
Web Release Date: December 4,
Incorporating Electron-Transfer Functionality into Synthetic Metalloproteins from the Bottom-up
Department of Chemistry and Center for Photochemical Sciences, Bowling Green State University, Bowling Green, Ohio 43403
Received February 8, 2006
Abstract:
The
-helical coiled-coil motif serves as a robust scaffold for incorporating electron-transfer (ET) functionality into
synthetic metalloproteins. These structures consist of a supercoiling of two or more
helices that are formed by
the self-assembly of individual polypeptide chains whose sequences contain a repeating pattern of hydrophobic
and hydrophilic residues. Early work from our group attached abiotic Ru-based redox sites to the most surface-exposed positions of two stranded coiled-coils and used electron-pulse radiolysis to study both intra- and intermolecular
ET reactions in these systems. Later work used smaller metallopeptides to investigate the effects of conformational
gating within electrostatic peptide-protein complexes. We have recently designed the C16C19-GGY peptide, which
contains Cys residues located at both the "a" and "d" positions of its third heptad repeat in order to construct a
nativelike metal-binding domain within its hydrophobic core. It was shown that the binding of both Cd(II) and Cu(I)
ions induces the peptide to undergo a conformational change from a disordered random coil to a metal-bridged
coiled-coil. However, whereas the Cd(II)-protein exists as a two-stranded coiled-coil, the Cu(I) derivative exists as
a four-stranded coiled-coil. Upon the incorporation of other metal ions, metal-bridged peptide dimers, tetramers,
and hexamers are formed. The Cu(I)-protein is of particular interest because it exhibits a long-lived (microsecond)
room-temperature luminescence at 600 nm. The luminophore in this protein is thought to be a multinuclear CuI4Cys4(N/O)4 cage complex, which can be quenched by exogenous electron acceptors in solution, as shown by
emission-lifetime and transient-absorption experiments. It is anticipated that further investigation into these systems
will contribute to the expanding effort of bioinorganic chemists to prepare new kinds of functionally active synthetic
metalloproteins.
Metalloproteins comprise approximately one-third of all
structurally characterized proteins and perform such important biochemical functions as the catalytic transformation of
chemical substrates, the facilitation of redox-dependent
chemical reactions, and the mediation of oxygen transport
and storage. The diversity of chemical functions performed
by naturally occurring metalloproteins has inspired recent
work toward the design of artificial analogues that might
possess activities that mimic, enhance, or even replace those
now performed by native systems.1-7 However, this goal now
presents a formidable challenge to the scientific community
because it requires not only the ability to construct well-defined protein structures that can bind specific kinds of
In general, two complementary approaches have been
taken to synthesize new types of chemically functional
metalloproteins. The "top-down" approach refers to the
reengineering of native proteins in ways that enable them to
perform new chemical tasks that can be significantly different
from their inherent biological functionality.2,5,8,9
2-SCys)[Fe4S4] protein in which the helix-loop-helix motif creates a bridged metal-binding site,14
several series of Cys-containing helical bundle proteins,15-28
Pecoraro and co-workers15-23 have been conducting an
elegant series of studies to examine the metal-binding
properties of an important family of coiled-coil peptides
prepared by subtle modifications of the parent peptide known
as "TRI". TRI has the sequence Ac-G(LKALEEK)4G-NH2,
which places hydrophobic leucine residues at each of the
heptad "a" and "d" positions of an
-helical coiled-coil (vida
infra) and was found to exist predominately as a three-stranded coiled-coil at pH > 7. Importantly, it was observed
that the single replacement of one leucine residue with a
Cys at either position 9 or 12 of the sequence created a metal-binding site having an affinity for Hg(II) and Cd(II) and that
the resulting metallopeptides existed as three-stranded coiled-coils containing a very unusual three-coordinate metal center.
This unexpected assembly process was seen to occur even
in the case of a truncated peptide, which exists as a largely
disordered coiled-coil in the absence of a metal ion. The
results suggested that an important relationship exists
between the conformational preferences of the apopeptide
backbone and the coordination chemistry of the incorporated
metal ion. Careful thermodynamic studies confirmed the
existence of this relationship by showing a linear free-energy
relationship between the self-association affinities of the TRI
peptides and their ability to bind Hg(II) and Cd(II) ions in
trigonal geometries.15 These studies proved that, within the
TRI family of metalloproteins, the conformational preferences of the protein dictate the coordination geometry of the
incorporated metal ion.
Building upon recent successes in the "bottom-up" design
of new metal-binding proteins, several workers have now
begun to address the significant challenge of incorporating
chemical functionality into these systems.7 In a notable effort,
DeGrado and co-workers recently prepared a computationally
designed metalloprotein that has a diiron cluster, similar to
those found in a variety of naturally occurring hydrolytic
enzymes, positioned in close proximity to a suitable substrate-binding domain.10-13 Significantly, this protein called DFtet
was shown to catalyze the two-electron oxidation of 4-aminophenol to the corresponding quinone monoamine with a
somewhat modest but distinct value of kcat/KM = 1500 M-1
min-1.13 In related efforts, workers have successfully constructed chimeric metalloproteins that contain both the helix-turn-helix DNA binding domain and either the metal-binding loop of calmodulin30,31
Aside from catalytic functionality, redox activity is another
type of chemical property that can be incorporated into
designed metalloproteins. Indeed, a long-standing effort to
understand how protein structures can provide pathways for
long-range donor-acceptor interactions has led to the
development of many peptide-based electron-transfer (ET)
reagents built from the "bottom-up". Early work in this field
largely concentrated on the attachment of exogenous abiotic
redox centers, such as ruthenium polypyridyl complexes, to
polypeptide spacers possessing defined secondary structures
such as proline helices and
helices. Such work has been
the focus of a previous review.36 However, more recent work
in this field has resulted in the design of systems that can
indeed be classified as examples of functionally active ET
proteins having well-defined tertiary and/or quarternary
structures, some with more nativelike redox cofactors.37-42
-helical coiled-coil motif
as a robust scaffold upon which inorganic redox centers can
be either attached to their solvent-exposed surfaces or bound
to nativelike binding sites designed within their hydrophobic
cores.
