Using Structure–Function Constraints in FRET Studies of Large Macromolecular Complexes

  • Wlodek M. BujalowskiEmail author
  • Maria J. Jezewska
Part of the Methods in Molecular Biology book series (MIMB, volume 875)


The structural aspects of large macromolecular systems in solution can be conveniently addressed using the fluorescence resonance energy transfer (FRET) approach. FRET efficiency is the major parameter examined in such studies. However, its quantitative determination in associating macromolecular systems requires careful incorporation of thermodynamic quantities into specific expressions defining the FRET efficiencies. There are two widely used methods of obtaining FRET efficiencies, examination of both the donor quenching and of the sensitized emission of the FRET acceptor. Both approaches provide only apparent FRET efficiencies, not the true Förster FRET efficiency, which should be independent of the means to measure the efficiency.

The accuracy of the determined distances in macromolecular systems depends on the accuracy of the determination of the FRET efficiency and the estimate of the parameter, κ2, which depends on the mutual orientation of the donor and the acceptor. Known procedures, based on limiting anisotropy measurements, to estimate κ2 are of limited use to deducing the functional conclusions about the studied systems. On the other hand, using multiple donor–acceptor pairs and/or donors and acceptors placed in interchanged locations in the macromolecular system is an equally rigorous procedure to empirically evaluate the possible effect of κ2 on the measured distance.

Protein–nucleic acid systems are particularly suited for FRET methodology. There is a plethora of commercial fluorescent markers, which can serve as donor–acceptor pairs. In the case of the nucleic acid, the markers can specifically be introduced in practically any location of the molecule. Application of the FRET measurements to examine structures of the large protein–nucleic acid complexes is particularly fruitful in cases where the presence of known structural constraints allows the experimenter to address the fundamental topology of the complexes. The discussed methodology can be applied to any associating macromolecular system.

Key words

FRET Helicases DNA replication Protein–nucleic acid interactions Motor proteins 



This work was supported by NIH Grants GM46679 and GM58565 (to W.B.). We wish to thank Gloria Drennan Bellard for a careful reading of the manuscript.


