Ferredoxin and ferredoxin-heme maquettes.
Journal: 1997/January - Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America
ISSN: 0027-8424
PUBMED: 8986760
Abstract:
A 16-amino acid residue peptide derived from a consensus motif of natural ferredoxins incorporates a tetranuclear iron sulfur cluster under physiological conditions. Successful assembly of the [4Fe-4S]2+/1+ cluster within a monomeric peptide was demonstrated using size exclusion chromatography, UV-visible, visible CD, and cryogenic EPR spectroscopies. The robustness of [4Fe-4S]2+/1+ formation was tested using peptides with either the ligating cysteine exchanged for alanine or with the intervening amino acids replaced by glycine. The small size of the peptide allows for modular incorporation into more complex protein structures. In one larger structure, we describe a tetra-alpha-helix bundle that self-assembles both iron-sulfur clusters and hemes, thereby demonstrating feasibility for the general synthesis of maquettes containing multiple, juxtaposed redox cofactors. This is a motif common to the catalytic sites of native oxidoreductases.
Relations:
Content
Citations
(32)
References
(25)
Drugs
(5)
Chemicals
(3)
Organisms
(1)
Processes
(2)
Affiliates
(2)
Similar articles
Articles by the same authors
Discussion board
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 93(26): 15041-15046

Ferredoxin and ferredoxin–heme maquettes

Department of Biochemistry and Biophysics, The Johnson Research Foundation, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104
To whom reprint requests should be addressed.
Britton Chance, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA
Received 1996 Jul 18; Accepted 1996 Oct 24.

Abstract

A 16-amino acid residue peptide derived from a consensus motif of natural ferredoxins incorporates a tetranuclear iron sulfur cluster under physiological conditions. Successful assembly of the [4Fe–4S] cluster within a monomeric peptide was demonstrated using size exclusion chromatography, UV-visible, visible CD, and cryogenic EPR spectroscopies. The robustness of [4Fe–4S] formation was tested using peptides with either the ligating cysteine exchanged for alanine or with the intervening amino acids replaced by glycine. The small size of the peptide allows for modular incorporation into more complex protein structures. In one larger structure, we describe a tetra-α-helix bundle that self-assembles both iron–sulfur clusters and hemes, thereby demonstrating feasibility for the general synthesis of maquettes containing multiple, juxtaposed redox cofactors. This is a motif common to the catalytic sites of native oxidoreductases.

Abstract

The immense complexity inherent in enzyme structure presents a daunting challenge to understanding how proteins fold and assemble cofactors to establish catalytic fitness. The problem of protein folding and secondary structure design has recently been approached with the stratagem of synthesizing scaled-down polypeptides (17). Relatively simple design rules have been established for the construction of tetra-α-helix bundles using either a minimalist design approach (3) or a binary patterning strategy (8). We are using designed tetra-α-helix bundles to address the intricacies of protein–cofactor interactions in polypeptides that incorporate biochemical cofactors (912). It is our goal to establish the rules for cofactor incorporation and function in these simplified systems to produce minimal, functional, synthetic proteins—i.e., molecular maquettes (9).

We designed and synthesized a tetra-helix bundle, H10H24 (Fig. (Fig.11B), that incorporates one to four hemes via bis-His ligation (9). This simplified heme–protein maquette provides, under physiological conditions, for the study of heme–protein interactions, the basis for the variety of function in natural heme proteins. The spectroelectrochemical properties of the hemes in H10H24 are characteristic of those found in b-type cytochromes, as designed, including redox cooperativity due to heme–heme interactions.

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is pq2663186001.jpg

Modular design of the ferredoxin maquette. (A) molscript (13) model of the monomeric hexadecapeptide with bound [4Fe–4S]. (B) Molecular model of the prototype heme–protein maquette H10H24. (C) Computer representation of the modular design helix–loop–helix ferredoxin–heme maquette (HLH–FdM) with a [4Fe–4S] cluster and a pair of bound hemes. (D) Primary sequence alignment illustrating the modular peptide design approach. Given are the sequences for Peptococcus aerogenes Fd (from which the [4Fe–4S]-binding domain was extracted), the natural sequence ferredoxin maquette FdM, versions of the ferredoxin maquette with one, two, and three cysteines to alanine modifications, the glycine-modified ferredoxin maquette, and the HLH–FdM. All synthetic peptides were C-terminally amidated, and the HLH–FdM was N-terminally acetylated.

