Looking then at the trends towards inter/intrasubunit ion pairs, PfCS100 has the most interfacial ion pairs but both ArCS31 and pigCS37 have more intrasubunit interactions than the TaCS5
Trang 1Stepwise adaptations of citrate synthase to survival at
life’s extremes
From psychrophile to hyperthermophile
Graeme S Bell1, Rupert J M Russell2, Helen Connaris2, David W Hough1, Michael J Danson1
and Garry L Taylor1,2
1 Centre for Extremophile Research, Department of Biology and Biochemistry, University of Bath, UK; 2 Centre for Biomolecular Sciences, University of St Andrews, St Andrews, UK
The crystal structure of citrate synthase from the
thermo-philic Archaeon Sulfolobus solfataricus (optimum growth
temperature¼ 85 C) has been determined, extending the
number of crystal structures of citrate synthase from
differ-ent organisms to a total of five that span the temperature
range over which life exists (from psychrophile to
hyper-thermophile) Detailed structural analysis has revealed
possible molecular mechanisms that determine the different
stabilities of the five proteins The key to these mechanisms is
the precise structural location of the additional interactions
As one ascends the temperature ladder, the subunit interface
of this dimeric enzyme and loop regions are reinforced by complexelectrostatic interactions, and there is a reduced exposure of hydrophobic surface These observations reveal
a progressive pattern of stabilization through multiple additional interactions at solvent exposed, loop and inter-facial regions
Keywords: citrate synthase; Sulfolobus; citrate synthase; thermostability; crystal structure; ion networks
Comparative structural analysis of the same protein isolated
from mesophiles and thermophiles have highlighted many
structural adaptations that confer protein thermostability
[1–6] The importance of electrostatic interactions at specific
locations within the structure, and particularly the presence
of ion-pair networks, is a feature that is common to almost
all the hyperthermophilic proteins [7–10], although many
other additional differences such as improved hydrophobic
packing, compactness and additional hydrogen bonds have
been observed in other proteins
For our analysis we have chosen the enzyme citrate
synthase (CS) (EC 4.1.3.7), which catalyses the
condensa-tion of oxaloacetate and acetyl-CoA to form citrate and
CoA The enzyme from psychrophilic, mesophilic and
thermophilic sources has been intensively studied both
kinetically [11–13] and structurally [3,14] Crystal structures
exist for CS from a psychrophilic Antarctic bacterium
Arthrobacter strain DS2-3R (growth optimum ¼ 31 C)
[15], pig (37C) [16], and the Archaea Thermoplasma
acidophilum(55C) [17] and Pyrococcus furiosus (100 C)
[18] To extend our previous studies we have chosen the
organism Sulfolobus solfataricus, a thermophilic Archaeon
that optimally grows at 85C The gene for Sulfolobus
solfataricus CS has been cloned and sequenced [19], and
over-expressed in E coli The purified recombinant protein
exists as a homodimer of Mr¼ 81,000, with each monomer
comprising 379 amino acids The following abbreviations
will be used for the CSs, including their optimal growth
temperatures: Arthrobacter: ArCS(31), pig: PigCS(37),
T acidolphilum: TpCS(55), S solfataricus: ScCS(85), and
P furiosus: PfCS(100)
The structure of unliganded SsCS(85) reported in this paper can now be entered into the temperature ladder of CS structures, and fills in the gap between the 55C and 100 C enzymes SixCS crystal structures from five host organisms (Table 1) can now be used for comparative analysis in order
to identify some of the structural features that could confer (hyper)thermostability in this enzyme family As can be seen from Table 1, the organisms span the range of temperatures at which life is known to exist, and the inherent stability of each CS, from in vitro measured half-lives of thermal inactivation [19–21], increases with the optimum growth temperature of the host cells The structure
of the SsCS(85) is thus discussed in comparison with the other CS structures, and trends in structural changes are correlated with the increasing thermal stabilities across the homologous series of enzymes In terms of thermostability, the enzymes fall into two broad classes based on the temperature at which the half-life equals 8 min: the psychro-phile and pig enzymes at the lower end with temperatures of
45C and 58 C, and the archaeal enzymes at the upper end with temperatures of 87C, 95 C and 100 C
M A T E R I A L S A N D M E T H O D S
Crystallization and structure solution Recombinant SsCS(85) was purified as described previously [19] Crystallization trials were carried out using the hanging-drop vapour diffusion method using the Hampton Research Screens A single rod-like crystal of approximate dimensions 2· 0.1 · 0.1 mm grew in a 6-lL drop contain-ing 2 lL SsCS(85) (10 mgÆmL)1) with 10 m citrate and
Correspondence to G Taylor, Centre for Biomolecular Sciences,
University of St Andrews, St Andrews, KY16 9ST, UK.
