Protein torsion angles define the backbone secondary structure of proteins. Magic-angle spinning (MAS) NMR methods using carbon detection have been developed to measure torsion angles by determining the relative orientation between two anisotropic interactions─dipolar coupling or chemical shift anisotropy. Here we report a new proton-detection based method to determine the backbone torsion angle by recoupling NH and CH dipolar couplings within the HCANH pulse sequence, for protonated or partly deuterated samples. We demonstrate the efficiency and precision of the method with microcrystalline chicken α spectrin SH3 protein and the influenza A matrix 2 (M2) membrane protein, using 55 or 90 kHz MAS. For M2, pseudo-4D data detect a turn between transmembrane and amphipathic helices.
Protein torsion angles define the backbone secondary structure of proteins. Magic-angle spinning (MAS) NMR methods using carbon detection have been developed to measure torsion angles by determining the relative orientation between two anisotropic interactions─dipolar coupling or chemical shift anisotropy. Here we report a new proton-detection based method to determine the backbone torsion angle by recoupling NH and CH dipolar couplings within the HCANH pulse sequence, for protonated or partly deuterated samples. We demonstrate the efficiency and precision of the method with microcrystalline chicken α spectrin SH3 protein and the influenza A matrix 2 (M2) membrane protein, using 55 or 90 kHz MAS. For M2, pseudo-4D data detect a turn between transmembrane and amphipathic helices.
Protein function is closely
related to secondary, tertiary, and quaternary structure. The two
peptide backbone torsion angles φ and ψ represent one
way of defining the protein fold.[1,2] In the solid
state, the selective recoupling of two orientation-dependent tensors
such as CSA and dipolar interactions leads to, when suitably selected,
measurement of φ, ψ, or side-chain angles.[3,4] In solution, torsion angle restraints are usually inferred from
J-couplings or measured with cross-correlated relaxation.[5−10] Previous methods to determine torsion angles in solids have been
developed based on detection of carbon or nitrogen at moderate magic-angle
spinning (MAS) frequencies of ∼20 kHz and below.[11−15] They are effective for exceptionally well-resolved spectra typical
of protein microcrystals but are difficult to implement for large
proteins or membrane proteins due to a reduction in sensitivity and
resolution for such systems. The result is that most contemporary
protein structure determination studies employ empirical NMR methods
such as TALOS,[16−20] which is based on a large repository of experimental chemical shifts.
TALOS is widely used to predict torsion angles, and the result can
be relied upon to identify regular secondary structure, because these
local structures are typically well sampled in previously determined
structures. Despite the overwhelming success of TALOS in structure
determinations, discrepancies do occasionally occur between X-ray
crystal structures and TALOS predictions, mostly in loops. This motivates
direct experimental methods for measurement of backbone torsion angles,
particularly for glycine residues that lack a β carbon, which
is strongly considered in TALOS.Thanks to the development of
solid-state NMR hardware at high field
and faster MAS, as well as tailored deuterium labeling, the inherent
sensitivity of proton detection is more and more routinely exploited
for biomolecular structures.[21−26] New assignment pulse sequences were proposed based on proton detection,[24,27,28] and several methods have also
been proposed to determine H–X dipolar couplings[29−33] as well as long-range H–X[34,35] and H–H
distance restraints.[36−38] However, solid-state NMR methods for backbone torsion
angle determination in the current ultrafast MAS regime (MAS frequency
of about 60 to 120 kHz) with proton detection are, to our knowledge,
as yet undeveloped. The extension to the ultrafast MAS regime promises
improved performance via proton detection, if suitable pulse sequences
can be developed. The previously reported rotor synchronized pulse
sequences demand high power pulses, which are multiples of the spinning
frequency and cannot be readily implemented in contemporary ultrafast
MAS probes.We solve this problem using pseudo-3D and pseudo-4D
spectra based
on the HCANH signal transfer pathway to determine dipolar coupling
and torsion angles in microcrystalline SH3 and the membrane protein
influenza A M2. In combination with a recently developed deuterium
