Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2020 Jan 16;15(1):e0221915. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0221915

First eight residues of apolipoprotein A-I mediate the C-terminus control of helical bundle unfolding and its lipidation

Gregory Brubaker 1, Shuhui W Lorkowski 1, Kailash Gulshan 1, Stanley L Hazen 1,2, Valentin Gogonea 1,3, Jonathan D Smith 1,2,*
Editor: Maria Gasset4
PMCID: PMC6964839  PMID: 31945064

Abstract

The crystal structure of a C-terminal deletion of apolipoprotein A-I (apoA1) shows a large helical bundle structure in the amino half of the protein, from residues 8 to 115. Using site directed mutagenesis, guanidine or thermal denaturation, cell free liposome clearance, and cellular ABCA1-mediated cholesterol efflux assays, we demonstrate that apoA1 lipidation can occur when the thermodynamic barrier to this bundle unfolding is lowered. The absence of the C-terminus renders the bundle harder to unfold resulting in loss of apoA1 lipidation that can be reversed by point mutations, such as Trp8Ala, and by truncations as short as 8 residues in the amino terminus, both of which facilitate helical bundle unfolding. Locking the bundle via a disulfide bond leads to loss of apoA1 lipidation. We propose a model in which the C-terminus acts on the N-terminus to destabilize this helical bundle. Upon lipid binding to the C-terminus, Trp8 is displaced from its interaction with Phe57, Arg61, Leu64, Val67, Phe71, and Trp72 to destabilize the bundle. However, when the C-terminus is deleted, Trp8 cannot be displaced, the bundle cannot unfold, and apoA1 cannot be lipidated.

Introduction

Apolipoprotein A-I (apoA1) is the major protein in high density lipoprotein (HDL), and one of the most abundant proteins in human plasma with average levels of ~100 to 150 mg/dl. The assembly of HDL in vivo or by cultured cells is absolutely dependent upon the membrane protein ABCA1, which is defective in Tangier disease [1]. However, cell-free reconstituted HDL (rHDL) can be formed from the spontaneous reaction of apoA1 with liposomes made of the short chain phospholipid dimyristoylphosphatidylcholine (DMPC) [2]. This reaction has a maximal rate at the DMPC phase transition temperature of ~24°C, where the boundary between the fluid liquid crystalline and gel phases creates lower phospholipid packing density that allows the entry of water and weak detergents [3]. The apoA1 protein sequence contains a series of 11 and 22-mer partial repeats, many of which can form a class A amphipathic alpha helical structure, with a hydrophobic surface bordered by positively charged Lys and Arg residues, and opposed by negatively charged Asp and Glu residues [4]. Synthetic class A amphipathic helical peptides such as p18A, made without sequence similarity to apoA1, can themselves act as weak detergents, and solubilize DMPC liposomes as well as act as ABCA1-dependent acceptors of cellular lipids; however, at high concentrations, some of these synthetic peptides can strip cells of lipids in an ABCA1-independent manner [5]. ApoA1, even at high concentrations, does not have the promiscuous ability to accept cell lipids in the absence of ABCA1 [5].

Much about apoA1 function and structure has been learned from studying site-specific substitutions and truncations of apoA1, as well as from various structural studies culminating in the crystal structure of the C-terminal deleted apoA1, solved by Mei and Atkinson in 2011 [6]. This crystal structure includes a folded, primarily alpha-helical, bundle extending from residue 8–112. The apoA1 “consensus” model, built from the crystal structure along with chemical crosslinking, and other biophysical and structural data from the past four decades, has labeled the individual helixes: H1 (residues 8–32), H2 (37–45), H3 (54–64), H4 (68–78), H5 (81–115), and H6 (148–179) [7]. It has long been appreciated that the C-terminal truncation of residues 185–243 (called hereafter the ΔC isoform) is dysfunctional in regard to both its DMPC solubilization and ABCA1-dependent lipid acceptor activities [811]. This was not surprising, as the C-terminus is the most hydrophobic region of apoA1. However, combining the ΔC truncation with deletion of the N-terminal residues 1–43 (called hereafter the ΔN isoform) to create the doubly deleted ΔN/C isoform, completely rescues apoA1’s activity, demonstrating that all that is required for apoA1 function is the central domain [10,12]. Phillips and colleagues proposed that the C–terminus in full length apoA1 interacts with lipid and transmits a structural change allowing the unfolding of apoA1’s helical bundle revealing its detergent-like activities [13,14]. This model and a similar one from Atkinson and colleagues [6,15] can explain why the ΔC is defective in lipid binding, which is recovered by the ΔN/C isoform. We previously demonstrated that the free energy required for guanidine unfolding of apoA1 isoforms is ranked ΔC > WT > ΔN/C > ΔN [16]. In the present study we provide new details on the role of the N-terminal 8 residues and Trp8 in stabilizing the helix bundle and new data on the need for the helical bundle to unfold for apoA1’s lipidation. We support a model that features the central role of Trp8 in maintaining the helical bundle, whose unfolding is required for apoA1’s lipidation.

Materials and methods

Generation and purification of recombinant human apoA1 and variants

The bacterial expression vector encoding codon-optimized his-tagged human apoA1 has been previously described [17]. All point mutations and deletions were created using the QuickChange II Mutagenesis Kit (Thermo Fisher). All mutations were confirmed by DNA sequencing. Expression plasmids were transformed into E. coli BL21 dE3 pLysS and protein expression was induced in shaking cultures by overnight incubation with 0.5 mM Isopropyl β-D-1-thiogalactopyranoside at room temperature. The resulting cellular pellet was resuspended in B-PER lysis solution (Thermo Fisher) containing Lysozyme, DNaseI, and a protease inhibitor cocktail. The cellular debris was removed by centrifugation and the supernatant was diluted into PBS containing 3 M guanidine-HCl. The denatured histidine-tagged apoA1 was purified using Ni Sepharose HP resin (Amersham Biosciences) followed by imidazole elution. Fractions containing recombinant apoA1 were extensively dialyzed against PBS and analyzed for purity by SDS-PAGE and Coomassie Blue staining. Only samples with >95% purity were used. When indicated apoA1 was reduced in 10 mM DTT, and reductive methylation was performed with 100 mM N-ethylmaleimide (NEM) at 37°C for 1 hr under nitrogen gas, followed by dialysis in PBS.

Non-denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis

5 μg of ApoA1 was mixed with 2X Novex Tris-glycine Native Sample Buffer and run on a precast Novex 4–20% Tris-glycine native gel (ThermoFisher) at 120V for 4 hours. The gel was visualized using GelCode Blue protein stain reagent (ThermoFisher). The migration of a high molecular weight standard (GE Healthcare Life Sciences) containing proteins of known Stokes diameter (nm) is shown for reference.

Far UV spectral analysis by circular dichroism (CD)

Spectra for all apoA1 samples were collected by CD using a Jasco J810 Spectropolarimeter. The samples were read in a quartz cell with a 0.2 cm path length under a constant nitrogen flush at ambient temperature. Three spectra were collected for each sample from 190–250 nm in continuous scanning mode at a bandwidth of 1 nm with a 0.2 nm data pitch. The spectra were normalized to mean residue ellipticity using 115.5 as the mean residue weight for control apoA1. α-helicity was determined using the molar ellipticity at 222 nm as previously described [18].

Cholesterol efflux activity

RAW264.7 cells in 24-well plates were labeled by overnight incubation with DMEM containing 1% fetal bovine serum and 0.5 μCi/mL [3H]cholesterol (Perkin Elmer). The next day, the labeling mix was removed and the cells were incubated with DMEM + 0.3 mM 8-Br-cAMP for 16 hours to induce endogenous ABCA1 expression. The cells were washed once with DMEM then 5.0 μg/mL apoA1 in 0.5 mL of DMEM + 0.3 mM 8-Br-cAMP was added to each well for incubation at 37°C for 4 hrs. The media was removed, briefly centrifuged, and 100 μL was added to a scintillation vial for counting radioactivity to measure cholesterol released to the media. The cells remaining on the plate were extracted using hexane:isopropanol (3:2, v:v) and the radioactivity was counted as a measure of remaining cellular cholesterol. Percent efflux is calculated as % media counts / (media + cell counts).