E-mail: glt2@st-and.ac.uk
(Received 3 July 2002, revised 8 October 2002,
accepted 4 November 2002)
Trang 2CoA, 2 lL of 100 mM Tris/HCl, pH 7.2, containing 17%
(v/v) PEG 8K, and 2 lL of 0.1MCaCl2 The crystal grew in
a partially dried out drop after sixmonths X-ray data were
collected at room temperature on a 30-cm Mar image plate
detector Diffraction extended to 2.7 A˚ resolution The
crystal was translated stepwise perpendicular to the beam to
maximize the completeness of the data and to overcome
radiation damage of the crystal The data were reduced and
scaled using DENZO/SCALEPACK[22] (Table 2) The
asym-metric unit of the P21unit cell contains two dimers with a
solvent content of 51% The structure of SsCS(85) was
solved by molecular replacement using the programAMORE
[23] Because the crystallization solutions contained both
citrate and CoA, it was assumed that the closed form of
SsCS(85) had crystallized; therefore, initial attempts were
made to solve the structure using the closed structures of
PfCS(100) or ArCS(31) as the search model, but this did not
produce any clear solutions Attempts were subsequently
made using the open structure of the TaCS(55) dimer as the
search model Using data in the resolution range of 15–6 A˚
and a Patterson integration radius of 25 A˚, 50 solutions
from the rotation function were calculated Using the same
resolution range for the translation search, the top solution
(33rd highest from the rotation search) had a correlation
coefficient (CC) of 32.0 and R-factor of 53.4% (compared
with the next highest peak with a background CC of 23 and
R-factor of 56%) This solution was fixed, and a solution for the second dimer in the asymmetric unit was identified (CC of 37.7% and R-factor of 51.9%, compared to the next highest peak of 31 and 53%, respectively) After a rigid-body refinement in AMORE of the two dimers, the final solutions had a CC of 56.6 and R-factor of 41.3% The failure to find a solution using the closed form of the homologous enzyme, but a clear solution with the open forms, strongly suggested that the SsCS(85) had unexpect-edly crystallised in the open, unliganded form
Refinement and validation The restrained refinement of SsCS(85) was performed using REFMAC [24] The initial R-factor in REFMAC (after rigid body refinement) was 48.3% (Rfree ¼ 48.6%) and final R-factor of 20.8% (Rfree¼ 28.5%) for all data from 20.0 A˚
to 2.7 A˚
1,2 Tight non crystallographic symmetry (NCS) restraints for both main-chain and side-chain were used initially and sixcycles of refinement carried after which the R-factor was 36.3% (Rfree ¼ 40.5%) Keeping the tight NCS restraints, individual isotropic B-factor refinement was then carried out, bringing the R-factor down to 24.7% (Rfree 31.2%), after which the NCS restraints were gradually loosened and the four monomers were built independently NCS restraints were controlled in PROTINand, during the refinement procedure, side-chain followed by main-chain restraints were gradually loosened, with a final round removing the NCS restraints continuing to lower the Rfree value
The first two residues at the N-terminus and last seven residues of the C-terminal arm were not seen in the poorly defined electron density of these parts of the structure in all four monomers One conflict with the sequence data was residue 57, which had been assigned as arginine and was found from analysis of the electron density map to be a proline (this is a totally conserved proline in all the other known CSs) The position of the small domain with respect
to the large domain in SsCS(85) is the same as previously observed in TaCS(55) [17]; this together with the absence of density for substrates in the active site, supports the previous speculation that the structure is the open form of the enzyme After 24 rounds of refinement inREFMAC, the final R-factor was 20.8% (Rfree¼ 28.5%) (Table 2) The quality
of the final electron density is shown in Fig 1
Table 2 Table displaying native data collected and refinement statistics
for the SsCS Data in parentheses correspond to the high resolution
data shell (2.82–2.71 A˚).
Unit cell dimensions a ¼ 77.3 A˚, b ¼ 97.9 A˚,
c ¼ 119.3 A˚, b ¼ 107.6
Resolution limit 2.7 A˚
Data completeness 88.6% (91.2%)
Total No of reflections 148169
Unique reflections 46758
Free R-factor 28.5%
No protein atoms 11 742
Rmsd bond lengths (A˚) 0.009
Rmsd bond angles () 0.032
Table 1 CS structures used for analysis.
Source
organism
Optimum growth temperature (C)
CS
Temperature (C) at which the half-life equals 8 min
Substrates in crystal structure
Data resolution (A˚)
Citrate and CoA
2.7 2.0
Pyrococcus furiosus 100 100 Citrate & CoA 1.9
a
It should be noted that, although Arthrobacter DS23R was isolated from a habitat temperature of approximately 0 C, this organism displays a relatively high optimum growth temperature; therefore, although it is described here as psychrophilic, it should perhaps more correctly be referred to as psychrotolerant.
Trang 3The Ramachandran plot shows that for the four
mono-mers in the asymmetric unit, 91.3% of residues lie in the
most favoured regions, with only 8.7% in the allowed
regions and no residues appearing in the generously allowed
or disallowed regions (excluding glycine and proline
residues) Atomic coordinates have been deposited in the
Protein Databank with accession code 107x
R E S U L T S
Overall structural comparisons
All the eukaryotic
4 , archaeal and Gram-positive bacteria CSs
are homo-dimeric structures with each monomer consisting
of a large and small domain In addition, they are almost
entirely a-helical; the pigCS contains 20 a-helices (A-T) with
the enzyme from ArCS(31), TaCS(55), SsCS(85) and
PfCS(100) containing 16 a-helices, all of which have an
equivalent in pigCS (helices A, B, H, and T are not present)
(Figs 2 and 3) Of the 16 equivalent helices, the large domain
comprises 11 helices (C-M and S) and the small domain five
helices (N-R) The small domain has been classed as
residues 217–321 inclusive for SsCS(85)
The active sites of CSs comprise residues from both
monomers and therefore CS is only active as a dimer,
stressing the importance of maintaining dimeric integrity as a
prerequisite for activity Binding of citrate and CoA to the
active site has been discussed in detail for PfCS(100) and
ArCS(31), and the differences with respect to the pig enzyme
noted [15,18] The SsCS(85) structure has no substrate
bound, but the location of active site residues can be
identified by comparison with the liganded PfCS(100)
structure The citrate-binding residues comprising three
arginine residues, R267 (helixP), R338 (helixS) and R358¢
(where the prime denotes the residue of the second
mono-mer), and three histidine residues, H183 (loop K-L), H218
(loop M-N) and H258 (loop O-P), are equivalent to those
found in PfCS(100) The binding residues for the three
Fig 2 Structurally based sequence alignment of the five CSs discussed Helices A to T are shaded, and the location of the small domain is indicated by lowercase sequence letters The three catalytic residues are indicated by fl The three arginines and histidines involved in binding citrate are marked with a C The residues involved in binding the three phosphates of CoA are marked with an A The sequence numbering is shown at the start of each line.
