In chlorophyll biosynthesis, the magnesium chelatase enzyme complex catalyzes the insertion of a Mg(2+) ion into protoporphyrin IX. Prior to this event, two of the three subunits, the AAA(+) proteins ChlI and ChlD, form a ChlID-MgATP complex. We used microscale thermophoresis to directly determine dissociation constants for the I-D subunits from Synechocystis, and to show that the formation of a ChlID-MgADP complex, mediated by the arginine finger and the sensor II domain on ChlD, is necessary for the assembly of the catalytically active ChlHID-MgATP complex. The N-terminal AAA(+) domain of ChlD is essential for complex formation, but some stability is preserved in the absence of the C-terminal integrin domain of ChlD, particularly if the intervening polyproline linker region is retained. Single molecule force spectroscopy (SMFS) was used to determine the factors that stabilize formation of the ChlID-MgADP complex at the single molecule level; ChlD was attached to an atomic force microscope (AFM) probe in two different orientations, and the ChlI subunits were tethered to a silica surface; the probability of subunits interacting more than doubled in the presence of MgADP, and we show that the N-terminal AAA(+) domain of ChlD mediates this process, in agreement with the microscale thermophoresis data. Analysis of the unbinding data revealed a most probable interaction force of around 109 pN for formation of single ChlID-MgADP complexes. These experiments provide a quantitative basis for understanding the assembly and function of the Mg chelatase complex.
In chlorophyll biosynthesis, the magnesium chelatase enzyme complex catalyzes the insertion of a Mg(2+) ion into protoporphyrin IX. Prior to this event, two of the three subunits, the AAA(+) proteins ChlI and ChlD, form a ChlID-MgATP complex. We used microscale thermophoresis to directly determine dissociation constants for the I-D subunits from Synechocystis, and to show that the formation of a ChlID-MgADP complex, mediated by the arginine finger and the sensor II domain on ChlD, is necessary for the assembly of the catalytically active ChlHID-MgATP complex. The N-terminal AAA(+) domain of ChlD is essential for complex formation, but some stability is preserved in the absence of the C-terminal integrin domain of ChlD, particularly if the intervening polyproline linker region is retained. Single molecule force spectroscopy (SMFS) was used to determine the factors that stabilize formation of the ChlID-MgADP complex at the single molecule level; ChlD was attached to an atomic force microscope (AFM) probe in two different orientations, and the ChlI subunits were tethered to a silica surface; the probability of subunits interacting more than doubled in the presence of MgADP, and we show that the N-terminal AAA(+) domain of ChlD mediates this process, in agreement with the microscale thermophoresis data. Analysis of the unbinding data revealed a most probable interaction force of around 109 pN for formation of single ChlID-MgADP complexes. These experiments provide a quantitative basis for understanding the assembly and function of the Mg chelatase complex.
The global-scale biosynthesis
of billions of tonnes of chlorophyll
forms the basis for photosynthesis, so understanding the mechanism
and regulation of chlorophyll biosynthesis is important. Heme and
chlorophyll share a common pathway that diverges at metal ion insertion
(Scheme ). A single-subunit
enzyme, ferrochelatase (FeCH; E.C. 4.99.11) inserts Fe2+ into protoporphyrin IX, whereas magnesium chelatase (MgCH; E.C.
6.6.1.1) is a large multisubunit enzyme complex that catalyzes the
insertion of a Mg2+ ion into protoporphyrin IX in a Mg2+ and MgATP2– dependent manner.[1,2] MgCH stands at the branchpoint between heme and chlorophyll biosynthesis
in photosynthetic organisms, and it therefore plays pivotal catalytic
and regulatory roles in initiating flux through the pathways for biosynthesis
of all chlorophyll and bacteriochlorophylls in bacteria and plants.