labeling scheme,[39] we show that the torsion
angle can also be reliably determined for glycine, which lacks a side
chain.The dipolar recoupling element we use here is a recently
reported
MODifiEd RN (MODERN) scheme.[40] The MODERN
scheme has a reasonable power level requirement and good scaling factors
for dipolar couplings and can be applied in ultrafast MAS.[40] Another important feature of this sequence is
that radio frequency (RF) power missetting introduces intensity variations
rather than a change in the dipolar scaling factor. It makes extraction
of the dipolar coupling more straightforward than is the case for
most R-symmetry based sequences.[40,41] This feature
enables accurate calibration of proton power levels during dipolar
recoupling.We recorded 1H-detected (H)(CA)NH-MODERN
spectra at
a MAS frequency of 55.555 kHz (1.3 mm Bruker rotor), employing cross-polarization
(CP)[42] for polarization transfer. We used
a partly deuterated “alpha proton exchange by transamination”
(α-PET) labeled sample[39] of the α-spectrin
SH3 domain and a uniformly labeled [13C, 15N]-SH3
sample. In the α-PET labeling scheme, Hα is introduced
for 13 amino acids in a highly deuterated background. Experimental
results were fitted with numerical simulations using in-house MATLAB
scripts (details in the Supporting Information).Figure shows
the
pulse sequence used to correlate two dipolar coupling vectors, H–N
and H–Cα, via simultaneous incrementation of the recoupling
time in both periods in dashed rectangles. These vectors define the
torsion angle φH, which is shifted by −60°
from the torsion angle φ.[4] Dipolar
coupling is reintroduced using a modified R-symmetry (MODERN) sequence.
MODERN was previously reported to minimize H–H homogeneous
interactions and maximize the recoupled heteronuclear dipolar coupling
strength. Considering the power limitation of the probe, we chose
MODER5.[40] Approximately 137 kHz proton
power was applied for 55.555 kHz spinning. Benefiting from the favorable
scaling factor (Ksc) from this sequence
(∼0.5), only several hundred microseconds of recoupling are
needed to observe HN and HC dipolar oscillations and encode HN–HC
torsion angles. As described previously and shown with the simulations
in Figure S1, the MODER5 dipolar oscillation
curve is sensitive to RF inhomogeneity. The impact of an RF misset
is to attenuate the amplitudes in dipolar oscillations. This feature
can be used to calibrate the optimal power level setting by observing
minima in signal intensities after a certain recoupling period (Figure S2). To account for the influence of RF-field
inhomogeneity in simulation, we assumed that the B1 field has a Gaussian
distribution.[54−56] The detailed fitting procedure considering RF inhomogeneity
and 13C/15N T2,eff decay is described
in Figure S3. Since the angle determined
from dipolar recoupling signals is a projection angle, a transformation
is needed to convert the projection angle to the torsion angle (eq S5 in the SI). For transformation, two input
bond angles are used—θNCαHα =
71° and θHNCα = 120°. Figure C shows the schematic representation
of the torsion angle, determined by two planes, and the projection
angle, determined by two vectors.
Figure 1
Torsion angle determination using MODER5.
(A, B) Pulse sequence
diagram for the torsion angle measurement. The MODER5 recoupling element
shown in (B) occurs in each of the dashed rectangular regions in (A).
MODER5 consists of two π/2 pulses as the basic element. The
length of each π/2 pulse equals 1/10 of the rotor period and
pulse phase φ1= 36°, φ2 = 164.2°.
Following recoupling, a Hahn echo period is used to refocus the nitrogen
or carbon chemical shift. The recoupling time for HC is typically
set to half the HN recoupling time to account for the approximately
2-fold difference in the coupling strength. (C) Depiction of the torsion
angles, φH, and the projection angles, φproj. (D) Simulated MODER5-MODER5 recoupling curves with different
torsion angles. For HC and NH groups, DHC = 22 kHz and DHN = 11 kHz. The MAS rate
is 55.555 kHz. Curves from black to light gray are from 90°–120°
and from violet to blue are 130°–180°. Two input
bond angles are used, θNCαHα = 71°
and θHNCα = 120°.
Torsion angle determination using MODER5.
(A, B) Pulse sequence
diagram for the torsion angle measurement. The MODER5 recoupling element
shown in (B) occurs in each of the dashed rectangular regions in (A).
MODER5 consists of two π/2 pulses as the basic element. The
length of each π/2 pulse equals 1/10 of the rotor period and
pulse phase φ1= 36°, φ2 = 164.2°.
