| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||


* Department of Biochemistry, School of Medical Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom;
Department of Engineering, University of Wales-Swansea, Swansea, Wales, United Kingdom; and
School of Biological Sciences-Queen Mary, University of London, London, United Kingdom
Correspondence: Address reprint requests to A. V. Hughes, Tel.: +44-(0)1235-446088; E-mail: a.v.hughes{at}rl.ac.uk.
| ABSTRACT |
|---|
|
|
|---|
| INTRODUCTION |
|---|
|
|
|---|
One of the simplest ways to examine the stability of a protein is to look at its response to elevated temperatures. The thermal stability of a protein is usually assessed by examining the kinetics or thermodynamics of a loss of structural or functional integrity in response to temperature. A large number of soluble proteins have been studied in this way, and their folding and unfolding transitions explored in great detail. Investigations into the thermal stability of membrane proteins have been far more limited, and only the sequence of unfolding transitions of bacteriorhodopsin has been explored in any depth (2
,3
). The unfolding of membrane proteins has been reviewed by Haltia and Freire (4
), membrane protein design has been reviewed by Popot and Engelman (5
), and the thermodynamics of membrane protein folding and stability have been discussed in detail by White and Wimley (6
). As indicated above, this field is hampered by a lack of structural information to guide the interpretation of thermodynamic or kinetic data. As discussed by White and Wimley (6
), secondary structure elements of membrane proteins such as membrane-spanning
-helices typically show great stability, and are highly resistant to thermal denaturation. Loss of functional activity or structural integrity of membrane proteins is instead often due to separation of subunits of multimeric systems, the loss of interactions between elements such as membrane spanning
-helices, or the unfolding of domains lying outside the membrane itself. Unfolding of proteins from detergent suspension or SDS-containing micelles has been studied, but these obviously lack any contribution from the stabilizing effect of the lipid bilayer itself and/or specific lipids, which is often the aspect of most interest with respect to membrane proteins.
In the case of soluble proteins, one useful approach is to compare the x-ray crystal structures of a protein from closely related thermophilic and mesophilic organisms. The first opportunity to carry out such an analysis for a membrane protein has recently arrived with the publication of a high-resolution x-ray crystal structure for the reaction center from the moderately thermophilic purple photosynthetic bacterium Thermochromatium (Tch.) tepidum (7
). Although this bacterium is not an extreme thermophile, its optimum temperature for growth (50°C) is
15°C higher than that of other purple bacteria whose reaction centers have also been characterized by x-ray crystallography, such as Rhodobacter (Rb.) sphaeroides (8
11
) and Blastochloris viridis (12
14
). Accordingly, there has been some discussion of factors that may contribute to an enhanced thermal stability of the Tch. tepidum reaction center (7
,15
). Despite the fact that it is not an extreme thermophile, soluble proteins from Tch. tepidum such as ribulose-1,5-bisphosphate carboxylase/oxygenase (RuBisCO) do exhibit enhanced thermal stability (16
), indicating that some adaptation to growth at elevated temperature has occurred in this organism.
The purple bacterial reaction center is a robust and tractable membrane protein that has been used extensively as a model system for investigating photosynthetic energy transduction and the principles governing biological electron transfer (17
,18
). Rather less is known about how different structural features of the protein contribute to the overall stability of the complex, and there is very little information on how the complex of polypeptides and bound cofactors is assembled in the native bacterial membrane. However, the same features that have made the bacterial reaction center a useful tool for studying energy transduction and electron transfer also make this an attractive subject for study of membrane protein stability and assembly. In particular the Rb. sphaeroides reaction center is amenable to mutagenesis, the x-ray crystal structure is known to a resolution of
2 Å (7
,19
23
), and the bacteriochlorin cofactors have strong and highly distinctive absorbance properties that are acutely sensitive to the structural integrity of the surrounding protein (and which also report on the functional integrity of the complex).
