absorption of the
protein/chromophore complex in comparison with KL, but more significantly,
improved the fluorescence quantum yield (entry 5, Table 1, see below for further discussion). Installation of an aspartate
residue as the counteranion displayed similar photophysical characteristics
as the KLE mutant (KLD, entry 6, Table 1).
The small change in absorption for merocyanine bound protein complexes
is putatively due to the more delocalized nature of the resonating
cation with the cyanine dyes. As a result, the cation is not centralized
on the nitrogen atom to be affected greatly by the placement of counteranion.Cyanine dyes exhibit environmentally sensitive fluorescence properties
under different conditions such as different solvent polarity, dielectric
constant, ionic strength and viscosity. Previous reports have documented
decreased levels of fluorescence as a function of increasing solvent
polarity and vice versa.[22] In a similar
fashion, changes to the binding pocket that further isolate it from
the aqueous media, or reduce interactions of bound water molecules
with the chromophore, could result in enhancement of fluorescence.
To assess the effect of closing the binding cavity and creating a
less solvent accessible binding pocket, Arg59, located at the portal
of the binding site, was changed to a number of different amino acids
(Table S1). Spectroscopic analyses of these
mutants showed little change in the absorption or emission wavelength,
although replacement with large aromatic amino acids, in particular
Trp, exhibited improved quantum efficiencies in all cases (see further
discussion in structure of KLE:R59W complex). They also significantly
increased the extinction coefficient of the protein/chromophore complex,
leading to substantial improvement in fluorescent brightness (for
an example see Table 1 entry 3 vs 4).Further improvements in the fluorophoric properties of the merocyanine
bound CRABPII complexes were focused on rigidifying the bound chromophore
through packing interactions with large amino acid side chains. To
this end Trp, with its large size (240 Å3 average
volume, 163 Å3 van der Waals volume) and small rotomeric
flexibility, was installed at various positions in the binding cavity
(Table 1, entries 8–14).[23] It should be noted that the indole ring of Trp
is polarizable and has a significant dipole moment, and thus could
interact with the bound chromophore in ways other than purely steric.
Nonetheless, no improvement in either extinction coefficient or quantum
efficiency was realized when compared to the best R59W mutants. In
short, KLE:R59W exhibited the largest extinction coefficient, the
highest quantum yield, and therefore the highest brightness of any
of the mutants tested, surpassing mKate2, one of the brightest fluorescent
proteins known in this wavelength regime.[24] Notably, in comparison to the PSB of 1 with n-butylamine, the protein complex achieves nearly a 10-fold
increase in quantum efficiency.a. Crystal structure of KL/1 complex
(1.7 Å resolution,
PDB ID: 4QGV). The enlarged image depicts the twist around the C3–C4 of
the bound ligand adopting an s-cis conformation.
b. Crystal structure of KLE/1 complex (1.5 Å resolution,
PDB ID: 4QGX) with the expanded view of binding mode. c. Crystal structure of
KLE:R59W/1 complex (2.7 Å resolution, PDB ID: 3FEP) with the exploded
view of the KLE:R59W/1 complex. d. Overlay of all three
crystal structures (KL-blue, KLE-pink, and KLE:R59W-cyan) along with
the crystal structure of all-trans-retinal bound
to KLE-gray (1.2 Å resolution, PDB ID: 2G7B) illustrating the
divergence in binding conformation that results from a single mutation
in each case.
Structures of CRABPII/1
Fluorescent Complexes
In the course of this
study, it became evident that single mutations
of L121E and R59W were most effective in improving the fluorescent
characteristics of KL-CRABPII mutants. In an effort to understand
the effect of these mutations, structures of several merocyanine-bound
CRABPII mutants were determined. The readily crystallizable nature
of these proteins was invaluable to provide clues for the observed
spectroscopic behavior that results from single mutation of key residues.
As will be evident upon review of the data below, our studies indicate
that the large binding cavity and relative structural plasticity of
CRABPII provides conformational freedom for the bound ligand to adopt
various binding conformations. This accounts for the observed spectroscopic
characteristics for different mutants.
