View
3
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
G
B
St
1
2
KQ1
K3
4
a5b6c7
8
a9
10
A11
R12
R13
A14
A
15
K16
S17
P18
P19
H20
T21
122
23
a24
o25
n26
o27
a28
c29
[30
n31
p32
g33
T34
c35
a36
t37
h38
D39
e40
c41
p42
0h
ARTICLE IN PRESS Model
IOMAC 3437 1–13
International Journal of Biological Macromolecules xxx (2012) xxx– xxx
Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect
International Journal of Biological Macromolecules
jo u r n al hom epa ge: ww w.elsev ier .com/ locate / i jb iomac
tructure of SAICAR synthetase from Pyrococcus horikoshii OT3: Insights intohermal stability
avyashree Manjunatha, Shankar Prasad Kanaujiab, Surekha Kanagaraj c, Jeyaraman Jeyakanthanc,anagaraj Sekara,∗
Supercomputer Education and Research Centre, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore 560 012, IndiaDepartment of Biotechnology, Indian Institute of Technology, Guwahati 781 039, IndiaDepartment of Bioinformatics, Alagappa University, Karaikudi 630 003, Tamilnadu, India
r t i c l e i n f o
rticle history:eceived 29 August 2012eceived in revised form 25 October 2012ccepted 26 October 2012vailable online xxx
a b s t r a c t
The first native crystal structure of Phosphoribosylaminoimidazole-succinocarboxamide synthetase(SAICAR synthetase) from a hyperthermophilic organism Pyrococcus horikoshii OT3 was determined intwo space groups H3 (Type-1: Resolution 2.35 A) and in C2221 (Type-2: Resolution 1.9 A). Both are dimericbut Type-1 structure exhibited hexameric arrangement due to the presence of cadmium ions. A compar-ison has been made on the sequence and structures of all SAICAR synthetases to better understand the
eywords:AICAR synthetaseurine de novo biosynthesisyrococcus horikoshii OT3yperthermophile
differences between mesophilic, thermophilic and hyperthermophilic SAICAR synthetases. These SAICARsynthetases are reasonably similar in sequence and three-dimensional structure; however, differenceswere visible only in the subtler details of percentage composition of the sequences, salt bridge interactionsand non-polar contact areas.
© 2012 Published by Elsevier B.V.
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
hermostable proteins
. Introduction
Pyrococcus horikoshii OT3 is a hyperthermophilic anaerobicrchaeon which was isolated from the hydrothermal fluid samplesf Okinawa trough vents at a depth of 1395 m [1]. These orga-isms grow at an optimal temperature of 98 ◦C, but are capablef surviving at 105 ◦C over the pH range of 5–8 (optimal at pH 7)nd NaCl concentration of 1–5%, (optimal value of 2.4%) [1]. Theomplete genome sequence of this organism has been determined2]. These extremophiles have evolved using highly robust mecha-isms to adapt to the extreme conditions with exceptionally stableroteins [3,4]. A recent review [5] describes the different strate-ies adopted by them to survive at extremely high temperature.o mention a few, these organisms have histones to facilitate DNAompaction, high concentrations of linear polyamines (sperminesnd spermidines) to stabilize DNA and branched chain polyamineso stabilize tRNA. The reverse gyrase, which is present only inyperthermophiles, provides a positive superhelical structure toNA, stabilizing it further. In addition, they exhibit various differ-
Please cite this article in press as: K. Manjunath, et al., Int. J. Biol. Macromo
nces in protein sequences and structures. Many studies have beenarried out to reveal the possible evolutionary strategies of suchroteins [6–15].
∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +91 80 22933059/22933060; fax: +91 80 23600683.E-mail addresses: sekar@physics.iisc.ernet.in, sekar@serc.iisc.ernet.in (K. Sekar).
62
63
64
141-8130/$ – see front matter © 2012 Published by Elsevier B.V.ttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2012.10.028
Extensive experimental and theoretical studies have been car-
ried out exploring the sequence, structure and dynamic nature
discerning mesophilic, thermophilic and hyperthermophilic pro-
teins. Statistical studies on a large number of protein sequences
from mesophiles, thermophiles and hyperthermophiles have come
up with several observations unique to thermostable proteins.
Presence of higher Ala, preference for Lys to Arg, higher per-
centage of charged residues, lesser polar uncharged residues and
higher hydrophobic residues are some of the important observa-
tions [9]. Structural studies carried out on highly thermostable
proteins from hyperthermophilic bacteria Thermatoga maritima
[16] concluded that protein adopt different strategies for ther-
mostability mainly involving hydrophobic and ionic interactions.
Thermostable proteins exhibit various features like, enhanced
hydrophobic core [17] (with some exceptions [18]), increased salt-
bridges [13,19], higher aromatic and cation-pi interactions [9] and
shorter loop regions [20]. They also exhibit increased hydrogen
bonding interactions [21] (except in few cases [22]), disulfide bonds
[23], higher oligomerization states [24] and less number of cavities
[22]. Further, some evidences support that at ordinary temper-
atures, hyperthermophilic proteins are less flexible compared to
their mesophilic homologues [25], however, some studies disagree
l. (2012), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2012.10.028
with this observation [26]. 65
The present work is based on an enzyme SAICAR synthetase (238 66
residues; 27,436 Da) from a hyperthermophilic organism, Pyrococ- 67
cus horikoshii OT3. This enzyme is involved in the de novo purine 68
ARTICLE IN PRESSG Model
BIOMAC 3437 1–13
2 K. Manjunath et al. / International Journal of Biological Macromolecules xxx (2012) xxx– xxx
esis pa
b69
s70
s71
b72
fi73
[74
i75
T76
r77
(78
s79
i80
b81
82
m83
c84
(85
(86
i87
o88
b89
t90
d91
(92
i93
s94
195
E96
M97
C98
a99
l100
d101
b102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
Fig. 1. De novo purine biosynth
iosynthesis pathway. Nucleotides are bio-synthesized either inalvage pathway by joining already available bases with riboseugar units or de novo pathway where nucleotide bases are assem-led from simpler compounds. Purine nucleotide biosynthesis wasrst described by Buchanan [27]. De novo purine biosynthesis28] consists of 11 steps in bacteria, fungi and only ten stepsn some archaea and higher eukaryotes including humans [29].he difference arises during the conversion of 5-aminoimidazoleibonucleotide (AIR) to carboxyaminoimidazole ribonucleotideCAIR) [30,31]. The organism Pyrococcus horikoshii OT3 utilizes aingle step catalysis by AIR carboxylase (PurE class II) as illustratedn Fig. 1. Interestingly, the enzymes involved in the de novo purineiosynthesis pathway can be important drug targets [32,33].
The enzyme SAICAR synthetase (E.C. 6.3.2.6) catalyzes the for-ation of N-succinyl-5-aminoimidazole-4-carboxamide ribonu-
leotide (SAICAR) from carboxyaminoimidazole ribonucleotideCAIR) [34] and aspartic acid in the presence of ATP. In archaeapurC), bacteria (purC), fungi (ADE1) and plants (pur7), this reactions catalyzed by a mono-functional enzyme but in higher eukary-tes, it is catalyzed by a bifunctional enzyme PAICS which hasoth AIR carboxylase and SAICAR synthetase activity. A total of 16hree-dimensional crystals structures of SAICAR synthetase fromifferent organisms have been deposited in the Protein Data BankPDB). The first crystal structure was solved from S. cerevisiae (PDB-d 1a48; [35]) at a resolution of 1.9 A. Subsequently, several crystaltructures of the native and its complex from S. cerevisiae (PDB-ids:obg, 1obd, 2cnu, 2cnv and 2cnq), T. maritima (PDB-id: 1kut [36]),. coli (PDB-ids: 2gqs and 2gqr [37]), G. kaustophilus (PDB-id: 2ywv),. jannaschii (PDB-ids: 2z02 and 2yzl), E. chaffeensis (PDB-id: 3kre),
. perfringens (PDB-id: 3nua), H. sapiens (PDB-id: 2h31 [38]) and M.
