Journal of Biomolecular NMR

, Volume 56, Issue 3, pp 203–216 | Cite as

How reliable are pseudocontact shifts induced in proteins and ligands by mobile paramagnetic metal tags? A modelling study

Article
First Online:
Received:
Accepted:

Abstract

The anisotropic component of the magnetic susceptibility tensor (Δχ tensor) associated with various paramagnetic metal ions can induce pseudocontact shifts (PCSs) and residual dipolar couplings (RDCs) in proteins, yielding valuable restraints in structural studies. In particular, PCSs have successfully been used to study ligands that bind to proteins tagged with a paramagnetic metal ion, which is of great interest in fragment-based drug design. To create easy-to-interpret PCSs, the metal ion must be attached to the protein in a rigid manner. Most of the existing methods for site-specific attachment of a metal tag, however, result in tethers with residual flexibility. Here we present model calculations to quantify the extent, to which mobility of the metal-binding tag can compromise the quality of the Δχ tensor that can be determined from the PCSs observed in the protein. Assuming that the protein can be approximated by a sphere and the tag is attached by a single tether, the results show that a single effective ∆χ tensor can describe the PCSs and RDCs of the protein spins very well even in the presence of substantial tag mobility, implying that PCSs of ligands in binding pockets of the protein can be predicted with similar accuracy. In contrast, the quality of the PCS prediction for nuclear spins positioned above the surface of the protein is significantly poorer, with implications for studies of protein–protein complexes. The simulations probed the sensitivity of the effective Δχ tensor to different parameters, including length of the tether between protein and metal ion, protein size, type and amplitude of tag motion, tensor orientation relative to the protein and direction of tag motion. Tether length and amplitude of motion were identified as two key parameters. It is shown that the amplitude of tag motions cannot be quantified by simple comparisons of the effective Δχ tensor with the alignment tensor determined from RDCs.

Keywords

Magnetic susceptibility anisotropy Metal tag Paramagnetic NMR Pseudocontact shifts Residual dipolar couplings ∆χ tensor 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank Mr. Kala Bharath Pilla and Dr. Thomas Huber for stimulating discussions. Financial support by the Australian Research Council is gratefully acknowledged.

Supplementary material

10858_2013_9738_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (4.2 mb)
Supplementary material 1 (PDF 4298 kb)