Materials. The Fmoc-protected L-amino acid derivatives, 2-(1H-benzotriazol-1-yl)-1,1,3,3-tetramethyluronium hexafluorophosphate, piperidine, diisopropylcarbodiimide, and anhydrous N-hydroxybenzotriazole were purchased from Peptides International Inc. (Louisville, KY). The reagent tetrakis(acetonitrile)copper(I) hexafluorophosphate was purchased from the Sigma-Aldrich Co. (St. Louis, MO). All reagents were used as received.
General Methods. UV-vis, circular dichroism (CD), and
reversed-phase high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC)
analyses were performed as previously described46 except that either
a semipreparative Vydac reversed-phase 218TP C18 column (10
M particle size, 10 × 250 mm) or a preparative Vydac 218TP
C18 column (10
M particle size, 22 × 250 mm) was used. Static
luminescence spectra were obtained with a single-photon-counting
spectrofluorimeter from Edinburgh Analytical Instruments (FL/FS
900), and emission-lifetime measurements were carried out using
a nitrogen broad-band dye laser (2-3-nm full width at half-maximum) using fundamental nitrogen excitation (337 nm) or
BPBD dye (357 nm) as previously decribed.47 The emission of the
CuI-C16C19-GGY adduct was monitored at 600 nm and performed
in argon-saturated solutions.
Synthesis of the C16C19-GGY Peptide. The 32-residue peptide
C16C19-GGY having the sequence Ac-K(IEALEGK)2(CEACEGK)(IEALEGK)-GGY-NH2 was prepared and purified by reversed-phase HPLC as previously described.48 The GGY tag was attached
to the peptide to allow determination of the peptide concentration
by measuring the absorption of the tyrosine residue at 275 nm (
= 1450 M-1 cm -1).49
High-Performance Size-Exclusion Chromatography (HPSEC). HPSEC experiments were performed using a Superdex 75 Biotech column (Amersham Biosciences) connected to a Waters model 515 HPLC pump equipped with a Waters model 996 diode-array detector. The peptide samples were eluted using 0.1 M KCl/0.05 M KH2PO4 with a 0.2-0.4 mL/min flow rate and monitored at 230 nm, and their behavior was compared against those of suitable peptide standards.50
Synthetic ET Metallproteins Based on
-Helical Coiled
Coils. Our group has been preparing synthetic metalloproteins based on
-helical coiled-coils.27,28,46,48,51-53
helices. Such structures are stabilized by
a specific "knobs into holes" packing of regularly spaced
hydrophobic residues belonging to each strand of the coiled-coil. It has been found that synthetic coiled-coils can be
prepared from amino acid sequences based on a seven-residue heptad repeat, (abcdefg)n, in which hydrophobic
amino acids occupy positions "a" and "d" of the heptad,
hydrophilic residues fill positions "b", "c", and "f", and
oppositely charged residues may occupy positions "e" and
"g" in order to form stabilizing interchain salt bridges (Figure
1).54-57
Figure 1 Helical wheel diagram depicting one heptad repeat of a two-stranded -helical coiled-coil. The hydrophobic "a" and "d" positions are
shown in red.
|
In early work, our group prepared a 30-residue polypeptide
called H21(30-mer), whose sequence was designed to form
two-stranded coiled-coils.46 An important feature of the
sequence

-helical coiled-coil in which the association process could
be fit to a two-state monomer-dimer equilibrium having a
value of Kd = 1.5 ± 0.4
M and a maximum ellipticity of
69%. Treatment of the peptide with either [Ru(NH3)5(OH2)]2+
or [Ru(trpy)(bpy)(OH2)]2+ produced the corresponding metalated homodimers in which Ru compounds were coordinated
to each of the two H21 sites of the coiled-coil. The desired
ET heterodimer (Figure 2) was then prepared in a statistical
distribution with the two metalated homodimers by heating
an equimolar solution of the two metalated peptides to 60
C and cooling the mixture back to room temperature. These
peptides were shown by a combination of analytical ultracentrifugation, sodium dodecyl sulfate-polyacrylamide gel
electrophoresis, and size-exclusion chromatography to exist
as two-stranded coiled-coils. Importantly, electron paramagnetic resonance spin-labeling experiments were used to
provide a measure of the interchain C
-C
distance of 13.5
± 0.9 Å at position 21 of the coiled-coil, which is nearly
identical with those observed for the isostructural family of
bZip proteins. These results enabled computer modeling
studies to estimate that the two metal centers in the ET
heterodimer were separated by a metal-to-metal distance of
ca. 24 Å across the noncovalent peptide interface. Oxidative
pulse radiolysis experiments were used to study intramolecular ET reactions occurring from the RuII(NH3)5-H21
donor to the RuIII(trpy)(bpy)-H21' acceptor located across
the noncovalent peptide interface. The rate constant for the
ET reaction was found to be kET = 380 s-1, which was
independent of the peptide concentration. Significantly, these
experiments showed that the observed rate constant is
consistent with the distance-rate behavior observed in both
native58 and modified59 protein systems and that intramolecular ET can indeed occur over long distances in this
designed metalloprotein across a noncovalent peptide-peptide interface. The designed H21 metalloheterodimer is
therefore a viable model system for natural ET proteins.