Dimyristoyl phosphatidylcholine (DMPC) liposome clearance assay

DMPC (Avanti Polar Lipids) was dissolved in 2:1 (v:v) chloroform:methanol and dried under nitrogen in glass vials. The lipid was resuspended in PBS by vigorous vortexing and multiple freeze/thaws to prepare multilamellar vesicles (MLVs). The turbid DMPC stock solution was diluted to 0.20 mg/mL in PBS, which yielded an absorbance at 325 nm of < 0.5 AU. ApoA1 samples were tested for their ability to clarify the DMPC vesicles using a Gemini EM microplate reader (Molecular Devices) by adding 250 μL of DMPC to 20 μg of apoA1 in PBS (total volume of 300 μL/well). Sample absorbance at 325 nm to assess turbidity was measured over a time course at 24°C.

8-Anilino-1-naphthalenesulfonic acid (ANS) fluorescence assay

ANS (Sigma Aldrich) at a final concentration of 250 μM was mixed with 30 μg/mL of apoA1 samples. Fluorescence spectra were obtained (excitation 395 nm and emission from 425–575 nm) using a Gemini EM microplate reader (Molecular Devices).

Fluorescence spectroscopy and guanidine or thermal denaturation

For guanidine denaturation, apoA1 samples were prepared at 10 μg/mL in increasing amounts of guanidine hydrochloride (0, 0.25, 0.5, 0.75, 1.0, 1.25, 1.5, 1.75, 2.0, 2.25, 2.5 M) at room temperature. For thermal denaturation 10 μg/mL apoA1 in PBS was equilibrated at the indicated temperature. For both assays, fluorescence spectra were measured using an excitation of 295 nm and emission from 325–375 nm using a Gemini EM microplate reader (Molecular Devices) at the temperature of equilibration. The WMF was determined after data smoothing using GraphPad Prism software. A red shift is observed as the environment of the four apoA1 tryptophans goes from a hydrophobic to an aqueous environment during the unfolding process.

ApoA1 structural modeling

The ΔC apoA1 crystal structure (Protein Data Bank accession number 3r2p) [6] and the full length apoA1 consensus model (downloaded fromhttp://homepages.uc.edu/~davidswm/structures.html) [7] were visualized and customized using PyMOL 2.1.1 (Incentive Product).

Statistical analysis

All data show mean ± SD. Cell well and sample replicates were used and assumed to be parametrically distributed, and as our coefficients of variation were small and no in vivo measures were ascertained. Multiple columns of data were compared by one-way ANOVA with Dunnett’s posttest against one control column as indicated in the figure legends. Statistics were performed using GraphPad Prism software.

Results

Central domain of apoA1 is sufficient for apoA1’s cell-free and cellular lipidation

N-terminal His-tagged recombinant human apoA1 (rh-apoA1) was purified for the full length wild type (WT) isoform, along with the N-terminal residues 1–43 deleted (ΔN), the C-terminal residues 185–243 deleted (ΔC), and the N- and C-terminal double deleted (ΔN/C) isoforms, the latter of which contains only the central domain of apoA1. Non-denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis demonstrated migration as dimers for all four proteins, with calculated diameters of 7.34, 6,82, 6.71, and 6.38 nm for the WT, ΔN, ΔC, and ΔN/C isoforms, respectively, closely agreeing with the theoretical diameters based on the changes in isoform mass (Fig 1A). We previously demonstrated by following α-helicity using circular dichroism that all four isoforms can be rapidly unfolded by guanidine, and rapidly refolded upon guanidine dilution [16]. We confirmed prior studies that the WT, ΔN, and ΔN/C isoforms were competent to clear DMPC MLVs, albeit with slightly less activity for the ΔN, and ΔN/C isoforms, while the ΔC isoform was incapable of clearing these liposomes (Fig 1B) [10,12]. This same pattern of activity was also observed for ABCA1-mediated cholesterol efflux from RAW264.7 murine macrophages (Fig 1C).

Fig 1. ApoA1 ΔN/C double deletion partially or fully restores activity of the ΔC isoform.

Fig 1

A. GelCode Blue stained non-denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis of the WT, ΔN, ΔC, and ΔN/C apoA1 isoforms along with a high molecular weight size standard. B. DMPC MLV clearance by apoA1. Each line is the average of triplicate wells ± S.D. Different apoA1 isoforms: green, WT; purple, ΔN; red, ΔC; blue, ΔN/C. C. Cholesterol efflux from ABCA1-induced RAW264.7 cells to different apoA1 isoforms, as indicated, or in the absence of any acceptor (clear bar black outline). D. Guanidine denaturation of apoA1 isoforms assayed by wavelength of maximal fluorescence (WMF) of endogenous Trp residues. E. Thermal denaturation of apoA1 isoforms assayed by Trp WMF in triplicate wells ± S.D. F. Thermal denaturation of apoA1 isoforms as the delta WMF between 55 and 37°C. The bar graphs are mean ± SD, n = 3 (***, p<0.001; **, p<0.01; *, p<0.05; NS, not significant; by one way ANOVA with Dunnett’s posttest compared to WT apoA1).

ApoA1 helical bundle unfolding of different isoforms

The crystal structure of the lipid-free ΔC apoA1 isoform was determined by Mei and Atkinson [6], revealing a large alpha-helical bundle composed of three segments: segment 1, residues 8–40; segment 2, residues 41–67 that are antiparallel to segment 1; and, segment 3, residues 68–115 that are parallel to segment 1. We hypothesized that the apoA1 C-terminal domain can assist in destabilizing the structure of this bundle and that the unfolding of the bundle is required for apoA1’s lipidation. To examine the ability of the various apoA1 isoforms to unfold, we performed guanidine denaturation dose response studies, where unfolding was monitored by the WMF red shift in endogenous Trp fluorescence as it moves from a hydrophobic to hydrophilic environment [9]. There are four Trp residues in apoA1 at positions 8, 50, 72, and 108, all of which are found in the helical bundle, although, Trp8 is just at the boundary. The WMF assay is not dependent upon the concentration of apoA1, and thus is insensitive to small changes in concentration among the four apoA1 isoforms. Examples of the Trp emission spectra for the WT isoform at 0, 1, and 2 M guanidine are shown in S1A Fig. The EC50 for unfolding of the WT and ΔC isoforms was similar at 1.12 and 1.10 M guanidine, respectively (Fig 1D). The ΔN isoform, missing the anchor residues for the segment 1 and the beginning of segment 2 of the helical bundle, unfolded much more readily with an EC50 of 0.82 M guanidine, while the ΔN/C isoform unfolded even more easily with an EC50 of 0.50 M guanidine (Fig 1D). The two N-terminal deletion isoforms (ΔN and ΔN/C) had much lower Hill slopes, indicating less cooperativity in unfolding, vs. the other two isoforms. In addition, in the absence of guanidine, both N-terminal deletion isoforms have higher basal WMF than the WT and ΔC isoforms. An alternate measure of unfolding using the Trp emission at 345 nm yielded similar results as the WMF plot; although, the unfolding EC50 value was shifted to a lower guanidine concentration for the ΔC isoform (S1B Fig, EC50 = 1.12, 0.76, 1.06, and 0.31 M guanidine for unfolding of the WT, ΔN, ΔC, and ΔN/C apoA1 isoforms, respectively). The % folded by this measure is shown in S1C Fig. We performed circular dichroism on these four isoforms and determined α-helicity of 46.0%, 50.7%, 51.9%, and 50.7% for the WT, ΔN, ΔC, and ΔN/C isoforms, respectively, which are similar to values previously reported for similar recombinant apoA1 isoforms [19,20]. Upon increasing guanidine, we observed decreasing % α-helicity with the ΔN and ΔN/C more sensitive to guanidine, similar to the WMF assay (S1D Fig, EC50 = 1.06, 0.48, 0.97, 0.20 M guanidine for the WT, ΔN, ΔC, and ΔN/C isoforms, respectively) Thermal denaturation was performed in the absence of guanidine and again found that the two N-terminal deletion isoforms (ΔN and ΔN/C) unfolded better (larger WMF shift) than the WT and ΔC isoforms (Fig 1E), which also confirmed the baseline red shift of the two N-terminal deletion isoforms at 24°C. Thermal denaturation also showed that the WT isoform was slightly easier to unfold than the ΔC isoform, thus showing that the deletion of the C-terminus stabilized the folded state (Fig 1F).