Please cite this article in press as: K. Manjunath, et al., Int. J. Biol. Macromo
bscessus (PDB-id: 3r9r) have been reported. According to the pub-ished reports, the enzyme is a monomer in S. cerevisiae, a covalentimer in T. maritima and a non-covalent dimer in E. coli, while theifunctional enzyme PAICS in human is an octamer. In the present
thway in Pyrococcus horikoshii.
work, we report the crystal structure of the native SAICAR syn-
thetase from P. horikoshii OT3 in two different space groups. It is
noteworthy that this is the first uncomplexed SAICAR synthetase
structure from a hyperthermophilic organism. The sequence and
structures of all reported SAICAR synthetases have been examined
to distinguish between mesophilic, thermophilic and hyperther-
mophilic proteins. In the following text SAICAR synthetase from
C. perfringens, E. coli, E. chaffeensis, G. kaustophilus, H. sapiens, M.
abscessus, M. jannaschii, P. horikoshii, S. cerevisiae and T. maritima
are abbreviated as CpSS, EcSS, EhSS, GkSS, HsSS, MaSS, MjSS, PhSS,
ScSS and TmSS, respectively.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Protein purification
The protein SAICAR synthetase was purified according to the
protocol mentioned in our previous work [39] with slight modifi-
cations. The clone of gene PH0239 in pET11a was transformed into
E. coli BL21-CodonPlus (DE3)-RIL cells. The transformed colonies
were grown at 37 ◦C in LB media containing 50 �g/ml of ampicillin
and 34 �g/ml chloramphenicol. After a post induction (0.05 mM
IPTG) growth of 4 hrs, cells were pelleted, re-suspended in lysis
solution and lysed by sonication. After heat treatment and centrifu-
gation of lysate, solution was desalted using Sephadex G-25 (GE
Healthcare) desalting column. The desalted protein solution was
loaded on to an anion exchange column, Sepharose Q (GE Health-
care), and eluted with a linear gradient of 0–0.5 M NaCl in buffer
A (20 mM Tris–HCl, pH 8.0). The fractions containing protein was
concentrated and loaded onto Sephacryl S200 (GE Healthcare) gel
l. (2012), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2012.10.028
filtration column, pre-equilibrated with buffer A containing 0.2 M 130
NaCl. Fractions containing pure protein were pooled and concen- 131
trated to 10–14 mg/ml as determined by measuring the absorbance 132
at 280 nm. The purity of the protein was confirmed by SDS–PAGE. 133
IN PRESSG Model
B
f Biological Macromolecules xxx (2012) xxx– xxx 3
U134
w135
2136
137
t138
o139
(140
o141
u142
o143
c144
s145
e146
w147
2148
c149
150
s151
s152
d153
s154
t155
a156
e157
w158
u159
a160
g161
d162
a163
r164
l165
S166
n167
a168
a169
t170
o171
s172
u173
c174
s175
t176
f177
P178
i179
t180
t181
f182
t183
u184
w185
g186
r187
o188
R189
f190
e191
r192
m193
3194
f195
Table 1Data collection and refinement statistics for Type-1 and Type-2 crystals. Q3
Type-1 Type-2
Data collection and processing statisticsWavelength (Å) 1.5418 1.5418Temperature (K) 100 100Crystal-to-detector-distance (mm) 200 150Space group H3 C2221
Unit cell parameters (Å) a = b = 95.42;c = 148.63
a = 44.10;b = 155.39;c = 78.35
Resolution range (Å) 55.26–2.35(2.48–2.35)
42.42–1.90(2.0–1.9)
Observed reflections 86,788 113,532Unique reflections 21,057 (3112) 21,450 (3041)Completeness (%) 100.0 (100.0) 98.9 (97.5)Rmerge (%) 8.2 (40.0) 4.2 (19.1)〈I/�(I)〉 13.2 (3.1) 24.1 (8.0)Multiplicity 4.1 (4.0) 5.3 (5.2)Matthews coefficient (Å Da−1) 2.37 2.45Solvent content 48.2 49.8Z 2 1
Refinement statisticsRwork (%) 23.5 18.4Rfree (%) 28.6 22.9
Protein modelProtein atoms 3529 1806Water oxygen atoms 165 211Metal ions (Cd2+) 12 –Others (BU1, SO4, ACT) 1BU1, 4 SO4, 1 ACT 2 SO4, 1ACT
RMS deviations from ideal geometriesBond lengths (Å) 0.012 0.007Bond angles (◦) 1.29 0.99
Average temperature factors (Å2)Protein atoms 25.38 22.36Water molecules 25.37 29.75Metals 52.69 -Others 43.98 35.01
Ramachandran statistics (%)Most favored 89.5 91.0Additionally allowed 10.0 8.5Generously allowed region 0.5 0.5
† Rmerge =∑
h k l
∑i|Ii(h k l) −
⟨I(h k l)
⟩|/∑
h k l
∑iIi(h k l), where Ii(h k l) is the ith
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
ARTICLEIOMAC 3437 1–13
K. Manjunath et al. / International Journal o
nless otherwise mentioned, all the columns used in purificationere pre-equilibrated in buffer A.
.2. Crystallization
The purified protein sample was screened for crystalliza-ion conditions using Hampton crystal screen kits. Crystals werebtained in two different space groups, H3 (Type-1) and C2221Type-2). Crystallization condition for Type-1 is described previ-usly [39]. Type-2 crystals were obtained in another conditionsing the under oil method. Crystallization drop contained 1 �lf (∼10 mg/ml) protein and 1 �l of condition number 13 ofrystal screen kit II, containing 0.2 M ammonium sulfate, 0.1 Modium acetate trihydrate, pH 4.6 and 30% (w/v) PEG monomethylther 2000. Well-shaped good quality diffracting crystals appearedithin a week.
.3. Data collection, structure solution and refinement of Type-1rystal
For Type-1 crystal, the MAD data (collected previously usingynchrotron) had some problems during the refinement in P31pace group with a hexamer in the asymmetric unit. A secondata of SeMet protein crystal was collected at 100 K at the homeource using Cu K� radiation on a MAR345 image plate detec-or with a Bruker Microstar Ultra rotating anode X-ray generatorvailable at the Molecular Biophysics Unit, Indian Institute of Sci-nce, Bangalore. The crystal diffracted up to 2.35 A resolution whichas indexed and processed in the space group H3 (sg. no. 146)sing IMOSFLM [40]. The crystallization condition had cadmiumnd initial scaling indicated an overall RMS correlation ratio (RCR)reater than one (1.227), thus, the anomalous pairs were separateduring merging in SCALA. The data had a completeness of 100%nd anomalous completeness of 100%. The overall Rmerge for alleflections was 8.2% with an average mosaicity of 0.57◦. Data col-ection and processing statistics are given in Table 1. The programFCHECK [41] indicated the presence of a twinning, with a twin-ing fraction of 0.064, which was later supported by H-test, L-testnd Britton analysis, confirming a mild partial hemihedral twinninglong (k h −l). It also indicated the tentative presence of a pseudo-ranslation with 21.2% of peak at the origin, but more than otherff-origin peaks, along the vector (0.667, 0.333, 0.000). Preliminarytudies suggested the presence of two chains in the asymmetricnit with a total cell volume of 1172271.5 A3, Matthews’s coeffi-ient (Vm) [42] of 2.37 A3/Da and 48.2% solvent content. Structureolution was obtained by molecular replacement calculations usinghe three-dimensional atomic coordinates of SAICAR synthetaserom M. jannaschii (PDB-id: 2yzl; sequence identity of 49.6%) usingHASER [43]. Refinement was carried out using REFMAC [44] withntermediate rounds of model building using COOT [45]. Of theotal reflections, 5% were set aside for calculating Rfree value andhe refinement was carried out without twinning, as the twinningraction was found to be negligible. Non-crystallographic symme-ry restraints were applied to both the chains in the asymmetricnit and were maintained till the final refinement. Cadmium ionsere located using anomalous peak search using CAD and FFT pro-
rams available in CCP4 package. The Rwork and Rfree of the finalefined model was 23.5% and 28.6%, respectively. The validationf the structure was carried out using ADIT server available inCSB. The final structure had 89.5% of the residues in the most
avored, 10% in additionally allowed and remaining 0.5% in gen-rously allowed regions of the Ramachandran plot [46]. The final
Please cite this article in press as: K. Manjunath, et al., Int. J. Biol. Macromo
efinement statistics are summarized in Table 1. The final refinedodel (Fig. 2a) consisted of two chains in the asymmetric unit with
529 protein atoms, 165 water oxygen atoms, 12 cadmium ions,our sulfate ions, one acetate ion and one 1,4-butanediol molecule.
observed intensity and 〈I(h k l)〉 is the weighted average intensity for multiple mea-surements. Values within the parenthesis correspond to the outermost resolutionshell.
The atomic coordinates and structure factors (PDB-id: 3U54) have
been deposited in PDB.
2.4. Data collection, structure solution and refinement of Type-2crystal
Type-2 crystal data were collected at 100 K using the home
source. The crystal diffracted up to a resolution of 1.9 A which was
indexed and processed in C2221 space group using IMOSFLM. The
data had an overall completeness of 98.9% with an overall Rmerge of
4.2% (mosaicity = 0.94◦). The data collection and processing statis-
tics are given in Table 1. The cell content analysis indicated a single
polypeptide chain in the asymmetric unit with a total cell vol-
ume 536909.3 A3 (Vm = 2.45 A3/Da and solvent content = 49.8%). The
Type-1 (chain A) structure was used as a search model to obtain the
solution for Type-2 data using the program PHASER. The refinement
and model building was carried out using REFMAC [44] and COOT
[45], respectively. A total of 5% of the reflections were set aside for
calculating Rfree value. At the end of refinement, after several rounds
l. (2012), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2012.10.028
of model building, the Rwork and Rfree were reduced to 18.4% and 213
22.9%, respectively. The validation of the structures was carried out 214
using ADIT server. The final refined model had 91% of the residues 215
in the most favored, 8.5% in the additionally allowed and remaining 216
ARTICLE ING Model
BIOMAC 3437 1–13
4 K. Manjunath et al. / International Journal of Biol
Fig. 2. The overall three-dimensional structure of (a) Type-1 crystal is showntogether with the secondary structural elements. The cadmium ions of the twochains are labeled and colored in violet and green, respectively. The sulfate ions,Q2acetate ion and butanediol are also labeled. (b) The overall three-dimensionalsit
0217
fi218
m219
n220
f221
f222
2223
224
C225
d226
d227
t228
i229
s230
[231
a232
g233
d234
t235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
tructure of Type-2 crystal is shown along with the sulfate and acetate ions. (Fornterpretation of the references to color in this figure legend, the reader is referredo the web version of the article.)