| Figure 2 Computer-generated model of the synthetic ET protein formed by attaching Ru-based redox sites to His residues occupying the solvent-exposed "f" positions of a two-stranded coiled-coil. |
A Pathways60 analysis was conducted for the H21(30-mer)
system, which identified its primary coupling path (metal-to-metal) to consist of 22 covalent bonds and a critical
interhelix through-space jump of 3 Å between the C
of
Lys22 and C
of Ile23' of the next heptad repeat.61 We
therefore prepared a related peptide called H18(30-mer)
whose metal-coordinating His residues were now located at
position 18 of the sequence occupying the heptad "c"
positions. It was hypothesized that this change should
decrease the length of the putative ET tunneling pathway
by three covalent bonds and increase the observed rate of
intraprotein ET from the relatively slow rate observed for
H21(30-mer). However, pulse radiolysis experiments showed
no evidence for intraprotein ET occurring in this system,
and only a concentration-dependent interprotein ET event
was seen, having a second-order rate constant of kET(inter)
= 6 × 108 M-1 s-1. The reason for this disappointing result
was explained by CD experiments, which showed that
placement of the hydrophilic metal complexes closer to the
noncovalent interface of this peptide resulted in destabilization of its coiled-coil structure. This likely led to an increased
metal-metal distance in the H18(30-mer) metallopeptide to
make its rate of intramolecular ET no longer competitive
with that of the intermolecular reaction occurring between
different proteins in the pulse radiolysis experiment.
ET along the Covalent Backbone of
Helices and
Coiled Coils. Previous results by Fox and co-workers
reported that the permanent dipole moment of
helices can
be used to modulate the rates of photoinduced ET occurring
between organic donors and acceptors.62-64
Gated ET To Study the Dynamics of Peptide-Protein Complexes. Our group's experience in preparing redox-active metallopeptides have been applied toward the study of ET processes that occur within electrostatic protein complexes. Early work in this project sought to understand how the incorporation of complementary electrostatic recognition domains onto the surface of coiled-coil metalloproteins can affect the rates of intermolecular ET occurring between separate metalloproteins.51 Thus, interprotein ET reactions were studied that involve a [Ru(NH3)5-H21]2+ electron donor and a [Ru(trpy)(bpy)-H21]3+ electron acceptor that were embedded within protein surfaces having opposite charge: a RuII(NH3)5-H21 site was placed on the positive surface of a coiled-coil peptide, and a RuIII(trpy)(bpy)-H21 site was placed on the negative surface of another peptide (Figure 4). No evidence for stable electrostatic complex formation was observed, and the rates of intermolecular ET were seen to follow bimolecular kinetics and increase from kinter = (1.9 ± 0.4) × 107 to (3.7 ± 0.5) × 107 M-1 s-1 as the ionic strength was raised from 0.01 to 0.20 M. This somewhat unexpected result indicates that the electrostatic repulsion between the positively charged Ru centers dominates the kinetics of these reactions and not the complementary surface charges of the proteins. However, analysis by two different electrostatic models indicated that the presence of the oppositely charged protein surfaces in the coiled-coils does create an electrostatic recognition domain that substantially ameliorates the effects of this intermetal repulsion.
| Figure 4 Schematic representation of the EE/KK electrostatic heterodimer emphasizing the charges on the solvent-exposed and interfacial regions of the heterodimer. |
Encouraged by our ability to use electrostatic interactions to influence the rates of intermolecular ET reactions occurring between designed metalloproteins, we designed two small negatively charged metallopeptides capable of forming stable electrostatic complexes with ferricytochrome c. This work showed how the rates of intracomplex ET are gated by rate-limiting configurational changes occurring within the electrostatic peptide-protein complex.
Emission measurements showed that the triplet lifetime
of the ruthenium metallopeptide, [Ru(bpy)2(phenam)Cys(Glu)5Gly]3- = RuCE5G (Figure 5), is shortened and decays
via biexponential kinetics when in the presence of cytochrome c (Cyt c). These results indicate the existence of two
excited-state populations of Ru-peptides, both of which
undergo photoinduced ET to the iron heme. The faster decay
component displays concentration-independent kinetics, demonstrating the presence of a preformed peptide-protein
complex, which undergoes intracomplex ET with a rate
constant of
= (2.7 ± 0.4) × 106 s-1. Significantly, the
magnitude of
decreases with increasing solvent viscosity (Figure 6), and the behavior can be fit to the expression
-
to give
= 0.59 ± 0.05. The ET process
occurring in the preformed complex is therefore gated by a
rate-limiting configurational change of the complex. The
slower decay component displays concentration-dependent
kinetics, which saturate at high concentrations of Cyt c.
Analysis according to rapid equilibrium formation of an
encounter complex, which then undergoes unimolecular ET,
yields
' = (7 ± 3) × 105 s-1. The smaller value of
'
suggests that a somewhat longer donor-acceptor distance
exists in the encounter complex. Interestingly, the value of
' is also viscosity-dependent, showing that this reaction
is also gated. However, a value of
= 0.98 ± 0.14 was
observed, which emphasized the very dynamic nature of the
encounter complex.
