Mapping the conformational landscape of a dynamic enzyme by multitemperature and XFEL crystallography

  1. Daniel A Keedy
  2. Lillian R Kenner
  3. Matthew Warkentin
  4. Rahel A Woldeyes
  5. Jesse B Hopkins
  6. Michael C Thompson
  7. Aaron S Brewster
  8. Andrew H Van Benschoten
  9. Elizabeth L Baxter
  10. Monarin Uervirojnangkoorn
  11. Scott E McPhillips
  12. Jinhu Song
  13. Roberto Alonso-Mori
  14. James M Holton
  15. William I Weis
  16. Axel T Brunger
  17. S Michael Soltis
  18. Henrik Lemke
  19. Ana Gonzalez
  20. Nicholas K Sauter
  21. Aina E Cohen
  22. Henry van den Bedem
  23. Robert E Thorne
  24. James S Fraser  Is a corresponding author
  1. University of California, San Francisco, United States
  2. Cornell University, United States
  3. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, United States
  4. SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory, United States
  5. Stanford University, United States

Abstract

Determining the interconverting conformations of dynamic proteins in atomic detail is a major challenge for structural biology. Conformational heterogeneity in the active site of the dynamic enzyme cyclophilin A (CypA) has been previously linked to its catalytic function, but the extent to which the different conformations of these residues are correlated is unclear. We monitored the temperature dependences of these alternative conformations with eight synchrotron datasets spanning 100-310 K. Multiconformer models show that many alternative conformations in CypA are populated only at 240 K and above, yet others remain populated or become populated at 180 K and below. These results point to a complex evolution of conformational heterogeneity between 180-240 K that involves both thermal deactivation and solvent-driven arrest of protein motions in the crystal. Together, our multitemperature analyses and XFEL data motivate a new generation of temperature- and time-resolved experiments to structurally characterize the dynamic underpinnings of protein function.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Daniel A Keedy

    Department of Bioengineering and Therapeutic Sciences, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  2. Lillian R Kenner

    Department of Bioengineering and Therapeutic Sciences, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  3. Matthew Warkentin

    Physics Department, Cornell University, Ithaca, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  4. Rahel A Woldeyes

    Department of Bioengineering and Therapeutic Sciences, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  5. Jesse B Hopkins

    Physics Department, Cornell University, Ithaca, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  6. Michael C Thompson

    Department of Bioengineering and Therapeutic Sciences, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  7. Aaron S Brewster

    Physical Biosciences Division, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  8. Andrew H Van Benschoten

    Department of Bioengineering and Therapeutic Sciences, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  9. Elizabeth L Baxter

    Stanford Synchrotron Radiation Lightsource, SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory, Menlo Park, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  10. Monarin Uervirojnangkoorn

    Department of Molecular and Cellular Physiology, Stanford University, Stanford, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  11. Scott E McPhillips

    Stanford Synchrotron Radiation Lightsource, SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory, Menlo Park, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  12. Jinhu Song

    Stanford Synchrotron Radiation Lightsource, SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory, Menlo Park, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  13. Roberto Alonso-Mori

    Linac Coherent Light Source, SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory, Menlo Park, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  14. James M Holton

    Physical Biosciences Division, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  15. William I Weis

    Department of Molecular and Cellular Physiology, Stanford University, Stanford, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  16. Axel T Brunger

    Department of Molecular and Cellular Physiology, Stanford University, Stanford, United States
    Competing interests
    Axel T Brunger, Reviewing editor, eLife.
  17. S Michael Soltis

    Stanford Synchrotron Radiation Lightsource, SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory, Menlo Park, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  18. Henrik Lemke

    Linac Coherent Light Source, SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory, Menlo Park, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  19. Ana Gonzalez

    Stanford Synchrotron Radiation Lightsource, SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory, Menlo Park, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  20. Nicholas K Sauter

    Physical Biosciences Division, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  21. Aina E Cohen

    Stanford Synchrotron Radiation Lightsource, SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory, Menlo Park, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  22. Henry van den Bedem

    Stanford Synchrotron Radiation Lightsource, SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory, Menlo Park, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  23. Robert E Thorne

    Physics Department, Cornell University, Ithaca, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  24. James S Fraser

    Department of Bioengineering and Therapeutic Sciences, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, United States
    For correspondence
    jfraser@fraserlab.com
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.

Reviewing Editor

  1. Stephen C Harrison, Harvard Medical School, United States

Publication history

  1. Received: March 19, 2015
  2. Accepted: September 29, 2015
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: September 30, 2015 (version 1)
  4. Version of Record published: December 23, 2015 (version 2)

Copyright

© 2015, Keedy et al.