.5% in generously allowed regions of the Ramachandran plot. Thenal refinement statistics are summarized in Table 1. The refinedodel (Fig. 2b) has one chain in the asymmetric unit with 1806
on-hydrogen protein atoms, 211 water oxygen atoms, two sul-ate ions and an acetate ion. The atomic coordinates and structureactors (PDB-id: 3U55) have been deposited in the PDB.
.5. Sequence and structure analysis
The sequences were retrieved from UNIPROT, the programlustalW [47] was used for multiple sequence alignment and ren-ered using ESPript [48]. The three-dimensional structures wereownloaded from PDB. Incomplete structures were modeled usinghe server SWISS-MODEL [49–51] and COOT was used for build-ng the missing residues. Energy minimization was done for thetructures (that were partially modeled) using GROMACS v4.5.352], with OPLS-AA (optimized potentials for liquid simulations all
Please cite this article in press as: K. Manjunath, et al., Int. J. Biol. Macromo
tom) force field [53] and TIP4P water model [54] using conjugateradient method with convergence criteria of 1 kJ mol−1 nm−1. Aodecahedron box was chosen with a distance of 1.2 nm betweenhe protein and the box wall. The charges of the system were
PRESSogical Macromolecules xxx (2012) xxx– xxx
neutralized by replacing the water molecules with either Na+ or
Cl− ions. The long-range electrostatic interactions were treated
with Particle Mesh Ewald (PME) method [55] with a Fourier spac-
ing of 0.12 nm combined with the fourth order interpolation. The
short-range neighbor interactions, columbic and vdw cut-offs were
1.4 nm, 1.4 nm and 1.0 nm, respectively. A switch potential was
applied from 0.9 nm onwards for treating vdw forces. The bond
lengths were constrained with the LINCS algorithm [56]. Struc-
tural alignments were carried out using MUSTANG [57]. The PISA
(http://www.ebi.ac.uk/pdbe/prot int/pistart.html) web server [58]
was used to analyze the interfaces and quaternary structures. In
house server PDB Goodies [59] was used for some calculations
in the pdb file. The figures were generated using PyMOL (DeLano
Scientific; http://www.pymol.org). The plugin DSSP [60] was used
to generate secondary structures. Volume calculations were done
using the server 3V: Voss Volume Voxelator [61], radius of gyra-tion calculation of each protein structures was carried out usingHYDROPRO utility [62]. Secondary structure contents were calcu-lated using 2Struc server [63]. HBPLUS [64] was used for calculating
hydrogen bonds (with donor–acceptor cut-off distance of 3.5 A and
donor–hydrogen–acceptor angle to be at least 90◦) and salt-bridges
were detected using WHATIF server [65]. The atomic accessibility
was deduced using the program NACCESS [66]. NACCESS provides
the absolute accessibility RSA (residue surface accessibility) val-
ues of each residue, which is the sum of atomic accessibility of
the corresponding residues. The non-polar contact areas in pro-
tein were implemented using pdb np cont and clustering was done
using pdb np clus programs [67]. In addition, locally generated PERL
scripts were also used in the structure analysis.
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Structure description
3.1.1. OverviewAmong the nine known enzymes involved in the purine biosyn-
thetic pathway in P. horikoshii, six enzymes utilize ATP for the
catalysis [GAR synthetase (PurD), FGAR synthetase (PurT), FGAM
synthetase II (PurLQS), AIR synthetase (PurM), SAICAR synthetase
(PurC) and FAICAR synthetase (PurP)]. The two domains of the
enzyme SAICAR synthetase (PurC) correspond to the two domains
[‘C’ substrate-binding and ‘B’ ATP-binding domains] of ATP-grasp
family. However, it lacks the corresponding ‘A’ domain present in
the ATP-grasp family [68]. According to the SCOP classification,
the enzyme SAICAR synthetase from P. horikoshii OT3 belongs to
� + � architecture. The protein crystallized in two different space
groups, namely, H3 (Type-1, Fig. 2a) with two chains in the asym-
metric unit and C2221 (Type-2, Fig. 2b) with a single chain in the
asymmetric unit. The single chain has an approximate dimension
of 50 A × 50 A × 40 A with two domains (small and large). A small
domain ‘A’ (residues 12–81) includes six beta strands (�1–�6) and
a �-helix (�1). The large domain ‘B’ (residues 82–238) consist-
ing of eight �-strands (�7–�14), five helices (�2–�6) and a 310helix. The electron density is clearly visible only from the 12th
residue onwards. The mass spectrometric analysis on the protein
indicated (data not shown) that almost 90% of the species in the
sample have a mass corresponding to the full length protein. But,
the SeMet derivatized protein showed multiple peaks correspond-
ing to the full length and fragmented proteins. Thus, it is difficult
to say whether the missing region (first eleven residues) is due to
cleavage or because it is disordered.
l. (2012), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2012.10.028
The Type-1 refined model contains two chains in the asym- 294
metric unit (A and B) (Fig. 2a) with 3529 non-hydrogen protein 295
atoms, 165 water oxygen atoms, 12 cadmium (Cd2+) ions, four 296
sulfate ions, an acetate ion and a 1,4-butanediol molecule. The 297
IN PRESSG Model
B
f Biological Macromolecules xxx (2012) xxx– xxx 5
o298
i299
c300
c301
C302
C303
t304
f305
fi306
d307
a308
n309
o310
G311
a312
A313
m314
f315
i316
d317
a318
m319
e320
a321
e322
c323
o324
t325
r326
d327
g328
S329
d330
b331
T332
a333
m334
(335
i336
a337
d338
o339
a340
s341
u342
o343
(344
f345
t346
L347
t348
i349
V350
t351
f352
G353
f354
i355
t356
(357
A358
r359
a360
361
i362
w363
Fig. 3. (a) Hexameric state of Type-1 crystal. Small domain is colored in red andthe large domain is colored in gold, cadmium ions are colored in violet, the truedimeric interface (interface-1) is colored blue and the pseudo-interface (interface-2) is colored green, (b) the identical true dimeric interface observed in Type-1 andType-2 forms. The interface is colored in blue and the small and large domains are
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
ARTICLEIOMAC 3437 1–13
K. Manjunath et al. / International Journal o
verall RMSD (root mean square deviation) between the two chainss 0.13 A and no significant deviations were observed among thehains except near the N-terminal region. The cadmium sites wereonfirmed by the presence of anomalous peaks calculated usingCP4 tools. Among the 12 Cd2+ in the refined model, three ionsD400(A), CD401(A) and CD401(B) form a very strong coordina-ion with both the chains leading to a pseudo-interface (differentrom the true interface) as indicated (asymmetric unit) in thegure (Fig. 2a). The residues Glu158(A,B) and Asp162(A,B) coor-inate CD400(A), Glu111(B) and His63(A) coordinate CD401(A)nd Glu111(A), His63(B) and a 1,4-butanediol molecule coordi-ates CD401(B). The ions CD402(A,B), CD403(A,B) and CD404(A,B)ccupy identical positions in their respective chains. The residueslu89(A,B) and Asp128(A,B) coordinate CD402(A,B), His127(A,B)nd Asp35(A,B) coordinate CD403(A,B). Finally, Glu81(A,B) andsp181(A,B) coordinate CD404(A,B). In addition, there are waterolecules in the coordination shells of cadmium but are not uni-
ormly visible in both the chains. The remaining three cadmiumons are present in the positions unique to each chain. The coor-inating acidic residues Glu125 and Asp124 are 4.07 A and 4.31 Away, respectively, which is relatively far from CD405(A). The cad-ium ion CD405(B) is coordinated by Glu125(B), the symmetry
quivalent residues of chain A [Asp21(A), Asp19(A) and Lys22(A)]nd a water molecule HOH315(A). The above four residues aressential for the coordination but, the corresponding position inhain A does not have a cadmium ion which may be due the lackf similar combination of the four residues which are involved inhe coordination. The cadmium ion CD406(B) is coordinated by theesidues Glu226(B) and Glu229(B). The sulfate ions SO4420(A,B),esignated as the first sulfate ion, have ionic interaction with theuanidinium group of Arg93, Arg198 and backbone nitrogen ofer99 in their respective chains. Other sulfate ions SO4421(A,B),esignated as second sulfate ion, coordinate with Lys210, back-one nitrogen of Phe34 and Arg214 in their corresponding chains.he PISA server predicted that the interface between chain B and
symmetry equivalent (−y, x − y, z) molecule of chain A forms theost probable or true interface with an interfacial area of 1111.5 A2
with a predicted solvation free energy gain upon formation of thenterface, �iG of −18.4 kcal/mol). The dimeric orientation in thesymmetric unit does not represent the true orientation of theimer in solution, because the interfacial area is 241.5 A2 (�iGf −1.1 kcal/mol). The server predicted two types of quaternaryrrangements, the first being a hexamer (Fig. 3a) with a buriedurface area of 16,350 A2 (with the solvation free energy gainpon formation of assembly �intG −432.4 kcal/mol) and the sec-nd being a dimer (Fig. 3b) with a buried surface area of 4530 A2
�intG −132.2 kcal/mol). In the dimeric assembly, the true inter-ace consists of 32 residues (Leu100 to Leu106, Tyr110, Leu112o Leu119, Tyr121, Asn123, Leu126, Pro129 to His135, Lys137 toeu139, Lys147, Glu150 and Leu154) from each chain (A and B). Aotal of four residues from each chain form hydrogen bonds at thenterface [Asn132(B) with Val117(A), Tyr134(B) with Glu150(A),al117(B) with Asn132(A) and Glu150(B) with Tyr134(A)]. Further,
hree residues from each chain form salt bridges at the inter-ace [His135(B) with Glu118(A), Glu118(B) with His135(A) andlu118(B) with His135(A)]. In the hexameric assembly, one (inter-
ace 1) of the interfaces is same as the true interface observedn the dimeric assembly and the other (interface 2) interface ishe pseudo-interface having 12 residues from each chain, with tenHis63, Glu111, Pro113, Glu114, Lys155, Glu158, Lys161, Asp162,la165 and Lys166) common residues from chains A and B. Theemaining two residues are Glu62 and Ile159 (chain A) and Leu112
Please cite this article in press as: K. Manjunath, et al., Int. J. Biol. Macromo
nd Ile170 (chain B).The Type-2 refined model has a single polypeptide chain (Fig. 2b)
n the asymmetric unit with 1806 non-hydrogen protein atoms, 211ater molecules, two sulfate ions and an acetate ion. The sulfate
colored in red and gold, respectively. (For interpretation of the references to colorin this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of the article.)
