Abstract

Nanodiscs are membrane mimetics that consist of a protein belt surrounding a lipid bilayer, and are broadly used for characterization of membrane proteins. Here, we investigate the structure, dynamics and biophysical properties of two small nanodiscs, MSP1D1ΔH5 and ΔH4H5. We combine our SAXS and SANS experiments with molecular dynamics simulations and previously obtained NMR and EPR data to derive and validate a conformational ensemble that represents the structure and dynamics of the nanodisc. We find that it displays conformational heterogeneity with various elliptical shapes, and with substantial differences in lipid ordering in the centre and rim of the discs. Together, our results reconcile previous apparently conflicting observations about the shape of nanodiscs, and paves the way for future integrative studies of larger complex systems such as membrane proteins embedded in nanodiscs.

Data availability

Scattering data, molecular simulations and results from reweighting are available at https://github.com/KULL-Centre/papers/tree/master/2020/nanodisc-bengtsen-et-al

The following previously published data sets were used

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Tone Bengtsen

    Department of Biology, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Viktor L Holm

    Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Lisbeth Ravnkilde Kjølbye

    Department of Chemistry, Aarhus University, Aarhus C, Denmark
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Søren R Midtgaard

    Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Nicolai Tidemand Johansen

    Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Giulio Tesei

    Department of Biology, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Sandro Bottaro

    Department of Biology, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-1606-890X
  8. Birgit Schiøtt

    Department of Chemistry, Aarhus University, Aarhus C, Denmark
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Lise Arleth

    Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark
    For correspondence
    arleth@nbi.ku.dk
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  10. Kresten Lindorff-Larsen

    Department of Biology, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark
    For correspondence
    lindorff@bio.ku.dk
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-4750-6039

Funding

Danish Council for Independent Researtch

  • Birgit Schiøtt

Lundbeckfonden (BRAINSTRUC)

  • Lise Arleth
  • Kresten Lindorff-Larsen

Novo Nordisk Foundation (Hallas-Møller Stipend)

  • Kresten Lindorff-Larsen

Villum Fonden (Block grant)

  • Sandro Bottaro
  • Kresten Lindorff-Larsen

The funders had no role in study design, data collection and interpretation, or the decision to submit the work for publication.

Copyright

© 2020, Bengtsen 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

  • 4,367
    views
  • 613
    downloads
  • 58
    citations

Views, downloads and citations are aggregated across all versions of this paper published by eLife.

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. Tone Bengtsen
  2. Viktor L Holm
  3. Lisbeth Ravnkilde Kjølbye
  4. Søren R Midtgaard
  5. Nicolai Tidemand Johansen
  6. Giulio Tesei
  7. Sandro Bottaro
  8. Birgit Schiøtt
  9. Lise Arleth
  10. Kresten Lindorff-Larsen
(2020)
Structure and dynamics of a nanodisc by integrating NMR, SAXS and SANS experiments with molecular dynamics simulations
eLife 9:e56518.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.56518

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.56518

Further reading

    1. Biochemistry and Chemical Biology
    2. Structural Biology and Molecular Biophysics
    Yamato Niitani, Kohei Matsuzaki ... Michio Tomishige
    Research Article

    The two identical motor domains (heads) of dimeric kinesin-1 move in a hand-over-hand process along a microtubule, coordinating their ATPase cycles such that each ATP hydrolysis is tightly coupled to a step and enabling the motor to take many steps without dissociating. The neck linker, a structural element that connects the two heads, has been shown to be essential for head–head coordination; however, which kinetic step(s) in the chemomechanical cycle is ‘gated’ by the neck linker remains unresolved. Here, we employed pre-steady-state kinetics and single-molecule assays to investigate how the neck-linker conformation affects kinesin’s motility cycle. We show that the backward-pointing configuration of the neck linker in the front kinesin head confers higher affinity for microtubule, but does not change ATP binding and dissociation rates. In contrast, the forward-pointing configuration of the neck linker in the rear kinesin head decreases the ATP dissociation rate but has little effect on microtubule dissociation. In combination, these conformation-specific effects of the neck linker favor ATP hydrolysis and dissociation of the rear head prior to microtubule detachment of the front head, thereby providing a kinetic explanation for the coordinated walking mechanism of dimeric kinesin.

    1. Structural Biology and Molecular Biophysics
    Christopher T Schafer, Raymond F Pauszek III ... David P Millar
    Research Article

    The canonical chemokine receptor CXCR4 and atypical receptor ACKR3 both respond to CXCL12 but induce different effector responses to regulate cell migration. While CXCR4 couples to G proteins and directly promotes cell migration, ACKR3 is G-protein-independent and scavenges CXCL12 to regulate extracellular chemokine levels and maintain CXCR4 responsiveness, thereby indirectly influencing migration. The receptors also have distinct activation requirements. CXCR4 only responds to wild-type CXCL12 and is sensitive to mutation of the chemokine. By contrast, ACKR3 recruits GPCR kinases (GRKs) and β-arrestins and promiscuously responds to CXCL12, CXCL12 variants, other peptides and proteins, and is relatively insensitive to mutation. To investigate the role of conformational dynamics in the distinct pharmacological behaviors of CXCR4 and ACKR3, we employed single-molecule FRET to track discrete conformational states of the receptors in real-time. The data revealed that apo-CXCR4 preferentially populates a high-FRET inactive state, while apo-ACKR3 shows little conformational preference and high transition probabilities among multiple inactive, intermediate and active conformations, consistent with its propensity for activation. Multiple active-like ACKR3 conformations are populated in response to agonists, compared to the single CXCR4 active-state. This and the markedly different conformational landscapes of the receptors suggest that activation of ACKR3 may be achieved by a broader distribution of conformational states than CXCR4. Much of the conformational heterogeneity of ACKR3 is linked to a single residue that differs between ACKR3 and CXCR4. The dynamic properties of ACKR3 may underly its inability to form productive interactions with G proteins that would drive canonical GPCR signaling.