Structure of the KL/1 Complex
Our previous efforts
in designing rhodopsin protein mimics were aided through the acquisition
of numerous crystal structures of CRABPII and hCRBPII bound retinal
protein complexes.[15] Although rotameric
differences were observed as a result of different mutations, the
bound chromophore was always found in the same location within the
binding pocket. Structures of merocyanine bound protein complexes
defied this trend. This is immediately evident in the structure of
the KL/1 complex (Figure 3a,d),
where the ligand follows a trajectory that is completely distinct
from that seen in previous ligand bound structures of CRABPII (for
an overlay of KL/1 structure with its retinal bound counterpart, see Figure S12). With retinal, the ionone ring is
located near the mouth of the binding cavity, which is in contrast
to the indoline ring of merocyanine, tucked into a hydrophobic pocket
deep within, featuring significant hydrophobic interactions between
Leu121 and the ligand. The chromophore forms a cis-imine with Lys132, which is stabilized by a water-mediated hydrogen
bond to Ser12. Additionally, the cyanine dye is severely twisted about
the C3–C4 bond (ψ1 = 59.1°), which also
adopts an s-cis conformation to accommodate this
binding regime. As previously reported, a twisted polyene chain provides
an effective conduit for nonradiative decay of the excited state.[25] It is therefore not surprising that the severely
twisted KL/1 complex has the lowest quantum yield among
all CRABPII mutants (Table 1).
Figure 3
a. Crystal structure of KL/1 complex
(1.7 Å resolution,
PDB ID: 4QGV). The enlarged image depicts the twist around the C3–C4 of
the bound ligand adopting an s-cis conformation.
b. Crystal structure of KLE/1 complex (1.5 Å resolution,
PDB ID: 4QGX) with the expanded view of binding mode. c. Crystal structure of
KLE:R59W/1 complex (2.7 Å resolution, PDB ID: 3FEP) with the exploded
view of the KLE:R59W/1 complex. d. Overlay of all three
crystal structures (KL-blue, KLE-pink, and KLE:R59W-cyan) along with
the crystal structure of all-trans-retinal bound
to KLE-gray (1.2 Å resolution, PDB ID: 2G7B) illustrating the
divergence in binding conformation that results from a single mutation
in each case.
Structure of
the KLE/1 Complex
A radical change in
binding of merocyanine is observed upon altering the electrostatic
environment at position 121. Exchange of the hydrophobic Leu121 residue
with either Glu or Asp yields protein complexes with 1 that are more fluorophoric than KL/1. The structures
of KLE/1 (Figure 3b) and KLD/1 complexes (Figure S14) show that
the chromophore binds the active site Lys residue from a trajectory
that points opposite to that observed previously. The structure of
KL/1 complex illustrates the tightly packed interaction
of Leu121 with the hydrophobic indoline ring of merocyanine, lying
within 3.6 Å away (Figure 3a). The electrostatic
change, as a result of L121E and L121D mutations, plausibly alters
the latter advantageous hydrophobic interaction, leading to an alternate
binding site that is more energetically favorable. In the new binding
orientation, the heterocyclic ring of the ligand is projected out
of the binding cavity between strand 1 and helix 2, leaving it relatively
exposed to the exterior of the protein. The chromophore adopts a more
planar conformation, as a result of having less structural restrictions
imposed by the protein. As a result, and in contrast to the KL/1 complex, the C3–C4 dihedral angle is much more planar,
while still adopting an s-cis conformation for both
KLE/1 and KLD/1 complexes. As anticipated,
the more planar KLE and KLD mutants have higher quantum yields than
the severely twisted KL/1 complex (Table 1, entries 5 and 6 vs 3).