ions are coordinated to the same residues as found in Type-1 struc-
ture. The acetate ion is found interacting with the guanidinium
group of Arg103, Met130 and a water molecule. The quaternary
structure search using the server PISA predicted only a dimeric
assembly with an interface area of 1159 A2 (�iG = −17.7 kcal/mol)
which is similar to the true interface/interface-1 of Type-1 struc-ture. As opposed to Type-1 structure, in this case, a hexamer was not
predicted and all the identified residues at the true dimeric inter-
face of Type-1 (except Lys147) are also present in this structure.
In addition to the hydrogen bonds and salt bridges at the interface
l. (2012), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2012.10.028
of Type-1 structure, two more hydrogen bonds [Arg103(A) with 374
Met130(A′) and Met130(A) with Arg103(A′)] and an additional salt 375
bridge are found [between His135(A) and Glu118(A′) (the symme- 376
try equivalent molecule is given as A′)]. 377
ARTICLE ING Model
BIOMAC 3437 1–13
6 K. Manjunath et al. / International Journal of Biol
Fig. 4. The superposition of Type-1 and Type-2 structures. Secondary structures � –helices (purple), � – sheets (orange), 310 helices (green) and turns (cyan) are assignedbased on DSSP and colored accordingly in both the structures. Type-1 structure iscolored in light shade while Type-2 structure is colored in dark shade. It can beobserved that only Type-1 structure has a second 310 helix while it is a turn in Type-2ct
3378
379
T380
�381
h382
o383
T384
a385
r386
(387
o388
T389
s390
n391
t392
t393
2394
L395
t396
t397
d398
i399
d400
b401
c402
b403
n404
s405
3406
407
E408
t409
w410
L411
g412
t413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
structure. All the deviating regions (>0.5 A) are labeled and the cadmium ions areolored yellow. (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure legend,he reader is referred to the web version of the article.)
.1.2. Comparison of Type-1 and Type-2 structuresMinor differences are found when the topologies of Type-1 and
ype-2 structures are examined. A short 310 helix between �3 and4 is found in both Type-1 and Type-2 structures, but, a second 310elix between the strands �9 and �10 is present only in the chainsf Type-1 structure while it is a turn in the Type-2 structure. Theype-1 (chain B) and Type-2 structures superpose with an over-ll RMSD of 0.62 A. The residues deviating more than 0.5 A (nineegions) are labeled in the Fig. 4. Two of the most deviating regionsAsp29 to Gly44 and Lys122 to Asp128) are present near the vicinityf the cadmium ions CD402(B), CD403(B) and CD405(B) (Type-1).he other two regions (Val96 to Ile116 and Arg214 to Lys217) areubstantially deviated (especially the former) even though they areot coordinated to any cadmium ions. However, the region (Val96o Ile116) is very crucial as it contributes to the true interface ofhe dimer. Upon comparing the two structures (Type-1 and Type-), it is quite clear that when the two regions, Asp29 to Gly44 andys122 to Asp128, are moved toward each other as seen in Type-1,here will be a drastic conformational change in the region, Val96o Ile116, located at the true dimeric interface. These structuraleviations may be correlated to a situation similar to the bind-
ng of the ligands ATP or CAIR at the active site influencing theeviations at the dimeric interface. The Type-1 structure resem-les more, although not completely, to other SAICAR synthetaseomplex structures. Thus, it may be concluded that the cadmiuminding induces the structural deviation which is significant onlyear the active site and provides a possible clue to the allostericignal between the active site and the true interface.
.1.3. Substrate binding sites in SAICAR synthetaseThe PhSS structures (Type-1 and Type-2) are compared with
cSS and ScSS to identify a probable substrate binding region andhe residues in the active site of PhSS. The structure superposition
Please cite this article in press as: K. Manjunath, et al., Int. J. Biol. Macromo
ith EcSS shows an RMSD of 1.35 A for 223 residues. The residuesys11, Ala12 and Lys13 which stabilizes the � and � phosphateroups of ADP in EcSS are conserved in PhSS, although the elec-ron density of Lys11 is not visible in PhSS. The residues Leu24
PRESSogical Macromolecules xxx (2012) xxx– xxx
and Met86 in EcSS interacting with the adenine ring of ADP corre-
spond to Leu23 and Met85 in PhSS. From the above, it is clear that
these residues (Lys11, Ala12, Lys13, Leu23 and Met85) are essential
for the binding of ATP. Thus, the N-terminal residues along with
the seven beta strands (�12, �13, �1, �2, �6, �5 and �7) and a
loop connecting �13 and �14 form the binding pocket for ATP. The
conserved residues Arg93, Ser99 and Arg198 of PhSS are probably
the CAIR binding residues which correspond to Arg94, Ser100 and
Arg199 in EcSS. The position of the first sulfate ion, in both Type-1
and Type-2, corresponds to the position of the phosphate group of
CAIR in EcSS structure. Further, the position of the second sulfate
ion corresponds to the carboxylic group of SAICAR moiety in ScSS
or the hetero-atom position in the aspartic acid (Asp1308) bound
structure of ScSS (PDB-id: 2cnu). The platform of the cleft for the
binding of CAIR is formed by the beta strands �8, �9, �11 and �14
while 310, �4, loops between �9–�10 and �3–�4 form a supporting
ridge like structure for the binding of CAIR. When compared to thestructure of ScSS (PDB-id: 2cnu), it is believed that the most proba-ble binding site of aspartic acid is near the turn between �3 and �4
where the second sulfate ion was found in the present structures.
3.1.4. Dimeric interfaceType-1 structure was predicted as a hexamer (Fig. 3a) by PISA
server. This hexamer is a dimer of trimers placed one above the
other with a 60◦ rotation with respect to each other. In this arrange-
ment, two different dimeric interfaces are observed and one of
them is the crystallographic interface (pseudo-interface/interface-
2) held by strong coordinating interaction with the cadmium ions.
The other is the true dimeric interface/interface-1 as predicted in
Type-2 structure. The absence of a hexameric orientation in Type-
2 structure indicates that it may be a crystallographic artifact. As
described earlier, the interfacial residues of the true dimeric assem-
bly of both Type-1 and Type-2 structures (Fig. 3b) are formed by the
residues from a 310 helix (which is common in Type-1 and Type-
2), �9, �10 and �2. Examining the oligomeric assembly of SAICAR
synthetases from different organisms shows that the structures of
EcSS, EhSS, GkSS, CpSS, MjSS, and TmSS are dimeric while the struc-
tures of ScSS and MaSS exist as monomer and the bifunctional HsSS
is an octamer. It was previously reported [69] that the structure of
EcSS exists as a trimer in solution, however, the crystal structure
revealed that it is a dimer [37]. The presence of an additional �-turn
between a 310 helix and the strand �9 (according to PhSS) probably
prevents the dimerization in the structures of MaSS and ScSS. In case
of octameric assembly of HsSS, it is clear that the SAICAR synthetase
domain from one chain has a weak interaction with the corre-
sponding domain of the other chain as observed in the dimers of
other structures. The dimeric interfacial area of SAICAR synthetase
from different organisms, EcSS (996.5 A2), EhSS (942.1 A2), GkSS
(858.9 A2), HsSS (451.1 A2), CpSS (1118.2 A2), MjSS (1053 A2), TmSS
(943.9 A2) and PhSS (1111.5 A2 for Type-1 and 1159 A2 for Type-2)
are found to be similar except for HsSS, which is significantly less
compared to all other dimers.