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License permitting unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.

Metrics

  • 4,327
    Page views
  • 1,033
    Downloads
  • 107
    Citations

Article citation count generated by polling the highest count across the following sources: Crossref, PubMed Central, Scopus.

Download links

A two-part list of links to download the article, or parts of the article, in various formats.

Downloads (link to download the article as PDF)

Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)

Cite this article (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)

  1. Daniel A Keedy
  2. Lillian R Kenner
  3. Matthew Warkentin
  4. Rahel A Woldeyes
  5. Jesse B Hopkins
  6. Michael C Thompson
  7. Aaron S Brewster
  8. Andrew H Van Benschoten
  9. Elizabeth L Baxter
  10. Monarin Uervirojnangkoorn
  11. Scott E McPhillips
  12. Jinhu Song
  13. Roberto Alonso-Mori
  14. James M Holton
  15. William I Weis
  16. Axel T Brunger
  17. S Michael Soltis
  18. Henrik Lemke
  19. Ana Gonzalez
  20. Nicholas K Sauter
  21. Aina E Cohen
  22. Henry van den Bedem
  23. Robert E Thorne
  24. James S Fraser
(2015)
Mapping the conformational landscape of a dynamic enzyme by multitemperature and XFEL crystallography
eLife 4:e07574.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.07574

Further reading

    1. Biochemistry and Chemical Biology
    2. Structural Biology and Molecular Biophysics
    Ziva Vuckovic, Jinan Wang ... David M Thal
    Research Article

    Allosteric modulation of G protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs) is a major paradigm in drug discovery. Despite decades of research, a molecular-level understanding of the general principles that govern the myriad pharmacological effects exerted by GPCR allosteric modulators remains limited. The M4 muscarinic acetylcholine receptor (M4 mAChR) is a validated and clinically relevant allosteric drug target for several major psychiatric and cognitive disorders. In this study, we rigorously quantified the affinity, efficacy, and magnitude of modulation of two different positive allosteric modulators, LY2033298 (LY298) and VU0467154 (VU154), combined with the endogenous agonist acetylcholine (ACh) or the high-affinity agonist iperoxo (Ipx), at the human M4 mAChR. By determining the cryo-electron microscopy structures of the M4 mAChR, bound to a cognate Gi1 protein and in complex with ACh, Ipx, LY298-Ipx, and VU154-Ipx, and applying molecular dynamics simulations, we determine key molecular mechanisms underlying allosteric pharmacology. In addition to delineating the contribution of spatially distinct binding sites on observed pharmacology, our findings also revealed a vital role for orthosteric and allosteric ligand–receptor–transducer complex stability, mediated by conformational dynamics between these sites, in the ultimate determination of affinity, efficacy, cooperativity, probe dependence, and species variability. There results provide a holistic framework for further GPCR mechanistic studies and can aid in the discovery and design of future allosteric drugs.

    1. Structural Biology and Molecular Biophysics
    Seoyoon Kim, Daehyo Lee ... Duyoung Min
    Tools and Resources

    Single-molecule tweezers, such as magnetic tweezers, are powerful tools for probing nm-scale structural changes in single membrane proteins under force. However, the weak molecular tethers used for the membrane protein studies have limited the observation of long-time, repetitive molecular transitions due to force-induced bond breakage. The prolonged observation of numerous transitions is critical in reliable characterizations of structural states, kinetics, and energy barrier properties. Here, we present a robust single-molecule tweezer method that uses dibenzocyclooctyne (DBCO) cycloaddition and traptavidin binding, enabling the estimation of the folding 'speed limit' of helical membrane proteins. This method is >100 times more stable than a conventional linkage system regarding the lifetime, allowing for the survival for ~12 h at 50 pN and ~1000 pulling cycle experiments. By using this method, we were able to observe numerous structural transitions of a designer single-chained transmembrane (TM) homodimer for 9 h at 12 pN, and reveal its folding pathway including the hidden dynamics of helix-coil transitions. We characterized the energy barrier heights and folding times for the transitions using a model-independent deconvolution method and the hidden Markov modeling (HMM) analysis, respectively. The Kramers rate framework yields a considerably low speed limit of 21 ms for a helical hairpin formation in lipid bilayers, compared to μs scale for soluble protein folding. This large discrepancy is likely due to the highly viscous nature of lipid membranes, retarding the helix-helix interactions. Our results offer a more valid guideline for relating the kinetics and free energies of membrane protein folding.