Structure of the KLE:R59W/1
Complex
Mutation of both
Arg59 to Trp and Leu121 to Glu results in a third, completely distinct
ligand binding mode (Figure 3c). The structure
of the KLE:R59W/1 complex depicts the binding of the
ligand in a fashion similar to those previously observed with retinal
and retinoic acid bound CRABPII mutants (Figure 3c, for a comparison with previously determined crystal structures
see Figure 3d and Figure
S13). The indoline ring points toward the mouth of the binding
cavity and the aldehyde end of the ligand is deeply buried in the
interior of the protein. The Schiff base between the active site Lys
residue, R132K, and the merocyanine aldehyde adopts a trans-imine geometry while the entire polymethine chain stays in an s-trans conformation. The installed counteranion, Glu121,
interacts with the iminium via a water molecule that resides 3.6 Å
away from the nitrogen atom, yielding a complex that exhibits a pKa of 10.5 for the iminium (Figure 3c). The conformation of the chromophore is quite linear and
relatively well packed within the binding cavity with restricted ability
to move, in contrast to the previous structures, where it either severely
deviates from planarity (in KL) or is less well packed and more solvent
exposed (as in KLE and KLD).This mutant has superior fluorescent
characteristics as compared to other mutants investigated in this
study, possibly as a result of the following observations; (i) the
relatively flat and well-packed conformation leads to maximal overlap
of the π system, (ii) closure of the binding cavity with a large
Trp residue further isolates the binding pocket and could also exclude
water molecules that otherwise might weaken fluorescence through enhancing
nonradiative decay of the excited state, (iii) although the crystal
structure precludes π–π stacking between Trp59
and the indoline ring of the bound chromophore, its close proximity
(3.4 Å) could result in a favorable electrostatic interaction
that further rigidifies the chromophore. Noteworthy, the replacement
of Glu121 with Asp121 results in no loss in quantum efficiency and
thus suggests that the shorter aspartate side chain is of sufficient
length to maintain the interaction with the bound chromophore without
causing a significant change in ligand geometry (KLD:R59W, ϕF = 38, λabs = 595 nm, λem = 615 nm).Given all the structural information obtained,
it would appear
that mutation of both Leu121 to Asp or Glu, and Arg59 to Trp, is required
to obtain the more orthodox ligand trajectory seen in KLE:R59W/1. As predicted from the crystal structure of KLE:R59W/1 (Figure 3c), a favorable hydrophobic
packing between Trp59 and the heterocycle is gained with the Trp mutation.
Therefore, it appears that a combination of two conditions is necessary
with merocyanine as the ligand to adopt the “normal”
retinylidene-like binding trajectory. First, an anionic residue is
required at position 121, which destabilizes the ligand conformation
seen in KL, and provides a water-mediated interaction with the iminium
in KLE:R59W. Second, placement of the Trp residue at position 59,
which provides hydrophobic interactions with the merocyanine ring,
leads to the relatively well-packed, flat ligand conformation seen
in the KLE:R59W/1 structure. As a result, these changes
lead to the highest extinction coefficient and quantum efficiency,
since the chromophore is flattened and conformationally restricted.
Indeed, the mutants with the best fluorescent characteristics invariably
contain the mutations at both of these positions.Kinetic measurements were performed
at 23 °C with 20 μM protein and 0.3 equiv of merocyanine 1. PSB formation was monitored by UV–vis at λmax for each complex over time (see the SI for experimental details).
Kinetics of PSB Formation
Mutations that introduced
bulky residues within the binding pocket, as well as the altered binding
modes of the merocyanine ligand for some mutants, could adversely
affect the kinetics of PSB formation. The relative rate of mutants
as compared to KL double mutant was measured by spectroscopically
monitoring the conversion of the free merocyanine aldehyde 1 (absorbing at 492 nm) into its corresponding protonated Schiff base
formed within the active site of the protein (absorbing higher than
570 nm, Table 2). The presence of Trp at position
59 substantially decreased the rate of PSB formation of the corresponding
parent KL mutant (entry 2, Table 2). However,
installation of L121D or L121E restores the original binding trajectory
of the chromophore and accelerates PSB formation (entries 5 and 6,
Table 2). Alternatively, installation of a
counteranion (Asp and Glu) could also increase the rate of PSB formation,
presumably as a result of acid catalyzed activation of the aldehydic
moiety for imine formation.[15d] Interestingly,
the faster rate observed for KLE:R59W as compared to KLD:R59W does
suggest the role of acid catalysis, owing to the closer proximity
of Glu to the bound aldehyde as opposed to Asp.