Role of Trp8 and the N-terminal residues in helical bundle unfolding and apoA1 lipidation

The baseline red shift of the N-terminal deletion isoforms could represent either a more unfolded state of the helical bundle or merely the loss of the fluorescence signal from Trp8, which is missing in these isoforms. To evaluate this, we mutated Trp8 to Phe (W8F), Leu (W8L), or Ala (W8A) and we found that the W8F and W8L, two bulky hydrophobic substitutions, retained the baseline WMF of the WT isoform, while smaller W8A substitution increased the baseline WMF (Fig 2A). Subjecting these isoforms to guanidine denaturation showed a stepwise pattern going from least to most sensitive to guanidine unfolding for the aromatic to larger hydrophobic to smaller hydrophobic residues at position 8 (Fig 2A, guanidine EC50: WT, 1.11M; W8F, 0.83M; W8L, 0.77M; W8A, 0.70M).

Fig 2. Role of Trp8 apoA1 helix bundle unfolding and rescue of ΔC isoform activity.

Fig 2

A. Guanidine denaturation of apoA1 isoforms assayed by Trp WMF. Different apoA1 isoforms: green circles, wildtype (WT); blue inverted triangles, W8F; brown squares, W8L; purple triangles, W8A. B. Guanidine denaturation of apoA1 isoforms assayed by Trp WMF. Different apoA1 isoforms: green circles, wildtype (WT); red inverted triangles, ΔC; brown squares, Δ1–7 ΔC; blue diamonds, Δ1–8 ΔC; purple triangles, W8A ΔC. C. Hydrophobicity of apoA1 isoforms assayed by ANS fluorescence, same colors as in panel B. D. DMPC MLV clearance by apoA1, same colors as in panel B E. Cholesterol efflux from ABCA1-induced RAW264.7 cells to different apoA1 isoforms or in the absence of any acceptor (clear bar black outline) (average ± SD; ***, p<0.001 by one way ANOVA with Dunnett’s posttest compared to no apoA1).

To further examine the role of Trp8, we made the least stable point mutation W8A, and two new N-terminal deletions 1–7 (Δ1–7) and 1–8 (Δ1–8), all on the ΔC background. The first 7 residues contain 3 prolines in positions 3, 4, and 7 Guanidine denaturation demonstrated that the Δ1–8 and W8A were most sensitive to unfolding, while the Δ1–7 had intermediate sensitivity (Fig 2B). Loss of the hydrophobic C-terminus in the ΔC isoform led to decreased hydrophobicity as ascertained by ANS fluorescence intensity (Fig 2C). The W8A, Δ1–7, and Δ1–8 isoforms on the ΔC background restored its hydrophobicity, indicating increased exposure of the helical bundle (Fig 2C). The unfolding sensitivity completely aligned with the DMPC clearance and ABCA1-mediated acceptor activities of these ΔC isoforms, such that the easiest to unfold isoforms (W8A and Δ1–8) completely rescued the ΔC loss of function, while the Δ1–7 only partially rescued these activities (Fig 2D and 2E). Thus, Trp8 has an essential role in stabilizing the helical bundle, as the least conservative substitution, W8A, or deletion of the first 8 residues, destabilize the bundle and allow for functional recovery of the ΔC isoform.

Locking apoA1’s helical bundle diminished its cell-free and cellular lipidation

To test the role of unfolding of the helical bundle on apoA1’s lipidation, we used site directed mutagenesis to replace residues Leu38 and Met112, which in the crystal structure [6] are predicted to be only 3.4 angstroms apart and at the other end of the helical bundle from Trp8, with Cys residues to create the 38C/112C helix bundle locked apoA1 isoform (Fig 3A). After purification, non-reducing SDS PAGE revealed that all of the disulfide bonds are intra-molecular, as we did not observe any dimer sized bands (Fig 3B). The 38C/112C locked apoA1 isoform was harder to unfold in guanidine (EC50 = 1.56 M guanidine) vs. the WT isoform; but, it regained sensitivity to guanidine unfolding upon unlocking the N-hairpin by disulfide reduction with DTT (Fig 3C). The 38C/112C locked apoA1 isoform had very little DMPC MLV clearance activity compared to WT apoA1; however, upon unlocking the helix bundle by reductive methylation with NEM, this activity was largely restored, indicating that loss of this activity was due to the locked helix bundle rather than to the double Cys substitution (Fig 3D). The cellular ABCA1-mediated efflux capacity of the 38C/112C locked apoA1 isoform was reduced by 75% vs. the WT isoform; however, this activity was completely restored by reductive methylation of the disulfide bond using NEM to unlock the helix bundle (Fig 3E). These studies demonstrate that unfolding the helical bundle is necessary in order for apoA1 lipidation via solubilization of DMPC vesicles or via cellular ABCA1 activity.

Fig 3. Disulfide lock of the helical bundle impedes apoA1 activity.

Fig 3

A. Portion of the crystal structure of ΔC apoA1 from (6), showing proximity of L38 and M112 at the “top” of the helical bundle. Color scheme shows N-terminus with dark blue towards the C-terminus in orange. B. Coomassie blue stained SDS PAGE of purified recombinant apoA1 isoforms, showing only intramolecular disulfide bonds in the 38C/112C isoform. Lane 1, MW marker; lane 2, WT w/o DTT; lane 3 WT + DTT; lane 4, 38C/112C w/o DTT; lane 5, 38C/112C + DTT. C. Guanidine denaturation of apoA1 isoforms assayed by Trp WMF. Different apoA1 isoforms: light green circles, non-reduced WT; dark green squares WT + DTT; inverted bright red triangles, non-reduced 38C/112C; inverted dark red triangles, 38C/112C + DTT. D. DMPC MLV clearance by apoA1; green, WT; bright red, non-reduced 38C/112C; dark red, 38C/112C reductively methylated with NEM. E. Cholesterol efflux from ABCA1-induced RAW264.7 cells to different apoA1 isoforms, as indicated, or in the absence of acceptor (black bar) (average ± SD; ***, p<0.001 by one way ANOVA with Dunnett’s posttest compared to WT apoA1).

Proline substitutions in the helix bundle rescue the activity of ΔC apoA1

To further prove that it is the ability of the helical bundle to unfold that can rescue the activities of the ΔC isoform, we replicated the study of Tanaka et al. [21] and substituted Tyr18 and Ser55, within the N-terminal helix hairpin bundle, with proline residues on the full length and ΔC background isoforms, creating the 2P isoforms. The 2P-WT and 2P-ΔC isoforms are much less folded as they have a large red-shifted baseline WMF, and they are much more sensitive to guanidine unfolding compared to the WT and ΔC isoforms (Fig 4A). As previously shown [21], the 2P-ΔC isoform completely restored to WT levels the impaired activities of the ΔC isoform in regard to both DMPC clearance and ABCA1-mediated cholesterol efflux (Fig 4B and 4C). Thus, like the W8A, Δ1–8, and ΔN/C isoforms, these specific proline substitutions promote the helical bundle unfolding and rescue the activity deficits of the ΔC isoform, indicating that the C-terminus is dispensable for apoA1 lipidation when the helical bundle is destabilized.

Fig 4. ApoA1 with two proline substitution in helical bundle restores activity of the ΔC isoform.

