Comparison of redox and EPR properties of the molybdenum iron proteins of Clostridium pasteurianum and Azotobacter vinelandii nitrogenases

Both heterologous crosses of the Clostridium pasteurianum and Azotobacter vinelandii nitrogenase components are completely inactive, although the reasons for this incompatibility are not known. We have compared a number of properties of the MoFe proteins from these organisms (Cp 1 and av 1, respecti...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of inorganic biochemistry 1988-06, Vol.33 (2), p.111-120
Hauptverfasser: Morgan, T.V., Mortenson, L.E., McDonald, J.W., Watt, G.D.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Both heterologous crosses of the Clostridium pasteurianum and Azotobacter vinelandii nitrogenase components are completely inactive, although the reasons for this incompatibility are not known. We have compared a number of properties of the MoFe proteins from these organisms (Cp 1 and av 1, respectively) in an attempt to find differences that could explain this lack of functional activity Optical and CD spectroscopie titrations are similar for both av 1 and Cp 1, but EPR titrations are significantly different, suggesting different chemical reactivity patterns and/or magnetic interaction behavior Similarly, reduction measurements on the six-electron-oxidized state of Cp 1 and av 1 at controlled potentials indicate a difference in both the relative reduction sequence of the redox centers and the numerical values for their measured midpoint potentials. EPR measurements as a function of temperature also demonstrate that the relaxation behavior of the S = 3/2 MoFe centers associated with the proteins differ markedly. The Cp 1 EPR signal only begins to undergo broadening above 65 K, whereas the Av 1 signal is severely broadened above 25 K. These variations in the EPR properties for the two proteins are not likely to be due to differences in the stoichiometry and/or geometry of the MoFe cluster units themselves since similar EPR studies of the isolated cofactors showed them to be essentially identical. Thus, the different EPR behavior of the two proteins seems to arise either from protein constraints imposed on identical cofactors, and/or from magnetic interactions due to neighboring metal clusters.
ISSN:0162-0134
1873-3344
DOI:10.1016/0162-0134(88)80039-4