Proteins with High Structural Similarity Can Have Different Mechanical Unfolding Behaviors

Chengzhi He,Chunguang Hu,Xiaodong Hu,Xiaotang Hu,Hongbin Li
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bpj.2016.11.2444
IF: 3.4
2017-01-01
Biophysical Journal
Abstract:Single molecule force spectroscopy (SMFS) and steered molecular dynamics (SMD) simulations play crucial roles in studying mechanical properties of single molecule protein. Many mechanical and nonmechanical proteins have been studied by SMFS and SMD simulations during the last two decades. SMFS based on atomic force microscopy (AFM) promises a powerful tool to measure the force and distance in great precision and accuracy simultaneously while SMD simulations are able to provide valuable detailed information about the mechanical unfolding details that cannot be reached by SMFS. In addition, SMD simulations are also used to predict proteins’ mechanical properties ahead of experiments. Many β-grasp proteins with terminal β-stands of sheer topology have been proven mechanical stable. It was predicted that this shear topology is a common feather for mechanical stable proteins and even nonmechanical proteins can have significant mechanical stability. Streptokinase β domain (SKβ) and staphylokinase (SAK) are β-grasp proteins with similar terminal β-stands of sheer topology. Molecular dynamics simulations suggest that they both have high mechanical stabilities as the hydrogen bonds between terminal β-stands provide high mechanical resistance. In this work, we use SMFS experiments to investigate the mechanical properties of SKβ and SAK. Surprisingly, we found that SAK is mechanically much weaker than SKβ and many other mechanical stable proteins with terminal β-stands of sheer topology. In addition, through chemical denaturation experiments, we draw the free energy landscapes of the unfolding of these two kinase proteins together with SMFS experiments. Longer distance between native state and transition state is responsible for the unexpected low unfolding force of SAK. However, the reason of the difference of the mechanical properties of these two kinases remains unclear.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?