References

  1. Allegrozzi M, Bertini I, Janik MBL, Lee YM, Liu G, Luchinat C (2000) Lanthanide-induced pseudocontact shifts for solution structure refinements of macromolecules in shells up to 40 Å from the metal ion. J Am Chem Soc 122:4154–4161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arnesano F, Banci L, Piccioli M (2005) NMR structures of paramagnetic metalloproteins. Q Rev Biophys 38:167–219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barthelmes K, Reynolds AM, Peisach E, Jonker HR, DeNunzio NJ, Allen KN, Imperiali B, Schwalbe H (2011) Engineering encodable lanthanide-binding tags into loop regions of proteins. J Am Chem Soc 133:808–819CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bertini I, Donaire B, Jiménez B, Luchinat G, Parigi G, Piccioli M, Poggi L (2001) Paramagnetism-based versus classical constraints: an analysis of the solution structure of Ca Ln calbindin D9k. J Biomol NMR 21:85–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bertini I, Luchinat C, Parigi G (2002) Magnetic susceptibility in paramagnetic NMR. Prog NMR Spectrosc 40:249–273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. de la Cruz L, Ngyuen THD, Ozawa K, Shin J, Graham B, Huber T, Otting G (2011) Binding of low molecular weight inhibitors promotes large conformational changes in the dengue virus NS2B-NS3 protease: fold analysis by pseudocontact shifts. J Am Chem Soc 133:19205–19215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dvoretsky A, Gaponenko V, Rosevear PR (2002) Derivation of structural restraints using a thiol-reactive chelator. FEBS Lett 528:189–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Gaponenko V, Altieri AS, Li J, Byrd A (2002) Breaking symmetry in the structure determination of (large) symmetric protein dimers. J Biomol NMR 24:143–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Graham B, Loh CT, Swarbrick JD, Ung P, Shin J, Yagi H, Jia X, Chhabra S, Barlow N, Pintacuda G, Huber T, Otting G (2011) DOTA-amide lanthanide tag for reliable generation of pseudocontact shifts in protein NMR spectra. Bioconjugate Chem 22:2118–2125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Guan JY, Keizers PHJ, Liu WM, Löhr F, Skinner SP, Heeneman EA, Schwalbe H, Ubbink M, Siegal G (2013) Small-molecule binding sites on proteins established by paramagnetic NMR spectroscopy. J Am Chem Soc. doi: 10.1021/ja401323m
  11. Haberz P, Rodriguez-Castañeda F, Junker J, Becker S, Leonov A, Griesinger C (2006) Two new chiral EDTA-based metal chelates for weak alignment of proteins in solution. Org Lett 8:1275–1278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Häussinger D, Huang JR, Grzesiek S (2009) DOTA-M8: an extremely rigid, high-affinity lanthanide chelating tag for PCS NMR spectroscopy. J Am Chem Soc 131:14761–14767CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Ikegami T, Verdier L, Sakhaii P, Grimme S, Pescatore B, Saxena K, Fiebig KM, Griesinger C (2004) Novel techniques for weak alignment of proteins in solution using chemical tags coordinating lanthanide ions. J Biomol NMR 29:339–349CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Jia X, Maleckis A, Huber T, Otting G (2011) 4,4′-dithiobisdipicolinic acid: a small and convenient lanthanide binding tag for protein NMR spectroscopy. Chem Eur J 17:6830–6836CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. John M, Park AY, Pintacuda G, Dixon NE, Otting G (2005) Weak alignment of paramagnetic proteins warrants correction for residual CSA effects in measurements of pseudocontact shifts. J Am Chem Soc 127:17190–17191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. John M, Pintacuda G, Park AY, Dixon NE, Otting G (2006) Structure determination of protein-ligand complexes by transferred paramagnetic shifts. J Am Chem Soc 128:12910–12916CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. John M, Schmitz C, Park AY, Dixon NE, Huber T, Otting G (2007) Sequence- and stereospecific assignment of methyl groups using paramagnetic lanthanides. J Am Chem Soc 129:13749–13757CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Keizers PHJ, Ubbink M (2011) Paramagnetic tagging for protein structure and dynamics analysis. Prog Nucl Magn Reson Spectrosc 58:88–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Keizers PHJ, Desreux JF, Overhand M, Ubbink M (2007) Increased paramagnetic effect of a lanthanide protein probe by two-point attachment. J Am Chem Soc 129:9292–9293CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Keizers PHJ, Saragliadis A, Hiruma Y, Overhand M, Ubbink M (2008) Design, synthesis, and evaluation of a lanthanide chelating protein probe: CLaNP-5 yields predictable paramagnetic effects independent of environment. J Am Chem Soc 130:14802–14812CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Keizers PHJ, Mersinli B, Reinle W, Donauer J, Hiruma Y, Hannemann F, Overhand M, Bernhart R, Ubbink M (2010) A solution model of the complex formed by adrenodoxin and adrenodoxin reductase determined by paramagnetic NMR spectroscopy. Biochemistry 49:6846–6855CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Koehler J, Meiler J (2011) Expanding the utility of NMR restraints with paramagnetic compounds: background and practical aspects. Prog NMR Spectrosc 59:360–389CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Leonov A, Voigt B, Rodriguez-Castañeda F, Sakhaii P, Griesinger C (2005) Convenient synthesis of multifunctional EDTA-based chiral metal chelates substituted with an S-mesylcysteine. Chem Eur J 11:3342–3348CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Li QF, Yang Y, Maleckis A, Otting G, Su XC (2012) Thiol-ene reaction: a versatile tool in site-specific labelling of proteins with chemically inert tags for paramagnetic NMR. Chem Commun 48:2704–2706CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Liu CC, Schultz PG (2010) Adding new chemistries to the genetic code. Annu Rev Biochem 79:413–444CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Liu WM, Keizers PHJ, Hass MAS, Blok A, Timmer M, Sarris AJC, Overhand M, Ubbink M (2012) A pH-sensitive, colorful, lanthanide-chelating paramagnetic NMR probe. J Am Chem Soc 134:17306–17313CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Loh CT, Ozawa K, Tuck KL, Barlow N, Huber T, Otting G, Graham B (2013) Lanthanide tags for site-specific ligation to an unnatural amino acid and generation of pseudocontact shifts in proteins. Bioconj Chem 24:260–268Google Scholar