Scheme 1
Branch point in Tetrapyrrole Biosysnthesis Controlled by Magnesium
Chelatase and Ferrochelatase
ChlI (39 kDa) hydrolyzes ATP in the absence of ChlD.[3] ChlD does not hydrolyze ATP in isolation, but
decreases the ChlI ATPase rate in the absence of ChlH and porphyrin
substrate. ChlD (75 kDa) appears to act as an allosteric regulator
of chelatase activity.[4] These two subunits
form a MgATP–ChlID complex, or a MgATP–BchID complex
in Rhodobacter,[5] and the subsequent hydrolysis of ATP powers the thermodynamically
unfavorable insertion of the Mg2+ into the porphyrin ring
in the 150 kDa ChlH subunit.[6]Several
studies have advanced our understanding of the catalytic
cycle of MgCH,[2,6−8] but there is
currently no structural model for the MgCH complex, nor indeed a settled
view on the stoichiometry of the subunits, and the ways in which they
interact. The structure of the BchI subunit from Rhodobacter
capsulatus was solved some time ago[9] revealing the characteristic nucleotide binding motif common
to this family of enzymes. Single particle reconstruction of negatively
stained protein imaged by electron microscopy revealed the overall
architecture of ChlH from Synechocystis,[10,11] and recently the ChlH structure has been
determined to 2.5 Å by X-ray crystallography.[12]ChlI and ChlD are members of the AAA+ (ATPases Associated with various
cellular Activities) superfamily of enzymes
that display an array
of diverse functions such as protein secretion and assembly, proteolysis,
cell cycle control, DNA replication, and transcription.[13,14] Proteins in the AAA+ superfamily have a structurally
conserved region of around 200 amino acids containing the Walker A
and B nucleotide binding motifs, as well as structurally important
arginine residues. AAA+ proteins link ATP hydrolysis driven
conformational changes to chemomechanical motion which is normally
transduced throughout a multisubunit complex. This mode of action
is likely to be used by MgCH to drive insertion of the Mg2+ ion into protoporphyrin IX. ChlI and the N-terminal half of ChlD
share a similar AAA+ domain (approximately 40% sequence
identity), and contain the conserved Walker A and B nucleotide binding
domains, as well as a sensor II arginine and arginine finger (Figure
1, Supporting Information). The remainder
of ChlD has an extended C-terminus comprising central polyproline
and acidic regions followed by an integrin I-like C-terminal domain.
Integrin I domains are normally involved in cell–cell and cell–matrix
interactions and bind to specific complementary motifs.[15]A quantitative understanding of the assembly
of the ChlID–MgATP
complex is essential, since it forms the basis for ATP-dependent insertion
of the Mg2+ into the protoporphyrin substrate held within
ChlH. Here we report the first directly determined dissociation constants
for the subunits of the AAA+ ChlI–ChlD complex.
Further, we use SMFS to quantify the nucleotide-dependent binding
forces between ChlI and ChlD AAA+ domains that establish
the complex that powers Mg chelation.
Results and Discussion
ChlI and ChlD can be co-purified in the presence of nucleotide.[4,16] Previously, we have quantified the formation of the ChlID complex
by assembly titrations, monitoring the rate of chelation as a function
of the concentration of either ChlI or ChlD.[4,11] This
experiment allowed the determination of an apparent Kd for assembly of a complete, enzymatically active chelatase
complex. However, this apparent Kd reflects
many assembly and catalysis-related processes, so the present study
was designed to yield direct quantitative measurements of the ChlI–ChlD
interaction.The complexities of magnesium and nucleotide binding
to ChlI and
ChlD make the application of techniques such as differential scanning
calorimetry, isothermal calorimetry, and differential scanning fluorescence
problematic, so we turned to microscale thermophoresis (MST), a relatively
recent technique that provides a readily interpretable signal for
binding.[17−20] Briefly, protein, labeled with a fluorescent dye, is mixed with
different concentrations of binding partner (e.g., protein or small
ligand). The movement of a protein in a temperature gradient (thermophoresis)
is directly proportional to the Soret coefficient, which takes into
account charge, size, and hydration shell. In our work, ChlI was labeled
with a fluorescent dye molecule, Alexa Fluor 488 C5 maleimide. After
labeling with the Alexa Fluor 488 the site-directed mutant of ChlI,
C244S, retains chelatase activity in the presence of nucleotide (Figure
2, Supporting Information). Formation of
the ChlID complex alters the intrinsic thermophoresis of ChlI, monitored
via the fluorescence signal from ChlI, which yields binding isotherms.To confirm the requirements of nucleotide to form the ChlID complex,
and to ascertain if MST is an appropriate technique for monitoring
ChlID complex formation, titrations were performed in the presence
and absence of nucleotide (Figure ). Altering the concentration of ChlD (Figure A, black traces) produced no
change in thermophoresis of ChlI in the absence of nucleotide, indicating
no formation of a ChlID complex. However, there is a clear change
in the thermophoresis of ChlI in the presence of 3 mM MgADP– and 10 mM free magnesium (green traces). In the absence of ChlD,
ChlI self-assembles into a variety of complexes at concentrations
above 1 μM, in the presence or absence of nucleotide.[3] In the MST experiment, the concentration of ChlI
is held at 20 nM, far below the self-assembly concentration. The formation
of the MgADP–ChlID species reaches a steady state, and we calculate
a Kd value of 7.6 nM from the curve in Figure B.
