|
|
||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1 Department of Biochemistry, Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, Tennessee 37232, USA
2 Department of Biological Sciences, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70803, USA
3 Research Institute for the Ministry of Economy, Minsk 220086, Belarus
4 Veterans Administration Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee 37212, USA
(RECEIVED March 30, 2007; FINAL REVISION June 11, 2007; ACCEPTED June 12, 2007)
| Abstract |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Keywords: glycine N-methyltransferase; mutant; stability; unfolding; quaternary structure; urea
| Introduction |
|---|
|
|
|---|
We found that glycine N-methyltransferase is an interesting example of the monomer-multimer stability relationship. GNMT is an abundant mammalian liver enzyme, which catalyzes the transfer of the methyl group from S-adenosylmethionine (AdoMet) to glycine resulting in the synthesis of S-adenosylhomocysteine (AdoHcy) and sarcosine (Heady and Kerr 1973; Ogawa et al. 1988). GNMT is an important part of a regulatory mechanism that maintains a constant ratio of AdoMet/AdoHcy, which is believed to determine the methylation capacity of the cell (Balaghi et al. 1993). The importance of this enzyme in methyl group metabolism was established by discovery of several specific cases of human hypermethionineaemia, which were caused by mutations of GNMT (Luka et al. 2002; Augoustides-Savvopoulou et al. 2003).
Under native conditions GNMT is a tetramer. Figure 1 shows the crystal structure of human GNMT (Pakhomova et al. 2004). Inside the AB dimer (this is also valid for the symmetry related CD dimer) there are numbers of hydrogen bonds and salt bridges between helices (helices H in Fig. 1), comprised of residues 88–101 from subunit A and the same residues of subunit B. In addition, the
-strands of subunit A and B (residues 205–209;
in Fig. 1) participate in strong antiparallel hydrogen bonding with the same
-strands from the symmetry-related subunits C and D. An interesting feature of the GNMT tetrameric assembly is participation of the N termini in interactions with the active sites of the adjacent subunits. The U-loops (residues 9–20) of each subunit enter the active center of adjacent subunits and close the entrance to it as it is shown in Figure 1. As a result, each subunit of GNMT interacts with three other subunits by at least 16 hydrogen bonds, several salt bridges, and a cation–pi interaction.
|
25% less activity compared to WT enzyme most likely due to impaired binding of glycine (Luka and Wagner 2003a). When urea unfolding of that mutant protein was studied, it was found that the quaternary structure was much less stable compared to wild-type GNMT. To get insight into the mechanism of destabilization of GNMT by H176N mutation we studied this phenomenon by enzyme activity assays, fluorescence spectroscopy, size-exclusion chromatography, circular dichroism, and X-ray crystal structure analysis. Results of the comparison of the structure and stability of the mutant and wild-type enzymes are presented in this work.
| Results |
|---|
|
|
|---|
|
50% of the tetramer of WT GNMT was dissociated, but dissociation of the N176H mutant protein was nearly complete. This result was confirmed by size-exclusion chromatography. As shown in Figure 3 at 2.5 M urea concentration wild-type GNMT consisted of two molecular species, tetramer and monomer, with nearly equal amounts of tetramer (elution volume 12.3 mL) and monomers (elution volume 14.0 mL). At the same concentration of urea mutant GNMT was present almost exclusively in monomeric form with an elution volume of 14.0 mL. The tetramer/monomer equilibrium behavior of GNMT during size-exclusion chromatography was experimentally studied in our previous work (Luka and Wagner 2003b).
|
60% activity at that urea concentration.
|
1.2 M urea lower and the second unfolding (monomer unfolding) step was
0.8 M lower than the WT protein.
|
|
|
| Discussion |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Studies on the structure/stability relationship of T4 lysozyme and other globular proteins showed that the principal interactions that keep globular proteins in their native conformation are hydrophobic interactions (Matthews 1995; Karplus 1997). In general, replacement of hydrophobic residues within the globular part of the molecule by polar residues results in lower stability (Matthews 1995). In addition, the environment in which the substitution occurs must also be considered. For example, replacement of arginine 96 by histidine in T4 lysozyme resulted in additional hydrogen bonds provided by the added histidine. In spite of this, the stability of the protein decreased (Kitamura and Sturtevant 1989; Weaver et al. 1989). The effect of the introduction or replacement of histidine in a structure is particularly difficult to predict since it depends on its protonation state, which is determined by its interaction with neighboring residues (Loewenthal et al. 1992; Edcomb and Murphy 2002).
