Comparison of bacterial and animal rhodopsins by hydrogen exchange studies

Abstract

RHODOPSIN is deeply embedded in a hydrocarbon membrane, yet hydrogen exchange (HX) studies show that about 70% of its peptide hydrogens are freely exposed to solvent water1. This contrasts with other membrane-bound proteins and even aqueous proteins which generally involve about 70% of their peptide hydrogens in internal H-bonding. It has been suggested that the large fraction of disordered polypeptide chain indicated for rhodopsin resides in and acts to stabilise a channel of water penetrating into the membrane, and further that this channel must be quite large, perhaps 12 Å or more in diameter1. Unwin and Henderson2 described an electron diffraction model for the purple membrane protein of Halobacterium halobium (bacteriorhodopsin) which compares interestingly with the suggested structure of animal rhodopsin; membrane-embedded bacteriorhodopsin is arranged in a three-molecule circle surrounding an open space 20 Å in diameter. This space, however, is filled not with water but with lipid, and the protein walls of this blind channel are formed of a double rank of α helices which account for most of the bacteriorhodopsin polypeptide chain, so that bacteriorhodopsin, unlike animal rhodopsin, must be as extensively H-bonded as is the usual protein. We report here a HX study of bacteriorhodopsin. In agreement with the electron diffraction model, our HX results show that this protein, unlike animal rhodopsin, has about 75% of its peptides internally H-bonded. These and previous results, however, suggest a fundamental structural similarity between the two rhodopsins.

Access options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

All prices are NET prices.

References

  1. 1

    Downer, N. W., and Englander, S. W., Nature, 254, 625–627 (1975).

  2. 2

    Henderson, R., and Unwin, P. N. T., Nature, 257, 28–32 (1975).

  3. 3

    Yee, R. Y., Englander, S. W., and von Hippel, P. H., J. molec. Biol., 83, 1–16 (1974).

  4. 4

    Bridgen, J., and Walker, I., Biochemistry, 15, 792–798 (1976).

  5. 5

    Osterhelt, D., and Stoeckenius, W., Nature new Biol., 233, 149–152 (1971).

  6. 6

    Shichi, H., Lewis, M. S., Irrevere, F., and Stone, A. L., J. biol. Chem. 244, 529–536 (1969).

  7. 7

    Rothschild, K. J., Andrew, J. R., DeGrip, W. J., and Stanley, H. E., Science, 191, 1176–1178.

  8. 8

    Santillan, G. G., Schwarz, S., Dratz, E. A., and Blasie, J. K., J. molec. Biol. (in the press).

  9. 9

    Chen, Y. S., and Hubbell, W. L., Expl Eye Res., 17, 517–532 (1973).

  10. 10

    Osterhelt, D., and Stoeckenius, W., Meth. Enzym., 21, 667–678 (1974).

  11. 11

    Englander, S. W., and Englander, J. J., Meth. Enzym., 26 c, 406–413 (1972).

  12. 12

    Wald, G., and Brown, P. K., J. gen. Physiol., 37, 189–200 (1953).

  13. 13

    Futterman, S., and Saslow, L. D., J. biol. Chem., 236, 1652–1657 (1961).

Download references

Author information

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

ENGLANDER, J., ENGLANDER, S. Comparison of bacterial and animal rhodopsins by hydrogen exchange studies. Nature 265, 658–659 (1977). https://doi.org/10.1038/265658a0

Download citation

Further reading

Comments

By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.