Figure 1
Interaction of ChlI C244S
Alexa Fluor 488 (hereafter ChlIAF488
C244S) with wild-type (WT) ChlD. Microscale thermophoresis was performed
by titrating ChlD WT into a constant concentration (20 nM) of ChlIAF488
C244S. All MST assays were performed in 50 mM Tris/NaOH, 10 mM free
Mg2+, 0.1% Pluronic F127, 1 mg mL–1 BSA,
pH 7.8 at 20 °C. (A) Raw thermophoresis traces. Black, ChlIAF488
C244S titrated with ChlD in the absence of nucleotide; green, titration
performed in the presence of 3 mM MgADP–. Data from
the early stages of thermophoresis (red lines) were used for the plots
in (B). (B) ○, ChlIAF488 C244S titrated with ChlD WT in the
absence of nucleotide; ●, ChlIAF488 C244S titrated with ChlD
WT in the presence of 3 mM MgADP–; ChlD WT Kd = 7.57 ± 0.8 nM.
Interaction of ChlIC244SAlexa Fluor 488 (hereafter ChlIAF488
C244S) with wild-type (WT) ChlD. Microscale thermophoresis was performed
by titrating ChlD WT into a constant concentration (20 nM) of ChlIAF488
C244S. All MST assays were performed in 50 mM Tris/NaOH, 10 mM free
Mg2+, 0.1% Pluronic F127, 1 mg mL–1 BSA,
pH 7.8 at 20 °C. (A) Raw thermophoresis traces. Black, ChlIAF488
C244S titrated with ChlD in the absence of nucleotide; green, titration
performed in the presence of 3 mM MgADP–. Data from
the early stages of thermophoresis (red lines) were used for the plots
in (B). (B) ○, ChlIAF488 C244S titrated with ChlD WT in the
absence of nucleotide; ●, ChlIAF488 C244S titrated with ChlD
WT in the presence of 3 mM MgADP–; ChlD WT Kd = 7.57 ± 0.8 nM.Data from Adams
and Reid 2013.[4]The MST method was used to quantify the differences
between AAA+ mutants of ChlD, specifically an arginine
finger mutant,
R208A, and a R289A mutation in the sensor II domain. The data in Figure , summarized in Table , show that the high
affinity binding of ChlI and WT ChlD in the presence of MgADP– (Kd 7.57 ± 0.8 nM)
is weakened significantly by alteration of the arginine finger mutation,
R208A (Kd 327.8 ± 67.7 nM), and much
more so by the sensor II domain mutation R289A (Kd 2536 ± 219 nM). A previous analysis of these mutants,
in which formation of the ChlID–MgATP complex was inferred
from measurements of MgCH activity in the presence of ChlH, showed
a decreased affinity (Kapp) for ChlI.[4] The MST experiments in Figure , which directly measure the Kd values of ChlI and ChlD mutants, show that the formation
of a ChlID–MgATP complex, mediated by the arginine finger and
the sensor II domain, is necessary for the assembly of the catalytically
active ChlHID–MgATP complex. The arginine finger is known to
act across protomer interfaces to sense the presence of nucleotide
in an adjacent AAA+ subunit, and mutating it can impair
both oligomerization and ATP hydrolysis, leading to less productive
complex formation.[21] The sensor II arginine
has been shown to discriminate between MgADP– and
MgATP2– binding, by interacting with the β-phosphate
of MgADP–.[22,23] Consistent with these
observations for other AAA+ systems, altering the sensor
II residues appears to dramatically alter the formation of the ChlID
complex, leading to impaired formation of the entire core chelatase.
Figure 2
Interaction
between ChlI and ChlD R208A and R289A. Experimental
conditions as in Figure . ●, ChlD WT; ▼, ChlD R208A; ■, ChlD R289A.
Dissociation constants are listed in Table .
Table 1
Comparison of ChlID Apparent Binding
Constants and Dissociations Constants
protein
Kapp (nM)a
Kd (nM)
ChlD WT
0.17 ± 0.9
7.6 ± 0.8
ChlD R208A
14 ± 11
327.8 ± 67.7
ChlD R289A
52 ± 155
2536 ± 219
Data from Adams
and Reid 2013.[4]
Interaction
between ChlI and ChlD R208A and R289A. Experimental
conditions as in Figure . ●, ChlD WT; ▼, ChlD R208A; ■, ChlD R289A.