Although the stability of the H176N mutation is markedly decreased, there is very little change in structure. Only minor differences are seen between the interactions of the residues surrounding H176 in the WT structure and N176 in the mutant structure as it is shown in Figure 7 for one of the subunits. Residue 176 is buried within the hydrophobic interior. In the tertiary structure of GNMT H176 or N176 is located on the
-strand containing residues 170–178 that participate in the antiparallel interaction with the
-strand 284–293. As shown in Figure 7, both these strands interact with helix 249–260. The interaction between the two strands and helix in WT GNMT is completely hydrophobic with residues I174, H176, L249, F252, L256, F286, and H288 located between helix 249–260 and
-strands 170–178 and 284–293. There is no possibility for hydrogen bonding between H176 and H288 because the distance between ND1 atom of H176 and NE2 atom of H288 is 3.7 Å. An important feature of helix 249–260 is that it is positioned on the surface of the subunit and interacts with the protein globule only through contacts with
-strands 170–178 and 284–293.
|
Thus, the reason for the lower stability of the H176N mutant GNMT is not a decrease in the number of hydrogen bonds but the loss of the hydrophobic interactions in which H176 participated in the WT protein. It appears that interaction of the two antiparallel
-strands 170–178 and 284–293 with the helix 249–260 is an important contributor to the stability of GNMT, with H176 playing an important part.
When histidine 176 is replaced by asparagine the polar moiety is introduced into the highly hydrophobic interior (interacting
-strands 170–178, 284–293, and helix 249–260). Such a change should cause destabilization of that interaction since histidine is more hydrophobic than asparagine. The difference in hydrophobicity between side chains of histidine and asparagine was found to be 1.40 kcal/mol (Karplus 1997). The destabilizing effect we found for H176N mutation is about 2 kcal.
The glycine N-methyltransferase mutant H176N showed only small changes in kinetic parameters compared to the WT enzyme with a Km value for glycine increased about twofold (Luka and Wagner 2003a). The proposed binding site for glycine was shown to be R175 in the rat enzyme (Huang et al. 2000; Takata et al. 2003). In human GNMT the corresponding residue is R177, adjacent to H176. Since the H176N mutant is less stable, this may be the reason for the higher Km value for glycine.
| Materials and Methods |
|---|
|
|
|---|
GNMT activity
GNMT activity was assayed using the charcoal adsorption method described earlier (Wagner et al. 1985). Enzyme activity assay in urea solutions was done as reported earlier (Luka and Wagner 2002). Briefly, GNMT activity was assayed in the reaction mixture with component concentrations of 200 mM Tris-HCl, pH 8.0, 400 µM [3H-CH3]-S-adenosylmethionine, 5 mM DTT, 20 mM glycine, 0.1 µM GNMT (tetramer), and desired concentrations of urea at 25°C. Proteins in all unfolding experiments were incubated at 25°C for 1 h with urea before mixing with substrates. The working solutions containing urea were prepared by dilution from a fresh 10 M urea stock solution.
Size-exclusion chromatography
SEC was done on the ÄKTA Purifier System (Amersham Pharmacia Biotech.) using a Superose 12 column in column buffer containing 50 mM Tris-HCl, pH 8.0, 150 mM NaCl, and 14 mM
-mercaptoethanol at a flow rate of 0.5 mL/min at 22°C as reported earlier (Luka and Wagner 2003b). The elution of the proteins was monitored by absorbance at 280 nm. The column was calibrated with cytochrome C, lysozyme, chymotrypsin, carbonic anhydrase, ovalbumin, BSA, alcohol dehydrogenase, potato beta-amylase, and aldolase in the column buffer without urea and in the presence of 8 M urea.