The Rb. sphaeroides reaction center consists of three polypeptides, termed L, M, and H, that bind 10 cofactors (Fig. 1 A). These are two bacteriopheophytin a (BPhe), four bacteriochlorophyll a (BChl), two ubiquinones, a carotenoid, and a nonheme iron atom. The ubiquinone and bacteriochlorin cofactors are arranged in two membrane-spanning branches (Fig. 1 B). Detailed spectroscopic studies have shown that absorbed light energy drives electron transfer from a pair of excitonically coupled BChls (P, the primary donor of electrons) near the periplasmic side of the protein, to a ubiquinone (QA) on the opposite side of the membrane, via an accessory BChl and a BPhe. The transfer occurs along only one of the two cofactor branches (the so-called active branch), and occurs on a timescale of a few hundreds of picoseconds (for reviews, see (17
,18
,24
)).
|
To make progress in studying factors that influence the thermal stability of a complex, multicomponent membrane protein such as the reaction center, an analysis of the dissociation kinetics of the wild-type protein is necessary. In this report, we describe such an analysis for the reaction center from Rb. sphaeroides reconstituted into phosphatidylcholine liposomes as a simplified membrane environment. We show that the thermally induced dissociation of the protein must occur via at least one intermediate, which must lie off the main pathway from the native to the denatured state. Based on the kinetic mechanism, we discuss the likely structural transformations that occur during the degradation of the native structure of the protein.
| MATERIALS AND METHODS |
|---|
|
|
|---|
1.3.
Protein reconstitution into liposomes
The detergent in LDAO-solubilized reaction centers was exchanged for ß-octyl glucoside (ß-OG) using the procedure described by Alegria and Dutton (31
). This involved loading the reaction centers onto a DEAE Sepharose ion exchange column (Sigma-Aldrich, St. Louis, MO), washing the column with copious detergent-free buffer (20 mM Tris-HCl, pH 8.0), and then with 30 mM ß-OG, 20 mM Tris-HCl (pH 8.0). The reaction centers were eluted by washing with 30 mM ß-OG, 200 mM NaCl/20 mM Tris-HCl (pH 8.0). Liposomes were prepared by suspending dry 1-palmitoyl-2-oleoyl-sn-glycero-3-phosphocholine (POPC) powder (Avanti Polar Lipids, Alabaster, AL) in 20 mM Tris-HCl (pH 8.0) by mechanical agitation, followed by high pressure extrusion through a 200 nm pore membrane.
Reaction centers suspended in ß-OG were added to the pre-prepared liposome suspension in a 1000:1 lipid/protein ratio. The detergent/lipid ratio was never allowed to exceed 13:1. The detergent was removed by overnight dialysis versus 20 mM Tris-HCl (pH 8.0).
Absorbance spectroscopy
Absorption spectra were recorded using a Perkin-Elmer Lambda 35 spectrophotometer (Boston, MA) in dual-beam mode. The reference cuvette contained 20 mM Tris-HCl (pH 8.0). Sodium ascorbate (Aldrich) was added to the blank and sample cuvettes to a concentration of 1 mM immediately before heating. This was to ensure full reduction of the reaction center bacteriochlorins. Water-jacketed cuvettes were used (model No. 160.001QS, Hellma, Plainview, NY), and both the blank and sample cuvettes were heated simultaneously using water from a circulating thermostated water bath. Sample temperature was monitored to an accuracy of 0.1°C using an immersed k-type thermocouple, and the temperature of the samples was allowed to equilibrate for 3 min before data collection. Spectra were collected between 600 nm and 1100 nm (scan time
20 s) at intervals of 1.5 min. Temperature-quenching experiments were performed using two water baths held at different temperatures, connected to the cuvettes using three-way valves allowing either the hot or cold water bath to be selected.