Dissociation constants are listed in Table .To identify the domains of ChlD involved in binding to ChlI,
we
produced multiple constructs (Figure A) comprising either the N-terminal AAA+ domain (Figure A,
construct A), the AAA+ domain plus the polyproline region
(construct B), the polyproline region and integrin I domain (construct
C), or just the integrin I domain (construct D). The new constructs
were purified in a similar manner to wild-type protein (Figure 3, Supporting Information). None of these ChlD truncations
yielded chelatase activity when reconstituted in vitro with ChlI and ChlH (results not shown), in contrast with results
reported for truncations of the recombinant ChlD protein from tobacco,
which indicated that ChlD could function without an intact AAA+ domain.[24] CD spectroscopy showed
that truncations A and B, but not C and D, were both folded (Figure
4, Supporting Information). It is unknown
if the C-terminal region of D is inherently disordered, or if the
N-terminal truncation of the protein caused it to fold incorrectly.
Figure 3
Mapping
the interactions between ChlI and domains of ChlD using
MST. (A) Schematic representation of ChlD, showing the N-terminal
AAA+ domain; PP, the polyproline region; and vWD, von Willebrand
protein–protein interaction domain. (B) Thermophoretic analysis
of ChlI interacting with ChlD WT (●) Kd = 7.57 ± 0.8 nM, truncation A (▲) Kd = 1.36 ± 0.2 μM, and truncation B (△) Kd = 183.29 ± 25.9 nM. Proteins C and D
showed no interaction with ChlI, so there are no square symbols in
the graph.
Mapping
the interactions between ChlI and domains of ChlD using
MST. (A) Schematic representation of ChlD, showing the N-terminal
AAA+ domain; PP, the polyproline region; and vWD, von Willebrand
protein–protein interaction domain. (B) Thermophoretic analysis
of ChlI interacting with ChlD WT (●) Kd = 7.57 ± 0.8 nM, truncation A (▲) Kd = 1.36 ± 0.2 μM, and truncation B (△) Kd = 183.29 ± 25.9 nM. Proteins C and D
showed no interaction with ChlI, so there are no square symbols in
the graph.These new truncated versions of
ChlD were titrated with ChlI under
the same conditions as wild-type subunits and analyzed by MST (Figure ). The dissociation
constants determined for AAA+ constructs A and B were 1391
and 178 nM, respectively, and by comparison with the WT value of 7.6
nM, this result shows that the vWD domain is essential for a normal
ChlI–D interaction. The data also clearly show that the absence
of the polyproline sequence weakens this association 10-fold. The
N-terminal truncations C and D, namely mutants with a retained C-terminal
domain, completely abolished binding to ChlI.We used SMFS to
determine the forces that stabilize the formation
of the ChlID–MgADP– complex under physiological
conditions[25−27] and to control the orientation of ChlI and D molecules
as they encounter each other. Instead of obtaining dissociation constants
for ensembles of molecules in solution, this single molecule approach
yields the most probable unbinding force measured in piconewtons.
One of the participants is anchored to a surface, while the other
is tethered to the AFM probe; thus, the encounter between the protein
molecules is steered and this necessitates the construction of ChlD
tagged at either the N- or C-terminus with a His6 sequence.
Each of the ChlD variants had WT enzyme activity in assays with ChlI
and ChlH (Figure 5, Supporting Information). ChlD subunits were attached to SiAFM probes using silane monolayer
chemistry and a polymer linker molecule (SM(PEG)24, ∼10
nm length) terminated with Ni-NTA groups, (Figure A). The Ni-NTA-His-tag coupling approach
has been demonstrated to provide the appropriate orientation, high
mobility, and low coupling density of biological molecules, while
at the same time minimizing nonspecific adsorption.[28,29] In addition, coupling with a long flexible spacer ensures that the
molecule on the AFM tip is free to move and orient, favoring complex
formation with its surface-bound partner. In a similar way, we created
a monolayer of immobilized ChlI molecules on a SiOx substrate functionalized,
again via silane monolayer chemistry, with Ni-NTA (Figure A,B). His-Ni2+-NTA
bridges remove the need for a covalent chemical linkage, and can achieve
long-lasting attachment of proteins (several thousand force–distance
cycles, up to several hours), while sustaining significant force stresses.[28,30−32]
Figure 4
(A) Schematic representation of AFM experiment. ChlD is
attached
to the AFM tip; ChlI is attached to surface via their His6 tags. (B)
AFM topography image of ChlI surface showing even distribution of
protein molecules of the correct height. (C) Example force distance
curves showing differences in no, specific, and nonspecific interactions
between surface and tip.