Fig 1 Stereo-diagram showing a typical region of the final 2Fo-Fc electron density map contoured at 1 r.
Trang 4phosphate groups of CoA are likely to be K250 (loop O-P)
and K306 (loop Q-R), R259 and K262 (both loop O-P), with
the third phosphate being co-ordinated by R355¢ from the
second monomer The catalytic residues H218, H258 and
D313 (loop Q-R) are also present in SsCS(85) and are in
a similar position to the PfCS(100) residues It is likely
therefore that SsCS(85) binds substrates in a similar man-ner to PfCS(100) and that the mechanism of catalysis is the same
The dimer interface of all the CSs is made up of two parts and comprises residues solely in the large domain; the main part is the eight a-helical sandwich of four antiparallel pairs
of helices (F, G, M and L), with the second being the additional interaction of N- and C-terminal regions (Fig 3) The pigCS is different from the other four CSs in terms of the topology of the C-terminal region In the other four, the C-terminal arm of one monomer wraps around the other monomer, clasping the two together [18], and results in more extensive interactions, including those with the N-terminus It is important to note that as the C-terminal arms of the TaCS(55) and SsCS(85) are not complete in the structures (see below), there may be additional interactions present that have not been observed This also suggests that the C-terminal arm seems to be ordered only in the presence
of substrates
Sequence and structural statistics Pairwise sequence alignments were carried out using the programBESTFITfrom the WisconsinGCGsequence analysis package, and superposition was carried out using the least squares fit in O [25] for fitting of alpha-carbon atoms (starting from three conserved atoms) These statistics are listed in Table 3
Sequence identities between the various CSs for which 3D-structures have been determined range from 20% [eukaryotic
5 vs bacterial or archaeal) to 60% (SsCS(85) and TaCS(55)] These identities are reflected in the root mean square (RMS) deviations between the alpha-carbons
of the structures, with the most similar structures being the TaCS(55) and SsCS(85), and with the PfCS(100) and ArCS(31) pair also showing a very low RMS deviation As some structures are in the open conformation and some have substrates bound, the large and small domains of each enzyme were compared separately (Table 3); in general, such an analysis shows the same trend as that for the whole dimer but the small domains tend to be more highly conserved As is suggested later, this may correlate with differences particularly relating to the dimer interface, to which the small domain does not contribute, and may reflect the fact that the majority of the substrate-binding and catalytic residues are from the small domain
The molecular mechanisms underlying protein thermal stability
In our comparison of CS atomic structures from organisms spanning a wide-range of growth temperatures, the deter-mination of the SsCS(85) structure fills an important gap between the enzyme from Thermoplasma (55C) and Pyrococcus (100C) With the structure reported in this paper, we can now look for trends in the structures that might correlate with the increasing thermostabilities of these enzymes However, the complexnature of the stabilization
of a protein structure lends itself to many types of comparative analysis, and the results presented below are those where significant differences exist between the struc-tures Other types of analysis (e.g of hydrogen bonds and helixcapping) have been performed but are not included
Fig 3 Schematic drawings of CS From top to bottom: ArCS(31),
PigCS(37), TaCS(55), SsCS(85) and PfCS(100) The right hand
col-umn represent views obtained by rotating the images in the left hand
column by 90 about a horizontal axis N- and C-terminii are denoted
by blue and red spheres, respectively The small domains (helices N to
R) are coloured in a lighted shade Catalytic residues, and citrate and
Co-A where appropriate, are shown in ball-and-stick representation.
All figures were created using BOBSCRIPT [51] and GL _ RENDER (L Esser
and J Deisenhofer, unpublished results).
Trang 5due to there being no significant differences between the
different structures
Compactness and surface characteristics
The accessible surface area was calculated using the program
GRASP [26] and the volume and cavity detection were
determined using the program VOIDOO [27] with a probe
radius 1.4 A˚ and grid spacing of 0.75 A˚ All calculations for
closed structures were carried out in the absence of substrate,
and the results are summarized in Table 4
ArCS(31), TaCS(55) and PfCS(100) have very similar
surface areas, with that of SsCS(85) being slightly higher;
however, all four enzymes have a considerably smaller
surface area and volume than the pigCS(37), even when
deleting the first 35 residues from the pig enzyme (these 35
amino acids comprise helices A and B, which are absent in
the other CSs being considered) A similar pattern to the
total accessible surface area (ASA)
compar-ing the overall volume, with pigCS(37) havcompar-ing a
consider-ably larger volume than the other CSs (again, even when
calculated with the N-terminally deleted structure)
However, it is also notable that the smallest volume is
exhibited by the psychrophilic CS (8.36· 104A˚3) All the CSs have a similar percentage of atoms buried, although the hyperthermophilic Pf CS(100) exhibits the highest with 54.5%
Examination of the exposed hydrophobic area shows a more obvious trend Despite all the archaeal and bacterial CSs having a similar overall ASA, there is quite a difference
in hydrophobic exposure when comparing ArCS(31) with the other CSs; the closed conformation of the ArCS(31) has
7854 A˚2 overall exposed hydrophobic area (representing 29% of the total ASA) compared with the closed PfCS(100) with only 4942 A˚2(18% of total ASA) Thus, on average, ArCS(31) exposes 23 A˚2per hydrophobic residue compared with 16 A˚2 per hydrophobic residue in PfCS(100) The total amount (A˚2) of hydrophobic surface area shows a decrease as the thermostability of the protein increases, a trend observed in other structural comparisons [4] SsCS(85) also follows the trend observed in PfCS(100), with the elimination of all cavities capable of accommodating a solvent molecule, indicating that this is a prerequisite for maintaining integrity at high temperatures The number of internal cavities (and their total volumes in A˚2calculated by ) are 1 (104), 6 (476), 3 (218), 3 (184), 0 (0) and 0 (0)
Table 3 Overall comparison of primary and 3D structures of CSs In the top half of the table the RMS deviations between Ca atoms (in A˚) are given for complete dimers, the large domain and the small domain, with the number of contributing pairs of Ca atoms in parantheses In the bottom half
of the table, the percentage sequence identities and similarities are shown, the latter in parentheses.