The genetic algorithm
Data analysis was carried out using a real-valued, multipopulation genetic algorithm. Each population comprised 100 individuals, and 10 populations were used. Migration of individuals between populations was allowed every 10 iterations, and migration was bidirectional between randomly chosen populations. Selection of migrating individuals was random, and insertion into the target population was carried out on a fitness selection basis, where the 10 least-fit individuals were replaced by the incoming individuals. At each iteration, the fitness of the individuals was calculated and they were ranked on a linear scale. Individuals were then selected for breeding using a stochastic universal sampling algorithm (32
). Crossover was carried out using discrete recombination, and mutation was applied to the offspring using the breeder genetic algorithm (33
). The mutation rate was the inverse of the number of variables per individual. The fitness of the mutated offspring was then calculated, and reinsertion of the mutated offspring into the original population was via a fitness-based replacement strategy, with the 10 worst individuals being replaced by the 10 best in the offspring. The fitness of the individuals was the
-squared goodness-of-fit parameter. For curve fits of multiple curves, the fitness was defined as the sum of the
-squared parameter for each individual curve. Convergence was defined as a lack of improvement of the fitness over 30 consecutive iterations. The algorithm was implemented in the MatLab environment (The MathWorks, Natick, MA), using the public domain Genetic Algorithm Toolbox (http://www.shef.ac.uk/
gaipp/ga-toolbox/).
| RESULTS |
|---|
|
|
|---|
|
Fig. 3 shows the (deconvoluted) heights of the 760, 800, and 860 absorbance bands over time for reaction centers heated at 79°C. The kinetics of the loss of the 800 band was clearly biphasic, which hinted at a more complex mechanism for denaturation of the protein than a simple linear first-order process. As expected, the 760 band showed a net growth as free BChl appeared. The inset to Fig. 3 shows normalized kinetic traces (normalized as
) for the 860 and 800 bands and, as can be seen, they were coincident to within the accuracy of the measurement, indicating that a single kinetic model should be able to describe the loss of absorbance from both the accessory and primary donor BChls. It was not possible to ascertain whether the kinetics of BPhe dissociation were also the same as those of the BChls, as the spectra of both the native BPhes and any BPhe that was released from the complex were obscured by the absorbance of free BChl. The BPhe unbinding kinetics could therefore differ from that of the BChls, and these were treated separately in the kinetic model.
|
|
|
The integrated rate equations described in the Appendix calculate the time-dependence of the concentrations of the native state N(t), the intermediate I(t), and the denatured state D(t). Thus, for the 800 absorption band of the accessory BChls,
![]() | (1) |
800 is the extinction coefficient of the bound accessory BChls (
800 = 288 x 103 cm1 mol1 (34
![]() | (2) |
![]() | (3) |
![]() | (4) |
As discussed above, spectral overlap prevents direct access to the BPhe kinetics. However, we have chosen to assume that the BPhe kinetics will have a biphasic dependence, since if the rest of the protein appears to denature via an intermediate, then it is likely that the same will be true for the loss of BPhe. The decay of the BPhe peak is therefore represented using the same mechanism as that of BChl, but with a different set of rate constants. The decay of the 760-nm absorption band of BPhe is given by
![]() | (5) |
![]() | (6) |
![]() | (7) |
To evaluate the two alternative mechanisms, curves arising from the linear (Scheme 1a) and offset (Scheme 1b) mechanisms were fitted to the experimental data for the time-dependence of the 760 and 800 absorbance bands when the reaction center solution was heated at 79°C. This was done using Eqs. 17, and those given in the Appendix. The resulting best-fit curves are shown in Fig. 6. As can be seen, for the linear model, the 800-nm peak was reproduced quite well, but the fit to the 760-nm peak was very poor. Other fits were obtained where the reverse case was true (i.e., good fit to the 760 nm with a poor fit to the 800-nm peak), which are omitted for clarity, but in general, the model was able to reproduce one or other of the traces but never both simultaneously. The fit of the offset model, however, was excellent, and both traces are well reproduced. The summed
-squared value for the offset model is two orders-of-magnitude smaller than that of the linear model, and it is clear that the offset model is by far the most successful at reproducing the kinetic data.
