A comparative study of protein synthesis in in vitro systems: from the prokaryotic reconstituted to the eukaryotic extract-based.

BACKGROUND: Cell-free protein synthesis is not only a rapid and high throughput technology to obtain proteins from their genes, but also provides an in vitro platform to study protein translation and folding. A detailed comparison of in vitro protein synthesis in different cell-free systems may provide insights to their biological differences and guidelines for their applications. RESULTS: Protein synthesis was investigated in vitro in a reconstituted prokaryotic system, a S30 extract-based system and a eukaryotic system. Compared to the S30 system, protein synthesis in the reconstituted system resulted in a reduced yield, and was more cold-sensitive. Supplementing the reconstituted system with fractions from a size-exclusion separation of the S30 extract significantly increased the yield and activity, to a level close to that of the S30 system. Though protein synthesis in both prokaryotic and eukaryotic systems showed no significant differences for eukaryotic reporter proteins, drastic differences were observed when an artificial fusion protein was synthesized in vitro. The prokaryotic systems failed to synthesize and correctly fold a significant amount of the full-length fusion protein, even when supplemented with the eukaryotic lysate. The active full-length fusion protein was synthesized only in the eukaryotic system. CONCLUSION: The reconstituted bacterial system is sufficient but not efficient in protein synthesis. The S30 system by comparison contains additional cellular factors capable of enhancing protein translation and folding. The eukaryotic translation machinery may have evolved from its prokaryotic counterpart in order to translate more complex (difficult-to-translate) templates into active proteins.

Photoinduced surface potential change of bacteriorhodopsin mutant D96N measured by scanning surface potential microscopy.

We report the direct measurement of photoinduced surface potential differences of wild-type (WT) and mutant D96N bacteriorhodopsin (BR) membranes at pH 7 and 10.5. Atomic force microscopy (AFM) and scanning surface potential microscopy (SSPM) were used to measure the BR membrane with the extracellular side facing up. We present AFM and SSPM images of WT and mutant D96N in which the light-dark transition occurred in the mid-scan of a single BR membrane. Photosteady-state populations of the M state were generated to facilitate measurement in each sample. The photoinduced surface potential of D96N is 63 mV (peak to valley) at pH 10.5 and is 48 mV at pH 7. The photoinduced surface potential of WT is 37 mV at pH 10.5 and approximately 0 at pH 7. Signal magnitudes are proportional to the amount of M produced at each pH. The results indicated that the surface potentials were generated by photoformation of surface charges on the extracellular side of the membrane. Higher surface potential correlated with a longer lifetime of the charges. A mechanistic basis for these signals is proposed, and it is concluded that they represent a steady-state measurement of the B2 photovoltage.

Structure, function, and wavelength selection in blue-absorbing proteorhodopsin.

The absorption maximum of blue proteorhodopsin (BPR) is the most blue-shifted of all retinal proteins found in archaea or bacteria, with the exception of sensory rhodopsin II (SRII). The absorption spectrum also exhibits a pH dependence larger than any other retinal protein. We examine the structural origins of these two properties of BPR by using optical spectroscopy, homology modeling, and molecular orbital theory. Bacteriorhodopsin (BR) and SRII are used as homology parents for comparative purposes. We find that the tertiary structure of BPR based on SRII is more realistic with respect to free energy, dynamic stability, and spectroscopic properties. Molecular orbital calculations including full single- and double-configuration interaction within the chromophore pi-electron system provide perspectives on the wavelength regulation in this protein and indicate that Arg-95, Gln-106, Glu-143, and Asp-229 play important, and in some cases pH-dependent roles. A possible model for the 0.22 eV red shift of BPR at low pH is examined, in which Glu-143 becomes protonated and releases Arg-95 to rotate up into the binding site, altering the electrostatic environment of the chromophore. At high pH, BPR has spectroscopic properties similar to SRII, but at low pH, BPR has spectroscopic properties more similar to BR. Nevertheless, SRII is a significantly better homology model for BPR and opens up the question of whether this protein serves as a proton pump, as commonly believed, or is a light sensor with structure-function properties more comparable to those of SRII. The function of BPR in the native organism is discussed with reference to the results of the homology model.