(A) Schematic representation of AFM experiment. ChlD is
attached
to the AFM tip; ChlI is attached to surface via their His6 tags. (B)
AFM topography image of ChlI surface showing even distribution of
protein molecules of the correct height. (C) Example force distance
curves showing differences in no, specific, and nonspecific interactions
between surface and tip.The protein domain of ChlD that encounters surface-attached
ChlI
molecules was controlled by altering the location of the His6 tag. The orientation of the attachment of ChlI to the surface did
not alter the results. The experiment is performed by bringing the
probe-borne ChlD molecules into contact with the ChlI molecules on
the sample surface and then retracting the tip. In the event of a
specific interaction, a clear unbinding event is observed (Figure C, red trace) where
the separation distance and the force of interaction can be measured.
The characteristic hyperbolic part of the curve prior to the rupture
clearly signifies the stretching of the PEG linker followed by the
dissociation of ChlD and ChlI subunits.[29] Nonspecific (Figure C, blue trace) and no interaction (Figure C, black trace) traces were discarded during
the data analysis. To verify the specificity of the observed unbinding
events, a series of control experiments was performed. The probe-borne
ChlD AAA+ domain was brought into contact with a clean,
noncoated Si surface, as well as with Si surface coated with bovine
serum albumin (BSA) and a lower interaction force of approximately
22 pN was observed (Figure 6, Supporting Information).We monitored the interaction between the two different orientations
of ChlD, with either the N- or C-terminal domain brought into contact
with surface-attached ChlI, in the presence and absence of nucleotide.
Many data sets (each consisting of 800–1000 force–distance
curves) were recorded over different surface locations. Each data
set was analyzed to evaluate the interaction probability, as well
as the most probable rupture force and most probable separation distance
as defined as the maximum of a Gaussian distribution fitted to the
histogram (Figure ).[33] There was a relatively low probability
(14.5%) for interaction between ChlI and the N-terminal domain of
ChlD in the absence of MgADP– (Figure A, panel i). We observed a
much higher probability for interaction (30.5%) in the presence of
nucleotide (Figure A, panel ii).
Figure 5
Analysis of SMFS data for the interaction between ChlI
and ChlD.
ChlD was attached to the AFM tip, and ChlI to the surface as indicated
by the diagrams on the left. (A) C-terminally attached proteins in
the absence (i) and presence (ii) of 3 mM MgADP– and 10 mM free Mg2+ when bought together interacted with
a higher probability (14.5% in the absence and 30.5% in the presence
of MgADP–) compared to N-terminally attached D interacting
with C-terminally attached ChlI (B i and ii). Fitting a Gaussian to
binned data in panel A(ii) indicated a rupture force of 109 ±
1.5 pN with a rupture distance of 11.9 ± 0.3 nm.
Analysis of SMFS data for the interaction between ChlI
and ChlD.
ChlD was attached to the AFM tip, and ChlI to the surface as indicated
by the diagrams on the left. (A) C-terminally attached proteins in
the absence (i) and presence (ii) of 3 mM MgADP– and 10 mM free Mg2+ when bought together interacted with
a higher probability (14.5% in the absence and 30.5% in the presence
of MgADP–) compared to N-terminally attached D interacting
with C-terminally attached ChlI (B i and ii). Fitting a Gaussian to
binned data in panel A(ii) indicated a rupture force of 109 ±
1.5 pN with a rupture distance of 11.9 ± 0.3 nm.Assuming a Poisson distribution in single molecule
interaction
events, unbinding probability of about 30% ensures that 80% of binding/unbinding
events arise from single molecule interactions, while an unbinding
probability of about 14% ensures 90–95% single molecule interactions.[34,35]The histogram analysis revealed a most probable interaction
force
of around 109 pN at a separation distance of around 12 nm, in good
agreement with the length of the flexible linker used for attachment
of the ChlD. The modal values for interaction forces and separations
distances obtained from the histogram were 107.8 pN and 10.1 nm, respectively.The two lower panels in Figure show that the C-terminal domain of ChlD cannot mediate
the interaction with ChlI, whether or not MgADP– is present; the histograms of the rupture forces and the separation
distances did not reveal clear peaks and the interaction probability
was around 7%, which is comparable to noise level for the probability
of interaction.The model for the MgCH complex from R. capsulatus(36,37) proposes that BchI
and BchD form two homohexamers
stacked upon each other. The authors predict an interaction between
the sensor II arginine in BchI and the BchD integrin I domain,[37] instead of the usual function of penetrating
a nucleotide binding site of an adjacent subunit to directly interact
with the γ-phosphates on ATP.[23] We
show that with the cyanobacterial enzyme, removal of the integrin
I domain of ChlD does not affect the interaction with ChlI, although
we have established that the sensor II arginine in ChlD is essential
for chelatase activity.