|
), free BPhe (
), and free BChl (
). In principle, it should have been possible to obtain the initial zero-time concentration from the spectrum taken before heating, but in practice the dead-time of the measurement made this problematic. The cuvettes took up to 3 min to reach the constant set temperature, and during this time, the kinetics was variable. Extrapolation of the temperature curves to zero time would therefore reach the axis at a different absorbance to that measured from the unheated solution, and therefore the initial concentration of the protein, A0, was also included as a fitting parameter. Of these 11 parameters, four were common between all the datasets (the three extinction coefficients and A0) and hence were expected to be identical for each curve. As a result, the main goal was a global analysis of the data, with the kinetics at a range of temperatures being fitted simultaneously. In practice, it was beneficial to fit the datasets individually in the first instance, and to use the values obtained to constrain the search space of the global fits. This was done for purely practical reasons, since genetic algorithms are stochastic search algorithms, and large parameter spaces can lead to very slow convergence.
For the initial individual fits, the datasets for each temperature were fitted 10 times and mean parameter values for each fit were obtained (Table 1). These were then used to constrain the search space for the global fit. If the global fit had been set up with the rate constants for each temperature as individual fitting parameters, the fits would have become intractable due to the large number of parameters required24 rate constants alone, plus the four common parameters. Also, although the extinction coefficients would have been global, the rate constants for each curve would essentially still have been independent fits. To circumvent this problem, the Arrhenius dependence of the rate constants was used to calculate the rate constants at the higher temperature from the rate constants of the lowest temperature, using the activation energies associated with each. In other words, if kT1 is the rate constant at temperature T1, and the Arrhenius activation energy associated with this constant is Ea, then the rate constant at the higher temperature, kT2, is given by
![]() | (8) |
), the six rate constants for BChl (k1, k2, k3), and BPhe (kp1, kp2, and kp3), and the six activation energies associated with each rate constant (Ea1, Ea2, Ea3, Eap1, Eap2, and Eap3). The allowed ranges for each parameter are given in column 2 of Table 2. As the analysis encompassed data for the decay of the 800 band and increases of the 760 band at four temperatures, it involved fitting eight curves simultaneously using 16 parameters, with each of the parameters being globally shared between all the curves. The global fit was carried out using the equations given above (Eqs. 17) and those in the Appendix. The genetic algorithm used was that described in Materials and Methods. The resulting best fit is shown in Fig. 8, and the best-fit parameter values are given in column 3 of Table 2.
|
|
|
|
| DISCUSSION |
|---|
|
|
|---|
|
|
I transition appearing to be the most favorable. However, some caution must be exercised in the interpretation of these values. Fig. 11 indicates the difficulty in interpreting the fitted BPhe values associated with the data on the composite 760-nm absorbance band. The figure shows three pairs of curves for decay of bound BPhe and appearance of free BPhe, calculated using different values of
and the three rate constants. Although the three sets of curves are markedly different, the overall behavior (i.e., the sum of the decay and appearance curves) in all three cases is coincident, as represented by the thick uppermost line. The values of the individual rate constants obtained from the fit, along with the apparent activation energies, are therefore the particular choice of the minimization algorithm rather than having any physical significance. The same problems do not apply to the parameters calculated from the 804-nm data, since the spectra of bound and free BChl are not coincident.
|
Loss of the native absorption spectrum of the BChl cofactors is accompanied by the appearance of absorbance characteristic of free BChl. Although the actual state of this free BChl is not yet known, if it is physically separate from the protein husk then it is not surprising that there is no reversible path from the final to the initial state, whether directly or through the intermediate state. For the process to be fully reversible, all the cofactors would have to simultaneously diffuse back into an appropriate bonding site in the protein husk, which is statistically unlikely.
