Ligand-Coupled Conformational Changes in a Cyclic Nucleotide-Gated Ion Channel Revealed by Time-Resolved Transition Metal Ion FRET

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary:

The authors use fluorescence lifetime imaging (FLIM) and tmFRET to resolve resting vs. active conformational heterogeneity and free energy differences driven by cGMP and cAMP in a tetrameric arrangement of CNBDs from a prokaryotic CNG channel.

Strengths:

The excellent data provide detailed measures of the probability of adopting resting vs. activated conformations with and without bound ligands.

Weaknesses:

Limitations are that only the cytosolic fragments of the channel were studied, and the current manuscript does not do a good job of placing the results in the context of what is already known about CNBDs from other methods that yield similar information.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

The authors investigated the conformational dynamics and energetics of the SthK Clinker/CNBD fragment using both steady-state and time-resolved transition metal ion Förster resonance energy transfer (tmFRET) experiments. To do so, they engineered donor-acceptor pairs at specific sites of the CNBD (C-helix and β-roll) by incorporating a fluorescent noncanonical amino acid donor and metal ion acceptors. In particular, the authors employed two cysteine-reactive metal chelators (TETAC and phenM). This allowed them to coordinate three transition metals (Cu2+, Fe2+, and Ru2+) to measure both short (10-20 Å, Cu2+) and long distances (25-50 Å, Fe2+, and Ru2+). By measuring tmFRET with fluorescence lifetimes, the authors determined intramolecular distance distributions in the absence and presence of the full agonist cAMP or the partial agonist cGMP. The probability distributions between conformational states without and with ligands were used to calculate the changes in free energy (ΔG) and differences in free energy change (ΔΔG) in the context of a simple four-state model.

Overall, the work is conducted in a rigorous manner, and it is well-written. I greatly enjoyed reading it.

Nonetheless, I do not see the novelty that the authors claim.

In terms of methodology, this work provides further support to steady-state and time-resolved tmFRET approaches previously developed by the authors of the present work to probe conformational rearrangements by using a fluorescent noncanonical amino acid donor (Anap) and transition metal ion acceptor (Zagotta et al., eLIfe 2021; Gordon et al., Biophysical Journal 2024; Zagotta et al., Biophysical Journal 2024).

Regarding cyclic nucleotide-binding domain (CNBD)-containing ion channels, I disagree with the authors when they state that "the precise allosteric mechanism governing channel activation upon ligand binding, particularly the energetic changes within domains, remains poorly understood". On the contrary, I would say that the literature on this subject is rather vast and based on a significantly large variety of methodologies. This is a not exhaustive list of papers: Zagotta et al., Nature 2003; Craven et al., GJP, 2004; Craven et al., JBC, 2008; Taraska et al., Nature Methods, 2009; Puljung et al., JBC, 2013; Saponaro et al., PNAS 2014; Goldschen-Ohm et al., eLife, 2016; Bankston et al., JBC, 2017; Hummert et al., PLoS Comput Biol., 2018; Porro et al., eLife, 2019; Ng et al., JGP, 2019; Porro et al., JGP, 2020; Evans et al., PNAS, 2020; Pfleger et al., Biophys J. 2021; Saponaro et al., Mol Cell, 2021; Dai et al., Nat Commun. 2021; Kondapuram et al., Commun Biol. 2022. These studies were conducted either on the isolated Clinker/CNBD fragments or on the entire full-length proteins. As is evident from the above list, the authors of the present work have significantly contributed to the understanding of the allosteric mechanism governing the ligand-induced activation of CNBD-containing channels, including a detailed description of the energetic changes induced by ligand binding. Particularly relevant are their works based on DEER spectroscopy. In DeBerg et al., JBC 2016, the authors described, in atomic detail, the conformational changes induced by different cyclic nucleotides on the HCN CNBD fragment and derived energetics associated with ligand binding to the CNBD (ΔΔG). In Collauto et al., Phys Chem Chem Phys. 2017, they further detailed the ligand-CNBD conformational changes by combining DEER spectroscopy with microfluidic rapid freeze quench to resolve these processes and obtain both equilibrium constants and reaction rates, thus demonstrating that DEER can quantitatively resolve both the thermodynamics and the kinetics of ligand binding and the associated conformational changes.