Fig 4

A. Guanidine denaturation of apoA1 isoforms assayed by Trp WMF. Different apoA1 isoforms: light green circles, WT; dark green squares 18P/55P (2P-WT); inverted bright red triangles, ΔC; dark red triangles, 2P-ΔC. B. DMPC MLV clearance by apoA1 isoforms, or in the absence of apoA1 (black); same colors as in panel A. C. Cholesterol efflux from ABCA1-induced RAW264.7 cells to different apoA1 isoforms or in the absence of any acceptor (clear bar black outline), same colors as in panel A (average ± SD; ***, p<0.001 by one way ANOVA with Dunnett’s posttest compared to WT apoA1).

Discussion

We propose a model for regulation of apoA1’s helix bundle unfolding based on the ΔC isoform crystal structure [6], the “consensus” model of apoA1 [7], and our current findings. The crystal structure places Trp8 (W8) at the start of H1 [6], which we propose to be a central player that acts as a “node” to stabilize the helix bundle. W8 sits in a pocket flanked by multiple residues within H3, H4, and the linker region between H3 and H4 (Fig 5). W8 may have hydrophobic interactions with residues F57 (4.1Å distance from W8 in H3), L64 (4.0Å in H3), V67 (4.0 Å in the linker), F71 (5.3 Å in H4) and W72 (3.7 Å in H4). In addition, W8 is reported to have a pi-cation interaction with R61 (3.6 Å in H3) [6], which combined with the above hydrophobic interactions are reported to be the “major forces that hold the helical bundle together [6]. Thus, the Trp8 substitution W8A or deletion of residues 1–8 removes the “node” and allows the helical bundle to unfold easier. We speculate that less conservative substitutions of W8 with charged or polar amino acids or with the even smaller hydrophobic Gly residue would also disrupt the stability of apoA1’s helical bundle and rescue the dysfunction of the ΔC isoform similar to the W8A or ΔN isoforms.

Fig 5. Trp8 in helix 1 coordinates interaction with residues in helices 2 and 3.

Fig 5

A. Crystal structure of the ΔC isoform from [6] with N-terminus in blue and C-terminus in red. Boxed area is shown in subsequent panels. B. Ribbon and stick diagram showing Trp8 and the residues in close proximity in helices 3 and 4 as indicated. C. Ribbon and sphere diagram showing Trp8 and the residues indicated in panel B.

In the apoA1 structure consensus model, based on a monomer, the C-terminus is adjacent to the N-terminus (Fig 6A and 6B) [7]. This interaction is supported by 24 distinct lysine/amine intra-molecular crosslinks between the N-terminus/hairpin bundle (residues 1 and 115) and the C-terminus (residues 185 and 243) in full length, monomeric, lipid-free apoA1, as described in four independent studies [7,2224]. Biophysical studies have previously shown that the hydrophobic C-terminus can undergo a transition to acquire more alpha-helical structure upon lipid binding [25]. We propose that the newly formed amphipathic alpha helical C-terminus tugs on the N-terminal 7-residue appendage to pull W8 out of its pocket (Fig 6C and 6D). This pulling would disrupt W8’s interactions with F57, R61, L64, V67, V69, F71, and F72, allowing the helix bundle to unfold so that the newly exposed amphipathic helical hydrophobic surface may bind lipid for HDL assembly. When the C-terminus is deleted, W8 cannot be pulled out from its helix bundle stabilizing position, preventing bundle unfolding and apoA1 lipidation. The bundle destabilizing variants that remove the W8 node (W8A, Δ1–8) at the base of the helix bundle or otherwise destabilize the helical bundle (W18P, S55P in the middle of the helix bundle) can completely rescue the activity of the ΔC isoform. Similarly, the N-terminal 7 residues may also help to stabilize the position of W8, with P7 4.2 Å away from W72, such that the Δ1–7 isoform partially rescues the activity of the ΔC isoform. Our model in Fig 6 is based on the monomeric apoA1 consensus model [7]; however, all of the interactions between the N- and C-termini may in fact be due to intermolecular interactions in dimers. The crystal structure of the ΔC isoform shows two antiparallel dimers, with a hinge region that was modeled to fold back upon itself to form a monomer with some intramolecular surfaces replaced by intermolecular surfaces [6]. All of the studied isoforms are dimers, but our denaturation studies cannot distinguish between inter- and intra-molecular interactions involved in unfolding the hairpin bundle.

Fig 6. Model for N- and C-terminal interaction to open helical bundle upon C-terminus lipid sensing.

Fig 6

A. Consensus model of monomeric lipid-free apoA1 from [7] with N-terminus in blue and C-terminus in red, showing close proximity of N-and C-termini. B. Blowup of boxed region panel A showing proximity of surfaces for residues D1, E2, E234, and E235. C. Cartoon version of ΔC crystal structure from [6] fused to the unstructured C-term region from [7] showing helical segments and proximity of charged residues at N- and C-termini. D. Cartoon showing C-terminal helical transformation and extension upon lipid sensing, leading to displacement of the N-terminus. This results in pulling Trp8 out of its position coordinating helices 1 through 4, allowing the unfolding of the helical bundle to expose apoA1’s detergent-like amphipathic helices that is required for its lipidation. Helix numbering in C and D is according to the consensus model [7].

Another helical bundle destabilizing isoform (L38G, K40G), in the context of full length apoA1, was also shown to unzip the helical bundle from the opposite end of W8, exposing more hydrophobic surface and leading to faster cellular ABCA1 mediated HDL formation [26]. However, whether this bundle destabilizing isoform could rescue the activity of C-terminal deletion was not determined [26].

Philips and colleagues first proposed that the C-terminal domain senses lipids leading to the opening of apoA1’s N-term helix bundle allowing the exposure of its hydrophobic surfaces and its subsequent lipidation [13,14]. This model has been supported by electron paramagnetic resonance evidence showing a structural change in the C-terminal domain upon lipid binding [25], which may drive subsequent unfolding of the helical bundle. Atkinson and colleagues x-ray crystal and apoA1 site directed mutagenesis data support the model that N-terminal helical bundle unfolding is required for lipidation [6,26]. Our current findings extend the evidence for this model by showing that locking the helical bundle with a disulfide bond inhibits apoA1 lipidation, and that W8 plays a central role in coordinating one end of the helical bundle.

All four Trp residues in apoA1 occur in the helical bundle (residues 8, 50, 72, and 108). Our prior in vitro mutagenesis work showed that Trp oxidation is responsible for the myeloperoxidase induced loss of apoA1 DMPC solubilization and ABCA1-mediated cholesterol acceptor activities, as the 4WF isoform, with all 4 Trp residues replaced by non-oxidizable Phe residues, is resistant to loss of these activities [27]. Substitution of just Trp72 with Phe (W72F) protects apoA1 from MPO induced loss of activity by ~50%, with the other three Trp to Phe substitutions residues responsible for the other 50% of protection [28]. Thus, the oxidation of the helical bundle Trp residues may either prevent the unfolding of the helical bundle, or alternatively disrupt the amphipathic alpha helical surface required for apoA1 lipidation.

ApoA1 is one of the most abundant plasma proteins with normal levels of ~ 1.5 mg/ml. We hypothesize that apoA1 evolved with its helical bundle structure in order to protect cells from a promiscuous detergent like activity of an extended amphipathic helix. Remaley has previously shown that high concentrations of amphipathic helical peptides can induce lipid efflux from cells even in the absence of ABCA1 expression; while apoA1 induced lipid efflux is dependent upon ABCA1 expression [5]. We demonstrated that ABCA1 mediates the flop of both phosphatidylinositol 4,5 bisphosphate and phosphatidylserine, the former of which is required for apoA1 binding to ABCA1 expressing cells, and the latter of which increases cholesterol extractability to apoA1 or other weak detergents [29]. We further showed that apoA1 binding to ABCA1 expressing cells leads to unfolding of the helical bundle by the use of self-quenching fluorescent probes at positions 38 and 112 [30]. Thus, it appears that apoA1 and ABCA1 co-evolved to regulate apoA1 helical bundle unfolding in order to tightly regulate the detergent-like activity of the abundant plasma protein apoA1.