The binding pockets of the bacteriochlorin cofactors lay at the interface between the L- and M-polypeptides, and each cofactor makes contacts with both (e.g., see Tables in (9
) for details). In the case where a protein consists of a number of noncovalently associated polypeptides, irrespective of whether these associations are strong or weak, the initial stage of unfolding almost always involves disruption of these interpolypeptide contacts and their subsequent separation (6
). Given that the kinetics of loss of the native spectra of the accessory and primary donor BChls were identical, it seems plausible that the irreversible N
D transition represents a separation of the L- and M-polypeptides, disrupting all of the bacteriochlorin binding pockets and leading to simultaneous (and irreversible) release of the bacteriochlorin cofactors from the protein scaffold.
In the case of the intermediate, the fact that it is kinetically distinct suggests some disruption of the tertiary structure of the protein, but the easy reversibility suggests that this disruption is too small to allow full unbinding of the bacteriochlorin cofactors. It is well known that the absorbance spectrum of these cofactors is acutely sensitive to the protein environment, and so in principle it would take only very subtle alterations in structure for dramatic spectral changes to occur. If the tertiary structure of the protein were to become loosened, such that the binding pockets of the BChl cofactors were sufficiently disrupted that the native spectrum was lost, but that the cofactors themselves were still associated with the protein, it would be possible to lose the native absorbance spectrum in a reversible manner.
Intuitively, in the case of this system one could reasonably expect that a loosened intermediate state could also progress directly to the denatured state in which the cofactors have been irreversibly lost. In fact, there is nothing in the absorbance data presented above to exclude this as a possibility. The offset mechanism shown as Scheme 1(b) in Fig. 5 is a submechanism of the fully triangular mechanism shown as Scheme 2(a) in Fig. 5. The lack of complete reversibility from D to N (see Fig. 5) indicates that kDN is effectively zero under these conditions. Similarly, the alternative path from D to N via I does not seem to occur, whereas reversal from the intermediate does, which suggests that kDI must be vanishingly small. However, the mechanism shown as Scheme 2(b) in Fig. 5 is not excluded by any of these arguments, and indeed this alternative mechanism describes the data just as well as the offset mechanism discussed above (Fig. 5, Scheme 1(b)). Ikai and Tanford (37
) have shown that the so-called offset and triangular mechanisms can only be distinguished if both the forward and reverse kinetics are known. However, as can be seen from Fig. 4, the reversal of the premelting N
I transition is too rapid for our current method of measurement. In practice, when the fits described in the previous section were carried out with the triangular mechanism shown as Scheme 2(b) in Fig. 5 we encountered problems with their reproducibility. The extra degree of freedom introduced by inclusion of the additional I
D pathway leads to a level of complexity in the kinetic model that is not justified given the available data. Applying Occam's razor, the offset mechanism is the minimal possible mechanism that describes the data. Given that the I
D transition is likely to be feasible, it is probably more correct to represent the kinetics with the Scheme shown as Scheme 2(c) in Fig. 5, with a likely but unproven I
D kinetic pathway represented by a dotted line. For the case of bacteriorhodopsin, the rebinding of retinal to the apoprotein is seen in the presence of a large excess of retinal (3
). If full reversibility could be observed under such circumstances for the reaction center, then it is possible that the kinetic Scheme would then become consistent with the full triangular mechanism of Scheme 2(a) in Fig. 5. The offset mechanism we describe here is thus the mechanism observed under the specific set of conditions described in Materials and Methods, and we cannot rule out that full reversibility is possible under conditions where this becomes more statistically favorable.
Returning to the motivation for this workthat of understanding factors that contribute to the thermal stability of complex membrane proteinsit would usually be appropriate to invoke a thermodynamic analysis of the system, since protein stability is usually discussed in terms of the free energy changes associated with the transitions between the kinetically distinct states. However, in the case of the present system, the similarity in the rates of the transitions precludes such analysis. For globular proteins, most transitions are seen to be fully reversible and as such are readily discussed in terms of classical equilibrium thermodynamic models. For many proteins, however, an irreversible step is often seen that cannot be analyzed thermodynamically, and is simply treated as a kinetic step with Arrhenius-type parameters. As discussed by Sanchez-Ruiz (38
), such an approach is only strictly valid for systems where the rate constants of the reversible step are orders-of-magnitude faster than the accompanying irreversible transition, and so are approximately in a thermodynamic stationary state. The analysis of sigmoidal activity curves by thermodynamic models (a common method of analyzing protein stability), as described by Tokaji (28
) for the reaction center, is therefore incorrect. In that work it was assumed that denaturation followed the linear Lumry-Eyring mechanism (i.e., Scheme 1a in Fig. 5), and that the initial reversible step was faster than the final irreversible transition. As described in this work, it is likely that neither assumption is valid, and investigations of the stability of the reaction center should therefore be carried out using a kinetic analysis.