Subsequent work demonstrated how a small modification
of the metal-peptide could produce significant changes in
the dynamics of its preformed complex.65 Thus, a new
example was prepared in which a ruthenium polypyridyl
complex was coupled directly to the CE5G peptide by
reacting it with [(bpy)2Ru(3-bromo-1,10-phenanthroline)](PF6)2 to yield the compound RuCE5G-short (Figure 5). This
new metallopeptide differs from the original one only by
the absence of the flexible acetyl linker joining the metal
complex to the Cys side chain of the peptide. Photoinduced
ET experiments showed that RuCE5G-short also forms an
electrostatic complex with Cyt c, within which intracomplex
ET can occur. In addition, viscosity studies showed that this
process is also gated by rate-limiting configurational changes
of the complex. However, it was seen that the preformed
complex involving RuCE5G-short was more mobile (
=
0.97 ± 0.03) than the one involving the longer peptide (Figure
6) and had a higher binding constant. These observations
were rationalized by molecular modeling studies, which indicated that the two peptides likely adopt different conformations (Figure 5). Whereas the short peptide has a roughly linear
rodlike geometry, the flexible acetamido linker of RuCE5G
allows it to form a hairpin-like structure in which the bulky
ruthenium polypyridyl cation is placed in closer proximity
to the negatively charged glutamate chain. It was speculated
that the higher mobility of the RuCE5G-short-Cyt c complex
may due to its rodlike conformation and the lower binding
constant of the RuCE5G complex may arise from partial charge
compensation occurring between the oppositely charged portions of the metal peptide as they are brought closer together
in the hairpin structure. These results demonstrated how gated
ET experiments can be used to directly probe the dynamics
of peptide-protein complexes and how apparently subtle
changes made to the peptide sequence may produce large
changes in the dynamics of the complexes that they form.
Design of a Cd(II)-Binding Site within the Interior of
a Coiled-Coil Protein. The work from our group described
above shows how de novo designed metalloproteins and
metallopeptides can be used to study various aspects of
biological ET reactions. However, it is noted that the design
of these systems simply appended nonnative coordination
complexes, such as ruthenium pentaammine and polypyridyl
complexes, to the surfaces of these proteins in order to
facilitate these reactions.36,66,67
Recent efforts by our group have successfully incorporated
a Cys-containing metal-binding site into the hydrophobic core
of
-helical coiled-coils.27 The peptide sequence employed
in this study was based on the IEALEGK heptad repeat used
by our group in the mechanistic ET studies described
above.36,46,48,51-53 However, here the peptide sequence was
modified to contain the Cys-X-X-Cys metal-binding domain
of rubredoxin in which four Cys residues create a tetrahedral
coordination sphere for Fe2+. The computer model shown
in Figure 7 illustrates how the appropriate incorporation of
the Cys-X-X-Cys tetrad into positions 16-19 of the coiled-coil sequence places Cys residues at the hydrophobic "a"
and "d" positions of the third heptad repeat, which may result
in the creation of a rubredoxin-like metal-binding site. Energy
minimization calculations predict that binding of a Cd(II)
ion to this site will result in dihedral bond angles ranging
from 104.6
to 118.4
and Cd-S distances of ca. 2.55 Å,
which are consistent with those observed for Cd-substituted
desulforedoxins.68 From these results, a 32-mer peptide called
C16C19-GGY was prepared having the sequence

helices. Further, the intensity of
these signals increased with increasing amounts of Cd(II)
added to the solution and yielded an ellipticity ratio of [
222]/[
208] = 0.99, which falls within the range generally regarded
to indicate the presence of a coiled-coil structure.57
The aggregation state of the metal-peptide assembly was
studied by HPSEC, which has been shown to be a reliable
method for determining the oligomerization states of
-helical coiled-coils.50 In these experiments, the elution profile
of C16C19-GGY was obtained in both the absence and
presence of Cd(II) and then compared with those of several
peptide standards. The results indicate that the apopeptide
has an apparent molecular mass of 3.3 kDa, which shows
that it exists as a monomer. However, the behavior of the
Cd-peptide yields an apparent molecular mass of 5.3 kDa,
which indicates that the metalloprotein exists as a peptide
dimer. These results show that the C16C19-GGY peptide
undergoes a metal-induced folding process from a monomeric random coil to the organized structure of a two-stranded
-helical coiled-coil upon binding Cd(II). The
metal-peptide stoichiometry of the dimeric peptide was
studied by UV-vis spectroscopy because a UV absorption
band at 238 nm is observed upon the addition of Cd(II) to a
solution of C16C19. This band is assigned to the ligand-to-metal charge-transfer (LMCT) transition of the newly formed
Cd-S bond.69 A Job plot was constructed by measuring the
absorbance at 238 nm as a function of the mole fraction of
Cd(II) present in solution and demonstrated the existence of
a 2:1 peptide-metal complex. These results were supported
by spectrophotometric titrations in which the absorption
intensity at 238 nm was seen to increase with successive
additions of CdCl2, reaching a limiting value at higher
concentrations of added Cd(II) (Figure 9). As seen, the plot
has a break at 0.5 equiv of Cd(II) added per peptide to further
indicate the presence of a 2:1 peptide-metal complex.