Fluorescence spectroscopy
Protein fluorescence spectra were recorded on a Perkin-Elmer 650–40 Fluorescence Spectrophotometer (Perkin-Elmer Corp.) and on a Cary Eclipse Fluorescence Spectrophotometer (Varian, Inc.). Fluorescence emission spectra were recorded from 300 to 400 nm with slits of 5 nm in a 10-mm cuvette at 22°C in the same buffer as used for SEC. Simultaneous intrinsic tryptophan and tyrosine fluorescence was measured with excitation at 285 nm, and tryptophan fluorescence was measured with excitation at 295 nm. The protein concentrations were 0.05–0.13 mg/mL with absorbance values not higher than 0.1 at the excitation wavelength to avoid the inner filter effect.
CD spectroscopy
CD spectra were recorded on Jasco-720 and Jasco-820 spectropolarimeters in a cell with an optical path length of 1.0 mm with a scan speed of 10 nm/min, sensitivity of 20 mdeg, resolution 1 nm, and a time constant of 2 sec. The spectral data were obtained in the range of 250–210 nm four times, averaged and smoothed by the instrument software. The protein was in the same buffer as used in SEC with concentration of the samples at 0.13 mg/mL (1 µM of tetramer). The spectropolarimeters were calibrated with D(–)-pantolactone.
Protein assay
The concentration of protein samples was determined by the BCA method (BCA Protein Assay kit, Pierce) by using bovine serum albumin as a standard. Protein purity was determined by SDS electrophoresis.
Unfolding data analysis
The thermodynamic analysis of the unfolding transition was done by analysis of the data obtained by CD according to a three-state model, which was found to be the case in human WT GNMT urea induced unfolding. Data for WT GNMT on fluorescence, activity, and circular dichroism are reprinted with permission from Elsevier© 2003 (Luka and Wagner 2003b):
|
|
where N, U, and I are the native, unfolded, and intermediate (compact monomers) states. K1 and K2 are the unfolding equilibrium constants of the corresponding steps.
If the total molar concentration of protein is Pt in terms of mole of monomers, then
|
|
and the molar fraction of each species is: Fn = 4[N4]/Pt, Fi = [I]/Pt, and Fu = [U]/Pt.
The sum of the molar fractions is equal to 1:
|
|
The equilibrium constants K1 and K2 in terms of molar fractions are:
|
|
|
|
If Y is the amplitude of the spectroscopic signal and Yn, Yi, and Yu are amplitudes of the signals of native, intermediate, and unfolded states of the protein, then
|
|
For normalized data Yu = 0 and Yn = 1, then
|
|
Relations of equilibrium constants to change of free energy of two transitions of GNMT unfolding process are expressed as:
|
|
and
|
|
where R is the gas constant (1.987 cal/mol*K) and T is the temperature in Kelvin.
By assuming that free energy for each step linearly depends on urea concentration the
G could be expressed in terms of
Go as the change of free energy of unfolding in the absence of denaturant
|
|
|
|
where
Go is the free energy change in the absence of urea and m1 and m2 are dependence of the free energy change upon urea concentration for steps 1 and 2.
FromEquations 8–11 expressions for K1 and K2 can be written as:
|
|
|
|
By substitutions and rearrangements of Equation 3 we can write as:
|
|
Equation 14 was solved by Mathematica 5 for Fi as in Mateu and Fersht (1998), and one of the four solutions, that has a physical meaning, was used for the fitting procedure. The latter was done by fitting the parameter Y (Equation 7) to the experimental data by using the "Statistics NonlinearFit" package from Mathematica 5. The parameters Yi,
Go 1,
Go 2, m1, and m2 were fitted. The solution of Equation 14 gives the fraction of Fi and subsequent solution of Equation 3 gives the fractions of Fn and Fu.