3.1.5. Comparison with other structures
Multiple sequence alignment of all SAICAR synthetase
sequences (Fig. 5a) shows the conservation of the two signa-
ture motifs and other additional residues (Gly10, Lys11, Lys122,
Asp190, Arg198, Arg214, Asp209, Lys210, Ala32, Asp195, Lys45
and Leu60 of PhSS). A careful examination of the PhSS structure
shows that, among these conserved residues (other than the two
signature motifs), the first four residues are near the ATP binding
region while next four residues are present near the CAIR and
l. (2012), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2012.10.028
aspartate binding sites. The next three residues (Ala32, Asp195 474
and Lys45) are present between the ATP and CAIR binding sites 475
and the residue Leu60 lies in the position of the helix �1. In case 476
of ScSS sequence, there are three major insertions consist of 21 477
Please cite this article in press as: K. Manjunath, et al., Int. J. Biol. Macromol. (2012), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2012.10.028
ARTICLE IN PRESSG Model
BIOMAC 3437 1–13
K. Manjunath et al. / International Journal of Biological Macromolecules xxx (2012) xxx– xxx 7
Fig. 5. (a) Multiple sequence alignment of PhSS, MjSS, GkSS, CpSS, EhSS, TmSS, HsSS, EcSS, ScSS and MaSS using the program ClustalW. The signature motifs 1 and 2 arehighlighted in green box. The residues highlighted in red box are conserved in all the sequences and those outlined in blue box are semi conserved. (b) A structure basedsequence alignment obtained from Mustang (numbering is according to the residues aligned). (c) Superposition of the structures of MjSS (brown), GkSS (brown), CpSS (brown),EhSS (brown), EcSS (brown), TmSS (red), HsSS (green), ScSS (cyan), MaSS (cyan) with PhSS (dark blue). It clearly shows that the structures in brown are very similar to PhSS,while TmSS and HsSS are slightly deviated. Monomeric SAICARs (ScSS and MaSS) are significantly deviated. (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure legend,the reader is referred to the web version of the article.)
ARTICLE IN PRESSG Model
BIOMAC 3437 1–13
8 K. Manjunath et al. / International Journal of Biological Macromolecules xxx (2012) xxx– xxx
Fig. 5. (a) Multiple sequence alignment of PhSS, MjSS, GkSS, CpSS, EhSS, TmSS, HsSS, EcSS, ScSS and MaSS using the program ClustalW. The signature motifs 1 and 2 arehighlighted in green box. The residues highlighted in red box are conserved in all the sequences and those outlined in blue box are semi conserved. (b) A structure basedsequence alignment obtained from Mustang (numbering is according to the residues aligned). (c) Superposition of the structures of MjSS (brown), GkSS (brown), CpSS (brown),EhSS (brown), EcSS (brown), TmSS (red), HsSS (green), ScSS (cyan), MaSS (cyan) with PhSS (dark blue). It clearly shows that the structures in brown are very similar to PhSS,while TmSS and HsSS are slightly deviated. Monomeric SAICARs (ScSS and MaSS) are significantly deviated. (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure legend,t
(478
r479
S480
T481
c482
A483
s484
o485
E486
H487
P488
d489
S490
a491
s492
s493
a494
c495
s496
t497
3498
3499
500
t501
m502
S503
a504
(505
T506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
he reader is referred to the web version of the article.)
Asp71 to Ala91), 13 (Tyr133 to Pro145), 18 (Asp265 to Gln282)esidues and one minor insertion of six residues (Ala247 to Gly252).imilar insertions are also observed in MaSS SAICAR synthetase.hus, it is concluded that the two signature motifs and additionalonserved residues lay the platform for the binding of CAIR andTP. In order to see any changes in the structure, a pairwisetructural alignment of all SAICAR synthetases has been carriedut against PhSS. It shows an RMSD of less than 1.36 A with CpSS,cSS, EhSS, GkSS, MjSS and an RMSD of more than 1.86 A with TmSS,sSS, MaSS and ScSS. The first five structures are more similar tohSS compared to the last four. In all the superposed structures,eviations are more pronounced at the N- and C-terminal regions.tructure based sequence alignment of all SAICAR structuresgainst PhSS (Fig. 5b) shows the conservation of all the activeite residues near the ATP or CAIR binding sites. Fig. 5c shows thetructural superposition of all SAICAR synthetases against PhSSnd it is clear that the monomeric SAICAR’s are somewhat differentompared to the dimeric SAICAR’s. From the sequence and thetructural alignments, it is difficult to delineate the mesophilic,hermophilic and hyperthermophilic SAICAR synthetases.
.2. Thermal stability analysis
.2.1. Amino acid compositionThe amino acid composition is examined to look for features
hat could delineate mesophilic, thermophilic and hyperther-ophilic SAICAR synthetases. Among them (EcSS, EhSS, CpSS, GkSS,
Please cite this article in press as: K. Manjunath, et al., Int. J. Biol. Macromo
cSS, MaSS, HsSS, MjSS, TmSS and PhSS), two (ScSS and MaSS)re monomeric, one (HsSS) is bifunctional octamer and anotherTmSS) is a dimer with a disulfide bond between the monomers.he remaining six are non-covalent dimers. The bifunctional
enzyme (HsSS) is excluded from the composition analysis. Due
to lack of experimental results, the value of the melting temper-
ature Tm is assumed to correlate with the optimal temperature
To of the organisms. The percentages mentioned in the rest of
this section are calculated by averaging the composition of the
amino acid residues separately for mesophilic, thermophilic and
hyperthermophilic proteins. The percentage composition of each
residue (Table 2, higher percentage compositions are in bold
and lower percentage compositions are shaded) highlights that
only two (Lys and Gln) residues delineate hyperthermophiles
from mesophiles. For instance, the residue Lys is ∼4% more
in hyperthermophiles while Gln is marginally less by ∼1.6% in
hyperthermophilic structures. On examining further, in hyperther-
mophiles, the charged residues (D + E + H + R + K) together are ∼6%
more and polar uncharged residues (S + T + N + Q) are ∼7% less than
mesophiles. The value (D + E + H + R + K)/Q is observed to be extraor-
dinarily high in hyperthermophiles than the corresponding values
of thermophiles and mesophiles. This is the first report to distin-
guish hyperthermophiles from mesophiles based on the value of
the (D + E + H + R + K)/Q ratio. This could be further confirmed with
a larger data set of hyperthermophilic proteins. However, no con-
clusions could be drawn about the uniqueness of the hydrophobic
residues in hyperthermophiles. Further, the thermophilic protein
(GkSS) has less Lys residues but more Arg than hyperthermophiles,
while Ala and Leu content are more and the residue Met is less
than in mesophiles and hyperthermophiles. Surprisingly, in GkSS
(being a thermophile with To of 60 ◦C), the composition of the
charged residues (D + E + H + R + K) and polar uncharged residues
l. (2012), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2012.10.028
(S + T + N + Q) are comparable to mesophiles which contradicts the 535
general observation that the polar residues are less and the charged 536
residues are higher in thermophiles than mesophiles. However, 537
GkSS has a high composition of aliphatic residues (A + I + L + V) 538
ARTICLE IN PRESSG Model
BIOMAC 3437 1–13
K. Manjunath et al. / International Journal of Biological Macromolecules xxx (2012) xxx– xxx 9
Table 2Percentage composition of amino acids of SAICAR synthetase structures.
a
w539
t540
541
c542
o543
544
TR
(M) Mesophile; (T) Thermophile; (H) Hyperthermophile.
hich is ∼6.1% higher than mesophiles and 4.7% higher than hyper-
Please cite this article in press as: K. Manjunath, et al., Int. J. Biol. Macromo
hermophilic proteins.Monomeric enzymes have some unique features. The per-
entage composition of Trp is ∼2.24 times greater than the restf SAICARs, while Pro is ∼3.5% greater than mesophilic and
able 3adius of gyration and secondary structures.