A thermodynamic analysis of the kinetic Scheme described here is outside the scope of classical equilibrium thermodynamics. Classical irreversible thermodynamics would also be expected to be invalid, since protein folding transitions (and chemical transformations generally) are usually far from equilibrium events and hence outside the linear regime. A full thermodynamic analysis of this system would require a nonequilibrium thermodynamic description in the nonlinear regime (39
)which, to our knowledge, has yet to be developed for protein conformational changes.
Although the information obtained from Arrhenius activation energies is more limited than that derived from a thermodynamic description, it does allow comparative studies of the effect of variations in the system on the robustness of the protein. For example, if the N
I transition really is substantially caused by subunit separation as we have suggested here, this activation energy should be strongly affected by both membrane composition and by mutation of residues, whose function is to hold the subunits together. Similarly, it should be possible to gain insights into the nature of the off-pathway intermediate by monitoring the effects of targeted mutations on the rate constants of this transition. A large number of point mutants of the Rb. sphaeroides reaction center already exist, and for a subset of these the x-ray crystal structure is also known (21
). Investigations of the effect of mutation on the kinetics of thermal inactivation of the reaction center are currently underway, and should allow the mechanism of inactivation of the reaction center to be studied in further detail.
| CONCLUSIONS |
|---|
|
|
|---|
I transition. | APPENDIX: INTEGRATED RATE EXPRESSIONS |
|---|
|
|
|---|
For the linear mechanism, the three differential equations for the individual species (native, intermediate, and denatured) are written
![]() | (A1) |
![]() | (A2) |
![]() | (A3) |
![]() |
![]() | (A4) |
![]() | (A5) |
![]() | (A6) |
![]() |
We then define
![]() | (A7) |
![]() | (A8) |
1,
2, and
3 are the elements of the diagonal of the eigenvalue matrix. | ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS |
|---|
|
|
|---|
| FOOTNOTES |
|---|
Submitted on August 10, 2005; accepted for publication January 19, 2006.
| REFERENCES |
|---|
|
|
|---|
2. Müller, J., C. Münster, and T. Salditt. 2000. Thermal denaturing of bacteriorhodopsin by x-ray scattering from oriented purple membranes. Biophys. J. 78:32083217.
3. Booth, P. J., and A. R. Curran. 1999. Membrane protein folding. Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol. 9:115121.[CrossRef][Medline]
4. Haltia, T., and E. Friere. 1995. Forces and factors that contribute to the structural stability of membrane proteins. Biochim. Biophys. Acta. 1241:295322.[Medline]
5. Popot, J. L., and D. M. Engelman. 1990. Membrane protein folding and oligomerization: the two-stage model. Biochemistry. 29:40314037.[CrossRef][Medline]
6. White, S. H., and W. C. Wimley. 1999. Membrane protein folding and stability. Physical principles. Annu. Rev. Biophys. Biomol. Struct. 28:319365.[CrossRef][Medline]
7. Nogi, T., I. Fathir, M. Kobayashi, T. Nozawa, and K. Miki. 2000. Crystal structures of photosynthetic reaction center and high-potential iron-sulfur protein from Thermochromatium tepidum: thermostability and electron transfer. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 97:1356113566.
8. Allen, J. P., G. Feher, T. O. Yeates, H. Komia, and D. C. Rees. 1987. Structure of the reaction center from Rhodobacter sphaeroides R-26the cofactors. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 84:57305734.