Protein crystallization
Crystals of H176N mutant of human GNMT were grown at 4°C by the hanging-drop vapor diffusion method after mixing 1 µL of the enzyme at 8.4 mg/mL in 50 mM Tris-HCl, pH 8.0, 200 mM NaCl, 14 mM
-mercaptoethanol, 1 mM EDTA with 1 µL of the reservoir solution (10% [w/v] polyethylene glycol 4000, 0.1 M Na-citrate pH 5.8, 5% glycerol). Crystals usually appeared overnight and grew to full size within 1–2 d.
Data collection
Prior to data collection, a suitable crystal was dipped for 30 sec in a modified mother solution with the addition of 20% ethylene glycol as a cryoprotectant. Diffraction data were collected at 100°K with a cryo-stream cooler from Oxford Cryojet with a 345-mm MAR Research imaging plate detector mounted on a NONIUS FR591 rotating anode generator (CuK
radiation). Data were processed with Mosflm (Rossmann and van Beek 1999) and scaled using Scala (Collaborative Computational Project, Number 4, 1994). Data collection and processing statistics are given in Table 2.
|
No significant electron density was observed for residues 1–4, 127–128, 225–235 of subunit A, and 1–4, 127–128, 226–235 of subunit B, an indication that these regions are highly mobile or disordered. An electron density in the Fo – Fc map, which can be attributed to a citrate molecule, was found in the active site. Additional electron densities on cysteines 187, 284 (subunit A) and 187, 248, 284 (subunit B) were interpreted as coming from covalently bound
-mercaptoethanol (BME) molecules as the protein buffer contained BME. The final model consisted of residues 5–126, 129–224, 236–293 and 5–126, 129–225, 236–293 for subunits A and B, respectively, two citrate molecules, one chloride ion, and 40 water molecules. The protein molecules display good stereochemistry with 87.5% of nonglycine residues falling in the most favored regions of a Ramachandran plot and none in disallowed regions. Refinement statistics are listed in Table 1. The refined coordinates have been deposited to the Protein Data Bank with the accession code 2AZT.
| Footnotes |
|---|
Article published online ahead of print. Article and publication date are at http://www.proteinscience.org/cgi/doi/10.1110/ps.072921507.
| Acknowledgments |
|---|
|
|
|---|
| References |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Augoustides-Savvopoulou, P., Luka, Z., Karyda, S., Stabler, S.P., Allen, R.H., Patsiaoura, K., Wagner, C., and Mudd, S.H. 2003. Glycine N methyltransferase deficiency: A new patient with a novel mutation. J. Inherit. Metab. Dis. 26: 745–759.[CrossRef][Medline]
Balaghi, M., Horne, D.W., and Wagner, C. 1993. Hepatic one-carbon metabolism in early folate deficiency in rats. Biochem. J. 291: 145–149.[Medline]
Collaborative Computational Project, Number 4 1994. The CCP4 suite: Programs for protein crystallography. Acta Crystallogr D Biol. Crystallogr. 50: 760–763.[CrossRef][Medline]
Edcomb, S.P. and Murphy, K.P. 2002. Variability in the pKa of histidine side- chains correlates with burial within proteins. Protein Struct. Funct. Genet. 49: 1–6.[CrossRef]
Guerois, R., Nielsen, J.E., and Serrano, L. 2002. Predicting changes in the stability of proteins and protein complexes: A study of more than 1000 mutations. J. Mol. Biol. 320: 369–387.[CrossRef][Medline]
Heady, J.E. and Kerr, S.J. 1973. Purification and characterization of glycine N-methyltransferase. J. Biol. Chem. 248: 69–72.
Huang, Y., Komoto, J., Konishi, K., Takata, Y., Ogawa, H., Gomi, T., Fujioka, M., and Takusagawa, F. 2000. Mechanisms for auto-inhibition and forced product release in glycine N- methyltransferase: Crystal structures of wild-type, mutant R175K and S- adenosylhomocysteine-bound R175K enzymes. J. Mol. Biol. 298: 149–162.[CrossRef][Medline]
Jones, T.A., Zou, J.Y., Cowan, S.W., and Kjeldgard, M. 1991. Improved methods for building protein models in electron density maps and the location of errors in these models. Acta Crystallogr. A 4: 110–119.