Source (group)a Rgb (nm) Reff
c (Å) Percentage of secondary struc
B E G
CpSS (M) 1.81 10.29 0.8 35.3 1.3
EcSS (M) 1.81 10.51 0.8 31.6 1.3
EhSS (M) 1.86 10.25 0.8 33.1 1.2
GkSS (T) 1.85 10.12 0.8 33.1 1.2
MjSS (H) 1.89 10.16 1.2 30.2 1.2
PhSS (H) 1.86 9.98 1.3 31.1 2.5
TmSS (H) 1.85 9.33 0.4 30.9 0
a (M) Mesophilic; (T) Thermophilic; (H) Hyperthermophilic.b Radius of gyration.c Effective radius – radius of a sphere whose surface area to volume ratio is same as thed Secondary structures assigned by DSSP-B, beta-bridge; E, strand; G, 310 helix; I, � hel
∼2.24% greater than thermophilic and hyperthermophilic SAICARs
l. (2012), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2012.10.028
contributing to the conformational rigidity. The composition 545
of polar uncharged residues (N + Q) is closer to hyperther- 546
mophilic or thermophilic than mesophilic enzymes, specifically 547
the residue Asn. These monomeric enzymes notably have more 548
turesd % Loop (S + B + I)
I H S T Coil
0 29.4 6.3 13.0 13.9 7.10 30.0 6.3 11.8 18.1 7.10 25.2 7.4 16.5 15.7 8.20 30.2 8.7 9.1 16.9 9.50 29.8 7.9 14.0 15.7 9.10 27.7 7.6 14.3 15.5 8.90 33.0 6.1 11.3 18.3 6.5
object in question. Reff in thermophiles and hyperthermophiles are highlighted.ix; H, alpha helix; S, bend; T, turn; Coil, random coil.
ARTICLE IN PRESSG Model
BIOMAC 3437 1–13
10 K. Manjunath et al. / International Journal of Biological Macromolecules xxx (2012) xxx– xxx
Table 4Total number of hydrogen bonds and number of buried hydrogen bonds.
Source No. of HBa MMb SSc MS/SMd Buried MM Buried SS Buried SM/MS
CpSSe 238 148 44 46 102 2 16EcSSe 224 148 40 36 98 4 11EhSSe 220 133 42 45 93 2 10GkSSf 232 134 55 43 94 6 12MjSSg 232 155 37 40 116 2 10PhSSg 220 140 45 35 94 2 10TmSSg 204 127 44 33 93 5 11
a Hydrogen bond.b Main chain – main chain hydrogen bond.c Side chain – side chain hydrogen bonds.d Main chain – side chain/side chain – main chain hydrogen bonds.
s549
(550
h551
S552
r553
554
TC
a
b
Sc
e Mesophiles.f Thermophiles.g Hyperthermophiles.
hort chain polar residues (S + T), less number of charged residues
Please cite this article in press as: K. Manjunath, et al., Int. J. Biol. Macromo
D + E + H + K + R) compared to other SAICARs. Finally, highlyydrophobic residues (L + I + F + W + V + M) are less in monomericAICARs. Thus, it may be concluded that the monomeric SAICARsesembles mesophilic dimeric SAICARs in terms of charged and
555
556
able 5lassification of salt-bridges based on RASB values.
Total number of salt bridges. Greater number of SBs in hyperthermophiles is in bold.RASB = (Sum of absolute accessibility)/(Sum of standard accessibility) × 100. This value is
Bs in hyperthermophiles compared to mesophiles (in each RASB bins) are indicated in bolompared to mesophiles (in each RASB bins) is indicated to bold with a darker backgroun
polar (S + T) residues content. On contrary, it also resembles
thermophilic and hyperthermophilic SAICARs in terms of N + Q con-
tent. It is concluded that in the case of SAICAR synthetase, the
l. (2012), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2012.10.028
monomers and dimers have to be separately analyzed for thermal 557
stability. 558
calculated for the residues involved in SB formation. Relatively higher percentage ofd with lighter background. Relatively lower percentage of SBs in hyperthermophilesd.
ARTICLE IN PRESSG Model
BIOMAC 3437 1–13
K. Manjunath et al. / International Journal of Biological Macromolecules xxx (2012) xxx– xxx 11
Table 6Clustering of non-polar contact areas in the SAICAR synthetase structures.
Cut-offa CpSS EcSS EhSS GkSS MjSS PhSS TmSS
Nil 7072.05 7255.60 7675.05 7291.50 7820.65 7849.25 7110.205 219
7037.552247236.10
2257626.05
2277243.90
2287775.75
225-37810.25
2167076.15
10 1996873.70
2067080.55
2147541.65
2097061.15
2117599.85
206-47647.12
2046993.95
15 184-3-46733.65
185-46853.33
1937238.25
188-46857.46
193-47182.85
192-37461.39
182-36706.11
20 1736455.30
4-1756678.63
1746882.40
175-36590.46
1787051.75
179-37231.79
3-5-1506114.05
25 8-6-121-35423.40
8-6-121-105745.11
12-4-7-1306180.67
123-6-155649.36
140-96250.78
17-6-130-36505.61
11-6-113-45449.87
30 3-6-673371.91
87-33997.37
5-8-80-5-64555.05
3-6-12-613494.58
10-733776.12
91-94701.32
76-6-43867.34
31 3-3-6335.17
3-763589.88
8-60-9-5-4-64078.53
3-6-9-613395.00
7-733671.44
90-94670.93
6-75-43836.54
32 3-3145.78
23-3-41171.23
8-57-8-63675.21
3-562742.75
72-73640.22
884250.69
74-43615.63
33 3-3145.78
377.03
7-191161.27
385.60
72-63607.90
703513.83
713410.17
34 376.21
377.03
7–191161.27
385.60
– 703513.83
592924.83
35 376.21
377.03
7260.11
385.60
– 696957.72
–
36 376.21
377.03
7260.11
385.60
– 19875.20
–
37 376.21
– 7260.11
385.60
– – –
38 – – – 385.60
– – –
41 – – – 385.60
– – –
a Cut-off for the non-polar interactions. First data line is the non-polar contact area with no cut-off. Subsequent data represent the number of residues in the cluster ate ow th
3559
560
(561
l562
r563
t564
G565
y566
f567
t568
n569
m570
r571
f572
b573
t574
c575
t576
(577
‘578
t579
9580
m581
e582
t583
y584
3585
586
b587
d588
r589
590
591
592
593
594
595
596
597
598
599
600
601
602
603
604
605
606
607
608
609
610
611
612
613
614
615
616
617
sum of the standard accessibility of these residues. The resulting 618
ach cut-off. The non-polar contact area of each cluster is indicated in bold font bel
.2.2. Overall structural featuresThe structures of CpSS (3nua), EcSS (2gqr), EhSS (3kre), GkSS
2ywv), MjSS (2z02), TmSS (1kut) and PhSS (Type-2) are ana-yzed. The structures of SAICAR synthetases having the missingesidues are modeled and the missing side chains are built. Finally,he structures are energy minimized using OPLS-AA force field inROMACS, before subjecting the structures for interaction anal-sis. It is reported that the compactness of the protein increasesrom mesophiles to hyperthermophiles [14]. The radius of gyra-ion (Rg), which is a measure of the compactness of protein, didot show any distinction between the mesophilic and hyperther-ophilic/thermophilic proteins (Table 3). However, the effective
adius (Reff), which is the radius of a sphere that has the same sur-ace area to volume ratio as the protein in question, is observed toe marginally smaller in thermophilic and hyperthermophilic pro-eins (Table 3). It has been studied that the contents of the loop areomparatively less in thermostable proteins [20]. A close examina-ion on the content of (Table 3) the secondary structural elementscalculated using 2Struc according to DSSP and considering theloop’ as the sum of bend, �-bridge and �-helix) shows that thehermophilic (GkSS, 9.5%) and hyperthermophilic proteins (MjSS,.5%; PhSS, 8.9%) in fact have a higher percentage of loops thanesophilic (CpSS, 7.1%; EcSS, 7.1%; EhSS, 8.2%) proteins with an
xception of TmSS (6.5%). The atomic packing, packing density inhe protein have been investigated (data not shown), but it did notield any correlation with temperature.
