2014
DOI: 10.1021/ja505852b
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Protein Apparent Dielectric Constant and Its Temperature Dependence from Remote Chemical Shift Effects

Abstract: A NMR protocol is introduced that permits accurate measurement of minute, remote chemical shift perturbations (CSPs), caused by a mutation-induced change in the electric field. Using protein GB3 as a model system, 1HN CSPs in K19A and K19E mutants can be fitted to small changes in the electric field at distal sites in the protein using the Buckingham equation, yielding an apparent dielectric constant εa of 8.6 ± 0.8 at 298 K. These CSPs, and their derived εa value, scale strongly with temperature. For example,… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1

Citation Types

0
20
0

Year Published

2014
2014
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
5

Relationship

2
3

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 14 publications
(20 citation statements)
references
References 39 publications
(70 reference statements)
0
20
0
Order By: Relevance
“…To test this, the PCM model was employed around both the 5 Å and larger 7–8 Å clusters to capture bulk contributions equivalently. Much discussion surrounds the appropriate dielectric constant to use (Schutz and Warshel (2001); Li et al (2013); Kukic et al (2013); An et al (2014)), but values around 4 are common. Here, we consider three different dielectric constants: ε = 2, 4, or 8.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…To test this, the PCM model was employed around both the 5 Å and larger 7–8 Å clusters to capture bulk contributions equivalently. Much discussion surrounds the appropriate dielectric constant to use (Schutz and Warshel (2001); Li et al (2013); Kukic et al (2013); An et al (2014)), but values around 4 are common. Here, we consider three different dielectric constants: ε = 2, 4, or 8.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In this work, the K31H mutant was 15 N/ 13 C‐labeled whereas the K31H, E27Q mutant was 15 N‐labeled only. The two protein samples were mixed together in a 2 m m NaCl solution and titrated with HCl or NaOH to change the pH values, and the 1 H‐ 15 N spectra were recorded at 283, 290.5, 298, 305.5, and 313 K with an interleaved pulse sequence to separate the signals from the two proteins (Figures A and Figure S2) . Because there are no other histidine residues in GB3, the backbone 1 H‐ 15 N spectra can be used for p K a fitting of the mutated histidine residue.…”
Section: Figurementioning
confidence: 99%
“… pH titration of the mixed K31H ( 15 N/ 13 C‐labeled, red) and K31H, E27Q ( 15 N‐labeled, black) sample. A) The 1 H‐ 15 N signals (H31 at 298 K, pH 5.1) of the mixed proteins were separated by an interleaved experiment using a 13 C filter (Figure S2) . The 15 N chemical shift of H31 at different pH values was fitted to the Henderson–Hasselbalch equation to yield p K a values at 283 K (B), 290.5 K (C), 298 K (D), 305.5 K (E), and 313 K (F).…”
Section: Figurementioning
confidence: 99%
“…pK a values can be determined through pH titrations.Inthis work, the K31H mutant was 15 N/ 13 C-labeled whereas the K31H, E27Q mutant was 15 N-labeled only.The two protein samples were mixed together in a2mm NaCl solution and titrated with HCl or NaOH to change the pH values,and the 1 H- 15 Nspectra were recorded at 283, 290.5, 298, 305.5, and 313 Kw ith an interleaved pulse sequence to separate the signals from the two proteins (Figures 1A and Figure S2). [12] Because there are no other histidine residues in GB3, the backbone 1 H- 15 Nspectra can be used for pK a fitting of the mutated histidine residue.T hese spectra have am uch higher signal-to-noise ratio than the side-chain spectra usually recorded for pK a fitting.Since the two proteins were dissolved in the same solution, the main DpK a uncertainty originated from the pH measurement error was eliminated. Theidentical environment experienced by the two proteins also minimized effects caused by variation in ionic strength and temperature in otherwise separate samples.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…DG solv and DG prot also show opposite behavior, that is, DG solv decreases but DG prot increases with temperature.T he total DG decreases with temperature but with amuch shallower slope than that of Ns ignals (H31 at 298 K, pH 5.1) of the mixed proteins were separated by an interleaved experimentusing a 13 Cfilter ( Figure S2). [12] The Table 1. A) The total free energy DG (black square), the solvent contribution DG solv (red dot), and the protein contribution DG prot (blue triangle) are plotted against temperature.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%