Supporting information

S1 Fig. Guanidine unfolding of apoA1.

A. An example of WT apoA1 Trp fluorescence emission scans at 0 (green), 1.0 (blue), and 2.0 M (purple) guanidine hydrochloride. B. Guanidine unfolding of the WT (green), ΔN (purple), ΔC (red), and ΔN/C (blue) apoA1 isoforms assessed using the Trp fluorescence emission at 345 nm. The EC50 = 1.12, 0.76, 1.06, and 0.31 M guanidine for unfolding of the WT, ΔN, ΔC, and ΔN/C apoA1 isoforms, respectively. C. The % folded using the single wavelength emission data at 345 nm was calculated by normalizing the data to the 0 M guanidine, and considering full unfolding at 2.0 M guanidine. D. Circular dichroism was used to access % α-helicity at increasing guanidine concentrations. The EC50 = 1.06, 0.48, 0.97, 0.20 M guanidine for the WT, ΔN, ΔC, and ΔN/C isoforms, respectively.

(TIF)

S1 Data

(XLSX)

Abbreviations

ABCA1

ATP binding cassette transporter A1

ANS

8-Anilino-1-naphthalenesulfonic acid

ApoA1

Apolipoprotein A-I

DMPC

dimyristoylphosphatidylcholine

HDL

high density lipoprotein

MLV

multilamellar vesicles

NEM

N-ethylmaleimide

WMF

wavelength of maximal fluorescence

ΔC

C-terminal deleted

ΔN

N-terminal deleted

ΔN/C

N and C-terminal deleted

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.

Funding Statement

This work was supported by grants R01 HL128268 (JDS) and R01 HL128300 (SLH) from the National Institutes of Health (www.nih.gov/). KG was supported by Scientist Development Award SDG25710128 from the American Heart Association (www.heart.org). The funders played no role in this study or manuscript.

References

  • 1.Wang S, Smith JD. ABCA1 and nascent HDL biogenesis. BioFactors. 2014;40: 547–554. 10.1002/biof.1187 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Jonas A, Drengler SM. Kinetics and Mechanism of Apolipoprotein A-I Interaction with Dimyristoylphosphatidylcholine Vesicles. J Biol Chem. 1980;255: 2190–2194. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Pownall HJ, Massey JB, Kusserow SK, Gotto AM. Kinetics of Lipid-Protein Interactions: Interaction of Apolipoprotein A-I from Human Plasma High Density Lipoproteins with Phosphatidylcholines. Biochemistry. 1978;17: 1183–1188. 10.1021/bi00600a008 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Sorci-Thomas M, Kearns MW, Lee JP. Apolipoprotein A-I domains involved in lecithin-cholesterol acyltransferase activation. Structure:function relationships. J Biol Chem. 1993;268: 21403–21409. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Remaley AT, Thomas F, Stonik JA, Demosky SJ, Bark SE, Neufeld EB, et al. Synthetic amphipathic helical peptides promote lipid efflux from cells by an ABCA1-dependent and an ABCA1-independent pathway. J Lipid Res. 2003;44: 828–836. 10.1194/jlr.M200475-JLR200 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Mei X, Atkinson D. Crystal structure of C-terminal truncated apolipoprotein A-I reveals the assembly of high density lipoprotein (HDL) by dimerization. J Biol Chem. 2011;286: 38570–82. 10.1074/jbc.M111.260422 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Melchior JT, Walker RG, Cooke AL, Morris J, Castleberry M, Thompson TB, et al. A consensus model of human apolipoprotein A-I in its monomeric and lipid-free state. Nat Struct Mol Biol. 2017;24: 1093–1099. 10.1038/nsmb.3501 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Ji Y, Jonas A. Properties of an N-terminal proteolytic fragment of apolipoprotein AI in solution and in reconstituted high density lipoproteins. J Biol Chem. 1995;270: 11290–11297. 10.1074/jbc.270.19.11290 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Davidson WS, Hazlett T, Mantulin WW, Jonas a. The role of apolipoprotein AI domains in lipid binding. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1996;93: 13605–13610. 10.1073/pnas.93.24.13605 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Chroni A, Liu T, Gorshkova I, Kan H-Y, Uehara Y, von Eckardstein A, et al. The Central Helices of ApoA-I Can Promote ATP-binding Cassette Transporter A1 (ABCA1)-mediated Lipid Efflux. J Biol Chem. 2003;278: 6719–6730. 10.1074/jbc.M205232200 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Burgess JW, Frank PG, Franklin V, Liang P, McManus DC, Desforges M, et al. Deletion of the C-terminal domain of apolipoprotein A-I impairs cell surface binding and lipid efflux in macrophage. Biochemistry. 1999;38: 14524–14533. 10.1021/bi990930z [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Beckstead JA, Block BL, Bielicki JK, Kay CM, Oda MN, Ryan RO. Combined N- and C-terminal truncation of human apolipoprotein A-I yields a folded, functional central domain. Biochemistry. 2005;44: 4591–4599. 10.1021/bi0477135 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Koyama M, Tanaka M, Dhanasekaran P, Lund-Katz S, Phillips MC, Saito H. Interaction between the N- and C-terminal domains modulates the stability and lipid binding of apolipoprotein A-I. Biochemistry. 2009;48: 2529–37. 10.1021/bi802317v [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Saito H, Dhanasekaran P, Nguyen D, Holvoet P, Lund-Katz S, Phillips MC. Domain structure and lipid interaction in human apolipoproteins A-I and E, a general model. J Biol Chem. 2003;278: 23227–23232. 10.1074/jbc.M303365200 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Mei X, Liu M, Herscovitz H, Atkinson D. Probing the C-terminal domain of lipid-free apoA-I demonstrates the vital role of the H10B sequence repeat in HDL formation. J Lipid Res. 2016;57: 1507–1517. 10.1194/jlr.M068874 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Gross E, Peng DQ, Hazen SL, Smith JD. A novel folding intermediate state for apolipoprotein A-I: Role of the amino and carboxy termini. Biophys J. 2006;90: 1362–1370. 10.1529/biophysj.105.075069 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Ryan RO, Forte TM, Oda MN. Optimized bacterial expression of human apolipoprotein A-I. Protein Expr Purif. 2003;27: 98–103. 10.1016/s1046-5928(02)00568-5 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Sparks DL, Lund-Katz S, Phillips MC. The charge and structural stability of apolipoprotein A-I in discoidal and spherical recombinant high density lipoprotein particles. J Biol Chem. 1992;267: 25839–25847. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Saito H, Dhanasekaran P, Nguyen D, Deridder E, Holvoet P, Lund-Katz S, et al. α-helix formation is required for high affinity binding of human apolipoprotein A-I to lipids. J Biol Chem. 2004;279: 20974–20981. 10.1074/jbc.M402043200 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Tanaka M, Koyama M, Dhanasekaran P, Nguyen D, Nickel M, Lund-Katz S, et al. Influence of tertiary structure domain properties on the functionality of apolipoprotein A-I. Biochemistry. 2008;47: 2172–2180. 10.1021/bi702332b [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Tanaka M, Dhanasekaran P, Nguyen D, Nickel M, Takechi Y, Lund-Katz S, et al. Influence of N-terminal helix bundle stability on the lipid-binding properties of human apolipoprotein A-I. Biochim Biophys Acta. 2011;1811: 25–30. 10.1016/j.bbalip.2010.10.003 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Silva RAGD, Hilliard GM, Fang J, Macha S, Davidson WS. A three-dimensional molecular model of lipid-free apolipoprotein A-I determined by cross-linking/mass spectrometry and sequence threading. Biochemistry. 2005;44: 2759–2769. 10.1021/bi047717+ [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Pollard RD, Fulp B, Samuel MP, Sorci-Thomas MG, Thomas MJ. The conformation of lipid-free human apolipoprotein A-I in solution. Biochemistry. 2013;52: 9470–81. 10.1021/bi401080k [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Segrest JP, Jones MK, Shao B, Heinecke JW. An Experimentally Robust Model of Monomeric Apolipoprotein A—I Created from a Chimera of Two X—ray Structures and Molecular Dynamics Simulations. Biochemistry. 2014;53: 7625–7640. 10.1021/bi501111j [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Oda MN, Forte TM, Ryan RO, Voss JC. The C-terminal domain of apolipoprotein A-I contains a lipid-sensitive conformational trigger. Nat Struct Biol. 2003;10: 455–460. 10.1038/nsb931 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Liu M, Mei X, Herscovitz H, Atkinson D. N-terminal mutation of apoA-I and interaction with ABCA1 reveal mechanisms of nascent HDL biogenesis. J Lipid Res. 2019;60: 44–75. 10.1194/jlr.M084376 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Peng DQ, Brubaker G, Wu Z, Zheng L, Willard B, Kinter M, et al. Apolipoprotein A-I tryptophan substitution leads to resistance to myeloperoxidase-mediated loss of function. Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol. 2008;28: 2063–2070. 10.1161/ATVBAHA.108.173815 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Huang Y, Didonato JA, Levison BS, Schmitt D, Li L, Wu Y, et al. An abundant dysfunctional apolipoprotein A1 in human atheroma. Nat Med. 2014;20: 193–203. 10.1038/nm.3459 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Gulshan K, Brubaker G, Conger H, Wang S, Zhang R, Hazen SL, et al. PI(4,5)P2 is Translocated by ABCA1 to the Cell Surface Where It Mediates Apolipoprotein A1 Binding and Nascent HDL Assembly. Circ Res. 2016;119: 827–838. 10.1161/CIRCRESAHA.116.308856 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Wang S, Gulshan K, Brubaker G, Hazen SL, Smith JD. ABCA1 mediates unfolding of apolipoprotein ai n terminus on the cell surface before lipidation and release of nascent high-density lipoprotein. Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol. 2013;33: 1197–1205. 10.1161/ATVBAHA.112.301195 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Maria Gasset