9. Chang, C. H., O. El Kabbani, D. Tiede, J. Norris, and M. Schiffer. 1991. Structure of the membrane-bound protein photosynthetic reaction center from Rhodobacter sphaeroides. Biochemistry. 30:53525360.[CrossRef][Medline]
10. Ermler, U., G. Fritzsch, S. K. Buchanan, and H. Michel. 1994. Structure of the photosynthetic reaction center from Rhodobacter sphaeroides at 2.65 Å resolutioncofactors and protein-cofactor interactions. Structure. 2:925936.[Medline]
11. Ermler, U., H. Michel, and M. Schiffer. 1994. Structure and function of the photosynthetic reaction center from Rhodobacter sphaeroides. J. Bioenerg. Biomembr. 26:515.[CrossRef][Medline]
12. Deisenhofer, J., O. Epp, K. Miki, R. Huber, and H. Michel. 1984. X-ray structure analysis of a membrane protein complexelectron-density map at 3 Å resolution and a model of the chromophores of the photosynthetic reaction center from Rhodopseudomonas viridis. J. Mol. Biol. 180:385398.[CrossRef][Medline]
13. Deisenhofer, J., O. Epp, K. Miki, R. Huber, and H. Michel. 1985. Structure of the protein subunits in the photosynthetic reaction center of Rhodopseudomonas viridis at 3 Å resolution. Nature. 318:618624.[CrossRef]
14. Deisenhofer, J., O. Epp, I. Sinning, and H. Michel. 1995. Crystallographic refinement at 2.3-Å resolution and refined model of the photosynthetic reaction center from Rhodopseudomonas viridis. J. Mol. Biol. 246:429457.[CrossRef][Medline]
15. Watson, A. J., A. V. Hughes, P. K. Fyfe, M. C. Wakeham, P. Heathcote, and M. R. Jones. 2005. On the role of basic residues in adapting the reaction center-LH1 photosystem for growth at elevated temperatures in purple bacteria. Photosynth. Res. In press.
16. Heda, G., and M. Madigan. 1989. Purification and characterization of the thermostable ribulose-1,5-bisphosphate carboxylase oxygenase from the thermophilic purple bacterium Chromatium tepidum. Eur. J. Biochem. 184:313319.[Medline]
17. Hoff, A. J., and J. Deisenhofer. 1997. Photophysics of photosynthesis: structure and spectroscopy of reaction centers of purple bacteria. Phys. Rep. Rev. Phys. Lett. 287:247.
18. van Brederode, M. E., and M. R. Jones. 2000. Reaction centers of purple bacteria. In Enzyme-Catalyzed Electron and Radical Transfer. N. S. Scrutton and A. Holzenburg, editors. Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, New York. 621676.
19. Stowell, M. H. B., T. M. McPhillips, D. C. Rees, S. M. Soltis, E. Abresch, and G. Feher. 1997. Light-induced structural changes in photosynthetic reaction center: implications for mechanism of electron-proton transfer. Science. 276:812816.
20. McAuley, K. E., P. K. Fyfe, J. P. Ridge, N. W. Isaacs, R. J. Cogdell, and M. R. Jones. 1999. Structural details of an interaction between cardiolipin and an integral membrane protein. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 96:1470614711.
21. Fyfe, P. K., and M. R. Jones. 2000. Re-emerging structurescontinuing crystallography of the bacterial reaction center. Biochim. Biophys. Acta. 1459:413421.[Medline]
22. Lancaster, C. R. D., M. V. Bibikova, P. Sabatino, D. Oesterhelt, and H. Michel. 2000. Structural basis of the drastically increased initial electron transfer rate in the reaction center from a Rhodopseudomonas viridis mutant described at 2.00-Ångstrom resolution. J. Biol. Chem. 275:3936439368.