In summary, the incorporation of the Cys-X-X-Cys metal-binding motif into the sequence of the C16C19-GGY
apopeptide causes the peptide to exist as a monomeric
random coil in free solution. However, the peptide then
assembles into a metal-bridged coiled-coil dimer upon
binding Cd(II). This behavior is reminiscent of that observed
for the copper chaperone HAH1, which forms a metal-bridged dimer in the presence of Cu(I),70,71
Metal-Specific Protein-Folding Properties of C16C19-GGY. The observation that C16C19-GGY undergoes a
Cd(II)-induced conformational change from a random coil
to a two-stranded coiled-coil prompted further investigation
of the metal-binding properties of this peptide.75 New CD
results show that the random-coil C16C19-GGY peptide
monomer folds into an
-helical coiled-coil when in the
presence of such soft metal ions as Hg(II), Cu(I), Au(I), and
Ag(I) but continues to exist as a disordered random coil in
show that binding of the various
soft metal ions to C16C19-GGY results in a significant
variation of the helical content of the resulting metalloproteins. Perhaps more dramatically, the oligomerization states
of these different metalloproteins were determined by HPSEC
and range in size from being peptide dimers for the Cd(II)
and Hg(II) adducts to peptide hexamers for the Au(I)-protein. The binding of Cu(I) and Ag(I) to C16C19-GGY
produces the intermediate case of peptide tetramers, which
in the case of the Cu(I) adduct has been verified by analytical
ultracentrifugation.28 Interestingly, no obvious trend with
ionic radii is observed because binding of the largest ion in
the series [Au(I)] is seen to form the largest peptide oligomer
but the comparably sized Ag(I) and Hg(II) ions produce
peptide tetramers and dimers, respectively. Thus, the binding
of different metal ions to the C16C19-GGY peptides
produces significant differences in the conformational properties of the resulting C16C19-GGY holoproteins. Interpreted
within Pecoraro's TRI paradigm,15 these results indicate that
the C16C19-GGY peptide does not have a strong preference
for a particular coiled-coil geometry and that the coordination
properties of the different metal ions strongly influence the
conformation of the resulting metalloprotein.
Binding of Cu(I) To Create a Luminescent Coiled-Coil
Metalloprotein. Our studies of the Cu(I) adduct of C16C19-GGY led to the interesting observation of an intense (
=
0.053) ambient temperature luminescence centered at 600
nm, which persists upon allowing the protein to stand
overnight under ambient conditions.28 It was found that this
luminescence can be quenched by the addition of either
ferricyanide, oxygen, or urea to respectively indicate that
the emitting species is associated with the reduced Cu(I) state,
has significant triplet character, and is quenched upon
exposure to the bulk solvent. It is noteworthy that similar
photoluminescent properties have been reported for Cu(I)
derivatives of the Cys-rich metal-binding protein metallothionein76,77
The metal-binding stoichiometry of the Cu-protein was
therefore determined by monitoring the various spectral
changes that can be observed upon the addition of Cu(I).
The data in Figure 10 show that the emission intensity of
CuI-C16C19-GGY increases with increasing amounts of
Cu(I) added to the solution of peptide but saturates after ca.
0.9 equiv of metal ion has been added. As with the
oligomerization state of the Cu(I) adduct of C16C19-GGY,
which exists as a peptide tetramer, this behavior is in marked
contrast to that previously observed for the Cd(II)-protein
and indicates that 4 equiv of Cu(I) is present in this new
peptide tetramer. UV titrations were used to confirm these
results because the binding of Cu(I) to Cys residues is known
to produce both Cys-thiolate to Cu(I) LMCT and metal-centered (MC) transitions in the UV region of the spectrum.83,84
The nature of the multinuclear Cu center was characterized by X-ray absorption spectroscopy.28 The Cu K-edge X-ray absorption near-edge structure spectrum of CuI-C16C19-GGY showed the existence of Cu(I) ions having a trigonal coordination geometry, and extended X-ray absorption fine structure analysis suggested that each Cu(I) ion was surrounded by a ligand set consisting of one N/O and two S donors at average distances of 1.89(2) and 2.22(2) Å, respectively. The data also revealed the presence of additional scatterers in the second and third coordination sphere of the Cu centers, indicating the presence of a tetranuclear Cu cluster in which adjacent Cu(I) ions are bridged by the side chains of two Cys residues and each Cu atom also has a terminal N/O ligand. This model is consistent with the titration of free thiol groups with 5,5'-dithiobis(2-nitrobenzoic acid), which confirmed the presence of one free thiol group per peptide chain in the metalloprotein. Figure 11 shows a likely model of CuI-C16C19-GGY.
| Figure 11 Computer-generated model of the tetrameric CuI-C16C19-GGY metalloprotein. |
Photoinduced ET Involving the CuI-C16C19-GGY
Metalloprotein. The strong room temperature luminescence
of CuI-C16C19-GGY suggests that it might function as a
photoinduced ET protein, which can be monitored by
emission-lifetime experiments. As a control, Figure 12 shows
that the emission lifetime of this species can be accurately
fit to double-exponential decay kinetics (eq 1), in which AS,
kS and AL, kL are the amplitudes and rate constants of the

S = 1.1
s), kL = 1.3 × 105 s-1 (
L = 7.7
s), and AS/AL = 1, where
L and
S are the emission lifetimes
of their respective components. These results suggest that
the CuI4S4(N/O)4 cofactor of CuI-C16C19-GGY contains two
independent lumophores, and it is speculated that the two
emissive sites of this protein might be due to the presence
of two electronically independent Cu(I)-Cu(I) dimers located
within the CuI4S4(N/O)4 cofactor. However, additional explanations for this cannot be ruled out at this time.