4 Sep 2019

PONE-D-19-23187

First eight residues of apolipoprotein A-I mediate the C-terminus control of helical bundle unfolding and its lipidation

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr Jonathan D. Smith,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that convincingly addresses the points raised by both the reviewers.

Since some of the points such as those involving unfolding and aggregation issues may require new experiments, we would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by October 30th. When you are ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Maria Gasset, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. We note that you have a patent relating to material pertinent to this article. Please provide an amended statement of Competing Interests to declare this patent (with details including name and number), along with any other relevant declarations relating to employment, consultancy, patents, products in development or modified products etc. Please confirm that this does not alter your adherence to all PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials, as detailed online in our guide for authors http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests by including the following statement: "This does not alter our adherence to  PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.” If there are restrictions on sharing of data and/or materials, please state these. Please note that we cannot proceed with consideration of your article until this information has been declared.

This information should be included in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

3. PLOS ONE now requires that authors provide the original uncropped and unadjusted images underlying all blot or gel results reported in a submission’s figures or Supporting Information files. This policy and the journal’s other requirements for blot/gel reporting and figure preparation are described in detail at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-blot-and-gel-reporting-requirements and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-preparing-figures-from-image-files. When you submit your revised manuscript, please ensure that your figures adhere fully to these guidelines and provide the original underlying images for all blot or gel data reported in your submission. See the following link for instructions on providing the original image data: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-original-images-for-blots-and-gels.

In your cover letter, please note whether your blot/gel image data are in Supporting Information or posted at a public data repository, provide the repository URL if relevant, and provide specific details as to which raw blot/gel images, if any, are not available. Email us at plosone@plos.org if you have any questions.

4. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Brubaker et al. present a characterization of apoA1 lipidation mechanism via unfolding of the N-terminal α-helices. Although the structural information on apoA1 is rather abundant including available structures of different conformations of the protein - particularly from the Davidson group - the authors provide convincing evidence that the very first N-terminal residues including Trp8 have a functional role solubilizing DMPC lipids or in cholesterol transport. Based on fluorescence measurements, the authors propose a mechanism by which unfolding of an N-terminal helix bundle is required for apoA1 lipidation. The experiments are performed with care and the data analyzed correctly. However, major concerns arise from the experiments shown.

1.- Figure 1 shows that deletion of the C-terminus (ΔC mutant) blocks apoA1 functionality, but the additional deletion of the N-terminus (ΔN/ΔC mutant) recovers lipid binding activity. This evidence goes in line with the model of monomeric, full-length apoA1 structure (Melchior et al NSMB 2017), in which the disordered C-terminus caps the N-terminal helix bundle. Lipid binding to the C-terminal domain of apoA1 induces a conformational switch on this region (Oda et al NSMB 2003) that favors the unfolding of the N-terminal helix bundle. The authors present compelling functional data supporting the hypothesis that unfolding of the N-terminal helical bundle is critical for functional lipidation (especially Figure 1B). Then the authors aim to follow the chemical and thermal unfolding of the different variants of apoA1 by monitoring the change in fluorescence maxima (Figure 1C, D). While full-length and ΔC apoA1 constructs contain 4 Trp residues, ΔN variants contain three Trp residues. More importantly, the structure (for instance, PDB code 3r2p) shows that, precisely, helix 1 clusters helices 2-5 in the bundle. Therefore, removal of helix 1 –assuming that the rest of the bundle remains folded- would expose the remaining Trp residues (Trp50, Trp72, Trp108) to the solvent in monomeric ΔN constructs. In this scenario, it is surprising that the authors observe a change in the fluorescence maxima upon chemical and thermal denaturation. One possible explanation would be that removal of helix 1 promotes oligomerization, in such way that the authors are actually following dissociation of oligomers in ΔN and ΔN/ΔC constructs in Figure 1C, D. To discard this possibility, the authors must show that ΔN, ΔC and ΔN/ΔC constructs are monomeric in the experimental conditions used. Full-length apoA1 is already shown to be monomeric in the SDS-PAGE presented in Figure 3B.

2.- Following protein denaturation by the change in fluorescence maxima is not a quantitative method to determine changes in the populations of folded and unfolded conformers. Different degrees of compaction in unfolded proteins will yield fluorescence maxima at different wavelengths. Authors should monitor the change in fluorescence in a single wavelength to follow protein unfolding.

3.- Proteins were purified in mild denaturing conditions. Proper refolding in the experimental conditions used should be assessed (by Circular Dichroism or comparable techniques). This is particularly important for the ΔN, ΔC and ΔN/ΔC deletion mutants. This point is additionally related to the previous point, since CD would not only be informative on the proper folding of the deletion mutants, but could also be very helpful to characterize protein unfolding upon thermal or chemical denaturation (by monitoring the change in ellipticity in a single wavelength, usually a minima characteristic of α-helical structures).

4.- Figure 1A shows that ΔN and ΔN/ΔC mutants partially recover activity. The authors should state that the mutants “only partially” recover the activity (in Figure legend 1A page#9). Do the authors have any explanation for the observed difference between WT and ΔN and ΔN/ΔC mutants in solubilizing DMPC (only about 50% recovery)?

Minor concerns:

1.- Figure 1A should contain error bars.

2.- Authors state that “the C-terminus stabilized the folded state” based on fluorescence data. However, the ΔC mutant shows much lower change in fluorescence maxima upon thermal denaturation, probably because of the high entropic contribution of the disordered C-terminal region present in WT. Thus, it seems that the C-terminus indeed destabilized the folded state, since in its absence the change in unfolded populations is minor compared to the WT.

3.- Text should be carefully edited: last line in the Introduction reads “who’s” and it should be “whose”. 3 lines before the last in page#5: Remove “of” in “counting radioactivity to measure of cholesterol”… Line 8, page 10, should read “completely” rescued instead of “completed”

4.- Abbreviations should be consistent. The protein is called apoA1 and even apoAI. The C-terminal deletion mutant is termed ΔC and also in page#11 it is called Δ183-243 apoA1.

5.- Labeling of the helices in Figures 6C-D would be appreciated.