Table 2
Relative Rate of Ligand Binding and
PSB Formationa
mutants
relative rate
1
KL
1
2
KL:R59W
0.389
3
KLE
0.950
4
KLD
0.243
5
KLD:R59W
0.955
6
KLE:R59W
1.809
7
KLE:V76W
3.550
8
KLE:S37W
0.431
9
KLE:L28W
0.376
10
KLE:A32W
0.428
11
KLE:V76W:L28W
1.394
12
KLE:R59W:L28W
1.160
13
KLE:R59W:A32W
0.779
Kinetic measurements were performed
at 23 °C with 20 μM protein and 0.3 equiv of merocyanine 1. PSB formation was monitored by UV–vis at λmax for each complex over time (see the SI for experimental details).
a. Time-course binding
of KLE:R59W (100 nM) with 1 (1–5 μM) in
PBS at 37 °C. kobs values at different
merocyanine concentrations show a linear
relationship (R2 = 0.995), yielding
a k2 (second order rate constant) of 2350
M–1 s–1. b. Stoichiometric binding
of KLE:R59W with 1 (5 μM each) in PBS at 37 °C
was followed at 616 nm with excitation at 565 nm (0.5 s intervals).
The data fits a second order process (R2 = 0.996, see SI for details), with a
calculated binding t1/2 = 39 s. Merocyanine 1 does not exhibit any fluorescence, as illustrated in the
graph.Most Trp mutations along the chromophore
slowed imine formation,
thus extending the time for full binding and complexation. This is
presumably due to steric hindrance imposed by the bulky Trp residues
that could interfere with either ligand entry, restrict certain binding
conformations, or reduce accessibility to the active site Lys residue.
An exception from this observation was the incorporation of Trp at
position 76, which led to an increase in the rate of PSB formation
(entries 7 and 11, Table 2). Interestingly,
the increased rate of PSB formation, along with an observed blue shift
of absorption for all V76W mutants (entries 8 and 12, Table 1) may suggest that these mutants are structurally
more flexible and solvent accessible.To better benchmark the
current system with existing methods, detailed
kinetic analysis was conducted to calculate the rate constant for
CRABPII/1 complex formation. The second-order rate constant
for the reaction of merocyanine 1 with KLE:R59W was determined
by measuring a series of pseudo first order rates (excess 1 at different concentrations relative to the protein), following
previously reported procedures (see Figure 4a and SI for experimental details).[6b,26] KLE:R59W exhibits a remarkably high rate of PSB formation with a
full complexation within 7 min (k = 2356 M–1 s–1, Figure 4b) and a short
half-life (t1/2 = 39 s). These values
compare favorably with other fast labeling methods such as PYP-Tag
(k = 3950 M–1 s–1, t1/2 = 1.1 min, full labeling within
6 min),[6b] BGSBD/SNAP-Tag (k ≈ 7200 M–1 s–1, t1/2 = 24 s, full labeling within 3 min),[26] and bioorthogonal reactions for labeling proteins
(k in the range of 10–4 to 104 M–1 s–1),[27] all of which have similar or longer t1/2 times.
Figure 4
a. Time-course binding
of KLE:R59W (100 nM) with 1 (1–5 μM) in
PBS at 37 °C. kobs values at different
merocyanine concentrations show a linear
relationship (R2 = 0.995), yielding
a k2 (second order rate constant) of 2350
M–1 s–1. b. Stoichiometric binding
of KLE:R59W with 1 (5 μM each) in PBS at 37 °C
was followed at 616 nm with excitation at 565 nm (0.5 s intervals).
The data fits a second order process (R2 = 0.996, see SI for details), with a
calculated binding t1/2 = 39 s. Merocyanine 1 does not exhibit any fluorescence, as illustrated in the
graph.
Persistence of Fluorescence
over a Broad pH Range
The
fluorescence of the protein-bound merocyanine PSB depends on the protonation
state of the chromophore, exhibiting maximum bathochromic shift and
quantum efficiency as an iminium (Figure 5a).
Figure 5b depicts the UV–vis spectra
of KLE:R59W:L28W/1 complex titrated with NaOH.[28] Basification of the solution does not deprotonate
the PSB until pH ∼10; further addition of base gives rise to
the absorption at ∼425 nm (Schiff base absorption). During
this process negligible fluorescence is lost up to pH of 10.2 (Figure 5c). The absorption spectra reveal no change in their
respective wavelengths, indicating that the complex maintains its
tertiary structure even under highly basic conditions (pH as high
as 11). Denaturation experiments with the addition of detergent result
in an absorption band at 583 nm (Figure S11), resembling that of the n-butyl iminium form of
merocyanine aldehyde in the presence of BSA.[29]
Figure 5
a. Protonated (emissive
state) and unprotonated (nonemissive state)
forms of protein-bound merocyanine. b. Base titration of KLE:R59W:L28W/1 complex with NaOH in PBS, pH values are indicated. c. Total
fluorescence of the KLE:R59W:L28W/1 complex as a function
of pH.