As widespread and biochemically diverse as the heme proteins, the ferredoxins and related iron sulfur proteins differ from heme proteins in that they display a multitude of cluster nuclearities and coordination geometries (14). The challenge evident in the synthesis of ferredoxin maquettes is to design a peptide that not only self-assembles iron and sulfur ions but also guides the formation of a single cluster architecture. The interaction of iron–sulfur clusters with thiolate ligands in organic solvents has been studied extensively, and, in fact, preassembled clusters have been incorporated into cysteine-containing peptides in dimethyl sulfoxide/water (80:20) (15). However, maquettes offer a tractable system in which to study the assembly of these biological cofactors in aqueous media to determine their delicate interplay with the surrounding heterogeneous chiral protein matrix, a major principle in the acquisition of biological specificity and activity. Additionally, the development of modular protein domains that can be spliced together to form multicofactor peptides offers a systematic approach to the design of more elaborate self-assembling biological structures.

Herein, we describe the design and synthesis of maquettes for ferredoxins containing multinuclear [4Fe–4S] clusters. Using a surprisingly short hexadecapeptide (16) [the creation of which was based on insight gained from inspection of natural proteins (1722) and inorganic model complexes (2329)], we have examined the incorporation of a tetra-nuclear iron–sulfur cluster into synthetic peptides under physiological conditions. By substituting the cysteine ligands with noncoordinating alanine residues and exchanging all of the intervening amino acids for glycine, while holding the cysteines in their consensus positions, we have investigated the contributions of each alteration to the assembly of the cluster.

Furthermore, strategies are presented to assemble both [4Fe–4S] and hemes in a tetra-α-helix bundle that demonstrate feasibility for the general synthesis of maquettes containing multiple, juxtaposed, redox cofactors such as hemes, iron–sulfur clusters, flavins, amino acid radicals, and quinones. These motifs are common to the catalytic sites of complex native oxidoreductases—e.g., the active site [4Fe–4S] cluster and siroheme of sulfite reductase (30).

Acknowledgments

We thank Dr. Kim Sharp for aid in preparing Figs. Figs.11 and and6.6. This work was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health (GM 27309 and GM 41048). B.R.G. and F.R. acknowledge receipt of postdoctoral fellowships from the National Institutes of Health and the European Molecular Biology Organization, respectively. Mass spectroscopic analyses were performed by the Protein Chemistry Laboratory of the University of Pennsylvania.

Acknowledgments

Footnotes

Abbreviations: HLH–FdM, helix–loop–helix ferredoxin–heme maquette; UV-vis, UV-visible.