Following recoupling, a Hahn echo period is used to refocus the nitrogen
or carbon chemical shift. The recoupling time for HC is typically
set to half the HN recoupling time to account for the approximately
2-fold difference in the coupling strength. (C) Depiction of the torsion
angles, φH, and the projection angles, φproj. (D) Simulated MODER5-MODER5 recoupling curves with different
torsion angles. For HC and NH groups, DHC = 22 kHz and DHN = 11 kHz. The MAS rate
is 55.555 kHz. Curves from black to light gray are from 90°–120°
and from violet to blue are 130°–180°. Two input
bond angles are used, θNCαHα = 71°
and θHNCα = 120°.In Figure D, we
show the torsion angle dependent variation of the MODER5-MODER5 oscillation
curve in the 90°–180° angle range. The dependence
is symmetric around 90°. Transformation from the torsion angle
eliminates certain projection angle possibilities such that the torsion
angle determination is sensitive and unique between 150° and
180° and there are two possible torsion angle values between
90° and 150° at short mixing times.[13]Determination of HCα and HN dipolar couplings serves
as the
first step for obtaining precise torsion angles. To determine HCα
and HN dipolar couplings, respectively, we used the same pulse sequence
as in Figure A but
evolve HCα or HN recoupling separately. In Figure , we show the MODER5 dipolar
oscillation curves of selected residues for both U–13C-15N labeled and α-PET labeled SH3: V9 (A, B) and
G51 (C, D). For each sample, we determined dipolar coupling values
with precision below 500 Hz. Fits for additional resolved residues
are shown in Figures S4–S9, including
consideration of imperfect α-PET labeling.
Figure 2
Signal amplitude modulation
during MODER5 dipolar recoupling of
H–N (A, C) or H–Cα (B, D) couplings,
which are dominated by H–N and H–Cα spin pairs. Protonated SH3 is shown in red, and α-PET labeled
SH3 is shown in black. Fit curves are shown as dashed lines. Data
were recorded on a 600 MHz Bruker spectrometer and 55.555 kHz MAS
and fitted with in-house MATLAB code using exact numerical simulations.
Fitting in part (D) assumes two protons attached to the α carbon
in the protonated case (red line). The error is estimated with 100
Monte Carlo curves from the experimental signal to noise ratio (SNR).
Error bars on the points were determined from the signal-to-noise
ratio of the spectra.
Signal amplitude modulation
during MODER5 dipolar recoupling of
H–N (A, C) or H–Cα (B, D) couplings,
which are dominated by H–N and H–Cα spin pairs. Protonated SH3 is shown in red, and α-PET labeled
SH3 is shown in black. Fit curves are shown as dashed lines. Data
were recorded on a 600 MHz Bruker spectrometer and 55.555 kHz MAS
and fitted with in-house MATLAB code using exact numerical simulations.
Fitting in part (D) assumes two protons attached to the α carbon
in the protonated case (red line). The error is estimated with 100
Monte Carlo curves from the experimental signal to noise ratio (SNR).
Error bars on the points were determined from the signal-to-noise
ratio of the spectra.Figure S10 shows the simulated case
of torsion angle curves for two alpha protons (Gly) and the influence
of RF inhomogeneity. For the fully protonated SH3 sample, the small
T2,eff and the presence of two protons on Gly decreases
the sensitivity to the torsion angle values. The α-PET sample
is therefore preferable, in particular for glycine (Figure D). The downside of using this
labeling scheme is that Arg residues are not efficiently labeled.[39]A more pronounced dipolar oscillation
was observed for short, 300
μs, H–C CP (Figure S4) compared
with 1.5 ms CP (Figure S5). This can be
explained by RF inhomogeneities of the probe and selection of signal
with a more homogeneous field distribution in short CP.[43−46] For α-PET SH3, short CP is also important since it transfers
polarization primarily between directly bonded atoms and excludes
any nonprotonated Cα signal that may be present due to imperfect
labeling (Figure S8).Following determination
of the dipolar coupling values, the torsion
angle determination is carried out using the same experimental settings,
such as CP power levels and times. In Figure we show the determination of φH torsion angles in α-PET SH3. Figure A,B shows the best fit torsion angles for
residues V9 and G51 and reduced χ2 (χv2) analysis. All 300 χv2 curves
from a Monte Carlo analysis (random adjustment of the points by one
standard deviation) are shown in gray (Figure C,D). The averaged value is denoted with
the black curve. As shown in Figure , we determined V9 φH to be 152°
and G51 to be 135.2°. A comparison to the crystal structures
is shown as the dotted lines in blue and black and the TALOSN prediction
is marked by the dotted line in red.