.2.3. Interaction analysisIntra-molecular interactions such as hydrogen bonds and salt
Please cite this article in press as: K. Manjunath, et al., Int. J. Biol. Macromo
ridges, in the protein structures are analyzed to decipher theifferences in the thermostability. Hydrogen bonding interactionsevealed that (Table 4), the number of hydrogen bonds is similar
e clusters.
in mesophilic, thermophilic and hyperthermophilic SAICARs. The
percentage of buried (the sum of accessibility of both the atomsinvolved in the hydrogen bonding is zero) hydrogen bonds is higher
in the case of MjSS and TmSS but not in the case of GkSS or
PhSS. Thus, among the set of proteins considered in the study,
an increased number of hydrogen bonds, compared to mesophilic
proteins, is not observed in thermophilic or hyperthermophilic pro-
teins as opposed to a general opinion that number of hydrogen
bonds increase as the thermophilicity of the protein increases. The
salt-bridge (SB) is a long-range interaction compared to the hydro-
gen bonding interaction. Salt-bridge interaction distances (distance
between the positively charged residues Arg, Lys, His and the neg-
atively charged residues Asp, Glu) which are less than or equal to
4 A are considered as strong [70], 4–6 A are weak and 6 A or more
are considered as weaker. The thermophilic/hyperthermophilic did
not have more number of strong SBs (within a cut-off distance 4 A
and 5 A) compared to mesophiles except for PhSS. However, higher
cut-off distances (6 A and 7 A) revealed a positive correlation in
the number of SBs with Tm of the protein. Thus, hyperthermophilic
proteins exhibited higher number of weaker SBs than mesophilic
proteins. In case of PhSS, the SBs are high in number (in all distance
cut-offs) compared to all other proteins, contributing a dominant
feature for stability. In GkSS, as mentioned above, the percentage
composition of the charged residues is comparable to mesophilic
proteins as a result; the number of its SBs is also closer to mesophilic
proteins. In order to calculate the relative accessibility of the salt-
bridges, the absolute accessibility value (RSA) of the residue pairs
involved in the SB formation is added and the sum is divided by the
l. (2012), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2012.10.028
ratio is multiplied by 100. This value is designated as RASB (rel- 619
ative accessibility of SBs). Within each distance cutoff (4–7 A) of 620
SBs, the percentage of SBs with certain value of RASBs is clustered 621
ING Model
B
1 of Biol
t622
t623
S624
b625
i626
s627
c628
t629
S630
a631
s632
t633
t634
635
k636
i637
s638
i639
t640
s641
e642
c643
c644
r645
c646
e647
o648
G649
a650
t651
T652
t653
(654
a655
a656
H657
e658
p659
4660
661
h662
t663
b664
a665
a666
h667
d668
S669
h670
D671
o672
t673
e674
w675
a676
e677
T678
b679
p680
a681
t682
T683
h684
685
686
687
688
689
690
691
692
693
694
695
696
697
698
699
700
701
702
703
704
705
706
707
708
709
710
711
712
713
714
715
716
717
[ 718
719
[ 720
[ 721
[ 722
723
724
[ 725
726
[ 727
728
[ 729
730
[ 731
732
[ 733
[ 734
[ 735
[ 736
[ 737
[ 738
739
[ 740
[ 741
742
[ 743
744
745
[ 746
[ 747
748
[ 749
750
[ 751
752
[ 753
754
[32] R.I. Christopherson, S.D. Lyons, P.K. Wilson, Accounts of Chemical Research 35 755
ARTICLEIOMAC 3437 1–13
2 K. Manjunath et al. / International Journal
ogether (Table 5). Table 5 shows the number of SBs in each struc-ure at various cut-offs (4 A, 5 A, 6 A and 7 A) and the percentage ofBs in the corresponding RASB bins. The values in bold font (lightackground) indicate higher percentage (relatively exposed) of SBs
n hyperthermophiles compared to mesophiles. Further, the valueshown in bold font with dark background indicate a lower per-entage of (relatively buried) SBs in hyperthermophiles comparedo mesophiles. It can be inferred from Table 5 that the percentage ofBs having higher RASBs are more in hyperthermophiles especiallyt higher cut-offs (6 A and 7 A). However, the enzyme GkSS does nothow such a trend. To conclude, most of the SBs (weak or strong)end to reside on the surface of the hyperthermophilic comparedo mesophilic proteins.
Hydrophobic interactions are long-range [71] interactionsnown to play a significant role in the protein folding and stabil-ty. The hydrophobic contribution to the thermal stability in SAICARynthetase are investigated by studying the non-polar contact areasn protein structures using the tool pdb np cont and these interac-ions are clustered using the tool pdb np clus. The total non-polarurface area is calculated for the whole protein and for differ-nt contact area cut-offs (5, 10, 15, etc.) (Table 6). Later, they arelustered with a minimum of three members in each cluster. Theut-off indicates the minimum pairwise contact area between theesidues for clustering. The first row data shows the total non-polarontact area and the subsequent rows show the total residues inach clusters separated by a hyphen (‘-’). The total contact areaf all the clusters in a particular cut-off is in bold. The enzymekSS has a cluster of three residues even at a cut-off of 41 A2
nd among the mesophilic proteins, the enzyme EhSS appearso have relatively higher stability in terms of non-polar contacts.he hyperthermophilic proteins have higher total non-polar con-act area than mesophilic proteins. At higher contact area cut-off≥33 A2), the total non-polar contact area of hyperthermophilesre greater than mesophilic proteins by at least 1000 A2 and prob-bly provides the stability for the protein at higher temperature.owever, these theoretical observations need to be ascertainedxperimentally by measuring the melting temperatures of theseroteins.
. Conclusion
The first native crystal structure of SAICAR synthetase from ayperthermophilic organism has been reported. The Type-1 struc-ure of PhSS resembles the complex bound form of EcSS due to theound cadmium ions near the active site, inducing significant devi-tion at the dimeric interface. These cadmium ions also give rise to
pseudo-interface leading to a hexameric form. The PhSS being ayperthermophilic protein has very similar sequence and three-imensional structure compared to all other mesophilic dimericAICARs. The amino acid composition analysis revealed that theyperthermophilic SAICARs, in general, has higher percentage of
+ E + H + R + K and lesser percentage of S + T + N + Q compared tothers. Further, the ratio of (D + E + H + R + K)/Q is found to be excep-ionally high in hyperthermophiles. The thermophilic enzyme GkSSxhibited comparable percentage of D + E + H + R + K and S + T + N + Qith the mesophilic SAICARs. However, a very high percentage of
liphatic residues (A + L + I + V) are found. The monomeric SAICARsxhibited a unique composition with a large number of Pro andrp residues. Hyperthermophiles have more number of weak saltridges than mesophiles. Hyperthermophilic SAICARs have higherercentage of SBs with higher RASB values. It means higher percent-ge of SBs (both weak and strong) tend to reside on the surface of
Please cite this article in press as: K. Manjunath, et al., Int. J. Biol. Macromo
he hyperthermophilic SAICARs compared to mesophilic SAICARs.he total non-polar contact area is observed to be the highest inyperthermophiles at higher contact area cut-offs.
[
PRESSogical Macromolecules xxx (2012) xxx– xxx
Author’s contribution
KM purified, crystallized, collected the data, solved, refined and
analyzed the structures. SPK and SK assisted in the purification
process. JJ provided the plasmid. KS supervised the project and
critically read the manuscript.
Acknowledgements
The authors gratefully acknowledge the facilities offered by the
Interactive graphics facility and the Supercomputer Education and
Research Centre. The authors acknowledge the X-ray data collec-
tion facility at the Molecular Biophysics Unit. One of the authors(KM) thanks Eleanor Dodson for her valuable suggestions while
solving the structure. The authors thank the Department of Science
and Technology (DST) for financial support. The authors thank the
Spring-8 beam line BL44XU (proposal number 2011B6653).
References
[1] J.M. González, Y. Masuchi, F.T. Robb, J.W. Ammerman, D.L. Maeder, M. Yanag-
ibayashi, J. Tamaoka, C. Kato, Extremophiles 2 (1998) 123–130.
[2] Y. Kawarabayasi, M. Sawada, H. Horikawa, Y. Haikawa, Y. hino, S. Yamamoto, M.
Sekine, S. Baba, H. Kosugi, A. Hosoyama, Y. Nagai, M. Sakai, K. Ogura, R. Otsuka,
H. Nakazawa, M. Takamiya, Y. Ohfuku, T. Funahashi, T. Tanaka, Y. Kudoh, J.Yamazaki, N. Kushida, A. Oguchi, K. Aoki, T. Yoshizawa, Y. Nakamura, F.T. Robb,
K. Horikoshi, Y. Masuchi, H. Shizuya, H. Kikuchi, DNA Research 5 (1998) 55–76.
[3] K.O. Stetter, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, Series
B: Biological Sciences 361 (2006) 1837–1843.
[4] M.W.W. Adams, Annual Review of Microbiology 47 (1993) 627–658.
[5] T. Imanaka, Proceedings of the Japan Academy Series B 87 (2011) 587–602.
[6] G.J. Feller, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter 22 (2010) 1–17.
[7] L.D. Unsworth, J.V.D. Oost, S. Koutsopoulos, FEBS Journal 274 (2007)
4044–4056.
[8] I.N. Berezovsky, E.I. Shaknovich, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sci-
ences of the United States of America 102 (2005) 12742–12747.
[9] C. Vieille, G.J. Zeikus, Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews 65 (2001)
1–43.
10] R. Sterner, W. Liebl, Critical Reviews in Biochemistry and Molecular Biology 36
(2001) 39–106.
11] S. Kumar, C.-J. Tsai, R. Nussinov, Protein Engineering 13 (2000) 179–191.
12] W.F. Li, X.X. Zhou, P. Lu, Biotechnology Advances 23 (2005) 271–281.
13] C. Vetriani, D.L. Maeder, N. Tolliday, K.S.-P. Yip, T.J. Stillman, K.L. Britton, D.W.
Rice, H.H. Klump, F.T. Robb, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
of the United States of America 95 (1998) 12300–12305.
