Quick navigation: Home   |    Site Map   ||    References   |    Biography   ||    Copyright   |    Other copyright   |    Contact us   |    Advert   |   
 

Re: [ccp4bb] Zinc or Iron binding protein, that is a question!

- Protein crystallography

Main steps:

   - Protein purification
   - Crystallisation

Special:

   - Programs for crystallography
   - X-ray detectors

Basic tutorials:

   - Chemistry
   - Protein
   - Peptide
   - Amino Acids

Xtal community:

   - CCP4BB

CCP4bb navigation

CCP4bb <-- 1999 <-- November 1999 <-- 30 November 1999
Previous message:
Subject: MODIP
From: Mark Del Campo delcampo {- at -} MAIL {- dot -} UTEXAS {- dot -} EDU
Date: 2009-08-06
Next message:
Subject: Re: Zinc or Iron binding protein, that is a question!
From: James Holton JMHolton {- at -} LBL {- dot -} GOV
Date: 2009-08-06


Subject: Re: Zinc or Iron binding protein, that is a question!
From: Roger Rowlett rrowlett {- at -} COLGATE {- dot -} EDU
Date: 2009-08-06







As others have implied, quantifying metals in
metalloproteins is very challenging. In my experience, the principal
problems are (1) adventitious metal contamination, (2) accurate
measurement of protein concentration, and (3) weak metal binding.



Zinc and iron are ubiquitous microcontaminants, and crop up in some
pretty unusual places. Zinc will get into everything, and plastic
bottles and microcentrifuge tubes seem to be a pretty rich source of
iron contamination. In addition, we have found that some plasticware
will also bind low concentrations of zinc and other metal ions from
solution, making standardization of instruments very frustrating.
Having said all this, ICP-OES or ICP-MS are absolutely the best methods
of quantifying metals in protein solutions. ICP methods are linear over
many orders of magnitude, and sample prep can be minimal. We simply
dilute protein solution in high-quality deionized water to
approximately 0.1-1.0 ppm in glass (acid washed and dried if possible),
NOT plastic, and aspirate into an ICP-OES. The protein must be diluted
enough to reduce viscosity issues in nebulization. Standards can be
prepared in deionized water. We dilute our protein solutions with the
same dI water we use to prepare the blank, and there is always some
detectable Zn background. (Fe is usually very low in glass containers).
The key to accurate measurements is Zn concentrations >0.1 ppm. This
has worked very well for us for quantifying native and
metal-substituted zinc-metalloproteins. If you are really up against
contamination, you can extract solutions with Chelex resin, but it is
possible that this treatment could also remove loosely bound metals
from proteins. If your putative zinc protein has one or more sulfur
ligands, this is less likely to be a problem.



Measuring protein concentrations accurately is also challenging. Every
protein quantification method is subject to idiosyncrasies. The least
idiosyncratic chemical methods are the microbiuret method and a variety
of UV methods (I like one based on A230 in 0.1% Tween-100 or another
detergent.) Measuring protein concentration will be the major source of
error in metalloprotein stoichiometry measurements. Protein has to be
really homogeneous for any method to be accurate.



Also keep in mind that His-tagged proteins (and some proteins with
vicinial His residues or other ligands on the surface) may
non-specifically bind metal ions, clouding metal stoichiometry.



Finally, if your metal is not in a tight binding site, it will be
difficult to prepare solutions with the saturated stoichiometry. In
these cases, it is possible that microcalorimetry might be useful.



Xuan Yang wrote:
cite="mid:d6de094d0908060327u7a55cbfia41c161c185d25f8@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
Dear Mr. Fritz,

 

Yes, the protein is not an E.coli protein! Instead, it was cloned from
a virus. And since it was a nonstructural viral protein, I thought it
might be appropiate to treat it as eukaryotic proteins. 



E.coli system was quite different from eukaryotic ones, hence I was
quite cautious about the ICP-ES result and trying to confirm it via
alternative method. Thanks very much for mentioning the examples which
suggested that Fe might be contaminants. Indeed, when I cut the protein
in two parts (still with MBP) and test them via ICP-ES again, Fe became
negligible in both and Zn stoichiometry increaed to 1:1 in the
C-terminal part. The result lead me to focus on Zn instead of Fe. But I
still want to confirm the idea.

 

Matallo biochemistry was exactly what I dreamed to do.


 

Sincerely,

 

Xuan Yang

 

2007/8/6 Guenter Fritz < moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:guenter.fritz@uni-konstanz.de">guenter.fritz@uni-konstanz.de>

style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">Hi
Xuan,

I guess your protein is not an E.coli protein. There are several
examples that eukaryotic Zn-proteins expressed in E.coli contain Fe
instead of Zn. I am sceptic whether IMAC with different metal ions will
give the solution of the problem. If you really want to get information
on the metal ion binding properties you will have to do some matallo
biochemistry: preparing apo protein, reconstitution with metal ions,
UV-Vis spectroscopy, EPR would be great, ...



style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">

Dear Sir or Madam,

 The ICP-ES results indicated that 1 molar my protein purified from
E.coli Origami(DE3) contained about a half molar Zinc and nearly a
quarter molar Iron (whether II or III was not available). The protein
carried a MBP tag on the N-terminal and the situation was similar with
or without His tag at the C terminal. I want to determine whether my
protein really bind Zinc or Iron. Does anyone have any experience about
such problems?

 Specifically, now I want to compare the binding efficiency on various
IMAC, i.e. 50mM ZnSO4, FeSO4, Fe2(SO4)3, NiSO4(control), or
CuSO4(control). However,  considering the instability of Fe(II) in
solution, the design still seemed problematic.

 Sincerely,

 Xuan Yang

 National Laboratory of Biomacromolecules and

Center for Infection and Immunity,

Institute of Biophysics,

Chinese Academy of Sciences,

Room 1617, 15 DaTun Road,Chaoyang District,

Beijing, China, 100101

Tel: 86-10-64884329



Academic email: href="mailto:YangX@moon.ibp.ac.cn" target="_blank">YangX@moon.ibp.ac.cn
<mailto: target="_blank">YangX@moon.ibp.ac.cn>


We will either find a way or make one.

 










--



Roger S. Rowlett

Professor

Department of Chemistry

Colgate University

13 Oak Drive

Hamilton, NY 13346



tel: (315)-228-7245

ofc: (315)-228-7395

fax: (315)-228-7935

email: rrowlett@mail.colgate.edu









ProteinCrystallography.org: Copyright 2006-2010 by Quid United Ltd