Suggestions:

- In light of the above, I suggest the authors better clarify the contribution/novelty that the present work provides to the state-of-the-art methodology employed (steady-state and time-resolved tmFRET) and of CNBD-containing ion channels. In particular, it would be nice to have a comparison with the conformational dynamics and energetics reported in the previous works of the authors based on DEER spectroscopy (DeBerg et al., JBC 2016, Collauto et al., Phys Chem Chem Phys. 2017 and Evans et al., PNAS, 2020) and with Goldschen-Ohm et al., eLife, 2016, where single-molecule events (FRET-based) of cAMP binding to HCN CNBD were measured and kinetic rate constants were models in the context of a simple four-state model, reminiscent of the model employed in the present work.

- Even considering the bacterial SthK channel, cryo-EM has significantly advanced the atomistic understanding of its ligand-dependent regulation (Rheinberger et al., eLife, 2018). More recently, the authors of the present work have elegantly employed DEER on full-length SthK protein to reveal ligand-dependent conformational rearrangements in the Clinker region (Evans et al., PNAS, 2020). In light of the above, what is the contribution/novelty that the present work provides to the SthK biophysics?

- The authors decided to use the Clinker/CNBD fragment of SthK. On the basis of the above-cited work (Evans et al., PNAS, 2020) the authors should clarify why they have decided to work on the isolated Clinker/CNBD fragment and not on the full-length protein. I assume that the use of the C-licker/CNBD fragment was necessary to isolate tetramers with only one labelled subunit (fSEC and MP were used to confirm this) to avoid inter-subunit crass-talk. However, I am not clear if this is correct.

- What is the advantage of using the Clinker/CNBD fragment of a bacterial protein and not one of HCN channels, as already successfully employed by the authors (see above citations)?

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

Summary:

This manuscript aims to provide insights into conformational transitions in the cyclic nucleotide-binding domain of a cyclic nucleotide-gated (CNG) channel. The authors use transition metal FRET (tmFRET) which has been pioneered by this lab and previously led to detailed insights into ion channel conformational changes. Here, the authors not only use steady-state measurements but also time-resolved, fluorescence lifetime measurements to gain detailed insights into conformational transitions within a protein construct that contains the cytosolic C-linker and cyclic nucleotide-binding domain (CNBD) of a bacterial CNG channel. The use of time-resolved tmFRET is a clear advancement of this technique and a strength of this manuscript.

In summary, the present work introduced time-resolved tmFRET as a novel tool to study conformational distributions in proteins. This is a clear technological advance. At this stage, conclusions made about energetics in CNG channels are overstated. However, it will be interesting to see in the future how results compare to similar measurements on full-length channels, for example, reconstituted into nanodiscs.

Strengths:

The results capture known differences in promoting the open state between different ligands (cAMP and cGMP) and are consistent across three donor-acceptor FRET pairs. The calculated distance distributions further are in reasonable agreement with predicted values based on available structures. The finding that the C-helix is conformationally more mobile in the closed state as compared to the open state quantitatively increases our understanding of conformational changes in these channels.

Weaknesses:

While the use of a truncated construct of SthK is justified, it also comes with certain limitations. The construct is missing the transmembrane part including the pore for ions. However, the pore is the central part of every ion channel and is crucial to describe conformational transitions and energetics that lead to ion channel gating. Two observations in the present study disagree with the results for the full-length channel protein. Here, under apo conditions, the CNBD can adopt an 'open' conformation, and second, cooperativity of channel opening is lost. These differences need to be weighed carefully when judging the impact of the presented results for understanding allostery in CNG channels. Qualitatively, the results can describe movements of the C-helix in CNBDs, but detailed energetics as calculated in this study, need to be limited to the truncated protein construct used. The entire ion channel is an allosteric system and detailed, energetic conclusions cannot be made for the full-length channel when working with only the cytosolic domains. Similarly, the statement "These results demonstrate that time-resolved tmFRET can be utilized to obtain energetic information on the individual domains during the allosteric activation of SthK." is misleading. The data only describe movements of the C-helix. Upon ligand binding, the C-helix moves upwards to coordinate the ligand. Thus, the results are ligand-induced conformational changes (as the title states). Allosteric regulation usually involves remote locations in the protein, which is not the case here.

Author response:

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary:

The authors use fluorescence lifetime imaging (FLIM) and tmFRET to resolve resting vs. active conformational heterogeneity and free energy differences driven by cGMP and cAMP in a tetrameric arrangement of CNBDs from a prokaryotic CNG channel.

Strengths:

The excellent data provide detailed measures of the probability of adopting resting vs. activated conformations with and without bound ligands.

Weaknesses:

Limitations are that only the cytosolic fragments of the channel were studied, and the current manuscript does not do a good job of placing the results in the context of what is already known about CNBDs from other methods that yield similar information.