  28. Loscha KV, Herlt AJ, Qi R, Huber T, Ozawa K, Otting G (2012) Multi-site labeling of proteins with unnatural amino acids. Angew Chem Int Ed 51:2243–2246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Martin LJ, Hähnke MJ, Nitz M, Wöhnert J, Silvaggi NR, Allen KN, Schwalbe H, Imperiali B (2007) Double-lanthanide-binding tags: design, photophysical properties, and NMR applications. J Am Chem Soc 129:7106–7113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Otting G (2008) Prospects for lanthanides in structural biology by NMR (2008). J Biomol NMR 42:1–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Otting G (2010) Protein NMR using paramagnetic ions. Annu Rev Biophys 39:387–405CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Ozawa K, Loscha KV, Kuppan KV, Loh CT, Dixon NE, Otting G (2012) High-yield cell-free protein synthesis for site-specific incorporation of unnatural amino acids at two sites. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 418:652–656CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Peters F, Maestre-Martinez M, Leonov A, Kovačič L, Becker S, Boelens R, Griesinger C (2011) Cys-Ph-TAHA: a lanthanide binding tag for RDC and PCS enhanced protein NMR. J Biomol NMR 51:329–337CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Pintacuda G, Park AY, Keniry MA, Dixon NE, Otting G (2006) Lanthanide labeling offers fast NMR approach to 3D structure determination of protein–protein complexes. J Am Chem Soc 128:3696–3702CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Pintacuda G, John M, Su XC, Otting G (2007) NMR structure determination of protein-ligand complexes by lanthanide labeling. Acc Chem Res 40:206–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Prudêncio M, Rohovec J, Peters JA, Tocheva E, Boulanger MJ, Murphy MEP, Hupkes HJ, Koster W, Impagliazzo A, Ubbink M (2004) A caged lanthanide complex as a paramagnetic shift agent for protein NMR. Chem Eur J 10:3252–3260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Rodriguez-Castañeda F, Haberz P, Leonov A, Griesinger C (2006) Paramagnetic tagging of diamagnetic proteins for solution NMR. Mag Res Chem 44:10–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Saio T, Yokochi M, Kumeta H, Inagaki F (2010) PCS-based structure determination of protein–protein complexes. J Biomol NMR 46:271–280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Saio T, Ogura K, Shimizu K, Yokochi M, Burke TR, Inagaki F (2011) An NMR strategy for fragment-based ligand screening utilizing a paramagnetic lanthanide probe. J Biomol NMR 51:395–408CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Schmitz C, Stanton-Cook MJ, Su XC, Otting G, Huber T (2008) Numbat: an interactive software tool for fitting Δχ-tensors to molecular coordinates using pseudocontact shifts. J Biomol NMR 41:179–189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Schmitz C, Vernon R, Otting G, Baker D, Huber T (2012) Protein structure determination from pseudocontact shifts using ROSETTA. J Mol Biol 416:668–677CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Skinner SP, Moshev M, Hass MAS, Ubbink M (2013) PARAssign—paramagnetic NMR assignments of protein nuclei on the basis of pseudocontact shifts. J Biomol NMR 55:379–389Google Scholar
  43. Stanton-Cook M, Su XC, Otting G, Huber T (2010) http://com-bio.anu.edu.au/mscook/PPT
  44. Su XC, Otting G (2010) Paramagnetic labelling of proteins and oligonucleotides for NMR. J Biomol NMR 46:101–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Su XC, Otting G (2011) Erratum to: paramagnetic labelling of proteins and oligonucleotides for NMR. J Biomol NMR 50:99–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Su XC, Huber T, Dixon NE, Otting G (2006) Site-specific labelling of proteins with a lanthanide-binding tag. ChemBioChem 7:1469–1474CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Su XC, McAndrew K, Huber T, Otting G (2008) Lanthanide-binding peptides for NMR measurements of residual dipolar couplings and paramagnetic effects from multiple angles. J Am Chem Soc 130:1681–1687CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Swarbrick JD, Ung P, Chhabra S, Graham B (2011a) An iminodiacetic acid based lanthanide binding tag for paramagnetic exchange NMR spectroscopy. Angew Chem Int Ed 50:4403–4406CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Swarbrick JD, Ung P, Su XC, Maleckis A, Chhabra S, Huber T, Otting G, Graham B (2011b) Engineering of a bis-chelator motif into a protein α-helix for rigid lanthanide binding and paramagnetic NMR spectroscopy. Chem Commun 47:7368–7370CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Vlasie MD, Comuzzi C, van den Nieuwendijk AMCH, Prudêncio M, Overhand M, Ubbink M (2007) Long-range-distance NMR effects in a protein labeled with a lanthanide-DOTA chelate. Chem Eur J 13:1715–1723CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Wolfram Research Inc (2010) Mathematica, Version 8.0Google Scholar
  52. Yagi H, Maleckis A, Otting G (2013) A systematic study of labelling an α-helix in a protein with a lanthanide using IDA-SH or NTA-SH tags. J Biomol NMR 55:157–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Yang Y, Li QF, Cao C, Huang F, Su XC (2013) Site-specific labeling of proteins with a chemically stable, high-affinity tag for protein study. Chem Eur J 19:1097–1103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Young TS, Ahmad I, Yin JA, Schultz PG (2010) An enhanced system for unnatural amino acid mutagenesis in E. coli. J Mol Biol 395:361–374CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Research School of ChemistryAustralian National UniversityCanberraAustralia

Personalised recommendations