| Literature DB >> 27527336 |
Giuseppe Zaccai1,2,3,4, Irina Bagyan5, Jérôme Combet1,6, Gabriel J Cuello1, Bruno Demé1, Yann Fichou2,3,4, François-Xavier Gallat2,3,4, Victor M Galvan Josa1, Susanne von Gronau7, Michael Haertlein1, Anne Martel1, Martine Moulin1, Markus Neumann5, Martin Weik2,3,4, Dieter Oesterhelt7.
Abstract
Understanding adaptation to extreme environments remains a challenge of high biotechnological potential for fundamental molecular biology. The cytosol of many microorganisms, isolated from saline environments, reversibly accumulates molar concentrations of the osmolyte ectoine to counterbalance fluctuating external salt concentrations. Although they have been studied extensively by thermodynamic and spectroscopic methods, direct experimental structural data have, so far, been lacking on ectoine-water-protein interactions. In this paper, in vivo deuterium labeling, small angle neutron scattering, neutron membrane diffraction and inelastic scattering are combined with neutron liquids diffraction to characterize the extreme ectoine-containing solvent and its effects on purple membrane of H. salinarum and E. coli maltose binding protein. The data reveal that ectoine is excluded from the hydration layer at the membrane surface and does not affect membrane molecular dynamics, and prove a previous hypothesis that ectoine is excluded from a monolayer of dense hydration water around the soluble protein. Neutron liquids diffraction to atomic resolution shows how ectoine enhances the remarkable properties of H-bonds in water-properties that are essential for the proper organization, stabilization and dynamics of biological structures.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27527336 PMCID: PMC4985633 DOI: 10.1038/srep31434
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Guinier parameters for the different samples and solvent conditions.
| Sample | Solvent SLD (1010 cm−2) | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| H-MBP 2 M ect H2O | −0.074 | 0.142 ± 0.004 | 22.8 ± 0.7 |
| H-MBP 3 M ect H2O | 0.205 | 0.086 ± 0.003 | 24.1 ± 1.4 |
| H-MBP 2 M ect D2O | 5.70 | 0.154 ± 0.002 | 22.2 ± 0.25 |
| H-MBP 3 M ect D2O | 5.36 | 0.136 ± 0.002 | 23.6 ± 0.6 |
| D-MBP 2 M ect H2O | −0.074 | 1.075 ± 0.015 | 25.6 ± 0.3 |
| D-MBP 3 M ect H2O | 0.205 | 1.025 ± 0.02 | 25.8 ± 0.4 |
| D-MBP 2 M ect D2O | 5.70 | 0.043 ± 0.003 | 30.7 ± 1.7 |
| D-MBP 3 M ect D2O | 5.36 | 0.086 ± 0.003 | 28.5 ± 0.7 |
Figure 1Stuhrmann plots H- and D-MBP in various solvents.
Square root of corrected forward scattered intensity (equal to particle excess scattering length ΔρV) versus solvent SLD for H-MBP and D-MBP in 2 M ectoine and 3 M ectoine H2O and D2O solvent.
Figure 2(A) Schematic diagram of the particle made up of protein (red) surrounded by its hydration shell (light blue); the solvent is shown as dark blue. (B) Section showing the SLD distribution through solvent and H-MBP and D-MBP particles in 3 M ectoine in H2O and D2O. The particles are divided into their protein (red) and hydration shell of specific gravity 1.1 (blue) components. Solvent SLD levels are shown as straight lines at 0 and 5.456 × 1010 cm−2.
Figure 3(A) Lamellar diffraction from PM oriented membrane stacks under different conditions plotted against scattering angle (2θ in degrees). The main lamellar peaks correspond to a spacing of d ~ 82 Å. Note the significant increase in second order (indicated by red lines) intensity when H-ectoine is added to D2O in the inter-lamellar hydration layer. The schematic diagram shows two membranes (purple) in the stack separated by a water layer (light blue); the green line in the top diagram indicates the position of ectoine. (B) In-plane diffraction for samples hydrated with H2O, and (C) for samples hydrated with D2O.
Figure 4Logarithmic representation of the normalized intensities as a function of Q2 at eight temperatures between 280 and 320 K for (A) H-PM/D2O and (B) H-PM/D2O/D-ectoine (b). The Q2 range from which the MSD were extracted (0.18 Å−2 < Q2 < 1.33 Å−2), according to the Gaussian approximation (equation 9) is indicated by vertical lines. The straight lines in (A,B) indicate the linear fits at 320 K.
Figure 5Mean square displacements as a function of temperature (from the data in Fig. 4) and calculated resilience values (
Figure 6(A) Liquids diffraction of ectoine solutions. The radial distribution function g(r), obtained by Fourier transformation of the experimental structure factor S(Q) for sample 1.5 M D-ectoine/D2O. The inter-molecular region, beyond r = 2 Å, is expanded in the inset, which also shows the H-bonding scheme between two adjacent D2O molecules (see text). (B) Comparison between the structure factor of the D-labeled ectoine in D2O (labeled DD) solution and the corresponding pure D2O from Soper et al.48 (upper curve), and D-labeled ectoine in H2O (labeled HH) and the corresponding pure H2O (bottom curve). Significant differences between the ectoine solutions and pure water are apparent.
Measured H-bond parameters for ectoine solutions compared to average parameters for bulk D2O from Modig et al.49.
| Parameter | Bulk D2O | Ectoine solution | Relative Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intra-molecular | |||
| O-D | 0.97 Å | 0.98 Å | <1% |
| D-D | 1.53 Å | 1.51 Å | <1% |
| D-O-D angle (α) | 106° | 100.4° | 6% |
| Inter-molecular | |||
| O-O | 2.82 Å | 2.80 Å | <1% |
| O-D | 1.88 Å | 1.93 | 3% |
| H-bond angle (β) | 12° | 22.36° | 45% |
Figure 7Plot of the ratio (ΔρV in 3 M ectoine H2O)/(ΔρV in 3 M ectoine D2O) vs X (VHydration/VProtein) for D-MBP.
The red point with error bars indicates the experimental value of the ratio and corresponding X value. See Methods text.