  1. 1.
    Clegg RM (1992) Fluorescence resonance energy transfer and nucleic acids. Methods Enzymol 211:353–388CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cheung CH (1991) Resonance energy transfer. In: Lakowicz J (ed) Topics in fluorescence spectroscopy, vol 2. Plenum Press, New York, pp 128–176Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lakowicz JR (1999) Principles of fluorescence spectroscopy, 2nd edn. Kluwer Academic, New York, pp 347–367CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Valeur B (2002) Molecular fluorescence. Principles and applications. Wiley-VCH Weinheim, New York, pp 247–272Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Yang M, Millar DP (1997) Fluorescence resonance energy transfer as a probe of DNA structure and function. Methods in Enzymol 278:417–444CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bailey MF, Thompson EH, Millar DP (2001) Probing DNA polymerase fidelity mechanisms using time-resolved fluorescence anisotropy. Methods 25:62–77CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Vamosi G, Clegg RM (1992) The helix–coil transition of DNA duplexes and hairpins observed by multiple fluorescence parameters. Biochemistry 37:14300–14316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Trakselis MA, Alley SC, Able-Santos E, Benkovic SJ (2001) Creating a dynamic picture of the sliding clamp during T4 DNA polymerase holoenzyme assembly by using fluorescence resonance energy transfer. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 98:8368–8375CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Parkhurst LJ (2004) Distance parameters derived from time-resolved Forster resonance energy transfer measurements and their use in structural interpretations of thermodynamic quantities associated with protein–DNA interactions. Methods Enzymol 379:235–262CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Berman HA, Yguerabide J, Taylor P (1980) Fluorescence energy transfer on acethylcholinesterase: special relationship between peripheral site and active center. Biochemistry 19:2226–2235CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Jezewska MJ, Rajendran S, Bujalowski W (1998) Functional and structural heterogeneity of the DNA binding of the E. coli primary replicative helicase DnaB protein. J Biol Chem 273:9058–9069CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Jezewska MJ, Rajendran S, Bujalowska D, Bujalowski W (1998) Does ssDNA pass through the inner channel of the protein hexamer in the complex with the E. coli DnaB helicase? Fluorescence energy transfer studies. J Biol Chem 273:10515–10529CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Galletto R, Jezewska MJ, Bujalowski W (2003) Interactions of the Escherichia coli DnaB helicase hexamer with the replication factor the DnaC protein. Effect of nucleotide cofactors and the ssDNA on protein–protein interactions and the topology of the complex. J Mol Biol 329:441–465CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Jezewska MJ, Galletto R, Bujalowski W (2003) Tertiary conformation of the template-primer and gapped DNA substrates in complexes with rat polymerase β fluorescence energy transfer studies using the multiple donor–acceptor approach. Biochemistry 42:11864–11878CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bujalowski W, Klonowska MM (1994) Structural characteristics of the nucleotide binding site of the E. coli primary replicative helicase DnaB protein. studies with ribose and base-modified fluorescent nucleotide analogs. Biochemistry 33:4682–4694CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Marcinowicz A, Jezewska MJ, Bujalowski PJ, Bujalowski W (2007) The structure of the tertiary complex of the RepA hexameric helicase of plasmid RSF1010 with the ssDNA and nucleotide cofactors in solution. Biochemistry 46:13279–13296CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Jezewska MJ, Bujalowski PJ, Bujalowski W (2007) Interactions of the DNA polymerase X of African Swine fever virus with double-stranded DNA. Functional structure of the complex. J Mol Biol 373:75–95CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Grinvald A, Haas E, Steinberg IZ (1972) Evaluation of the distribution of distances between energy donors and acceptors by fluorescence decay. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 69:2273–2277CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Gryczynski I, Wiczk W, Johnson ML, Cheung HC, Wang C, Lakowicz JR (1988) Resolution of the end-to-end distance distribution of flexible molecules using quenching-induced variations of Förster distance for fluorescence energy transfer. Biophys J 54:577–586CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ishmael FT, Trakselis MA, Benkovic SJ (2003) Protein–protein interactions in the bacteriophage T4 replisome. The leading strand holoenzyme is physically linked to the lagging strand holoenzyme and the primosome. J Biol Chem 278:3145–3152CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Tims HS, Widom J (2007) Stopped-flow fluorescence resonance energy transfer for analysis of nucleosome. Dynam Methods 41:296–303Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Yang M, Millar DP (1997) Fluorescence resonance energy transfer as a probe of DNA structure and function. Methods Enzymol 278:417–444CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Wigelsworth DJ, Krantz BA, Christensen KA, Borden KAD, Juris SJ, Collier RJ (2004) Binding stoichiometry and kinetics of the interaction of a human anthrax toxin receptor, CMG2, with protective antigen. J Biol Chem 279:23349–23356CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Gavish B (1986) Molecular dynamics and the transient strain model of enzyme catalysis. In: Welch GR (ed) The fluctuating enzyme. Wiley, New York, pp 263–339Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Dale RE, Eisinger J, Blumberg WE (1979) The orientation freedom of molecular probes. The orientation factor in intramolecular energy transfer. Biophys J 26:161–194CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Bujalowski W, Klonowska MM (1994) Close proximity of tryptophan residues and ATP binding site in Escherichia coli primary replicative helicase DnaB protein. Molecular topography of the enzyme. J Biol Chem 269:31359–31371PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Scherzinger E, Ziegelin G, Barcena M, Carazo JM, Lurz R, Lanka E (1997) The RepA protein of plasmid RSF1010 is a replicative DNA helicase. J Biol Chem 272:30228–30236CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Niedenzu T, Roleke D, Bains G, Scherzinger E, Saenger W (2001) Crystal structure of the hexameric helicase RepA of plasmid RSF1010. J Mol Biol 306:479–487CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Jezewska MJ, Galletto R, Bujalowski W (2004) Interactions of the RepA helicase hexamer of plasmid RSF1010 with the ssDNA. Quantitative analysis of stoichiometries, intrinsic affinities, cooperativities, and heterogeneity of the total ssDNA-binding site. J Mol Biol 343:115–136CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    SenGupta DJ, Borowiec JA (1992) Strand-specific recognition of a synthetic DNA replication fork by the SV40 large tumor antigen. Science 256:1656–1661CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Geiselmann J, Wang Y, Seifried SE, Von Hippel PH (1993) A physical model for the translocation and helicase activities of Escherichia coli transcription termination protein Rho. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 90:7754–7758CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Saenger W (1984) Principles of nucleic acid structure. Springer-Verlag, New York, p 255–305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Bloomfield VA, Crothers DM, Tinoco I (1999) Nucleic acid. Structures, properties, and functions. University Science Books, California, p 79–110Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Marcinowicz A, Jezewska MJ, Bujalowski W (2008) Multiple global conformational states of the hexameric RepA helicase of plasmid RSF1010 with different ssDNA-binding capabilities are induced by different numbers of bound nucleotides. Analytical ultracentrifugation and dynamic light scattering studies. J Mol Biol 375:386–408CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Sealy Center for Structural Biology, Sealy Center for Cancer Cell BiologyThe University of Texas Medical Branch at GalvestonGalvestonUSA
  2. 2.Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Sealy Center for Structural Biology, Sealy Center for Cancer Cell BiologyThe University of Texas Medical Branch at GalvestonGalvestonUSA

Personalised recommendations