4.3 Article

Native-specific stabilization of flavodoxin by the FMN cofactor: Structural and thermodynamical explanation

期刊

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/prot.20855

关键词

protein stability; protein/ligand interaction; flavin mononucleotide; equilibrium intermediate; protein folding

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Flavodoxins are useful models to investigate protein/cofactor interactions. The binding energy of the apoflavodoxin-FMN complex is high and therefore the holoflavodoxin is expected to be more stable than the apoprotein. This expectation has been challenged by reports on the stability of Desulfovibrio desulfuricans flavodoxin indicating that FAIN binds to the unfolded polypeptide with similar affinity as to the native state, thus causing no net effect on protein stability. In previous work, we have analyzed in detail the stability of the apofiavodoxin from Anabaena PCC 7119 and the energetics of its functional complex with FMN. Here, we use the Anabaena holoprotein to directly investigate the contribution of the bound cofactor to protein stability through a detailed analysis of the chemical and thermal denaturation equilibria. Our data clearly shows that FAIN binding largely stabilizes the protein towards both chemical and thermal denaturation, and that the stabilization observed at 25 degrees C in low ionic strength conditions is precisely the one expected if full release of the cofactor takes place upon flavodoxin unfolding. On the other hand, the binding of FMN to the native polypeptide is shown to simplify the thermal unfolding so that, while apoflavodoxin follows a three-state mechanism, the holoprotein unfolds in a two-state fashion. Comparison of the X-ray structure of native apoflavodoxin with the phi-structure of the thermal intermediate indicates that the increase in cooperativity driven by the cofactor originates in its preferential binding to the native state, which is a consequence of the disorganization in the intermediate of the FMN binding loops and of an adjacent longer loop.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据