Footnotes

References

  • 1. DeGrado W F, Wasserman Z R, Lear J D. Science. 1989;243:622–628.[PubMed]
  • 2. Handel T M, Williams S A, DeGrado W F. Science. 1990;261:879–885.[PubMed]
  • 3. Bryson J W, Betz S F, Lu H S, Suich D J, Zhou H X, O’Neil K T, DeGrado W F. Science. 1995;270:935–941.[PubMed]
  • 4. Ghadiri M R, Granja J R, Buehler L K. Nature (London) 1994;369:301–304.[PubMed]
  • 5. Ghadiri M R, Choi C. J Am Chem Soc. 1990;112:1630–1632.[PubMed]
  • 6. Struthers M D, Cheng R P, Imperiali B. Science. 1996;271:342–344.[PubMed]
  • 7. Hecht M H, Richardson J S, Richardson D C. Science. 1990;261:884–891.[PubMed]
  • 8. Kamtekar S, Schiffer J M, Xiong H, Babik J M, Hecht M H. Science. 1993;262:1680.[PubMed]
  • 9. Robertson D E, Farid R S, Moser C C, Urbauer J L, Mulholland S E, Pidikiti R, Lear J D, Wand A J, DeGrado W F, Dutton P L. Nature (London) 1994;368:425–32.[PubMed]
  • 10. Choma C T, Lear J D, Nelson M J, Dutton P L, Robertson D E, DeGrado W F. J Am Chem Soc. 1994;116:856–865.[PubMed]
  • 11. Rabanal F, DeGrado W F, Dutton P L. J Am Chem Soc. 1996;118:473–474.[PubMed]
  • 12. Kalsbeck W A, Robertson D E, Pandey R K, Smith K M, Dutton P L, Bocian D F. Biochemistry. 1996;35:3429–3438.[PubMed]
  • 13. Kraulis P. J Appl Crystallogr. 1991;24:946–950.[PubMed]
  • 14. Cammack R In: Advances in Inorganic Chemistry. Sykes G, editor. San Diego: Academic; 1992. pp. 1–322. [PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 15. Que L, Jr, Anglin J R, Bobrik M A, Davison A, Holm R H. J Am Chem Soc. 1974;96:6042–6048.[PubMed]
  • 16. Fraústo da Silva J J R, Williams R J P The Biological Chemistry of the Elements: The Inorganic Chemistry of Life. New York: Oxford Univ. Press; 1991. [PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 17. Adman E T, Sieker L C, Jensen L H. J Biol Chem. 1973;248:3987–3996.[PubMed]
  • 18. Beinert H. FASEB J. 1990;4:2483–2491.[PubMed]
  • 19. Johnson M K In: Encyclopedia of Inorganic Chemistry. King R B, editor. Vol. 4. Chichester, U.K.: Wiley; 1994. pp. 1896–1915. [PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 20. Finnegan M G, Conover R C, Park J-B, Zhou Z H, Adams M W W, Johnson M K. Inorg Chem. 1995;34:5358–5369.[PubMed]
  • 21. Houseman A L, Oh B H, Kennedy M C, Fan C, Werst M M, Beinert H, Markley J L, Hoffman B M. Biochemistry. 1992;31:2073–80.[PubMed]
  • 22. Lauble H, Kennedy M C, Beinert H, Stout C D. J Mol Biol. 1994;237:437–51.[PubMed]
  • 23. Ibers J A, Holm R H. Science. 1980;209:223–235.[PubMed]
  • 24. Holm R H, Ciurli S, Weigel J A. Prog Inorg Chem. 1990;38:1–74.[PubMed]
  • 25. Holm R H. Adv Inorg Chem. 1992;38:1–71.[PubMed]
  • 26. Laskowski E J, Frankel R B, Gillum W O, Papaefthymiou G C, Renaud J, Ibers J A, Holm R H. J Am Chem Soc. 1978;100:5322–5337.[PubMed]
  • 27. Coucouvanis D. Acc Chem Res. 1991;24:1–8.[PubMed]
  • 28. Kanatzidis M G, Hagen W R, Dunham W R, Lester R K, Coucouvanis D. J Am Chem Soc. 1985;107:953–961.[PubMed]
  • 29. Bertini I, Ciurli S, Luchinat C. Struct Bonding (Berlin) 1995;30:1–53.[PubMed]
  • 30. Crane B R, Siegel L M, Getzoff E D. Science. 1995;270:59–65.[PubMed]
  • 31. Zhao J, Li N, Warren P V, Golbeck J H, Bryant D A. Biochemistry. 1992;31:5093–5099.[PubMed]
  • 32. Yu L, Zhao J, Lu W, Bryant D A, Golbeck J H. Biochemistry. 1993;32:8251–8258.[PubMed]
  • 33. Dutton P L. Methods Enzymol. 1978;54:411–435.[PubMed]
  • 34. Stombaugh N A, Sundquist J E, Burris R H, Orme-Johnson W H. Biochemistry. 1976;15:2633–2638.[PubMed]
  • 35. Zhou N E, Kay C M, Hodges R S. J Biol Chem. 1992;267:2664–2670.[PubMed]
  • 36. Zhou N E, Kay C M, Sykes B D, Hodges R S. Biochemistry. 1993;32:6190–6197.[PubMed]
  • 37. Stephens P J, Thomson A J, Dunn J B R, Keiderling T A, Rawlins J, Rao K K, Hall D O. Biochemistry. 1978;17:4770–4778.[PubMed]
  • 38. Dawson J H, Sono M. Chem Rev. 1987;87:1255–1276.[PubMed]
  • 39. Robbins A H, Stout C D. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 1989;86:3639–3643.
  • 40. Blöchl E, Keller M, Wächtershäuser G, Stetter K O. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 1992;89:8117–8120.
Collaboration tool especially designed for Life Science professionals.Drag-and-drop any entity to your messages.