Conformationally averaged score functions for electronic propagation in proteins

Electron flow through metalloproteins

Electron transfers in photosynthesis and respiration commonly occur between metal-containing cofactors that are separated by large molecular distances. Understanding the underlying physics and chemistry of these biological electron transfer processes is the goal of much of the work in our laboratories. Employing laser flash-quench triggering methods, we have shown that 20A, coupling-limited Fe(II) to Ru(III) and Cu(I) to Ru(III) electron tunneling in Ru-modified cytochromes and blue copper proteins can occur on the microsecond timescale both in solutions and crystals; and, further, that analysis of these rates suggests that distant donor-acceptor electronic couplings are mediated by a combination of sigma and hydrogen bonds in folded polypeptide structures. Redox equivalents can be transferred even longer distances by multistep tunneling, often called hopping, through intervening amino acid side chains. In recent work, we have found that 20A hole hopping through an intervening tryptophan is several hundred-fold faster than single-step electron tunneling in a Re-modified blue copper protein.

Electron Flow through Proteins

Electron transfers in photosynthesis and respiration commonly occur between metal-containing cofactors that are separated by large molecular distances. Employing laser flash-quench triggering methods, we have shown that 20-Å, coupling-limited Fe(II) to Ru(III) and Cu(I) to Ru(III) electron tunneling in Ru-modified cytochromes and blue copper proteins can occur on the microsecond timescale both in solutions and crystals. Redox equivalents can be transferred even longer distances by multistep tunneling, often called hopping, through intervening amino acid side chains. Our work has established that 20-Å hole hopping through an intervening tryptophan is two orders of magnitude faster than single-step electron tunneling in a Re-modified blue copper protein.

The Q-cycle reviewed: How well does a monomeric mechanism of the bc(1) complex account for the function of a dimeric complex?

Recent progress in understanding the Q-cycle mechanism of the bc(1) complex is reviewed. The data strongly support a mechanism in which the Q(o)-site operates through a reaction in which the first electron transfer from ubiquinol to the oxidized iron-sulfur protein is the rate-determining step for the overall process. The reaction involves a proton-coupled electron transfer down a hydrogen bond between the ubiquinol and a histidine ligand of the [2Fe-2S] cluster, in which the unfavorable protonic configuration contributes a substantial part of the activation barrier. The reaction is endergonic, and the products are an unstable ubisemiquinone at the Q(o)-site, and the reduced iron-sulfur protein, the extrinsic mobile domain of which is now free to dissociate and move away from the site to deliver an electron to cyt c(1) and liberate the H(+). When oxidation of the semiquinone is prevented, it participates in bypass reactions, including superoxide generation if O(2) is available. When the b-heme chain is available as an acceptor, the semiquinone is oxidized in a process in which the proton is passed to the glutamate of the conserved -PEWY- sequence, and the semiquinone anion passes its electron to heme b(L) to form the product ubiquinone. The rate is rapid compared to the limiting reaction, and would require movement of the semiquinone closer to heme b(L) to enhance the rate constant. The acceptor reactions at the Q(i)-site are still controversial, but likely involve a "two-electron gate" in which a stable semiquinone stores an electron. Possible mechanisms to explain the cyt b(150) phenomenon are discussed, and the information from pulsed-EPR studies about the structure of the intermediate state is reviewed. The mechanism discussed is applicable to a monomeric bc(1) complex. We discuss evidence in the literature that has been interpreted as shown that the dimeric structure participates in a more complicated mechanism involving electron transfer across the dimer interface. We show from myxothiazol titrations and mutational analysis of Tyr-199, which is at the interface between monomers, that no such inter-monomer electron transfer is detected at the level of the b(L) hemes. We show from analysis of strains with mutations at Asn-221 that there are coulombic interactions between the b-hemes in a monomer. The data can also be interpreted as showing similar coulombic interaction across the dimer interface, and we discuss mechanistic implications.

Marcus treatment of endergonic reactions: a commentary

Two forms of the equation for expression of the rate constant for electron transfer through a Marcus-type treatment are discussed. In the first (exergonic) form, the Arrhenius exponential term was replaced by its classical Marcus term; in the second (endergonic) form, the forward rate constant was replaced by the reverse rate constant (the forward rate constant in the exergonic direction), which was expanded to an equivalent Marcus term and multiplied by the equilibrium constant. When the classical Marcus treatment was used, these two forms of the rate equation give identical curves relating the logarithm of the rate constant to the driving force. The Marcus term for the relation between activation free-energy, DeltaG#, reorganization energy, lambda, and driving force, DeltaG(o), derived from parabolas for the reactant and product states, was identical when starting from exergonic or endergonic parabolas. Moser and colleagues introduced a quantum mechanical correction factor to the Marcus term in order to fit experimental data. When the same correction factor was applied in the treatment for the endergonic direction by Page and colleagues, a different curve was obtained from that found with the exergonic form. We show that the difference resulted from an algebraic error in development of the endergonic equation.