Enzyme
(open)
ArCS(31) (closed) PigCS(37) PigCS(37) TaCS(55) SsCS(85) PfCS(100)
ArCS(31) – 2.27 (560) 2.12 (630) 1.97 (604) 1.94 (610) 1.32 (719)
1.74 (242) 1.53 (252) 1.57 (259) 1.07 (262) 1.79 (96) 1.59 (90) 1.51 (90) 1.27 (92) PigCS(37) (open) – – 1.19 (730) 1.95 (651) 1.88 (646) 2.15 (550)
2.16 (533) 2.08 (519) 2.04 (631) PigCS(37) (closed) 27% (50%) – – 1.81 (233) 1.79 (232) 1.84 (245)
1.60 (82) 1.55 (82) 1.49 (90)
0.87 (719) 2.03 (581) TaCS(55) 32% (54%) – 22% (48%) – 0.76 (256) 1.66 (247)
0.76 (104) 1.02 (95) SsCS(85) 34% (55%) – 27% (50%) 59% (76%) – 1.94 (597)
1.53 (245) 1.03 (96) PfCS(100) 40% (58%) – 31% (53%) 42% (62%) 46% (67%) –
Table 4 Accessible surface area (ASA) and volume statistics of CSs.
CS
ArCS(31) (closed)
PigCS(37) (open)
PigCS(37) (closed)
PigCS(37) (closed, N-terminally deleted)
TaCS(55) (open)
SsCS(85) (open)
PfCS(100) (closed)
ASA ( · 10 4 A˚ 2 ) 2.72 3.34 3.20 2.99 2.72 2.82 2.72
No of atoms calculated for 5784 6888 6884 6344 5722 5879 5961
No of atoms buried 3044 3469 3601 3307 2955 3014 3248 Atoms buried (%) 52.6 50.4 52.3 52.1 51.6 51.3 54.5 Volume ( · 10 4
Total area hydrophobic exposed (A˚2) 7854 6654 6246 – 6001 5513 4942
Trang 6for ArCS(31), PigCS(37) open, PigCS(37) closed, TaCS(55),
SsCS(85) and PfCS(100), respectively
The subunit interface: ion pairs, hydrophobicity
and complementarity
Ion pairs were classed as residues of opposite charge
situated 4.0 A˚ or less apart [28] Looking simply at the total
numbers of ion pairs, it can be seen that all the thermophilic
CSs have a greater total number of ion pairs than the pig
enzyme, but that the psychrophilic enzyme actually has the
greatest number of all (Table 5) Looking then at the trends
towards inter/intrasubunit ion pairs, PfCS(100) has the
most interfacial ion pairs but both ArCS(31) and pigCS(37)
have more intrasubunit interactions than the TaCS(55) and
SsCS(85), and therefore the location of these ionic
inter-actions may be particularly relevant
With respect to the ionic interactions at the dimer
interface (Fig 4), the five CSs show considerable variation
Interactions in the pig enzyme are all unique with respect
to the other CSs and involve residues near the termini and
outer helices (F and L) of the eight-helical sandwich; the
central helices of the dimer interface have no ionic
interactions associated with them In marked contrast,
the other four CSs all have ionic interactions associated
with the two internal helices of the interface (G and M) as
well as those involved with the N-terminus and the
C-terminal arm Firstly, with respect to the interfacial helices,
one completely conserved ionic interaction in ArCS(31),
TaCS(55), SsCS(85) and PfCS(100) is that between a
conserved aspartate at the N-terminal end of helixM with
a lysine at the C-terminal end of helixM in the other
subunit (D205 and K218 in TaCS) The lysine residue is
not conserved in the pig enzyme This leads to a single ion
pair at each end of helixM in TaCS(55), whereas in
SsCS(85) there is an additional salt bridge in close
proximity with the first one, between E89 (loop F-G) of
one monomer and K108 at the C-terminal end of helixG
in the other; thus in SsCS(85) both central helices have ion
pairs at either end In PfCS(100), the G-M interhelical
electrostatic interactions are even more pronounced than
in either TaCS(55) or SsCS(85), with a five-residue ionic
network comprising H93 and R99 (helixG) and D113 in
loop G-I, in addition to the above-mentioned Asp-Lys pair
Interestingly, in the psychrophilic ArCS(31) the first Asp-Lys ion pair is part of a four-residue network (in conjunction with D95 and R98, both in helixG) The four residue network in ArCS(31) only comprises two single interactions directly across the interface, whereas the PfCS(100) five-residue network has four such interactions This would suggest that the PfCS(100) networks contri-bute considerably more to the intermolecular interactions than they do in the psychrophilic enzyme Even so, the psychrophilic enzyme does have an intersubunit ionic network, which may be related to cold-stability in the face
of diminished hydrophobic interactions at very low temperatures [15] The ionic interactions at the central helices G and M of the five CS structures are shown in Fig 5
The nature of the dimer interface of SsCS(85) differs from PfCS(100) in that there is a higher degree of hydrophobic interactions (Table 6) Similar levels to those in SsCS(85) are also observed in TaCS(55) All the thermophilic CSs show a low value for the gap volume index, the ratio of the gap volume to the accessible surface area of the interface, an indication that these proteins exhibit greater surface com-plementarity at the interface compared with ArCS(31) and pigCS(37)
Finally, examining the part of the dimer interface near the active site, all the archaeal CSs and the ArCS(31) have ionic interactions that also tend to stabilize the N-terminus; however, PfCS(100) certainly has the most extensive ionic interactions with two four-residue networks (E189,D12, R356¢ and R358¢) and two single ion pairs (E11-R353¢) A cluster of sixisoleucines, three from each monomer, was observed in this region for PfCS(100) [18], indicative of a strong hydrophobic interaction in this region Two of the three isoleucines are conserved in TaCS(55) and SsCS(85), residues 15 and 357, suggesting a similar role in these enzymes
Ionic interactions at the termini Ionic interactions may also be important for prevention of fraying of the N- and C-termini; several of these interactions
Table 5 Total number of ion pairs and ion pair networks in CS A and B refer to the two subunits of the dimer.