Reviewer #2: This study aims to characterize determinants of helical bundle unfolding necessary for lipidation of apolipoprotein A-1 that is mediated by the first eight residues that interact with C-terminus of the protein. The approach uses a Cholesterol Efflux and liposome clearance assay that are now standard to estimate the functionally of the apoA1. In addition to both assays, the authors perform denaturation assay in presence of Guanidium Chloride and Temperature influence. The results suggest that the first eight residues, and specially Trp8, are essential to control the unfolding of the helical bundle necessary for further ApoA1 lipidation. Several published work, spanning the last 20 years, have presented evidence consistent with the current manuscript, but nonetheless, this paper adds a little bit more details and tend to clarify some tenets of apoA1 lipidation and its mechanism.

Taken together the results of the paper are suitable for publication in Plos One. However, the are some points that should be amended or clarified before the manuscript may be accepted. These are detailed in the following:

Major revisions:

- Authors used WMF for unfolding experiments as a red shift is produced when the ApoA1 Trp present in the structure go from a hydrophobic to an aqueous environment during the unfolding process. When Trp are exposed to the hydrophilic environment, an increase of the intensity of the fluorescence is generally observed. The manuscript would gain reproducibility if the authors could provide at least one Trp fluorescence spectrum where the red shift and intensity changes are observed, at least for the Wt and �C and �N isoforms

- In the results corresponding to figure 2, authors mutated Trp8 to Phe, Leu and Ala to discuss the role of the aromatic residue as in the N-terminus unfolding. Trp is an aromatic/amphipathic residue, and it is changed to Phe (aromatic/ hydrophobic) and Leu/Ala (hydrophobic). More disruptive Trp8 changes are needed to clarify the key role of Trp8. Mutations as Trp8 to some polar residue (as Asp and/or Lys and/or Ser) and less bulky residue (Gly) look essential to establish the proper function of the Trp8 into the native structure. Finally, more discussion is needed for mutation Trp8 to Tyr or at least, hypothesize what happens in their model when substitution is performed.

- It is a clear effect that deletion of the first eight residues into �C isoform affects into the unfolding process of the helical bundle. Manuscript would improve if the �1-7 and �1-8 could be performed into the Wt protein and observe the possible effect and comparison wit the isoform �1-8 �C.

Minor revisions:

- Authors proposed in the abstract part “we demonstrate that apoA1 lipidation can occur when the barrier to this bundle unfolding is lowered”. Authors should clarify the term “barrier”, if is from a “thermodynamic or energetic” barrier or another type.

- Introduction lane 2-3: in vivo should be in italics.

- In the introduction, it is stated “the C-terminal truncation of residues 183-243 (called hereafter the �C

- isoform), but authors used a C-terminal truncation of residues of 185-243. Authors should explain why residues 183-184 were not deleted and its possible influence.

- Assays with �C and �N are well-designed and provided information but more discussion is needed. Specifically, authors should discuss why �C is not “more resistant” to unfolding as Wt isoform.

- In Figure 1, it is confusing what black box is. It should be explained, at least, in Figure Legend 1

- Authors mutated Leu 38 and Met 112 to create the 38C/112C helix bundle. Authors should explain better why these residues are chosen as in a quick look of the structure there are more possible candidates.

- In figure 3E, black box should be explained at least in Figure Legend 3

- In figure 4B, red line is not explained or mentioned.

- Page 12, authors mentioned “Thus, like Trp18, D18 and �N/C isoforms….”. It is not clear what D18 is as there are not results refereed to it. Authors should clarify the role of D18 in this context.

- Page 13, authors enlisted a large number of cross links that are not relevant in the discussion part or at least in the main text. It would be more illustrative as supplementary or in a table.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes: Manuel Bano-Polo

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files to be viewed.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2020 Jan 16;15(1):e0221915. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0221915.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


21 Oct 2019

The response to reviewers is found within the attached file. We have addressed every point in our response and we made many changes to the manuscript.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 1

Maria Gasset

12 Nov 2019

PONE-D-19-23187R1

First eight residues of apolipoprotein A-I mediate the C-terminus control of helical bundle unfolding and its lipidation

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr Jonathan D. Smith,

Thank you for submitting your revised manuscript to PLOS ONE. Both reviewers agree in the manuscript improvement, but to defend the final mechanistic model displayed in Figure 6 the oligomerization control is essential. This control was requested in the first review round and could easily provide it. The study deserves publication in PLoS One but only once this control is provided. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses specifically this point.

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by december 12. When you are ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Maria Gasset, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The authors have thoroughly reviewed the manuscript and improved it. However, major concerns still remain regarding data interpretation and the reply of the authors is not fully convincing.

This reviewer is concerned about the conformational state and energy of the deletion mutants that the authors used to build their hypothesis. I understand that the goal of the study is not to describe the effect of the deletion mutants on the distribution of populations of ApoA1 conformations. But since the authors finally build a mechanistic model on monomeric ApoA1 (Figure 6), they must show that the effects on stability and unfolding presented in the study account on the same protein species as the WT. In this reviewer’s opinion, they still fail to do so.

All the protein constructs are shown to be dimers. Different values of fluorescence maxima at 0 GdmHCl may reflect that deletion mutants are partially unfolded or they adopt a molten globule state. This reviewer asked the authors to follow unfolding at a single wavelength as it is the only method to quantitatively monitor protein denaturation and determine the fraction of folded and unfolded protein at each GdmHCl concentration. This reviewer is unable to find the solicited analysis in the author’s reply. The dependence on the concentration argued by the authors is true, but the authors claim they are using the same protein concentrations in all the fluorescence experiments.

Regarding CD measurements, it is true that quantification of secondary structure based on changes in ellipticity may not be very robust. Authors claim that CD follows secondary structure and the study aims to describe changes in tertiary structure. This reviewer is concerned about the effect that quaternary structure may induce in the fluorescence data since it has been completely neglected from the interpretation. CD would be ideal to show if the deletion mutants adopt a molten globule conformation at 0 M GdmHCl. Thermal denaturing (particularly DSC) would inform on the possible sequential dimer dissociation-unfolding. The authors added a new line showing the values of secondary structure elements. They must show the CD spectra at increasing concentrations of GdmHCl.

All in all, it is still not clear whether the destabilizing effects on the helix bundle upon lipidation of the C-terminal tail happens intramolecularly or intermolecularly. The data presented by the authors is insufficient to answer this question. The authors still should reply or propose an explanation why mutants only partially recover the ability to solubilize DMPC (New Figure 1B).

This reviewer suggests further editing of the text; some minor mistakes are still present.

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes: Manuel Bano-Polo

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files to be viewed.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2020 Jan 16;15(1):e0221915. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0221915.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1


11 Dec 2019

PONE-D-19-23187R1

First eight residues of apolipoprotein A-I mediate the C-terminus control of helical bundle unfolding and its lipidation

Response to Reviewers:

We thank the editor and the reviewers for their comments, and we have performed additional studies and analysis to address their concerns.

Editor:

Both reviewers agree in the manuscript improvement, but to defend the final mechanistic model displayed in Figure 6 the oligomerization control is essential. This control was requested in the first review round and could easily provide it. The study deserves publication in PLoS One but only once this control is provided. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses specifically this point.

Response: This is an excellent point, reflecting the last substantive comment of reviewer 1. We copy here our response to Reviewer 1 for this point.

We showed in Fig 1A that all of our recombinant apoA1 isoforms are dimers in solution. Thus the effects of different apoA1 isoforms on DMPC clearance and cholesterol efflux represent effects on dimers. The guanidine and heat denaturation studies may reflect, in part, dimer dissociation or N-and C-terminal inter-molecular interaction. As the reviewer states, we cannot distinguish intramolecular vs. intermolecular effects. Our model shown in Fig. 6 is based upon the previously published consensus model, which was only constructed for an apoA1 monomer. We realize that the N- and C-terminal interaction shown in Fig 6 could be due to intermolecular interactions, rather than the intramolecular interaction as shown. Thus, we have modified the discussion section as follows: “Our model in Fig 6 is based on the monomeric apoA1 consensus model [7]; however, all of the interactions between the N- and C-termini may in fact be due to intermolecular interactions in dimers. The crystal structure of the �C isoform shows two antiparallel dimers, with a hinge region that was modeled to fold back upon itself to form a monomer with some intramolecular surfaces replaced by intermolecular surfaces [6]. All of the studied isoforms are dimers, but our denaturation studies cannot distinguish between inter- and intra-molecular interactions involved in unfolding the hairpin bundle.”