In the revision, we will put our results into context of the previous work of CNBD channels where possible.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

The authors investigated the conformational dynamics and energetics of the SthK Clinker/CNBD fragment using both steady-state and time-resolved transition metal ion Förster resonance energy transfer (tmFRET) experiments. To do so, they engineered donor-acceptor pairs at specific sites of the CNBD (C-helix and β-roll) by incorporating a fluorescent noncanonical amino acid donor and metal ion acceptors. In particular, the authors employed two cysteine-reactive metal chelators (TETAC and phenM). This allowed them to coordinate three transition metals (Cu2+, Fe2+, and Ru2+) to measure both short (10-20 Å, Cu2+) and long distances (25-50 Å, Fe2+, and Ru2+). By measuring tmFRET with fluorescence lifetimes, the authors determined intramolecular distance distributions in the absence and presence of the full agonist cAMP or the partial agonist cGMP. The probability distributions between conformational states without and with ligands were used to calculate the changes in free energy (ΔG) and differences in free energy change (ΔΔG) in the context of a simple four-state model.

Overall, the work is conducted in a rigorous manner, and it is well-written. I greatly enjoyed reading it.

Nonetheless, I do not see the novelty that the authors claim.

We will try to highlight the novelty in the revision. (See below for examples).

In terms of methodology, this work provides further support to steady-state and time-resolved tmFRET approaches previously developed by the authors of the present work to probe conformational rearrangements by using a fluorescent noncanonical amino acid donor (Anap) and transition metal ion acceptor (Zagotta et al., eLIfe 2021; Gordon et al., Biophysical Journal 2024; Zagotta et al., Biophysical Journal 2024).

This work is the first use of the time-resolved tmFRET method to obtain intrinsic DG (of an apo conformation) and DDG values for different ligands, and the first application of this approach to a protein other than MBP.

Regarding cyclic nucleotide-binding domain (CNBD)-containing ion channels, I disagree with the authors when they state that "the precise allosteric mechanism governing channel activation upon ligand binding, particularly the energetic changes within domains, remains poorly understood". On the contrary, I would say that the literature on this subject is rather vast and based on a significantly large variety of methodologies. This is a not exhaustive list of papers: Zagotta et al., Nature 2003; Craven et al., GJP, 2004; Craven et al., JBC, 2008; Taraska et al., Nature Methods, 2009; Puljung et al., JBC, 2013; Saponaro et al., PNAS 2014; Goldschen-Ohm et al., eLife, 2016; Bankston et al., JBC, 2017; Hummert et al., PLoS Comput Biol., 2018; Porro et al., eLife, 2019; Ng et al., JGP, 2019; Porro et al., JGP, 2020; Evans et al., PNAS, 2020; Pfleger et al., Biophys J. 2021; Saponaro et al., Mol Cell, 2021; Dai et al., Nat Commun. 2021; Kondapuram et al., Commun Biol. 2022. These studies were conducted either on the isolated Clinker/CNBD fragments or on the entire full-length proteins. As is evident from the above list, the authors of the present work have significantly contributed to the understanding of the allosteric mechanism governing the ligand-induced activation of CNBD-containing channels, including a detailed description of the energetic changes induced by ligand binding. Particularly relevant are their works based on DEER spectroscopy. In DeBerg et al., JBC 2016, the authors described, in atomic detail, the conformational changes induced by different cyclic nucleotides on the HCN CNBD fragment and derived energetics associated with ligand binding to the CNBD (ΔΔG). In Collauto et al., Phys Chem Chem Phys. 2017, they further detailed the ligand-CNBD conformational changes by combining DEER spectroscopy with microfluidic rapid freeze quench to resolve these processes and obtain both equilibrium constants and reaction rates, thus demonstrating that DEER can quantitatively resolve both the thermodynamics and the kinetics of ligand binding and the associated conformational changes.

Despite this vast literature, some of which is our own work, there is no consensus about the energetics and coupling of domains that underlies the allosteric mechanism in any CNBD channel. Our approach addresses energetics of the CNBD upon ligand binding, which we aim to later expand to a more complete assessment of the allosteric mechanism in the intact channel.

Suggestions:

- In light of the above, I suggest the authors better clarify the contribution/novelty that the present work provides to the state-of-the-art methodology employed (steady-state and time-resolved tmFRET) and of CNBD-containing ion channels. In particular, it would be nice to have a comparison with the conformational dynamics and energetics reported in the previous works of the authors based on DEER spectroscopy (DeBerg et al., JBC 2016, Collauto et al., Phys Chem Chem Phys. 2017 and Evans et al., PNAS, 2020) and with Goldschen-Ohm et al., eLife, 2016, where single-molecule events (FRET-based) of cAMP binding to HCN CNBD were measured and kinetic rate constants were models in the context of a simple four-state model, reminiscent of the model employed in the present work.

