| Literature DB >> 34298884 |
Léni Jodaitis1, Thomas van Oene1, Chloé Martens1.
Abstract
Membrane proteins have evolved to work optimally within the complex environment of the biological membrane. Consequently, interactions with surrounding lipids are part of their molecular mechanism. Yet, the identification of lipid-protein interactions and the assessment of their molecular role is an experimental challenge. Recently, biophysical approaches have emerged that are compatible with the study of membrane proteins in an environment closer to the biological membrane. These novel approaches revealed specific mechanisms of regulation of membrane protein function. Lipids have been shown to play a role in oligomerization, conformational transitions or allosteric coupling. In this review, we summarize the recent biophysical approaches, or combination thereof, that allow to decipher the role of lipid-protein interactions in the mechanism of membrane proteins.Entities:
Keywords: cryo-electron microscopy; double electron–electron resonance; hydrogen–deuterium exchange mass spectrometry; lipid–protein interaction; membrane protein; native mass spectrometry; single-molecule Förster resonance energy transfer
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34298884 PMCID: PMC8306737 DOI: 10.3390/ijms22147267
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Mol Sci ISSN: 1422-0067 Impact factor: 5.923
Representative biophysical techniques used to study the lipid–protein interactions of IMPs.
| Biophysical Techniques | Information Obtained | |
|---|---|---|
|
| High-resolution structure. | |
|
| High-resolution structure. | |
|
| Protein–protein interactions, protein–ligand interactions. | |
|
| Structural dynamics, protein–protein interactions, protein–ligand interactions. | |
|
| Conformational changes, kinetics. | |
|
| Conformational changes. | |
|
| Mobility, environment, tertiary fold. | |
|
| High-resolution structure, dynamics, protein–protein interactions, protein–ligand interactions. | |
Figure 1Schematic representation of known molecular mechanisms mediated by lipids and representative examples of lipid–protein complexes captured in high-resolution structures (A). Lipids as regulators of protein oligomerization and complex assembly. Cartoon representation of BetP (PDB ID 4C7R), KcsA (PDB ID 3IFX) and UapA (PDB ID 5I6C) proteins. (B). Lipid regulating conformational dynamics. Cartoon representation of TRPV3 (PDB ID 6LGP) and MscS (PDB ID 6PWN) proteins (C). Lipids modulating ligand binding directly (competition) or indirectly (allostery). Cartoon representation of LmrP (PDB ID 6T1Z), A2AR (PDB ID 5IUA) and ELIC (PDB ID 6HJX) proteins. PDB figures were generated using ‘The Protein Imager’ [21].
Figure 2Addition of lipids to delipidated UapAG411VΔ1-11 reforms the dimer. (A) Mass spectra showing the effects of PC (34:1, upper), PI (34:1, middle) and PE (34:1, lower) on the oligomerization of delipidated UapAG411VΔ1-11. Peaks of the lipid-bound species are highlighted. (B) Relative abundances of monomer and dimer species in the presence of PC (upper), PI (middle) and PE (lower) were quantified using UniDec software [56]. Adapted with permission [41].
Figure 3Ligand-dependent conformational dynamics of PfMATE require a lipid environment. (A) Representative spin label pair sampling distances between TM5 and TM7 on the extracellular side and (B) TM3 and TM9 on the intracellular side of PfMATE. The spin label locations are highlighted on the OF structure by purple spheres connected by a line. The helices targeted in the N-lobe and C-lobe are highlighted in blue and green, respectively. Distance distributions, representing the probability of a distance P(r) versus the distance (r) between spin labels, are shown in black traces at pH 7.5 and red traces at pH 4.0 in DDM micelles (left) and lipid nanodiscs (right). Adapted with permission from [75].
Figure 4Lipid–protein interactions regulate the conformational equilibrium. (A) Differential deuterium uptake pattern (ΔHDX) of WT XylE in DOPE-PG-CL nanodiscs (native-like) minus DOPC-PG-CL (control) mapped onto the 3D structure of XylE (PDB: 4GBY). Red- and blue-colored regions indicate segments containing peptides with a positive ΔHDX (red—more deuteration) or negative ΔHDX (blue—less deuteration), respectively; white regions indicate that no significant ΔHDX is observed (p ≤ 0.01), and gray indicates regions where peptides were not obtained for both the mutant and the WT conditions. (B) Representative MD snapshot of the close-up of the conserved, charged residues interacting with the PE headgroup of the phospholipid. Polar interactions with R84 and E153 prevent network formation and steric hindrance prevents contacts of the TM2 and TM11. (C) Mutagenesis of E153 abolishes a lipid-induced conformational shift. ΔHDX of XylE in PE:PG:CL nanodiscs (native-like) minus PC:PG:CL (control) nanodiscs mapped on the PDB structure. Adapted from [111].
Figure 5Structure of LmrP in complex with Hoechst 33342. (A) Cartoon representation of LmrP with the ligand Hoechst 33342 (green) and phosphatidic acid (orange) modeled from the densities observed (PDB ID 6T1Z). Hoechst 33342 forms polar interactions with D235 and E327 located in the C-lobe of LmrP. (B) Close up on the phospholipid. N116Y mutation perturbs lipid binding (C). nMS spectra showing compromised PG binding on the N116Y mutant. At a low activation energy (160 V), multiple lipids are bound to LmrP, including a peak corresponding to a single bound DOPG (in red). At high energy (200 V), this peak is still present. In the case of the N116Y mutant, although DOPG binds at low activation energy, it disappears at a high activation energy.