4.3 Article

Ligand preference and orientation in b- and c-type heme-binding proteins

Journal

PROTEINS-STRUCTURE FUNCTION AND BIOINFORMATICS
Volume 73, Issue 3, Pages 690-704

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/prot.22097

Keywords

heme; pdb survey; ligand orientation; continuum electrostatics; molecular mechanics

Funding

  1. NCRR NIH HHS [G12 RR003060-245459, 5G12 RR03060, G12 RR003060] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Hemes are often incorporated into designed proteins. The importance of the heme ligand type and its orientation is still a matter of debate. Here, heme ligands and ligand orientation were investigated using a nonredundant (87 structures) and a redundant (1503 structures) set of structures to compare and contrast design features of natural b- and c-type heme-binding proteins. Histidine is the most common ligand. Marked differences in ligation motifs between b- and c-type hemes are higher occurrence of His-Met in c-type heme binding motifs (16.4% vs. 1.4%) and higher occurrence of exchangeable, small molecules in b-type heme binding motifs (67.6% vs. 9.9%). Histidine ligands that are part of the c-type CXXCH heme-binding motif show a distinct asymmetric distribution of orientation. They tend to point between either the heme propionates or between the NA and NB heme nitrogens. Molecular mechanics calculations show that this asymmetry is due to the bonded constraints of the covalent attachment between the heme and the protein. In contrast, the orientations of b-type hemes histidine ligands are found evenly distributed with no preference. Observed histidine heme ligand orientations show no dominating influence of electrostatic interactions between the heme propionates and the ligands. Furthermore, ligands in bis-His hemes are found more frequently perpendicular rather than parallel to each other. These correlations support energetic constraints on ligands that can be used in designing proteins.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available