ArCS(31)
PigCS(37) (closed) TaCS(55) SsCS(85) PfCS(100)
Intra A networks
Inter AB networks
Trang 7interlink the two terminal regions, and therefore they may have additional relevance to the strength of the subunit interactions The lengths of the C-terminal arms vary, with ArCS(31) being sixresidues shorter than those of PfCS(100) and TaCS(55), and five shorter than SsCS(85) ArCS(31) has fewer interactions of the C-terminal arm with the other monomer than the three thermophilic CSs (including one ion pair that appears to anchor the end of the arm: R375-E48¢ in PfCS(100)) R375 and E48 are conserved in TaCS(55) and SsCS(85) suggesting the likelihood of this ion pair being present at their C-termini ArCS(31) also has
an arginine residue (R375) which interacts with E56¢ but, as this residue is four residues from the end of the C-terminus, there may be more chance of fraying of this terminal arm in the psychrophile Both N-termini in PfCS(100) also have an interconnecting ion pair (K8-D16¢) but this is a three residue interaction in ArCS(31) (K7, D15¢ and D359¢) SsCS(85) also has several terminal interactions (E9,R259 and R355¢) but TaCS(55) does not
Loop regions: length and ionic interactions
It has previously been suggested that loop regions tend to be the most flexible regions within a protein, and are therefore often the first areas to be subject to proteolytic cleavage or heat denaturation [29] It is possible therefore that increased thermostability may be achieved by shortening loops or by additional interactions stabilizing these regions
The equivalent loop regions of the five CSs have therefore been compared (several extra loops are present in the pig enzyme) Although some of the differences in loop conformations (particularly near the active site) may be due to the open or closed nature of the structures, it is immediately obvious on comparison of the ionic interac-tions that there is considerable difference between the five enzymes There is a distinct absence of ionic interactions in the loops of the pig enzyme, with the thermophilic and psychrophilic CSs showing more extensive interactions Many of these ionic interactions are involved with the dimer interface as well as those that interconnect one loop region with another, thus possibly pinning loops together The total number of ionic interactions present within the loop and dimer interface regions of the five CSs is: ArCS(31) 12, pigCS(37) 8, TpCS(55) 16, SsCS(85) 24 and PfCS(100) 18 As in evident, the thermophilic CSs have the highest number of these interactions, with SsCS(85) having the most However, the interactions in PfCS(100) tend to
be more complex, perhaps affording a greater degree of stabilization in particular areas of the protein structure; also, as detailed below, the PfCS(100) often has the shortest loops, reducing the need for a large number of ionic interactions in those specific regions The results for individual loops are:
Loop E-F The loop in pigCS(37) is one residue shorter than in ArCS(31), SsCS(85), and PfCS(100), and two residues shorter than TaCS(55), but the loops superimpose
Fig 4 Residues involved in ion-pair interactions at the dimer interface Spheres are drawn for at the Ca atoms of acidic (red) and basic (blue) side-chains involved in intersubunit ionic interactions From top to bottom: ArCS(31), PigCS(37), TaCS(55), SsCS(85) and PfCS(100).
Trang 8well and there are no ionic interactions in pigCS(37)
compared with a single ion pair in ArCS(31) TaCS(55)
has a four residue intramolecular network and SsCS(85) has
a five residue network that involves a residue at the
N-terminal end of the loop
Loop I-J All the enzymes have similarly large loops but
there are no ion pairs in pigCS(37) with one ion pair in
TaCS(55) ArCS(31), SsCS(85) and PfCS(100) all have
multiple ionic interactions linking loops I-J and J-K
Loop J-K The loop in pigCS(37) is slightly shorter than the
others and contains no interactions, whilst the TaCS(55)
loop has an ion pair ArCS(31), SsCS(85) and PfCS(100)
have interactions linking this loop with the previous loop I-J
Loop N-O This appears to be a long and flexible loop in
ArCS(31) and contains sixcharged residues, but no ion
pairs PigCS(37) also has a longer and more extended loop
than SsCS(85) and TaCS(55) (which both contain ion pairs)
and PfCS(100) has the shortest loop
Loop O-P Although not obvious from the length of loops
as designated byPROMOTIF[30], the loop in the pig enzyme
is considerably more extended than the others ArCS(31),
pigCS(37) and PfCS(100) all have single ion pairs
stabilizing this loop (the interaction in the pigCS(37) loop
links it to loop B-C), with TaCS(55) and SsCS(85) loops
having multiple ionic interactions that link loops O-P and
K-L
Loop P-Q TaCS(55) and SsCS(85) loops both contain ionic interactions In the case of SsCS(85), this is in the form
of a three residue network linking it with loop J-K This loop is absent in PfCS(100)
Loop Q-R This loop is shortest in ArCS(31) and it has already been suggested that the reason for this is that it seems to allow greater accessibility to the active site [15] However, recent site-directed mutagenesis studies to increase the length of this loop to mimic the situation in the PfCS(100), reveal that the cold activity of the ArCS(31)
is not significantly compromised by the mutations [31]
D I S C U S S I O N
The determination of the crystal structure of SsCS(85), and its comparison with four other CSs from organisms that essentially span the temperature range over which life exists, have allowed a detailed structural analysis to be performed
to investigate the structural mechanisms underlying protein thermal stability in this enzyme This has been possible because, in general, the 3D structures of the CSs are highly similar and we have therefore not only been able to identify specific differences, but have also succeeded in finding trends in structural changes that correlate with increasing thermostability of the individual proteins These identified structural differences are mainly concerned with the protein’s compactness, both in general and in the loop regions, and with the nature of the interactions at the dimer interface, possibly indicating that the respective protein thermostabilities are largely determined by these parts of the protein
General compactness The compactness of heat-stable proteins has often been found to be synonymous with their thermostability, and can be described in a number of ways There is a tendency towards a smaller accessible surface area and volume when comparing the thermophilic archaeal CSs with the pig-CS(37), and the tendency towards fewer cavities should also correlate with the improved hydrophobic packing of these proteins The increased complementarity of the dimer interface, as measured by the gap volume index, in the thermophilic enzymes may also be a significant feature Although the total percentage of atoms buried is similar for all the CSs, the decreased burial of hydrophobic groups
of ArCS(31) compared with the other CSs probably reflects the decreased entropic penalty of exposure of hydrophobic side-chains at psychrophilic temperatures (reviewed by [32,33])
Loop regions There is a tendency towards shorter (even absent) loop regions in the thermophilic CSs, correlating with the compactness of these proteins when compared with pig-CS(37) This trend has also been highlighted by analysis of mesophilic and thermophilic genome sequences, and was suggested to be a general strategy for thermostabilization [34] However, many of the shorter loops in the thermophilic
CS are similarly short in ArCS(31) (apart from loop N-O)
A more dramatic difference in the loops is seen in the
Fig 5 Diagram showing ionic interactions in the central helices (G and
M) of the dimer interface of ArCS, PigCS, TaCS, SsCS and PfCS.
Helices from different monomers are coloured blue and orange.
Table 6 The dimer interface of CS Statistics are calculated using the
protein–protein interactions server (Jones and Thornton, 1995) for the
CS crystal structures with the C-terminal arm removed.
ArCS
PigCS (closed) TaCS SsCS PfCS
Interface ASA ( A˚ 2 ) 3403 4934 3154 3363 3698
% of total ASA 21.0 24.0 19.0 19.8 22.6
% polar atoms 34.8 37.8 32.6 32.3 39.2
% nonpolar atoms 65.2 62.2 67.4 67.7 60.8
Hydrogen bonds 44 42 24 28 54
Gap volume ( A˚3) 10591 17164 6474 8474 9605
Gap volume index1.52 1.74 1.03 1.26 1.29
Trang 9comparison of the ionic interactions in these regions: very
few are present in pigCS(37), but a large number occur in
the archaeal and bacterial proteins, with the thermophilic
CSs, particularly SsCS(85), having the most extensive
networks that cross-link loop regions A significant increase
in the number of long-range (in sequence terms) electrostatic
interactions is also observed in SsCs(85) and PfCS(100),
where they serve to tether different parts of the structure
together This compares with the observations of
b-glyco-sidase from S solfataricus [35], which was shown to have
ionic interactions (specifically networks) over the surface
of the protein such that they cross-linked areas of
surface structure Similarly, a mutational analysis of the
hyperthermostable indoleglycerol-phosphate synthase from
T maritima, in which an ion-pair linking two a-helices was
disrupted, resulted in a less stable protein [36]
Ionic interactions and hydrophobicity
at the subunit interface
The archaeal and bacterial CSs have a higher total number
of ionic interactions than the pigCS(37), which in fact
exhibits the lowest percentage participation of charged
residues in ion pairs or networks of the five enzymes in the
comparison The psychrophilic ArCS(31) actually has the
most ionic interactions, which we have suggested may be
related to cold stability [15], but with respect to subunit
association, PfCS(100) has the most extensive interactions
across the dimer interface whilst ArCS(31) has more than
either TaCS(55) or SsCS(85)
The eight-helical sandwich part of the dimer interface
shows a definite trend towards increasing hydrophobicity
going from ArCS(31) and pigCS(37) to TaCS(55) and
SsCS(85), and this may be indicative of the increasing
strength of the hydrophobic interaction with temperature,
at least to temperatures approaching 100C [37] PfCS(100)
also has a greater degree of hydrophobicity in this region