Importantly, the data shown in Figure 12 also show that
both lifetime components of this protein are quenched in the
presence of the electron acceptor [Ru(NH3)5Py]3+ where Py
= pyridine, and it has been shown that this behavior is
accompanied by an increased absorption at 400 nm to
indicate the formation of the reduced [Ru(NH3)5Py]2+
quencher in a photoinduced ET event. It is further noted that
the relative amplitudes of the fast and slow emission decay
components remain approximately equal at all quencher
concentrations studied and that plots of the observed emission
decay constants
and
are linearly dependent upon
the concentration of the quencher because pseudo-first-order
quenching kinetics are observed (Figure 13). Analysis of the
data yields values for the bimolecular quenching constants
of
= (2.46 ± 0.07) × 109 M-1 s-1 and
= (1.36 ±
0.05) × 109 M-1 s-1, respectively. Together, these results
show that the luminescent polynuclear Cu center in the
synthetic metalloprotein CuI-C16C19-GGY can indeed function as a photoinduced ET protein by undergoing a bimolecular reaction with an exogenous acceptor in free solution.
In conclusion, the
-helical coiled-coil motif has served
as a robust scaffold for constructing synthetic ET metalloproteins. Early work from our group appended exogenous,
and abiotic, Ru-based redox centers to the solvent-exposed
surfaces of these proteins for intramolecular ET studies.
Recent work involved the incorporation of a more nativelike
Cu(I) redox center into the hydrophobic interior of a synthetic
protein. This work showed how the structures of the resulting
metalloproteins are controlled by the subtle interplay between
the directional bonding properties of their inorganic cofactors
and those of their protein environments. Future work from
our laboratory will continue to examine how the conformational and chemical (i.e., ET) properties of these model
proteins can be controlled by these factors. It is hoped that
knowledge gained from this work will contribute to the
expanding effort of bioinorganic chemists to prepare new
kinds of functionally active synthetic metalloproteins.
Note Added in Proof: During the editing of this manuscript our group completed a study of the driving force dependence of the rates of photoinduced ET occurring between CuI-C16C19-GGY and a series of ruthenium ammine acceptors. The results provide evidence for inverted Marcus behavior in these collisional charge separation reactions. (Hong, J.; Kharenko, O. A.; Petros, A. K.; Gibney, B. R.; Ogawa, M. Y. Angew. Chem., Int. Ed. 2006, 37, 6137-6140).
The authors thank Mikhail Tsurkan, Xianchun Zhu, Fei Xie, Elena Ptchelnikova, and Jiufeng Fan for help in preparing this manuscript. The Ohio Laboratory for Kinetic Spectrometry and Profs. M. A. J. Rodgers and F. Castellano are thanked for use of the laser facilities. This work was sponsored by NIH Grant GM61171, NSF Grant CHE-0455441, and ACS-PRF 34901-AC.
* To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: mogawa@bgsu.edu.
1. Gilardi, G.; Fantuzzi, A. Trends Biotechnol. 2001, 19, 468-476.![]()
2. Barker, P. D. Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol. 2003, 13, 490-499.![]()
3. Wittung-Stafshede, P. Acc. Chem. Res. 2002, 35, 201-208.![]()
4. Xing, G.; DeRose, V. J. Curr. Opin. Chem. Biol. 2001, 5, 196-200.
5. Lu, Y.; Berry, S. M.; Pfister, T. D. Chem. Rev. 2001, 101, 3047-3080.![]()
6. Kennedy, M. L.; Gibney, B. R. Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol. 2001, 11,
485-490.![]()
7. Baltzer, L.; Nilsson, J. Curr. Opin. Biotechnol. 2001, 12, 355-360.![]()
8. Bloom, J. D.; Meyer, M. M.; Meinhold, P.; Otey, C. R.; MacMillan,
D.; Arnold, F. H. Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol. 2005, 15, 447-452.![]()
9. Dwyer, M. A.; Looger, L. L.; Hellinga, H. W. Science 2004, 304,
1967-1971.![]()
10. Calhoun, J. R.; Nastri, F.; Maglio, O.; Pavone, V.; Lombardi, A.;
DeGrado, W. F. Biopolymers 2005, 80, 264-278.![]()
11. Lombardi, A.; Summa, C. M.; Geremia, S.; Randaccio, L.; Pavone,
V.; DeGrado, W. F. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2000, 97, 6298-6305.![]()
12. Maglio, O.; Nastri, F.; Pavone, V.; Lombardi, A.; DeGrado, W. F.
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2003, 100, 3772-3777.![]()
13. Kaplan, J.; DeGrado, W. F. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2004, 101,
11566-11570.![]()
14. Laplaza, C. E.; Holm, R. H. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2001, 123, 10255-10264.![]()
15. Ghosh, D.; Lee, K. H.; Demeler, B.; Pecoraro, V. L. Biochemistry
2005, 44, 10732-10740.![]()
16. Ghosh, D.; Pecoraro, V. L. Inorg. Chem. 2004, 43, 7902-7915.![]()
17. Lee, K. H.; Matzapetakis, M.; Mitra, S.; Neil, E.; Marsh, G.; Pecoraro,
V. L. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2004, 126, 9178-9179.![]()
18. Farrer, B. T.; Pecoraro, V. L. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2003, 100,
3760-3765.![]()
19. Matzapetakis, M.; Farrer, B. T.; Weng, T. C.; Hemmingsen, L.; Penner-Hahn, J. E.; Pecoraro, V. L. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2002, 124, 8042-8054.![]()
20. Farrer, B. T.; Pecoraro, V. L. Curr. Opin. Drug Discovery Dev. 2002,
5, 937-943.![]()
