| Literature DB >> 34084326 |
Jordi Juárez-Jiménez1, Arun A Gupta1, Gogulan Karunanithy2, Antonia S J S Mey1, Charis Georgiou1, Harris Ioannidis1, Alessio De Simone1, Paul N Barlow1, Alison N Hulme1, Malcolm D Walkinshaw3, Andrew J Baldwin2, Julien Michel1.
Abstract
Proteins need to interconvert between many conformations in order to function, many of which are formed transiently, and sparsely populated. Particularly when the lifetimes of these states approach the millisecond timescale, identifying the relevant structures and the mechanism by which they interconvert remains a tremendous challenge. Here we introduce a novel combination of accelerated MD (aMD) simulations and Markov state modelling (MSM) to explore these 'excited' conformational states. Applying this to the highly dynamic protein CypA, a protein involved in immune response and associated with HIV infection, we identify five principally populated conformational states and the atomistic mechanism by which they interconvert. A rational design strategy predicted that the mutant D66A should stabilise the minor conformations and substantially alter the dynamics, whereas the similar mutant H70A should leave the landscape broadly unchanged. These predictions are confirmed using CPMG and R1ρ solution state NMR measurements. By efficiently exploring functionally relevant, but sparsely populated conformations with millisecond lifetimes in silico, our aMD/MSM method has tremendous promise for the design of dynamic protein free energy landscapes for both protein engineering and drug discovery. This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry.Entities:
Year: 2020 PMID: 34084326 PMCID: PMC8157532 DOI: 10.1039/c9sc04696h
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Chem Sci ISSN: 2041-6520 Impact factor: 9.825
Fig. 1Calculation the dynamic ensemble of WT CypA. (a) An X-ray diffraction structure of CypA, with the 100s and 70s loops indicated. A number of residues have been previously determined to undergo conformational exchange[69,70] which is evidenced by a large value of Rex for these residues, measured by NMR. These values are consistent with the formation of transiently sampled, but sparsely populated alternative loop conformations. (b) It is desirable to determine the nature of the interconverting structures, their populations and mechanism by which they exchange. We accomplish this for CypA using a combination of aMD, MD and MSM methodologies (detailed methods). (c) A 100 microstates MSM for wild-type CypA that describes 70s and 100s loop motions. The width of the arrows is proportional to the interconversion rates. (d) The microstates were clustered into a minimal set of sub-states that together contain the relevant amplitudes of motion and timescales of state-to-state interconversion present in the full ensemble. The calculated rates and populations are indicated. Error bars on reported populations and mean first passage times (MFPT) were obtained by bootstrapping of the MD trajectories assigned to the individual microstates.
Fig. 2Design of ensemble disrupting mutation. (a) Specific interactions made by D66 with 70s loop residues in representative MD snapshots of the closed, intermediate and open states. (b) The probability distribution of the number of intra-molecular H-bonds between D66 and 70s loop residues in the 5 sub-states. These are compared to X-ray structure PDB 1AK4 (black),[72] and NMR ensemble PDB 2N0T (grey).[63] (c) The difference in the average number of intra-molecular H-bonds in the 70s closed (orange/red) and 70s open (blue/purple) states. Residue D66 stands out as ‘designable’ as it has substantially more H-bonds stabilising the closed state than the open state of the 70s loop.
Fig. 3Conformational ensembles of mutant CypA proteins D66A and H70A. (a) MSM model for D66A. (b) MSM model for H70A. Other details as in Fig. 1c. (c) Heatmap of calculated mean first passage times (MFPT) between non-adjacent macro-states. The symbols ‘c’ and ‘o’ denote transitions between closed and open loop conformations.
Fig. 4Comparison of biophysical characterisation and MD/MSM conformational ensembles for WT CypA, D66A and H70A. (a) Binding isotherms for WT and D66A measured by ITC against an inhibitor. (b) X-ray structure of WT and D66A bound to inhibitor. Magenta meshes indicate 2Fo–Fc electron density map at an isocontour of 1.0σ for the inhibitor and protein residues 65 to 75. (c) 1H–15N HSQC correlation spectra of WT and D66A at (10 °C), residues showing significant CSPs are highlighted. (d) Random coil index S2 values calculated from Talos+ for WT and D66A (blue) revealing increased disorder in the vicinity of the 70s loop for D66A. (e) Measured CSP per residue with respect to WT (orange) for D66A (blue) and H70A (red).[70] (f) Calculated CSPs per residue from the computed ensembles. (g) Measured steady-state 15N–{1H} heteronuclear NOE transfers for WT and D66A in the vicinity of the 70s loop. (h) Calculated 15N–{1H} heteronuclear NOE transfers in the vicinity of the 70s loop from the computed ensembles.
Fig. 5Characterisation of μs–ms dynamics in CypA and D66A by CPMG and R1ρ NMR measurements. (a) Estimated contribution to relaxation from exchange, taken as the average of the difference between the lowest and highest frequency measurements from CPMG dispersion curves. (b) Comparison of selected dispersion profiles measured for CypA (orange) and D66A (blue) at 283 K and 600 MHz. (c) The experimentally determined chemical shift changes, Δω, from analysis of the CPMG/R1ρ curves for WT and (d) D66A. (e) Comparison of magnitude of Δω between CypA and D66A from HSQC measurements (x-axis) and from CPMG/R1ρ measurements on the WT (y-axis). The agreement between the two is remarkably good. (f) Comparison of magnitude of Δω between CypA and D66A from HSQC measurements (x-axis) and from CPMG/R1ρ measurements on D66A (y-axis). The agreement is poor revealing that the ‘excited state’ in D66A is not the ground state of WT CypA.