than ArCS(31) and pigCS(37) but lower than the other two
thermophilic CSs, and this may be compensated by the
more extensive ionic interactions in the hyperthermophilic
protein That is, the ionic interactions in the central helices
(G and M) of the eight-helical sandwich also show an
increase from none in pigCS(37), two single ion-pairs in
TaCS(55), four single ion-pairs in SsCS(85) and the two
five-residue networks in PfCS(100) ArCS(31) also has two
four-residue networks here, but these seem to be less
extensive than those in PfCS(100) (with fewer interactions
actually across the interface) PfCS(100) also has the
additional two four-residue networks near the active site
region (with the other archaeal and bacterial enzymes
displaying interactions to a lesser degree) as well as the
isoleucine cluster [18] which is partly conserved in TaCS(55)
and SsCS(85), again suggesting a better hydrophobic
packing than with either the mesophilic or psychrophilic
enzyme
Finally, the parts of the dimer interface associated with
both termini seem to be stabilized by ionic interactions
particularly in the PfCS(100), but also to some degree in
ArCS(31) and SsCS(85)
These conclusions with respect to the ionic interactions at
the subunit interface and termini are supported by
muta-genesis studies [38] Analysis of chimeric mutants between
the TaCS(55) and PfCS(100), where the large and small
domains were swapped, demonstrated that the determinants
of thermostability lie mainly with the large (subunit contact) domain, possibly correlating with the trend of increasing ionic interactions that are seen at the subunit interface as the thermostability of the enzyme increases Additionally, mutagenesis of the PfCS(100) where we have disrupted the ionic network at the subunit interface, and have removed the C-terminal ionic interaction, support the role
of these electrostatic bonds in the stability of the enzyme In nearly all cases, the catalytic parameters of the mutants were not significantly different from the wild-type enzyme, supporting the contention that we have not grossly altered the structure of the enzyme but have merely disrupted stabilizing ionic interactions
The importance of electrostatic interactions and their precise location to stabilizing proteins has been shown in other crystal structures of (hyper)thermostable proteins, as discussed in the recent review by Karshikoff and Ladenstein [10] The most striking examples include glutamate dehy-drogenase [39–41], glyceraldehyde 3-phosphate dehydro-genase [42,43] and lumazine synthase [44] Again, the electrostatic strengthening of the intersubunit contacts is a common theme in these proteins Finally, computational analyses [7,45,46] and genomic comparisons [8,9,47] add further support to these findings
Concluding remarks The importance of the determination of the structure of the SsCS(85) is principally that it completes a series of CS structures from which we are now able to identify trends in the structures of CSs that appear to be correlated with the different degrees of thermostability Our findings correlate well with the growing number of studies that conclude that ionic interactions stabilizing crucial areas of structure are perhaps the most common
proteins at high temperatures, particularly for oligomeric proteins Recent thermodynamic studies on a mesophilic and thermophilic pair of CheY proteins, have suggested that
a reduced change in heat capacity upon unfolding is a possible indicator of thermostability [48], also supported by studies on a mesophilic and thermophilic pair of Rnase H proteins [49] These studies suggest that it may be difficult to dissect the contributions of individual interactions to thermostability This may be true for small monomeric proteins such as CheY and RnaseH, but for oligomeric proteins that make up > 85% of intracellular proteins, the nature of the oligomer interface is key Ionic networks at interfaces, however, are not the exclusive means of gaining thermostability, as the tetrameric triosephosphate isomerase structure from P furiosus has shown [50] Nevertheless, for the family of CSs presented here, increased ionic interac-tions either between loops or at the dimer interface do appear to correlate with increasing thermostability The results presented here lay the foundation for a suite of site-directed mutagenesis experiments to investigate the precise role of each of the sets of individual interactions in the five dimeric CSs Preliminary experiments that remove interac-tions and destabilize the enzyme without affecting catalytic activity have already been successfully carried out, but the real proof of their importance is now to introduce ionic bonds and networks into the less stable CSs to increase their thermostability
Trang 10A C K N O W L E D G E M E N T S
This work was supported by the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences
Research Council.
R E F E R E N C E S
1 Russell, R.J & Taylor, G.L (1995) Engineering thermostability:
lessons from thermophilic proteins Curr Opin Biotechnol 6, 370–
374.
2 Rees, D.C & Adams, M.W.W (1995) Hyperthermophiles: taking
the heat and loving it Structure Folding Design 3, 251–254.
3 Danson, M.J & Hough, D.W (1998) Structure, function and
stability of enzymes from the Archaea Trends Microbiol 6, 307–
314.
4 Maes, D., Zeelen, J.P., Thanki, N., Beaucamp, N., Alvarez, M.,
Thi, M.H., Backmann, J., Martial, J.A., Wyns, L., Jaenicke, R &
Wierenga, R.K (1999) The crystal structure of triosephosphate
isomerase (TIM) from Thermotoga maritima: a comparative
thermostability structural analysis of ten different TIM structures.
Proteins 37, 441–453.
5 Sterner, R & Liebl, W (2001) Thermophilic adaptation of
pro-teins Crit Rev Biochem Mol Biol 36, 39–106.
6 Vieille, C & Zeikus, G.J (2001) Hyperthermophilic enzymes:
Sources, uses, and molecular mechanisms for thermostability.
Microbiol Mol Biol Rev 65, 1–43.
7 Xiao, L & Honig, B (1999) Electrostatic contributions to the
stab-ility of hyperthermophilic proteins J Mol Biol 289, 1435–1444.
8 Kumar, S., Tsai, C.J & Nussinov, R (2000) Factors enhancing
protein thermostability Protein Eng 13, 179–191.
9 Cambillau, C & Claverie, J.-M (2000) Structural and genomic
correlates of hyperthermostability J Biol Chem 275, 32383–
32386.
10 Karshikoff, A & Ladenstein, R (2001) Ion pairs and the
ther-motolerance of proteins from hyperthermophiles: a traffic rule for
hot roads Trends Biochem Sci 26, 550–556.
11 Kurz, L.C., Drysdale, G.R., Riley, M.C., Evans, C.T & Srere,
P.A (1992) Catalytic strategy of citrate synthase: effects of amino
acid changes in the acetyl-CoA binding site on transition-state
analog inhibitor complexes Biochemistry 31, 7908–7914.
12 Kurz, L.C., Drysdale, G., Riley, M., Tomar, M.A., Chen, J.,
Russell, R.J & Danson, M.J (2000) Kinetics and mechanism of
the citrate synthase from the thermophilic archaeon
Thermo-plasma acidophilum Biochemistry 39, 2283–2296.