21. Farrer, B. T.; Harris, N. P.; Balchus, K. E.; Pecoraro, V. L.
Biochemistry 2001, 40, 14696-14705.![]()
22. Dieckmann, G. R.; McRorie, D. K.; Lear, J. D.; Sharp, K. A.; DeGrado,
W. F.; Pecoraro, V. L. J. Mol. Biol. 1998, 280, 897-912.![]()
23. Dieckmann, G. R.; McRorie, D. K.; Tierney, D. L.; Utschig, L. M.;
Singer, C. P.; Ohalloran, T. V.; PennerHahn, J. E.; DeGrado, W. F.;
Pecoraro, V. L. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1997, 119, 6195-6196.![]()
24. Tanaka, T.; Mizuno, T.; Fukui, S.; Hiroaki, H.; Oku, J.; Kanaori, K.;
Tajima, K.; Shirakawa, M. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2004, 126, 14023-14028.![]()
25. Kiyokawa, T.; Kanaori, K.; Tajima, K.; Koike, M.; Mizuno, T.; Oku,
J. I.; Tanaka, T. J. Pept. Res. 2004, 63, 347-353.![]()
26. Li, X. Q.; Suzuki, K.; Kanaori, K.; Tajima, K.; Kashiwada, A.; Hiroaki,
H.; Kohda, D.; Tanaka, T. Protein Sci. 2000, 9, 1327-1333.![]()
27. Kharenko, O. A.; Ogawa, M. Y. J. Inorg. Biochem. 2004, 98, 1971-1974.![]()
28. Kharenko, O. A.; Kennedy, D. C.; Demeler, B.; Maroney, M. J.;
Ogawa, M. Y. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2005, 127, 7678-7679.![]()
29. Reedy, C. J.; Gibney, B. R. Chem. Rev. 2004, 104, 617-649.![]()
30. Welch, J. T.; Kearney, W. R.; Franklin, S. J. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.
U.S.A. 2003, 100, 3725-3730.![]()
31. Kovacic, R. T.; Welch, J. T.; Franklin, S. J. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2003,
125, 6656-6662.![]()
32. Rossi, P.; Tecilla, P.; Baltzer, L.; Scrimin, P. Chem.-Eur. J. 2004,
10, 4163-4170.![]()
33. Discher, B. A.; Noy, D.; Strzalka, J.; Ye, S. X.; Moser, C. C.; Lear,
J. D.; Blasie, J. K.; Dutton, P. L. Biochemistry 2005, 44, 12329-12343.![]()
34. Noy, D.; Discher, B. A.; Rubtsov, I. V.; Hochstrasser, R. A.; Dutton,
P. L. Biochemistry 2005, 44, 12344-12354.![]()
35. Ye, S. X.; Discher, B. M.; Strzalka, J.; Xu, T.; Wu, S. P.; Noy, D.;
Kuzmenko, I.; Gog, T.; Therien, M. J.; Dutton, P. L.; Blasie, J. K.
Nano Lett. 2005, 5, 1658-1667.![]()
36. Ogawa, M. Y. In Molecular and Supramolecular Photochemistry; Ramamurthy, V., Schanze, K. S., Eds.; Marcel Dekker: New York, 1999; Vol. 4, pp 113-150.
37. Zheng, Y. J.; Case, M. A.; Wishart, J. F.; McLendon, G. L. J. Phys.
Chem. B 2003, 107, 7288-7292.![]()
38. Mutz, M. W.; Case, M. A.; Wishart, J. F.; Ghadiri, M. R.; McLendon,
G. L. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1999, 121, 858-859.![]()
39. Mutz, M. W.; McLendon, G. L.; Wishart, J. F.; Gaillard, E. R.; Corin,
A. F. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 1996, 93, 9521-9526.![]()
40. Kennedy, M. L.; Gibney, B. R. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2002, 124, 6826-6827.![]()
41. Cristian, L.; Piotrowiak, P.; Farid, R. S. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2003, 125,
11814-11815.![]()
42. Jones, G.; Vullev, V.; Braswell, E. H.; Zhu, D. J. Am. Chem. Soc.
2000, 122, 388-389.![]()
43. Fahnenschmidt, M.; Bittl, R.; Schlodder, E.; Haehnel, W.; Lubitz, W.
Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 2001, 3, 4082-4090.![]()
44. Rau, H. K.; Snigula, H.; Struck, A.; Robert, B.; Scheer, H.; Haehnel,
W. Eur. J. Biochem. 2001, 268, 3284-3295.![]()
45. Schnepf, R.; Haehnel, W.; Wieghardt, K.; Hildebrandt, P. J. Am. Chem.
Soc. 2004, 126, 14389-14399.![]()
46. Kornilova, A. Y.; Wishart, J. F.; Xiao, W. Z.; Lasey, R. C.; Fedorova,
A.; Shin, Y. K.; Ogawa, M. Y. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2000, 122, 7999-8006.![]()
47. Tyson, D. S.; Castellano, F. N. J. Phys. Chem. A 1999, 103, 10955-10960.![]()
48. Fedorova, A.; Ogawa, M. Y. Bioconjugate Chem. 2002, 13, 150-154.![]()
49. Fasman, G. D. Handbook of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Proteins, I, 3rd ed.; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, 1976.
50. Mant, C. T.; Chao, H.; Hodges, R. S. J. Chromatogr. A 1997, 791,
85-98.![]()
51. Kornilova, A. Y.; Wishart, J. F.; Ogawa, M. Y. Biochemistry 2001,
40, 12186-12192.![]()
52. Lasey, R. C.; Banerji, S. S.; Ogawa, M. Y. Inorg. Chim. Acta 2000,
300-302, 822-828.