Figure 3
(H)(CA)NH-MODERN torsion angle determination
applied to the model
protein SH3. (A, B) MODERN decay curve for selected residues, V9 and
G51. Best fit curves are shown as solid lines. The error reported
in the fit angle was generated using the Monte Carlo method and the
experimental SNR and is indicated at 1.5 times the standard deviation.
(C, D) reduced χ2 plots for the 300 fits in the Monte
Carlo analysis (experimental points were adjusted according to the
spectrum noise level). The average is shown in black. Shown in red
are the TALOS-N predictions with error estimates (1.5 standard deviation),
shaded in orange. Torsion angle values extracted from X-ray crystal
structures are shown in cyan (pdb: 2NUZ) and black (pdb: 1SHG). (E) Correlation
plot of torsion angles from crystal structures (pdb: 2NUZ (cyan), 1SHG (black))
against all 13 SH3 φH angles determined from (H)(CA)NH-MODERN
spectra. Error bars are shown at 1.5 times the estimated standard
deviation, with the exception of G28, for which a low fit quality
was evident (details in the Supporting Information). NMR data was recorded on a 600 MHz Bruker spectrometer, with 55.555
kHz MAS. Experimental torsion angle data for all residues is shown
in Figures S12–S14.
(H)(CA)NH-MODERN torsion angle determination
applied to the model
protein SH3. (A, B) MODERN decay curve for selected residues, V9 and
G51. Best fit curves are shown as solid lines. The error reported
in the fit angle was generated using the Monte Carlo method and the
experimental SNR and is indicated at 1.5 times the standard deviation.
(C, D) reduced χ2 plots for the 300 fits in the Monte
Carlo analysis (experimental points were adjusted according to the
spectrum noise level). The average is shown in black. Shown in red
are the TALOS-N predictions with error estimates (1.5 standard deviation),
shaded in orange. Torsion angle values extracted from X-ray crystal
structures are shown in cyan (pdb: 2NUZ) and black (pdb: 1SHG). (E) Correlation
plot of torsion angles from crystal structures (pdb: 2NUZ (cyan), 1SHG (black))
against all 13 SH3 φH angles determined from (H)(CA)NH-MODERN
spectra. Error bars are shown at 1.5 times the estimated standard
deviation, with the exception of G28, for which a low fit quality
was evident (details in the Supporting Information). NMR data was recorded on a 600 MHz Bruker spectrometer, with 55.555
kHz MAS. Experimental torsion angle data for all residues is shown
in Figures S12–S14.Figure E
shows
a correlation plot for the φH angle determined for
13 residues by NMR and taken from the crystal structure. A clear correlation
is seen, while still for some residues ∼20° differences
are observed. Note that the crystal structure, even at a high resolution
of 1.8 Å, contributes to some of the discrepancy. Two independently
solved crystal structures at 1.0 and 1.1 Å were found to differ
by about 4.7°.[47] For SH3 at ∼1.8
Å, a similar deviation of 5° occurs for the crystal structures 2NUZ and 1SHG, among the 13 residues
for which we determined the angle by NMR. Another potentially important
reason for these differences is the transformation of NMR determined
projection angles to torsion angles. Variation of the angles θ′NCαHα and θHNCα by 4°
results in ∼6° differences in torsion angle (Figure S11). While here we demonstrated angle
determination for highly homogeneous preparations, it would be straightforward
to extend the method to consider some sample inhomogeneity, by considering
a distribution of angles. A comparison of the obtained torsion angle
values for the two labeling schemes and different contact times is
shown in Figure S15.For wide applicability
to biological samples, it is important that
the method can separate resonances in 3 spectral dimensions. We demonstrate
this pseudo-4D spectrum in Figure with the fully protonated M2 protein from influenza
A virus, using a construct that includes residues 18–60. This
noncrystalline sample was prepared in lipid bilayers and displays
less-ideal line widths as compared with microcrystalline SH3. In between
the transmembrane helix and amphipathic helix, there is a tight and
rigid turn at residues L46 and F47.[48] This
results in a deviation from the ∼130° φH angle in helices, to 167.8° for F47, as indicated in the oriented
sample NMR structure, PDB 2L0J.[48] H37 lies in the transmembrane
helix, and indeed the MAS NMR determined torsion angle φH is 130° for H37 (Figure A,B) in good agreement with 126° in PDB 2L0J. The turn is detected
via a 162° φH determination for F47 in excellent
agreement with the oriented sample NMR data. Note that the lipid composition
of the oriented sample differs from the one used here, notably in
that a higher lipid-to-protein ratio was used.
