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.

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.

Download links

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.07574

Further reading

    1. Biochemistry and Chemical Biology
    2. Structural Biology and Molecular Biophysics
    Joar Esteban Pinto Torres, Mathieu Claes ... Yann G-J Sterckx
    Research Article

    African trypanosomes are the causative agents of neglected tropical diseases affecting both humans and livestock. Disease control is highly challenging due to an increasing number of drug treatment failures. African trypanosomes are extracellular, blood-borne parasites that mainly rely on glycolysis for their energy metabolism within the mammalian host. Trypanosomal glycolytic enzymes are therefore of interest for the development of trypanocidal drugs. Here, we report the serendipitous discovery of a camelid single-domain antibody (sdAb aka Nanobody) that selectively inhibits the enzymatic activity of trypanosomatid (but not host) pyruvate kinases through an allosteric mechanism. By combining enzyme kinetics, biophysics, structural biology, and transgenic parasite survival assays, we provide a proof-of-principle that the sdAb-mediated enzyme inhibition negatively impacts parasite fitness and growth.

    1. Structural Biology and Molecular Biophysics
    Manming Xu, Sarath Chandra Dantu ... Shozeb Haider
    Research Article

    The relationship between protein dynamics and function is essential for understanding biological processes and developing effective therapeutics. Functional sites within proteins are critical for activities such as substrate binding, catalysis, and structural changes. Existing computational methods for the predictions of functional residues are trained on sequence, structural, and experimental data, but they do not explicitly model the influence of evolution on protein dynamics. This overlooked contribution is essential as it is known that evolution can fine-tune protein dynamics through compensatory mutations either to improve the proteins’ performance or diversify its function while maintaining the same structural scaffold. To model this critical contribution, we introduce DyNoPy, a computational method that combines residue coevolution analysis with molecular dynamics simulations, revealing hidden correlations between functional sites. DyNoPy constructs a graph model of residue–residue interactions, identifies communities of key residue groups, and annotates critical sites based on their roles. By leveraging the concept of coevolved dynamical couplings—residue pairs with critical dynamical interactions that have been preserved during evolution—DyNoPy offers a powerful method for predicting and analysing protein evolution and dynamics. We demonstrate the effectiveness of DyNoPy on SHV-1 and PDC-3, chromosomally encoded β-lactamases linked to antibiotic resistance, highlighting its potential to inform drug design and address pressing healthcare challenges.