4.8 Article

Femtosecond dynamics of rubredoxin: Tryptophan solvation and resonance energy transfer in the protein

出版社

NATL ACAD SCIENCES
DOI: 10.1073/pnas.012582399

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We report here studies of tryptophan (Trp) solvation dynamics in water and in the Pyrococcus furiosus rubredoxin protein, including the native and its apo and denatured forms. We also report results on energy transfer from Trp to the iron-sulfur [Fe-S] cluster. Trp fluorescence decay with the onset of solvation dynamics of the chromophore in water was observed with femtosecond resolution (approximate to160 fs; 65% component), but the emission extended to the picosecond range (1.1 ps; 35% component). In contrast, the decay is much slower in the native rubredoxin; the Trp fluorescence decay extends to 10 ps and longer, reflecting the local rigidity imposed by residues and by the surface water layer. The dynamics of resonance energy transfer from the two Trps to the [Fe-S] cluster in the protein was observed to follow a temporal behavior characterized by a single exponential (15-20 ps) decay. This unusual observation in a protein indicates that the resonance transfer is to an acceptor of a well-defined orientation and separation. From studies of the mutant protein, we show that the two Trp residues have similar energy-transfer rates. The critical distance for transfer (R-0) was determined, by using the known x-ray data, to be 19.5 Angstrom for Trp-36 and 25.2 Angstrom for Trp-3, respectively. The orientation factor (kappa(2)) was deduced to be 0.13 for Trp-36, clearly indicating that molecular orientation of chromophores in the protein cannot be isotropic with kappa(2) value of 2/3. These studies of solvation and energy-transfer dynamics, and of the rotational anisotropy, of the wild-type protein, the (W3Y, 123V, L321) mutant, and the fmetPfRd variant at various pH values reveal a dynamically rigid protein structure, which is probably related to the hyperthermophilicity of the protein.

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

4.8
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