Figure 4
Torsion angle determination
for influenza M2 protein. (A) 3D representation
of the first time point of the pseudo-4D (H)CANH-MODERN experiment.
The structure of M2 (PDB 2L0J) is shown as ribbons, with a turn at residues L46–F47
shown as sticks. Residues H37 and F47 are encircled, and 1D slices
of the first point (black) and last point (red) in the MODERN oscillation
are shown. (B) Best fit curves and torsion angle values for residues
H37 and F47 from the pseudo-4D. Data of (A) and (B) are from an 800
MHz Bruker spectrometer using a 1.3 mm probe with 55.555 kHz MAS.
(C) Best fit curves and torsion angle values for F47 in wild-type
M2 (red) and S31N mutant (black). Measurement was performed at a 950
MHz Bruker spectrometer using a 0.7 mm probe with a MAS rate of 90.909
kHz. The data from panel (C) is pseudo-3D. The structure is from PDB 2N70 (ref (49)).
Torsion angle determination
for influenza M2 protein. (A) 3D representation
of the first time point of the pseudo-4D (H)CANH-MODERN experiment.
The structure of M2 (PDB 2L0J) is shown as ribbons, with a turn at residues L46–F47
shown as sticks. Residues H37 and F47 are encircled, and 1D slices
of the first point (black) and last point (red) in the MODERN oscillation
are shown. (B) Best fit curves and torsion angle values for residues
H37 and F47 from the pseudo-4D. Data of (A) and (B) are from an 800
MHz Bruker spectrometer using a 1.3 mm probe with 55.555 kHz MAS.
(C) Best fit curves and torsion angle values for F47 in wild-type
M2 (red) and S31N mutant (black). Measurement was performed at a 950
MHz Bruker spectrometer using a 0.7 mm probe with a MAS rate of 90.909
kHz. The data from panel (C) is pseudo-3D. The structure is from PDB 2N70 (ref (49)).In Figure C, we
further confirmed the F47 torsion angle using 90.909 kHz MAS with
a 950 MHz instrument. This higher field and faster spinning better
separate resonances, such that we chose to record pseudo-3D spectra.
We also compared the S31N mutant, for which we measured a similar
torsion angle, φH, of 155° for F47. This value
can be compared with the S31N mutant structure (PDB: 2N70) in which φH is 156°.[49] However, 2N70
was determined from a set of distances and TALOS torsion angles, which
may introduce more error in the backbone angles as compared with the
direct determination of backbone angles which underlies the oriented
sample structure 2L0J. Despite differences in sample preparation and measurement techniques,
a consensus emerges for the F47 angle in lipid preparations. Additional
experimental data for W41 and F47 is shown in Figure S16, the influence of different CP ramps is explored
in Figure S17, and a set of 15 well resolved
residues are shown in Figures S18–S23.In conclusion, we demonstrated a new method for torsion angle
determination
at ultrafast MAS with proton detection. We measured torsion angles
in both protonated and partly deuterated, α-PET-labeled SH3,
which resulted in high sensitivity and led to high measurement precision,
including for the previously difficult glycine residues. For the structurally
important GxxxG and related motifs in membrane proteins and fibrils,[50−53] the method is expected to provide a sensitive probe for changes
in backbone secondary structure that occur for biologically significant
events such as pharmaceutical binding. We also measured torsion angles
for two variants of the influenza A M2 protein. M2 is more challenging
in terms of signal resolution and sensitivity and proves the applicability
of the method using pseudo-4D data for more challenging membrane protein
samples.
Authors: Marie Decock; Serena Stanga; Jean-Noël Octave; Ilse Dewachter; Steven O Smith; Stefan N Constantinescu; Pascal Kienlen-Campard Journal: Front Aging Neurosci Date: 2016-05-10 Impact factor: 5.750