Next, we investigated the durability of the CRABPII-merocyanine 1 complex under highly acidic conditions. Previously, we had
demonstrated that some CRABPII mutants are acid resistant, maintaining
their native fold at low pH levels.[15a] This
stability extends to merocyanine bound CRABPII mutants, as illustrated
by the KLE:R59W:L28W complex. Lowering the pH to 2.2 resulted in a
small increase in absorption of the protein-chromophore complex with
no change in λmax. The slight change in absorption
could be due to protonation of residues close to the chromophore,
affecting protein–chromophore interactions. The increase of
the solution acidity affects the emissive state of the protein–chromophore
complex slightly (Figure 5c). Since CRABPII-merocyanine
variants retain most of their fluorescence, they may find application
for cellular imaging of acidic intracellular compartments without
loss of fluorescence or self-quenching issues.a. Protonated (emissive
state) and unprotonated (nonemissive state)
forms of protein-bound merocyanine. b. Base titration of KLE:R59W:L28W/1 complex with NaOH in PBS, pH values are indicated. c. Total
fluorescence of the KLE:R59W:L28W/1 complex as a function
of pH.
Visualization of the CRABPII/1
Fluorescent Complexes in Bacteria
In a proof-of-principle
experiment to show feasibility of merocyanine
for cellular work, CRABPII mutants, KL (Table 1, entry 1, see images in SI, Figure S8) and KLE:R59W:L28W (Table 1, entry 13, shown
in Figure 6a and 6c),
expressed in E. coli, were incubated with 1 and imaged. The choice of the latter two mutants was based on their
differing spectral characteristics. The bacterial cells readily uptake
the chromophore within a minute of addition, and instantly yield visibly
colored CRABPII-merocyanine adducts (SI, Figure
S7). Both CRABPII mutants exhibited intense fluorescence with
excitation at 594 nm. The control cells, which were not transformed
with the plasmid expressing CRABPII mutants, were devoid of nonspecific
fluorescence after incubation with merocyanine aldehyde, demonstrating
that background fluorescence from the unbound chromophore is minimal
(Figure 6b). It should be noted that images
produced in Figure 6 required less than 1 min
of incubation with the profluorogenic aldehyde 1. The
CRABPII system also displays high selectivity in binding for merocyanine 1 in comparison to other Lys rich proteins such as BSA, thus
reducing nonspecific binding. Uninduced cells, expressing basal levels
of CRABPII mutants, also produced bright red fluorescence, indicating
the ability to visualize low-level protein expression systems (SI, Figure S9).
Figure 6
a. Fluorescence visualization of E. coli cells,
transformed with a vector overexpressing KLE:R59W:L28W, incubated
with 1 (594 nm excitation, 615 nm long pass filter for
emission, scale bar is 10 μm). b. Control panel (nontransformed
cells) shows no fluorescence after addition of 1 (scale
bar is 10 μm). c. On left, fluorescence of KLE:R59W:L28W/1 at 594 nm excitation was enlarged 5-fold (scale bar is 5
μm). On right, brightfield image was overlaid with the fluorescence
of the complex.
