The measured and calculated affinity of methyl- and methoxy-substituted benzoquinones for the QA site of bacterial reaction centers

Department of Physics, City College of New York, New York, New York 10031, USA.
Proteins Structure Function and Bioinformatics (Impact Factor: 2.63). 09/2010; 78(12):2638-54. DOI: 10.1002/prot.22779
Source: PubMed


Quinones play important roles in mitochondrial and photosynthetic energy conversion acting as intramembrane, mobile electron, and proton carriers between catalytic sites in various electron transfer proteins. They display different affinity, selectivity, functionality, and exchange dynamics in different binding sites. The computational analysis of quinone binding sheds light on the requirements for quinone affinity and specificity. The affinities of 10 oxidized, neutral benzoquinones were measured for the high affinity Q(A) site in the detergent-solubilized Rhodobacter sphaeroides bacterial photosynthetic reaction center. Multiconformation Continuum Electrostatics was then used to calculate their relative binding free energies by grand canonical Monte Carlo sampling with a rigid protein backbone, flexible ligand, and side chain positions and protonation states. Van der Waals and torsion energies, Poisson-Boltzmann continuum electrostatics, and accessible surface area-dependent ligand-solvent interactions are considered. An initial, single cycle of GROMACS backbone optimization improves the match with experiment as do coupled-ligand and side-chain motions. The calculations match experiment with an root mean square deviation (RMSD) of 2.29 and a slope of 1.28. The affinities are dominated by favorable protein-ligand van der Waals rather than electrostatic interactions. Each quinone appears in a closely clustered set of positions. Methyl and methoxy groups move into the same positions as found for the native quinone. Difficulties putting methyls into methoxy sites are observed. Calculations using a solvent-accessible surface area-dependent implicit van der Waals interaction smoothed out small clashes, providing a better match to experiment with a RMSD of 0.77 and a slope of 0.97.

1 Follower
10 Reads
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Reaction centers (RCs) are integral membrane proteins that undergo a series of electron transfer reactions during the process of photosynthesis. In the Q(A) site of RCs from Rhodobacter sphaeroides, ubiquinone-10 is reduced, by a single electron transfer, to its semiquinone. The neutral quinone and anionic semiquinone have similar affinities, which is required for correct in situ reaction thermodynamics. A previous study showed that despite similar affinities, anionic quinones associate and dissociate from the Q(A) site at rates ≈10(4) times slower than neutral quinones indicating that anionic quinones encounter larger binding barriers (Madeo, J.; Gunner, M. R. Modeling binding kinetics at the Q(A) site in bacterial reaction centers. Biochemistry 2005, 44, 10994-11004). The present study investigates these barriers computationally, using steered molecular dynamics (SMD) to model the unbinding of neutral ground state ubiquinone (UQ) and its reduced anionic semiquinone (SQ(-)) from the Q(A) site. In agreement with experiment, the SMD unbinding barrier for SQ(-) is larger than for UQ. Multi Conformational Continuum Electrostatics (MCCE), used here to calculate the binding energy, shows that SQ(-) and UQ have comparable affinities. In the Q(A) site, there are stronger binding interactions for SQ(-) compared to UQ, especially electrostatic attraction to a bound non-heme Fe(2+). These interactions compensate for the higher SQ(-) desolvation penalty, allowing both redox states to have similar affinities. These additional interactions also increase the dissociation barrier for SQ(-) relative to UQ. Thus, the slower SQ(-) dissociation rate is a direct physical consequence of the additional binding interactions required to achieve a Q(A) site affinity similar to that of UQ. By a similar mechanism, the slower association rate is caused by stronger interactions between SQ(-) and the polar solvent. Thus, stronger interactions for both the unbound and bound states of charged and highly polar ligands can slow their binding kinetics without a conformational gate. Implications of this for other systems are discussed.
    Journal of the American Chemical Society 08/2011; 133(43):17375-85. DOI:10.1021/ja205811f · 12.11 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: A hybrid protocol combining Rosetta fullatom refinement and Multi-Conformation Continuum Electrostatics (MCCE) to estimate pK(a) is applied to the blind prediction of 94 mutated residues in Staphylococcal nuclease (SNase), as part of the pK(a)-cooperative benchmark test. The standard MCCE method is limited to sidechain conformational changes. The Rosetta refinement protocol is used to add the backbone conformational changes in pK(a) calculations. The non-electrostatic energy component from Rosetta and the electrostatic energy from MCCE are combined to weight the calculated ionization states. Of 63 measured pK(a)s, the root mean squared deviation (RMSD) between the calculated pK(a)s and the measured values is 4.3, showing an improvement compared to the RMSD of 6.6 in the standard MCCE calculations, using a low protein dielectric constant of 4. The breakdown of pK(a) shift from the solution values (ΔpK(a)) shows that the desolvation energy contributes the most in the standard MCCE calculations. Lowering desolvation penalties and optimizing electrostatic interactions with the Rosetta/MCCE protocol reduces the ΔpK(a) to favor the charged states. Analysis also showed that the Rosetta/MCCE protocol samples conformations with pK(a)s close to the solution values. The question remains whether the correct conformational changes coupled to the ionization changes are found here. Nevertheless, a challenge emerges to accurately estimate the reorganization energy, which is not directly measured from the electrostatic environment of the site of interest. Possible improvements to the protocol are also discussed.
    Proteins Structure Function and Bioinformatics 12/2011; 79(12):3356-63. DOI:10.1002/prot.23146 · 2.63 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The sections in this article areIntroductionThe Role of Metabolism in Producing Toxic MetabolitesPhase I MetabolismPhase II MetabolismMechanisms by Which Chemicals Produce ToxicityCovalent Binding to MacromoleculesEnzyme InhibitionIschemia/HypoxiaOxidative StressReceptor–Ligand InteractionsConclusion Keywords:metabolic transformations;safer chemicals;chemical design;toxic metabolites;toxicity;green chemistry
    Handbook of Green Chemistry, 04/2012; , ISBN: 352762869X

Preview (2 Sources)

10 Reads
Available from