In the revision, we will put our results into context of the previous work of CNBD channels where possible.

- Even considering the bacterial SthK channel, cryo-EM has significantly advanced the atomistic understanding of its ligand-dependent regulation (Rheinberger et al., eLife, 2018). More recently, the authors of the present work have elegantly employed DEER on full-length SthK protein to reveal ligand-dependent conformational rearrangements in the Clinker region (Evans et al., PNAS, 2020). In light of the above, what is the contribution/novelty that the present work provides to the SthK biophysics?

Neither of the papers mentioned above (structure or DEER) reported energetics for SthK. This work describes an approach that will allow us to get a more complete picture of the energetics of SthK.

- The authors decided to use the Clinker/CNBD fragment of SthK. On the basis of the above-cited work (Evans et al., PNAS, 2020) the authors should clarify why they have decided to work on the isolated Clinker/CNBD fragment and not on the full-length protein. I assume that the use of the C-licker/CNBD fragment was necessary to isolate tetramers with only one labelled subunit (fSEC and MP were used to confirm this) to avoid inter-subunit crass-talk. However, I am not clear if this is correct.

We chose to start on the C-terminal fragment to provide a technically more tractable system for validating our approach using time-resolved tmFRET before moving to the full-length membrane protein.

- What is the advantage of using the Clinker/CNBD fragment of a bacterial protein and not one of HCN channels, as already successfully employed by the authors (see above citations)?

SthK is a useful model system that allows us to later express full-length channels in bacteria.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

Summary:

This manuscript aims to provide insights into conformational transitions in the cyclic nucleotide-binding domain of a cyclic nucleotide-gated (CNG) channel. The authors use transition metal FRET (tmFRET) which has been pioneered by this lab and previously led to detailed insights into ion channel conformational changes. Here, the authors not only use steady-state measurements but also time-resolved, fluorescence lifetime measurements to gain detailed insights into conformational transitions within a protein construct that contains the cytosolic C-linker and cyclic nucleotide-binding domain (CNBD) of a bacterial CNG channel. The use of time-resolved tmFRET is a clear advancement of this technique and a strength of this manuscript.

In summary, the present work introduced time-resolved tmFRET as a novel tool to study conformational distributions in proteins. This is a clear technological advance. At this stage, conclusions made about energetics in CNG channels are overstated. However, it will be interesting to see in the future how results compare to similar measurements on full-length channels, for example, reconstituted into nanodiscs.

Strengths:

The results capture known differences in promoting the open state between different ligands (cAMP and cGMP) and are consistent across three donor-acceptor FRET pairs. The calculated distance distributions further are in reasonable agreement with predicted values based on available structures. The finding that the C-helix is conformationally more mobile in the closed state as compared to the open state quantitatively increases our understanding of conformational changes in these channels.

Weaknesses:

While the use of a truncated construct of SthK is justified, it also comes with certain limitations. The construct is missing the transmembrane part including the pore for ions. However, the pore is the central part of every ion channel and is crucial to describe conformational transitions and energetics that lead to ion channel gating. Two observations in the present study disagree with the results for the full-length channel protein. Here, under apo conditions, the CNBD can adopt an 'open' conformation, and second, cooperativity of channel opening is lost. These differences need to be weighed carefully when judging the impact of the presented results for understanding allostery in CNG channels. Qualitatively, the results can describe movements of the C-helix in CNBDs, but detailed energetics as calculated in this study, need to be limited to the truncated protein construct used. The entire ion channel is an allosteric system and detailed, energetic conclusions cannot be made for the full-length channel when working with only the cytosolic domains. Similarly, the statement "These results demonstrate that time-resolved tmFRET can be utilized to obtain energetic information on the individual domains during the allosteric activation of SthK." is misleading. The data only describe movements of the C-helix. Upon ligand binding, the C-helix moves upwards to coordinate the ligand. Thus, the results are ligand-induced conformational changes (as the title states). Allosteric regulation usually involves remote locations in the protein, which is not the case here.

We agree that the full-length channel is more complicated than the C-terminal fragment studied here, but we disagree that there isn’t relevant energetic information from the individual domains. For example, the DDG values measured for the C-helix movement in the isolated fragment should be the same as those of the intact channel. In the future we aim to make direct comparisons of the energetics between the fragment and the intact channel.