53. Fedorova, A.; Chaudhari, A.; Ogawa, M. Y. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2003,
125, 357-362.![]()
54. Burkhard, P.; Stetefeld, J.; Strelkov, S. V. Trends Cell Biol. 2001,
11, 82-88.![]()
55. Kohn, W. D.; Hodges, R. S. Trends Biotechnol. 1998, 16, 379-389.
56. Lupas, A. Trends Biochem. Sci. 1996, 21, 375-382.![]()
57. Hodges, R. S. Biochem. Cell Biol. 1996, 74, 133-154.![]()
58. Noy, D.; Moser, C. C.; Dutton, P. L. Biochim. Biophys. Acta 2006,
1757, 90-105.![]()
59. Winkler, J. R.; Di Bilio, A. J.; Farrow, N. A.; Richards, J. H.; Gray,
H. B. Pure Appl. Chem. 1999, 71, 1753-1764.![]()
60. Wolfgang, J.; Risser, S. M.; Priyadarshy, S.; Beratan, D. N. J. Phys.
Chem. B 1997, 101, 2986-2991.![]()
61. Kurnikov, I. Private communication.
62. Fox, M. A.; Galoppini, E. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1997, 119, 5277-5285.
63. Knorr, A.; Galoppini, E.; Fox, M. A. J. Phys. Org. Chem. 1997, 10,
484-498.![]()
64. Galoppini, E.; Fox, M. A. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1996, 118, 2299-2300.
65. Liu, L.; Hong, J.; Ogawa, M. Y. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2004, 126, 50-51.![]()
66. Gray, H. B.; Winkler, J. R. Q. Rev. Biophys. 2003, 36, 341-372.![]()
67. Page, C. C.; Moser, C. C.; Dutton, P. L. Curr. Opin. Chem. Biol.
2003, 7, 551-556.![]()
68. Archer, M.; Carvalho, A. L.; Teixeira, S.; Moura, I.; Moura, J. J. G.;
Rusnak, F.; Romao, M. J. Protein Sci. 1999, 8, 1536-1545.![]()
69. Henehan, C. J.; Pountney, D. L.; Zerbe, O.; Vasak, M. Protein Sci.
1993, 2, 1756-1764.![]()
70. Wernimont, A. K.; Huffman, D. L.; Lamb, A. L.; O'Halloran, T. V.;
Rosenzweig, A. C. Nat. Struct. Biol. 2000, 7, 766-771.![]()
71. Tanchou, V.; Gas, F.; Urvoas, A.; Cougouluegne, F.; Ruat, S.;
Averseng, O.; Quemeneur, E. Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 2004,
325, 388-394.![]()
72. Urvoas, A.; Amekraz, B.; Moulin, C.; Le Clainche, L.; Stocklin, R.;
Moutiez, M. Rapid Commun. Mass Spectrom. 2003, 17, 1889-1896.
73. Urvoas, A.; Moutiez, M.; Estienne, C.; Couprie, J.; Mintz, E.; Le
Clainche, L. Eur. J. Biochem. 2004, 271, 993-1003.![]()
74. Kihlken, M. A.; Leech, A. P.; Le Brun, N. E. Biochem. J. 2002, 368,
729-739.![]()
75. Kharenko, O. Ph.D. Dissertation, Bowling Green State University, Bowling Green, OH, 2005.
76. Gasyna, Z.; Zelazowski, A.; Green, A. R.; Ough, E.; Stillman, M. J.
Inorg. Chim. Acta 1988, 153, 115-118.![]()
77. Green, A. R.; Stillman, M. J. Inorg. Chim. Acta 1994, 226, 275-283.
78. Heaton, D. N.; George, G. N.; Garrison, G.; Winge, D. R. Biochemistry
2001, 40, 743-751.![]()
79. Casasfinet, J. R.; Hu, S.; Hamer, D.; Karpel, R. L. Biochemistry 1992,
31, 6617-6626.![]()
80. Cobine, P. A.; George, G. N.; Jones, C. E.; Wickramasinghe, W. A.;
Solioz, M.; Dameron, C. T. Biochemistry 2002, 41, 5822-5829.![]()
81. Stillman, M. J. Coord. Chem. Rev. 1995, 144, 461-511.![]()
82. Ford, P. C.; Cariati, E.; Bourassa, J. Chem. Rev. 1999, 99, 3625-3647.![]()
83. Pountney, D. L.; Schauwecker, I.; Zarn, J.; Vasak, M. Biochemistry
1994, 33, 9699-9705.![]()
84. Bogumil, R.; Faller, P.; Pountney, D. L.; Vasak, M. Eur. J. Biochem.
1996, 238, 698-705.![]()
|
|
Cd(II) |
Hg(II) |
Cu(I) |
Ag(I) |
Au(I) |
|
[ |
0.99 |
1.15 |
0.97 |
1.13 |
1.04 |
|
[ |
-16 400 |
-23 900 |
-21 300 |
-27 800 |
-10 200 |
|
oligomerizationb |
dimer |
dimer |
tetramer |
tetramer |
hexamer |
a Measured upon the addition of equimolar amounts of metal ion (CdCl2, HgCl2, [Cu(CH3CN)4]PF6, AgNO3, and sodium aurothiomalate) and C16C19-GGY in sodium acetate buffer (pH 5.5).b Measured by HPSEC as described in the text.