Conclusion
We have used two novel
experimental approaches, thermophoresis
and SMFS, to analyze the subunit interactions that govern the catalytic
mechanism of the MgCH enzyme complex. Apart from its biosynthetic
importance, standing at the gateway to chlorophyll biosynthesis, MgCH
is also a valuable model for studying AAA+ proteins in
general, given the availability of optical signals for monitoring
the formation of porphyrin product states. AAA+ proteins
are molecular machines that hydrolyze the P–O bond of ATP and
transmit the energy to provide chemomechanical motion to power reactions.
These proteins are known to form complex homo- or heteroring structures;
in the former case, homohexamers display differences in their bound
nucleotide state and availability for binding.[38] In the case of hetero-AAA+ complexes, in which
protein–protein interactions alter as they progress through
a reaction cycle, it is important to understand how the force obtained
from hydrolysis of ATP is transmitted to adjacent or nonadjacent subunits.We show that the N-terminal AAA+ domain of ChlD interacts
with the AAA+ protein ChlI, and we quantify the dissociation
constant, which is 7.6 ± 0.8 nM. Although we cannot be sure that
our SMFS monitors the same process, we suggest that this bulk Kd determination reflects an ensemble of nucleotide-dependent
unbinding forces between single ChlI and ChlD in solution of 109 ±
1.5 pN. The interaction itself is not unexpected, as AAA+ proteins form complexes where the nucleotide binding domains are
at the interfaces between proteins.It is well established that
in SMFS measurements the unbinding
forces depend on the loading rate of the bond.[34] To put the ChlI–ChlD unbinding force (measured at
a loading rate of about 75 nN s–1) in a clearer
context, we can compare it with previously published unbinding forces,
measured at similar loading rates: 90–100 pN for single cohesin–dockerin
unbinding event,[39] 177 pN for streptavidin–biotin
unbinding,[40] and 60 pN for the lactose–galectin-3
complex unbinding.[41] We can conclude that
the ChlI–ChlD unbinding force is consistent with the unbinding
forces measured for other biologically relevant (and of comparable
size) high-affinity ligand–receptor pairs that form stable
complexes.As AAA+ proteins provide chemomechanical
motion to a
distal site, the changes in the force of interaction between these
proteins while proceeding through an ATP hydrolysis cycle will likely
correlate with the force transduced across the enzyme to the active
site, in this case the magnesium ion insertion. Performing similar
studies on the proteins with nonhydrolyzable analogues of ATP will
be useful to explore this link between bound ATP state and protein–protein
interaction force.
Abbreviations
AAA+, ATPases
Associated with
various cellular Activities; AFM, atomic force microscope; MgCH, magnesium
chelatase; MST, microscale thermophoresis; SMFS, single molecule force
spectroscopy; vWD, von Willebrand domain.
Authors: Susanne A I Seidel; Patricia M Dijkman; Wendy A Lea; Geert van den Bogaart; Moran Jerabek-Willemsen; Ana Lazic; Jeremiah S Joseph; Prakash Srinivasan; Philipp Baaske; Anton Simeonov; Ilia Katritch; Fernando A Melo; John E Ladbury; Gideon Schreiber; Anthony Watts; Dieter Braun; Stefan Duhr Journal: Methods Date: 2012-12-24 Impact factor: 3.608
Authors: Nathan B P Adams; Christopher J Marklew; Pu Qian; Amanda A Brindley; Paul A Davison; Per A Bullough; C Neil Hunter Journal: Biochem J Date: 2014-12-15 Impact factor: 3.857
Authors: David A Farmer; Amanda A Brindley; Andrew Hitchcock; Philip J Jackson; Bethany Johnson; Mark J Dickman; C Neil Hunter; James D Reid; Nathan B P Adams Journal: Biochem J Date: 2019-07-02 Impact factor: 3.857