Absence of electron transfer-associated changes in the time-dependent X-ray free-electron laser structures of the photosynthetic reaction center

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

First, I agree with the authors of this manuscript that conformational changes in the XFEL structures with 2.8 A resolution are not reliable enough for demonstrating the subtle changes in the electron transfer events in this bacterial photosynthesis system. Actually, the data statistics in the paper by Dods et al. showed that the high-resolution range of some of the XFEL datasets may include pretty high noise (low CC1/2 and high Rsplit) so the comparison of the subtle conformational changes of the structures is problematic.

The manuscript by Gai Nishikawa investigated time-dependent changes in the energetics of the electron transfer pathway based on the structures by Dods et al. by calculating redox potential of the active and inactive branches in the structures and found no clear link between the time-dependent structural changes and the electron transfer events in the XFEL structures published by Dods, R.et al. (2021). This study provided validation for the interpretation of the structures of those electron-transferring proteins.

The paper was well prepared.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

The manuscript by Nishikawa et al. addresses time-dependent changes in the electron transfer energetics in the photosynthetic reaction center from Blastochloris viridis, whose time-dependent structural changes upon light illumination were recently demonstrated by time-resolved serial femtosecond crystallography (SFX) using X-ray free-electron laser (XFEL) (Dods et al., Nature, 2021). Based on the redox potential Em values of bacteriopheophytin in the electron transfer active branch (BL) by solving the linear Poisson-Boltzmann equation, the authors found that Em(HL) values in the charge-separated 5-ps structure obtained by XFEL are not clearly changed, suggesting that the P+HL- state is not stabilized owing to protein reorganization. Furthermore, chlorin ring deformation upon HL- formation, which was expected from their QM/MM calculation, is not recognized in the 5-ps XFEL structure. Then the authors concluded that the structural changes in the XFEL structures are not related to the actual time course of charge separation. They argued that their calculated changes in Em and chlorin ring deformations using the XEFL structures may reflect the experimental errors rather than the real structural changes; they mentioned this problem is due to the fact that the XFEL structures were obtained at not high resolutions (mostly at 2.8 Å). I consider that their systematic calculations may suggest a useful theoretical interpretation of the XFEL study. However, the present manuscript insists as a whole negatively that the experimental errors may hamper to provide the actual structural changes relevant to the electron transfer events. My concerns are the following two points:
Is the premise of the authors for the electron transfer energetics obviously valid?
Could the authors find any positive aspect(s) in the XFEL study?

The authors' argument is certainly due to their premise "Em(HL) is expected to be exclusively higher in the 5-ps and 20-ps structures than in the other XFEL structures due to the stabilization of the [PLPM]•+HL•- state by protein reorganization" as noted in the Results and Discussion (p. 12, lines 180-182); however, it is unknown whether this premise can be applied to the ps-timescale electron transfer events. The above premise is surely based on the Marcus theory, as the authors also noted in the Introduction "The anionic state formation induces not only reorganization of the protein environment (ref. 5: Marcus and Sutin, 1985) but also out-of-plane distortion of the chlorin ring (ref. 6: two of the authors, Saito and Ishikita, co-authored, 2012)"; however, it is unknown whether protein reorganization can follow the ps-timescale electron transfer events. Indeed, Dods et al. mentioned in the Nature paper (2021) "The primary electron-transfer step from SP (special pair PLPM) to BPhL (HL) occurs in 2.8 {plus minus} 0.2 ps across a distance of 10 Å by means of a two-step hopping mechanism via the monomeric BChL molecule and is more rapid than conventional Marcus theory". It was also mentioned, "By contrast, the 9 Å electron-transfer step from BPhL to QA has a single exponential decay time of 230 {plus minus} 30 ps, which is consistent with conventional Marcus theory". As for the primary electron-transfer step from PLPM to HL, Wang et al. (2007, Science 316, 747; cited as ref. 8 in the Nature paper 2021) reported, by monitoring tryptophan absorbance changes in various reaction centers in which the driving forces (namely, the Em gaps between PLPM and HL) are different, that the protein relaxation kinetics is independent of the charge separation kinetics on the picosecond timescale. On the other hand, in the EPR study cited by the authors as ref. 7 (Muh et al. (1998) Biochemistry 37, 13066), although the authors described "two distinct conformations of HL- were reported in spectroscopic studies" (p. 3, lines 44-45), it should be noted that conformation of HL- was formed by 1 or 45 s illumination prior to freezing, and hence the second-order reorganized conformations may differ from picosecond-order conformations observed by the XFEL study (Nature, 2021) and/or the transient absorption spectroscopy (Science, 2007).

Therefore, I consider there is a possibility that the authors' findings may reflect not experimental errors but the actual ps-timescale phenomena presented by the first-time XFEL study on the timescale of the primary charge-separation reactions of photosynthesis. Thus I would like to suggest that the authors reconsider the premise for the electron transfer energetics on the picosecond timescale.

In any case, to discuss the experimental errors in the XFEL study, it is better to calculate the Em(QA) changes in the 300-ps and 8-us XFEL structures, which showed distinctive structural changes even at the 2.8 Å resolution as discussed by Dods et al. Then, if the Em(QA) values are changed as expected from theoretical calculations, such calculated results may suggest a useful theoretical interpretation of the XFEL study as a positive aspect. If the Em(QA) values are not higher in the 300-ps and 8-us structures than in the other structures, it may be argued that the experimental errors would be so large that the XFEL structures are irrelevant to the electron transfer events expected from theoretical calculations.