14] R. Scandurra, V. Consalvi, R. Chiaraluce, L. Politi, P.C. Engel, Biochimie 80 (1998)
933–941.
15] R. Landenstein, G. Antranikian, Advances in Biochemical Engineer-
ing/Biotechnology 61 (1998) 38–85.
16] R. Jaenicke, H. Schurig, N. Beaucamp, R. Ostendorp, Advances in Protein Chem-
istry 48 (1996) 181–269.
17] X. Fang, Q. Cui, Y. Tong, Y. Feng, L. Shan, L. Huang, J. Wang, Biochemistry 47
(2008) 11212–11221.
18] J. Chen, W.E. Stites, Journal of Molecular Biology 344 (2004) 271–280.
19] C.H. Chan, T.H. Yu, K.B. Wong, PLoS One 6 (2011) 1–8.
20] M.J. Thompson, D. Eisenberg, Journal of Molecular Biology 290 (1999) 595–604.
21] G. Vogt, P. Argos, Folding and Design 2 (1997) S40–S46.22] A. Szilágyi, P. Závodszky, Structure 8 (2000) 493–504.
23] M. Beeby, B.D. O’Connor, C. Ryttersgaard, D.R. Boutz, L.J. Perry, T.O. Yeates, PLoS
Biology 3 (2005) 1549–1558.
24] R. Thoma, M. Hennig, R. Sterner, K. Kirschner, Structure 8 (2000) 265–276.
25] T.B. Fitzpatrick, P. Killer, R.M. Thomas, I. Jelesarov, N. Amrhein, P.J. Macheroux,
Journal of Biological Chemistry 276 (2001) 18052–18059.
26] G. Hernandez, F.E. Jenney Jr., M.W. Adams, D.M. LeMaster, Proceedings of
the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 97 (2000)
3166–3170.
27] J.M. Buchanan, Journal of Cellular Physiology. Supplement 38 (1951) 143–171.
28] H. Zalkin, J.E. Dixon, Progress in Nucleic Acid Research and Molecular Biology
42 (1992) 259–287.
29] Z.D. Chen, J.E. Dixon, H. Zalkin, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
of the United States of America 87 (1990) 3097–3101.
30] W. Watanabe, G. Sampei, A. Aiba, K. Mizobuchi, Journal of Bacteriology 171
(1989) 198–204.
31] E.J. Mueller, E. Meyer, J. Rudolph, V.J. Davisson, J. Stubbe, Biochemistry 33 (1994)
2269–2278.
l. (2012), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2012.10.028
(2002) 961–971. 756
33] T. Dervieux, L.T. Brenner, Y.Y. Hon, Y. Zhou, M.L. Hancock, J.T. Sandlund, G.K. 757
Rivera, R.C. Ribeiro, J.M. Boyett, C.-H. Pui, M.V. Relling, W.E. Evans, Blood 100 758
(2002) 1240–1247. 759
ING Model
B
f Biol
[760
761
[762
763
[764
765
[766
767
[768
769
[770
771
[772
773
[774
775
[776
[777
778
[779
780
[781
[782
783
[784
785
786
[787
[788
[789
[ 790
[ 791
792
[ 793
794
[ 795
796
[ 797
798
[ 799
800
[ 801
802
[ 803
[ 804
805
[ 806
[ 807
[ 808
809
[ 810
[ 811
[ 812
[ 813
[ 814
[ 815
ARTICLEIOMAC 3437 1–13
K. Manjunath et al. / International Journal o
34] L.N. Lukens, J.M. Buchanan, Journal of Biological Chemistry 234 (1959)1791–1798.
35] V.M. Levdikov, V.V. Barynin, A.I. Grebenko, W.R. Melik-Adamyan, V.S. Lamzin,K.S. Wilson, Structure 6 (1998) 363–376.
36] R. Zhang, T. Skarina, E. Evdokimova, A. Edwards, A. Savchenko, R. Laskowski,M.E. Cuff, A. Joachimiak, Acta Crystallographica F 62 (2006) 335–339.
37] N.D. Ginder, D.J. Binkowski, H.J. Fromm, R.B. Honzatko, Journal of BiologicalChemistry 281 (2006) 20680–20688.
38] S.X. Li, Y.P. Tong, X.C. Xie, Q.H. Wang, H.N. Zhou, Y. Han, Z.Y. Zhang, W. Gao, S.G.Li, X.C. Zhang, R.C. Bi, Journal of Molecular Biology 366 (2007) 1603–1614.
39] K. Manjunath, J. Jeyakanthan, N. Nakagawa, A. Shinkai, M. Yoshimura, S.Kuramitsu, S. Yokoyama, Acta Crystallographica F 66 (2010) 180–183.
40] I. Steller, R. Bolotovsky, M.G. Rossman, Journal of Applied Crystallography 30(1997) 1036–1040.
41] A.A. Vaguine, J. Richelle, S.J. Wodak, Acta Crystallographica D 55 (1999)191–205.
42] B.W. Matthews, Journal of Molecular Biology 33 (1968) 491–497.43] A.J. McCoy, R.W. Grosse-Kunstleve, P.D. Adams, M.D. Winn, L.C. Storoni, R.J.
Read, Journal of Applied Crystallography 40 (2007) 658–674.44] G.N. Murshudov, A.A. Vagin, E.J. Dodson, Acta Crystallographica D 53 (1997)
240–255.45] P. Emsley, K. Cowtan, Acta Crystallographica D 60 (2004) 2126–2132.46] R.A. Laskowski, M.W. MacArthur, D.S. Moss, J.M. Thornton, Journal of Applied
Crystallography 26 (1993) 283–291.47] M.A. Larkin, G. Blackshields, N.P. Brown, R. Chenna, P.A. McGettigan, H.
McWilliam, F. Valentin, I.M. Wallace, A. Wilm, R. Lopez, Bioinformatics 23
Please cite this article in press as: K. Manjunath, et al., Int. J. Biol. Macromo
(2007) 2947–2948.48] P. Gouet, E. Courcelle, D.I. Stuart, F. Metoz, Bioinformatics 15 (1999) 305–308.49] K. Arnold, L. Bordoli, J. Kopp, T. Schwede, Bioinformatics 22 (2006) 195–201.50] F. Kiefer, K. Arnold, M. Künzli, L. Bordoli, T. Schwede, Nucleic Acids Research 37
(2009) D387–D392.
[
[[
PRESSogical Macromolecules xxx (2012) xxx– xxx 13
51] M.C. Peitsch, Nature Biotechnology 13 (1995) 658–660.
52] B. Hess, C. Kutzner, D. Van der Spoel, E.J. Lindahl, Journal of Chemical Theory
and Computation 4 (2008) 435–447.
53] W.L. Jorgensen, J. Tirado-Rives, Journal of the American Chemical Society 110
(1988) 1657–1666.
54] W.L. Jorgensen, J. Chandrasekhar, J.D. Madura, R.W. Impey, M.L. Klein, Journal
of Chemical Physics 79 (1983) 926–935.
55] T. Darden, D. York, L. Pederesen, Journal of Chemical Physics 98 (1993)
10089–10092.
56] B. Hess, H. Bekker, H.J.C. Berendsen, J.G.E.M. Fraaije, Journal of Computational
Chemistry 18 (1997) 1463–1472.
57] A.S. Konagurthu, J.C. Whisstock, P.J. Stuckey, A.M. Lesk, Proteins 64 (2006)
559–574.
58] E. Krissinel, K. Henrick, Journal of Molecular Biology 372 (2007) 774–797.59] A.S.Z. Hussain, V. Shanthi, S.S. Sheik, J. Jeyakanthan, P. Selvarani, K. Sekar, Acta
Crystallographica D 58 (2002) 1385–1386.
60] W. Kabsch, C. Sander, Biopolymers 22 (1983) 2577–2637.
61] N.R. Voss, M. Gerstein, Nucleic Acids Research 38 (2010) 555–562.62] A. Ortega, D. Amorós, J. García de la Torre, Biophysical Journal 101 (2011)
892–898.
63] D.P. Klose, B.A. Wallace, R.W. Janes, Bioinformatics 26 (2010) 2624–2625.
64] I.K. McDonald, J.M. Thornton, Journal of Molecular Biology 238 (1994) 777–793.
65] G. Vriend, Journal of Molecular Graphics 8 (1990) 52–56.66] B. Lee, F.M. Richards, Journal of Molecular Biology 55 (1971) 379–400.
67] F. Drabløs, Bioinformatics 15 (1999) 501–509.
68] Y. Zhang, M. Morar, S.E. Ealick, Cellular and Molecular Life Sciences 65 (2008)
l. (2012), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2012.10.028
3699–3724. 816
69] S.W. Nelson, D.J. Binowski, R.B. Honzatko, H.J. Formm, Biochemistry 44 (2005) 817
766–774. 818
70] D.J. Barlow, J.M. Thornton, Journal of Molecular Biology 168 (1983) 867–885. 819
71] J. Israelachvili, R. Pashley, Nature 300 (1982) 341–342. 820
Recommended