23. Xu, Q., H. L. Axelrod, E. C. Abresch, M. L. Paddock, M. Y. Okamura, and G. Feher. 2004. X-ray structure determination of three mutants of the bacterial photosynthetic reaction center from Rb. sphaeroides: altered proton transfer pathways. Structure. 12:703715.[Medline]
24. Woodbury, N. W., and J. P. Allen. 1995. The pathway, kinetics and thermodynamics of electron transfer in wild-type and mutant bacterial reaction centers of purple nonsulfur bacteria. In Anoxygenic Photosynthetic Bacteria. R. E. Blankenship, M. T. Madigan, and C. E. Bauer, editors. Kluwer Academic Publishers, The Netherlands. 527557.
25. Pierson, B. K., J. P. Thornber, and R. B. Seftor. 1983. Partial purification, subunit structure and thermal stability of the photochemical reaction center of the thermophilic green bacterium Chloroflexus aurantiacus. Biochim. Biophys. Acta. 723:322326.
26. Nozawa, T., and M. T. Madigan. 1991. Temperature and solvent effects on reaction centers from Chloroflexus aurantiacus and Chromatium tepidum. J. Biochem. (Tokyo). 110:588594.
27. Antolini, F., M. Trotta, and C. Nicolini. 1995. Effect of temperature on optical properties of reaction centers organized in Langmuir-Blodgett films. Thin Solid Films. 254:252256.[CrossRef]
28. Tokaji, Z., J. Tandori, and P. Maroti. 2002. Light- and redox-dependent thermal stability of the reaction center of the photosynthetic bacterium Rhodobacter sphaeroides. Photochem. Photobiol. 75:605612.[CrossRef][Medline]
29. Jones, M. R., M. Heerdawson, T. A. Mattioli, C. N. Hunter, and B. Robert. 1994. Site-specific mutagenesis of the reaction center from Rhodobacter sphaeroides studied by Fourier-transform Raman spectroscopymutations at Tyrosine M210 do not affect the electronic structure of the primary donor. FEBS Lett. 339:1824.[CrossRef][Medline]
30. McAuley-Hecht, K. E., P. K. Fyfe, J. P. Ridge, S. M. Prince, C. N. Hunter, N. W. Isaacs, R. J. Cogdell, and M. R. Jones. 1998. Structural studies of wild-type and mutant reaction centers from an antenna-deficient strain of Rhodobacter sphaeroides: monitoring the optical properties of the complex from bacterial cell to crystal. Biochemistry. 37:47404750.[CrossRef][Medline]
31. Alegria, G., and P. L. Dutton. 1991. Langmuir-Blodgett monolayer films of bacterial photosynthetic membranes and isolated reaction centerspreparation, spectrophotometric and electrochemical characterization. 1. Biochim. Biophys. Acta. 1057:239257.[Medline]
32. Baker, J. E. 1987. Reducing bias and inefficiency in the selection algorithm. Proc. ICGA. 2:1421.
33. Mühlenbein, H., and D. Schlierkamp-Voosen. 1993. Predictive models for the breeder genetic algorithm. I. Continuous parameter optimization. Evol. Comput. 1:2549.[Medline]
34. Van der Rest, M., and G. Gringas. 1974. The pigment complement of the photosynthetic reaction center isolated from Rhodospirillum rubrum. J. Biol. Chem. 249:64466453.
35. Matsen, F. A., and J. L. Franklin. 1950. A general theory of coupled sets of first-order reactions. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 72:33373341.[CrossRef]
36. Lumry, R., and H. Eyring. 1954. Conformation changes of proteins. J. Phys. Chem. 58:110120.[CrossRef]
37. Ikai, A., and C. Tanford. 1973. Kinetics of unfolding and refolding of proteins. J. Mol. Biol. 73:145163.[CrossRef][Medline]
38. M. Sanchez-Ruiz, J. 1992. Theoretical analysis of Lumrey-Eyring models in differential scanning calorimetry. Biophys. J. 61:921935.
39. Kodepudi, D., and I. Prigogine. 1999. Modern Thermodynamics: From Heat Engines to Dissipative Structures. John Wiley and Sons, New York.