Reviewer #1:

Comment: This reviewer is concerned about the conformational state and energy of the deletion mutants that the authors used to build their hypothesis. I understand that the goal of the study is not to describe the effect of the deletion mutants on the distribution of populations of ApoA1 conformations. But since the authors finally build a mechanistic model on monomeric ApoA1 (Figure 6), they must show that the effects on stability and unfolding presented in the study account on the same protein species as the WT. In this reviewer’s opinion, they still fail to do so. All the protein constructs are shown to be dimers. Different values of fluorescence maxima at 0 GdmHCl may reflect that deletion mutants are partially unfolded or they adopt a molten globule state. This reviewer asked the authors to follow unfolding at a single wavelength as it is the only method to quantitatively monitor protein denaturation and determine the fraction of folded and unfolded protein at each GdmHCl concentration. This reviewer is unable to find the solicited analysis in the author’s reply. The dependence on the concentration argued by the authors is true, but the authors claim they are using the same protein concentrations in all the fluorescence experiments.

Response: We analyzed the WMF data using a single wavelength, and we have added this data as Supplemental Figure S1B. We added to the text” “An alternate measure of unfolding using the Trp emission at 345 nm yielded similar results as the WMF plot; although, the unfolding EC50 values was shifted to a lower guanidine concentration for the �C isoform (Supplemental Fig S1B, EC50 = 1.12, 0.76, 1.06, and 0.31 M guanidine for unfolding of the WT, �N, �C, and �N/C apoA1 isoforms, respectively). The % folded by this measure is shown in Supplemental Fig S1C.” We did not favor this analysis because we are performing the studies at the same �g/ml protein concentration, and since the isoforms have different lengths and different number of Trp residues (4 or 3), the absolute values are somewhat meaningless, although the changes with guanidine reflect what was observed using the WMF measure, which is the standard in the apoA1 unfolding field. We normalized this as % folded in Supplemental Fig S1C.

Comment: Regarding CD measurements, it is true that quantification of secondary structure based on changes in ellipticity may not be very robust. Authors claim that CD follows secondary structure and the study aims to describe changes in tertiary structure. This reviewer is concerned about the effect that quaternary structure may induce in the fluorescence data since it has been completely neglected from the interpretation. CD would be ideal to show if the deletion mutants adopt a molten globule conformation at 0 M GdmHCl. Thermal denaturing (particularly DSC) would inform on the possible sequential dimer dissociation-unfolding. The authors added a new line showing the values of secondary structure elements. They must show the CD spectra at increasing concentrations of GdmHCl.

Response: We performed new CD assessment at various guanidine concentrations and added a Supplemental Figure and the following text: “We performed circular dichroism on these four isoforms and determined �-helicity of 46.0%, 50.7%, 51.9%, and 50.7% for the WT, �N, �C, and �N/C isoforms, respectively, which are similar to values previously reported for similar recombinant apoA1 isoforms [19,20]. Upon increasing guanidine, we observed % �-helicity decreasing with the �N and �N/C more sensitive to guanidine, similar to the WMF assay (Supplemental Figure S1D, EC50 = 1.06, 0.48, 0.97, 0.20 M guanidine for the WT, �N, �C, and �N/C isoforms, respectively).”

Comment: All in all, it is still not clear whether the destabilizing effects on the helix bundle upon lipidation of the C-terminal tail happens intramolecularly or intermolecularly. The data presented by the authors is insufficient to answer this question. The authors still should reply or propose an explanation why mutants only partially recover the ability to solubilize DMPC (New Figure 1B).

Response: We showed in Fig 1A that all of our recombinant apoA1 isoforms are dimers in solution. Thus the effects of different apoA1 isoforms on DMPC clearance and cholesterol efflux represent effects on dimers. The guanidine and heat denaturation studies may reflect, in part, dimer dissociation or N-and C-terminal inter-molecular interaction. As the reviewer states, we cannot distinguish intramolecular vs. intermolecular effects. Our model shown in Fig. 6 is based upon the previously published consensus model, which was only constructed for an apoA1 monomer. We realize that the N- and C-terminal interaction shown in Fig 6 could be due to intermolecular interactions, rather than the intramolecular interaction as shown. Thus, we have modified the discussion section as follows: “Our model in Fig 6 is based on the monomeric apoA1 consensus model [7]; however, all of the interactions between the N- and C-termini may in fact be due to intermolecular interactions in dimers. The crystal structure of the �C isoform shows two antiparallel dimers, with a hinge region that was modeled to fold back upon itself to form a monomer with some intramolecular surfaces replaced by intermolecular surfaces [6]. All of the studied isoforms are dimers, but our denaturation studies cannot distinguish between inter- and intra-molecular interactions involved in unfolding the hairpin bundle.”

Response: This reviewer is still concerned about the difference between the WT, �N, and �N/C isoforms in the DMPC clearance assay in Fig 1B. The DMPC clearance assay is subject to variance due to the rapid initial clearance rate, the position of samples in the 96-well plate, and difference in time to read the different apoA1 isoforms. These affect the 0 time read, which is used to normalize all of the subsequent time points. We use this assay more as a qualitative vs. quantitative assay to determine if apoA1 is active. The cholesterol efflux assay is more physiological and shows that the �N and �N/C isoforms behave similar to the WT isoform.

Comment: This reviewer suggests further editing of the text; some minor mistakes are still present.

Response: we reviewed the manuscript again to identify and fix any remaining errors.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to review 121019.docx

Decision Letter 2

Maria Gasset

31 Dec 2019

First eight residues of apolipoprotein A-I mediate the C-terminus control of helical bundle unfolding and its lipidation

PONE-D-19-23187R2

Dear Dr. Jonathan D. Smith,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it complies with all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you will receive an e-mail containing information on the amendments required prior to publication. When all required modifications have been addressed, you will receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will proceed to our production department and be scheduled for publication.

Shortly after the formal acceptance letter is sent, an invoice for payment will follow. To ensure an efficient production and billing process, please log into Editorial Manager at https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the "Update My Information" link at the top of the page, and update your user information. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, you must inform our press team as soon as possible and no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

With kind regards,

Maria Gasset, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Acceptance letter

Maria Gasset

2 Jan 2020

PONE-D-19-23187R2

First eight residues of apolipoprotein A-I mediate the C-terminus control of helical bundle unfolding and its lipidation

Dear Dr. Smith:

I am pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper at this point, to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

For any other questions or concerns, please email plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE.

With kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Maria Gasset

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Fig. Guanidine unfolding of apoA1.

    A. An example of WT apoA1 Trp fluorescence emission scans at 0 (green), 1.0 (blue), and 2.0 M (purple) guanidine hydrochloride. B. Guanidine unfolding of the WT (green), ΔN (purple), ΔC (red), and ΔN/C (blue) apoA1 isoforms assessed using the Trp fluorescence emission at 345 nm. The EC50 = 1.12, 0.76, 1.06, and 0.31 M guanidine for unfolding of the WT, ΔN, ΔC, and ΔN/C apoA1 isoforms, respectively. C. The % folded using the single wavelength emission data at 345 nm was calculated by normalizing the data to the 0 M guanidine, and considering full unfolding at 2.0 M guanidine. D. Circular dichroism was used to access % α-helicity at increasing guanidine concentrations. The EC50 = 1.06, 0.48, 0.97, 0.20 M guanidine for the WT, ΔN, ΔC, and ΔN/C isoforms, respectively.

    (TIF)

    S1 Data

    (XLSX)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to review 121019.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES