Double and triple thermodynamic mutant cycles reveal the basis for specific MsbA-lipid interactions

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary:
The preprint by Laganowsky and co-workers describes the use of mutant cycles to dissect the thermodynamic profile of specific lipid recognition by the ABC transporter MsbA. The authors use native mass spectrometry with a variable temperature source to monitor lipid binding to the native protein dimer solubilized in detergent. Analysis of the peak intensities (that is, relative abundance) of 1-3 bound lipids as a function of solution temperature and lipid concentration yields temperature-dependent Kds. The authors use these to then generate van't Hoff plots, from which they calculate the enthalpy and entropy contributions to binding of one, two, and in some cases, three lipids to MsbA.
The authors then employ mutant cycles, in which basic residues involved in headgroup binding are mutated to alanine. By comparing the thermodynamic signatures of single and double (and in one instance triple) mutants, they aim to identify cooperativity between the different positions. They furthermore use inward and outward locking conditions which should control access to the different binding sites determined previously.
The main conclusion is that lipid binding to MsbA is driven mainly by energetically favorable entropy increase upon binding, which stems from the release of ordered water molecules that normally coordinate the basic residues, which helps to overcome the enthalpic barrier of lipid binding. The authors also report an increase in lipid binding at higher temperatures which they attribute to a non-uniform heat capacity of the protein. Although they find that most residue pairs display some degree of cooperativity, particularly between the inner and outer lipid binding sites, they do not provide a structural interpretation of these results.

Strengths:
The use of double mutant cycles and mass spectrometry to dissect lipid binding is novel and interesting. For example, the observation that mutating a basic residue in the inner and one in the outer binding site abolishes lipid binding to a greater extent than the individual mutations is highly informative even without having to break it down into thermodynamic terms (see "weaknesses" section). In this sense, the method and data reported here opens new avenues for the structure/activity relationship of MsbA. The "mutant cycle" approach is in principle widely applicable to other membrane proteins with complex lipid interactions.

Weaknesses:
The use of double mutant cycles to dissect binding energies is well-established, and has, as the authors point out, been employed in combination with mass spectrometry to study protein-protein interactions. Its application to extract thermodynamic parameters is robust in cases where a single binding event is monitored, e.g. the formation of a complex with well-defined stoichiometry, where dissociation constants can be determined with high confidence. It is, however, complicated significantly by the fact that for MsbA-lipid interactions, we are not looking at a single binding event, but a stochastic distribution of lipids across different sites. Even if the protein is locked in a specific conformation, the observation of a single lipid adduct does not guarantee that the one lipid is always bound to a specific site. In some of the complexes detected by MS, the lipid is likely bound somewhere else. Lipid binding Kds from mass spectrometry, although helpful in some instances as a proxy for global binding affinities, should therefore be taken with a grain of salt.

The authors analyze the difference in binding upon mutating binding sites (ddG etc). Here, another complicating factor comes into play, the fact that mutation of a binding site (which the authors show reduces lipid binding) may instead allow the lipid to bind to a lower-affinity site elsewhere. Unfortunately, the authors do not specify the protein concentration, but assuming it is in the single-digit micromolar range, as common for native MS experiments, lipid and protein concentrations are almost equal for most of the data points, resulting in competition between binding sites for free lipids. As a rule of thumb, for Kd measurements, the concentration of the constant component, the protein, should be far below the Kd, to avoid working in the "titration" regime rather than the "binding" regime (see Jarmoskaite et al, eLife 2020). I cannot determine whether this is the case here. The way I understand the double mutant cycle approach, reliable Kd measurements are required to accurately determine dH and TdS, so I would encourage the authors to confirm their Kd values using complementary methods before in-depth interpretations of the thermodynamic components.

It is somewhat counterintuitive that for many double mutants, and the triple mutant, the entropic component becomes more favorable compared to the WT protein. If the increase in entropy upon lipid binding comes from the release of ordered water molecules around the basic residues (a reasonable assumption) why does this apply even more in proteins where several basic residues have been changed to alanine, which coordinate far fewer water molecules?

The authors could devote more attention to the fact that they use detergent micelles as a vehicle for lipid binding studies. To a limited extent, detergents compete with lipids for binding, and are present in extreme excess over the lipid. The micelle likely changes its behavior in response to temperature changes. For example, the packing around the protein loosens up upon heating, which may increase the chance for lipids to bind. In this case, the increase in binding at higher temperatures may not be related to a change in heat capacity. This question could be addressed by MD simulations, if it's not already in the literature.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Summary:
This is a solid study that dissects the thermodynamics of lipopolysaccharide (LPS) transporter MsbA and LPS. Native ESI-MS and the novel strategies developed by the authors were employed to quantify the affinities of LPS-MsbA interactions and its temperature dependence. Here, the equilibrium of lipid-protein interactions occurs in the micellar phase. The double-/triple-mutant cycle analysis and van't Hoff analysis allowed a full thermodynamic description of the lipid-protein interactions and the analysis of thermodynamic coupling between LPS binding sites. The most notable result would be that LPS-MsbA interaction is largely driven by entropy involving the negative heat capacity, a signature of the solvent reorganization effect (here authors attribute the solvent effect to "water" reorganization). The entropy driven lipid binding has been previously reported by the same authors for Kir1,2-PIP2 interactions.

Strengths:

1. This is overall a very thorough and rigorous study providing the detailed thermodynamic principles of LPS-MsbA interaction.

2. The double and triple-mutant cycle approaches are newly applied to lipid-protein interactions, enabling detailed thermodynamics between LPS binding sites.

3. The entropy-driven protein-lipid interaction is surprising. The binding seems to be mainly mediated by the electrostatic interaction between the positively charged residues on the protein and the negatively charged or polar headgroup of LPS, which could be thought of as "enthalpic" (making of a strong bond relative to that with solvent).

Weaknesses:

1. This study is a good contribution to the field, but it was difficult to find novel biological insights or methodological novelty from this study.

1a) Thermodynamic analysis of lipid-protein interactions, an example of entropy-driven lipid-protein interactions, and the cooperativity between lipid binding sites have been reported by the author's group. Also, the cooperativity between binding sites in general have been reported from numerous studies of biomolecular interactions.

1b) It is not clear how this study provides new insights into the understanding of LPS transport mechanisms. Probably, authors could strengthen the Discussion by providing biological insights-how the residue coupling.

1. One to three LPS molecules bind to MsbA, but it is unclear whether bound KDL occupies inner or outer cavities, or both and how a specific mutation affects the affinity of specific LPS (i.e., to inner or to outer cavities). Based on the known structures, the maximal number of LPS is three. It is possible that the inner and outer cavities have different LPS affinities. Also, there can be multiple one-LPS-bound states, two-LPS-bound states if LPS strictly binds to the binding sites indicated by the structures. This aspect is beyond the scope of this study and difficult to address, but without this information, it seems hard to tell what is going on in the system.

2. If a single mutation is introduced to the inner cavity, its effect will be "doubled" because the inner cavity is shared by two identical subunits. This effect needs to be clarified in the result section.

3. In the result section, "Mutant cycle analysis of KDL binding to vanadate-trapped MsbA.":

4a) It seems necessary to show the mass spectra for Msb-ADP-vanadate complex as well as its lipid bound forms.

4b) The rationale of this section (i.e., what mechanistic insights can be obtained from this study) is unclear. For example, it is not sure what meaningful information can be obtained from a single type (ADP/vanadate) of the bound state regarding the ATP-driven function of MsbA.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

Summary:
In this paper presented by Liu et al, native MS on the lipid A transporter MsbA was used to obtain thermodynamic insight into protein-lipid interactions. By performing the analyses at different lipid A concentrations and temperatures, dissociation constants for 2-3 lipid A binding sites were determined, as well as enthalpies were calculated using non-linear van't Hoff fitting. Changes in free Gibb's energies were then calculated based on the determined dissociation constants, and together with the enthalpy values obtained via van' t Hoff analysis, the entropic contribution to lipid binding (DeltaS*T) was indirectly determined.

Strengths:
This is an extensive high quality native MS dataset that provides unique opportunities to gain insights into the thermodynamic parameters underlying lipid A binding. In addition, it provides coupling energies between mutations introduced into MsbA, that are implicated in lipid A binding.

Weaknesses:
The data all rely on the accuracy of determining KD values for lipid binding to MsbA. For the weaker binding sites, the range of lipid concentrations probed were in fact too low to generate highly accurate data. Another weakness is a lack of clear evidence, which KD values belong to which of the possible lipid A binding sites.