13 Evans, C.T., Kurz, L.C., Remington, S.J & Srere, P.A (1996)
Active site mutants of pig citrate synthase: effects of mutations on
the enzyme catalytic and structural properties Biochemistry 35,
10661–10672.
14 Danson, M.J & Hough, D.W (2001) Citrate synthase from
hyperthermophilic Archaea Methods Enzymol 331, 3–12.
15 Russell, R.J., Gerike, U., Danson, M.J., Hough, D.W & Taylor,
G.L (1998) Structural adaptations of the cold-active citrate
syn-thase from an Antarctic bacterium Structure 6, 351–361.
16 Remington, S., Wiegand, G & Huber, R (1982) Crystallographic
refinement and atomic models of two different forms of citrate
synthase at 2.7 and 1.7 A˚ resolution J Mol Biol 158, 111–152.
17 Russell, R.J., Hough, D.W., Danson, M.J & Taylor, G.L (1994)
The crystal structure of citrate synthase from the thermophilic
archaeon, Thermoplasma acidophilum Structure 2, 1157–1167.
18 Russell, R.J., Ferguson, J.M., Hough, D.W., Danson, M.J &
Taylor, G.L (1997) The crystal structure of citrate synthase from
the hyperthermophilic archaeon Pyrococcus furiosus at 1.9 A˚
resolution Biochemistry 36, 9983–9994.
19 Connaris, H., West, S.M., Hough, D.W & Danson, M.J (1998)
Cloning and overexpression in Escherichia coli of the gene
encoding citrate synthase from the hyperthermophilic Archaeon
Sulfolobus solfataricus Extremophiles 2, 61–66.
20 Muir, J.M., Russell, R.J., Hough, D.W & Danson, M.J (1995) Citrate synthase from the hyperthermophilic Archaeon, Pyrococcus furiosus Protein Eng 8, 583–592.
21 Gerike, U., Danson, M.J., Russell, N.J & Hough, D.W (1997) Sequencing and expression of the gene encoding a cold-active citrate synthase from an Antarctic bacterium, strain DS2-3R Eur.
J Biochem 248, 49–57.
22 Otwinowski, Z & Minor, W (1997) Processing of X-ray diffrac-tion data collected in oscilladiffrac-tion mode Method Enzymol 276, 307– 326.
23 Navaza, J (1994) AMoRe: an automated package for molecular replacement Acta Crystallogr A50, 157–163.
24 Murshudov, G.N., Vagin, A.A & Dodson, E.J (1997) Refine-ment of macromolecular structures by the maximum-likelihood method Acta Crystallogr D53, 240–255.
25 Jones, T.A., Zou, J.Y., Cowan, S.W & Kjeldaaard, M (1991) Improved methods for building protein models in electron density maps and the location of errors in these models Acta Crystallogr A47, 110–119.
26 Nichols, A., Sharp, K.A & Honig, B (1991) Protein folding and association: insights from the interfacial and thermodynamic properties of hydrocarbons Proteins 11, 281–296.
27 Kleywegt, G.J & Jones, T.A (1994) Detection, delineation, measurement and display of cavities in macromolecular structures Acta Crystallogr D50, 178–185.
28 Barlow, D.J & Thornton, J.M (1983) Ion pairs in proteins.
J Mol Biol 168, 867.
29 Daggett, V & Levitt, M (1993) Protein unfolding pathways explored through molecular dynamics simulations J Mol Biol.
232, 600–619.
30 Hutchinson, E.G & Thornton, J.M (1996) PROMOTIF – a program to identify and analyze structural motifs in proteins Protein Sci 5, 212–220.
31 Gerike, U., Danson, M.J & Hough, D.W (2001) Cold-active citrate synthase: mutagenesis of active-site residues Protein Eng.
14, 655–661.
32 Lonhienne, T., Gerday, C & Feller, G (2000) Psychrophilic enzymes: revisiting the thermodynamic parameters of activation may explain local flexibility Biochim Biophys Acta 1543, 1–10.
33 Sheridan, P.P., Panasik, N., Coombs, J.M & Brenchley, J.E (2000) Approaches for deciphering the structural basis of low temp-erature enzyme activity Biochim Biophys Acta 1543, 417–433.
34 Thompson, M.J & Eisenberg, D (1999) Transproteomic evidence
of a loop-deletion mechanism for enhancing protein thermo-stability J Mol Biol 290, 595–604.
35 Aguilar, C.F., Sanderson, I., Moracci, M., Ciaramella, M., Nucci, R., Rossi, M & Pearl, L.H (1997) Crystal structure of the beta-glycosidase from the hyperthermophilic archeon Sulfolobus sol-fataricus: resilience as a key factor in thermostability J Mol Biol.
271, 789–802.
36 Merz, A., Knochel, T., Jansonius, J.N & Kirschner, K (1999) The hyperthermostable indoleglycerol phosphate synthase from Ther-motoga maritima is destabilised by mutational disruption of two solvent-exposed salt bridges J Mol Biol 288, 753–763.
37 Dill, K.A (1990) Dominant forces in protein folding Biochemistry
29, 7133–7155.
38 Arnott, M.A., Michael, R.A., Thompson, C.R., Hough, D.W & Danson, M.J (2000) Thermostability and thermoactivity of citrate synthases from the thermophilic and hyperthermophilic archaea, Thermoplasma acidophilum and Pyrococcus furiosus J Mol Biol.
304, 657–668.
39 Yip, K.S., Stillman, T.J., Britton, K.L., Artymiuk, P.J., Baker, P.J., Sedelnikova, S.E., Engel, P.C., Pasquo, A., Chiaraluce, R & Consalvi, V (1995) The structure of Pyrococcus furiosus gluata-mate dehydrogenase reveals a key role for ion-pair networks in maintaining enzyme stability at extreme temperatures Structure 3, 1147–1158.