a. Fluorescence visualization of E. coli cells,
transformed with a vector overexpressing KLE:R59W:L28W, incubated
with 1 (594 nm excitation, 615 nm long pass filter for
emission, scale bar is 10 μm). b. Control panel (nontransformed
cells) shows no fluorescence after addition of 1 (scale
bar is 10 μm). c. On left, fluorescence of KLE:R59W:L28W/1 at 594 nm excitation was enlarged 5-fold (scale bar is 5
μm). On right, brightfield image was overlaid with the fluorescence
of the complex.Control E. coli cells that were not transformed
with the vector containing CRABPII mutants showed minimal background
fluorescence with 1. This is a good indication that in
the time required for maturation of CRABPII mutants with 1, there is little nonspecific binding with off-target proteins. This
was further tested in vitro, with BSA as an off-target protein capable
of forming iminium bonds with 1 through reaction with
its numerous Lys residues. Under identical reaction conditions, BSA
reacted to yield 7% of the total fluorescence as compared to the CRABPII/merocyanine
system (SI, Figure S4), showing that rapid
complex formation of CRABPII with 1 overcomes the nonspecific
binding processes.Photobleaching assays of CRABPII-merocyanine
complexes in E. coli cells were performed and compared
to a monomeric
red fluorescent protein, mRFP, under identical experimental conditions
(see SI for details). The mutants KLE:R59W:L28W
and KLE:R59W complexed with merocyanine 1 showed faster
photobleaching behavior as compared to mRFP. Both mutants showed about
40% loss of fluorescence over 250 s of continuous illumination while
mRFP displayed about 20% loss during the same period (SI, Figure S10).
Conclusion
In
summary, we have engineered CRABPII into a fluorescent protein
via coupling with a nonfluorescent cyanine dye precursor. CRABPII/1 complexes demonstrated structural variety in terms of ligand
orientation and geometry that correlates well with the expected fluorescent
properties. Our probe is sufficiently selective to enable live E. coli cell imaging. The chromophore is readily cell-permeable
and well behaved in live bacteria, coupling with CRABPII variants
instantaneously, and allowing visualization in bacterial cells within
minutes of chromophore addition. Noteworthy, background fluorescence
is minimal since the unbound aldehyde form of the chromophore has
significantly different spectral properties, as compared to the covalently
bound protonated Schiff base form that leads to red-shifted spectra
in the protein environment. Since engineered CRABPII variants feature
a modular design that can be readily adapted to new fluorophores,
spanning the entire visible–infrared spectral region, ongoing
work envisions constructing a library of several profluorogenic aldehydes
for multicolor single molecule imaging in live cells.
Authors: Chrysoula Vasileiou; Wenjing Wang; Xiaofei Jia; Kin Sing Stephen Lee; Camille T Watson; James H Geiger; Babak Borhan Journal: Proteins Date: 2009-12
Authors: Xiaoli Sun; Aihua Zhang; Brenda Baker; Luo Sun; Angela Howard; John Buswell; Damien Maurel; Anastasiya Masharina; Kai Johnsson; Christopher J Noren; Ming-Qun Xu; Ivan R Corrêa Journal: Chembiochem Date: 2011-07-26 Impact factor: 3.164
Authors: Xiaokun Shu; Antoine Royant; Michael Z Lin; Todd A Aguilera; Varda Lev-Ram; Paul A Steinbach; Roger Y Tsien Journal: Science Date: 2009-05-08 Impact factor: 47.728
Authors: Lukas Herwig; Austin J Rice; Claire N Bedbrook; Ruijie K Zhang; Antti Lignell; Jackson K B Cahn; Hans Renata; Sheel C Dodani; Inha Cho; Long Cai; Viviana Gradinaru; Frances H Arnold Journal: Cell Chem Biol Date: 2017-03-02 Impact factor: 8.116
Authors: Zahra Assar; Zahra Nossoni; Wenjing Wang; Elizabeth M Santos; Kevin Kramer; Colin McCornack; Chrysoula Vasileiou; Babak Borhan; James H Geiger Journal: Structure Date: 2016-08-11 Impact factor: 5.006
Authors: Wentao Chen; Jiajia Dong; Lars Plate; David E Mortenson; Gabriel J Brighty; Suhua Li; Yu Liu; Andrea Galmozzi; Peter S Lee; Jonathan J Hulce; Benjamin F Cravatt; Enrique Saez; Evan T Powers; Ian A Wilson; K Barry Sharpless; Jeffery W Kelly Journal: J Am Chem Soc Date: 2016-06-02 Impact factor: 15.419
Authors: Swagatha Ghosh; Chi-Li Yu; Daniel J Ferraro; Sai Sudha; Samir Kumar Pal; Wayne F Schaefer; David T Gibson; S Ramaswamy Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2016-09-29 Impact factor: 11.205