Karplus, P.A. 1997. Hydrophobicity regained. Protein Sci. 6: 1302–1307.[Abstract]
Kitamura, S. and Sturtevant, J.M. 1989. A scanning calorimetric study of the thermal denaturation of the lysozyme of phage T4 and the Arg 96- His mutant form thereof. Biochemistry 28: 3803–3807.[CrossRef][Medline]
Loewenthal, R., Sancho, J., and Fersht, A.R. 1992. Histidine-aromatic interactions in barnase. Elevation of histidine pKa and contribution to protein stability. J. Mol. Biol. 224: 759–770.[CrossRef][Medline]
Luka, Z. and Wagner, C. 2002. Expression and purification of glycine N- methyltransferases in Escherichia coli . Protein Expr. Purif. 20: 280–286.
Luka, Z. and Wagner, C. 2003a. Effect of naturally occurring mutations in human glycine N-methyltransferase on activity and conformation. Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 312: 1067–1072.[CrossRef][Medline]
Luka, Z. and Wagner, C. 2003b. Human glycine N-methyltransferase is unfolded by urea through compact subunit state. Arch. Biochem. Biophys. 420: 153–160.[CrossRef][Medline]
Luka, Z., Cerone, R., Phillips III, J.A., Mudd, S.H., and Wagner, C. 2002. Mutations in human glycine N-methyltransferase give insights into its role in methionine metabolism. Hum. Genet. 110: 68–74.[CrossRef][Medline]
Mateu, M.G. and Fersht, A.R. 1998. Nine hydrophobic side chains are key determinants of the thermodynamic stability and oligomerization status of tumour suppressor p53 tetramerization domain. EMBO J. 17: 2748–2758.[CrossRef][Medline]
Matthews, B.W. 1995. Studies on protein stability with T4 lysozyme. Adv. Protein Chem. 46: 249–278.[Medline]
Ogawa, H., Gomi, T., Takusagawa, F., and Fujioka, M. 1988. Structure, function and physiological role of glycine N-methyltransferase. Int. J. Biochem. Cell Biol. 30: 13–26.[Medline]
Pakhomova, S., Luka, Z., Grohmann, S., Wagner, C., and Newcomer, M.E. 2004. Glycine N-methyltransferases: A comparison of the crystal structures and kinetic properties of recombinant human, mouse and rat enzymes. Proteins 57: 331–337.[CrossRef][Medline]
Rossmann, M.G. and van Beek, C.G. 1999. Data processing. Acta Crystallogr. D Biol. Crystallogr. 55: 1631–1640.[CrossRef][Medline]
Takata, Y., Huang, Y., Komoto, J., Yamada, T., Konishi, K., Ogawa, H., Gomi, T., Fujioka, M., and Takusagawa, F. 2003. Catalytic mechanism of glycine N-methyltransferase. Biochemistry 42: 8394–8402.[CrossRef][Medline]
Vaughan, C.K., Buckle, A.M., and Fersht, A.R. 1999. Structural response to mutation at a protein-protein interface. J. Mol. Biol. 286: 1487–1506.[CrossRef][Medline]
Wagner, C., Briggs, W.T., and Cook, R.J. 1985. Inhibition of glycine N- methyltransferase activity by folate derivatives: Implications for regulation of methyl group metabolism. Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 127: 746–752.[CrossRef][Medline]
Weaver, L.H., Gray, T.M., Grutter, M.G., Anderson, D.E., Wozniak, J.A., Dahlquist, F.W., and Matthews, B.W. 1989. High-resolution structure of the temperature-sensitive mutant of phage lysozyme, Arg 96-His. Biochemistry 28: 3793–3797.[CrossRef][Medline]
![]()
CiteULike
Connotea
Del.icio.us
Digg
Reddit
Technorati What's this?
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |