Skip to main content
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2021 Aug 1.
Published in final edited form as: Chemistry. 2020 Aug 26;26(55):12494–12509. doi: 10.1002/chem.202001338

Biosynthetic Approaches Towards the Design of Artificial Hydrogen Evolution Catalysts

Pallavi Prasad §, Dhanashree Selvan §, Saumen Chakraborty §
PMCID: PMC7680666  NIHMSID: NIHMS1641666  PMID: 32449989

Abstract

Hydrogen is a clean and sustainable form of fuel that can minimize our heavy dependence on fossil fuels as the primary energy source. The need of finding greener ways to generate H2 gas has ignited interest in the research community to synthesize catalysts that can produce H2 gas by the reduction of H+. The natural H2 producing enzymes hydrogenases have served as an inspiration to produce catalytic metal centers akin to these native enzymes. In this article we describe recent advances in the design of a unique class of artificial hydrogen evolving catalysts that combine the features of the active site metal(s) surrounded by a polypeptide component. The examples of these biosynthetic catalysts discussed here include i) assemblies of synthetic cofactors with native proteins; ii) peptide-appended synthetic complexes; iii) substitution of native cofactors with non-native macrocyclic cofactors; iv) metal substitution from rubredoxin; and v) a reengineered Cu storage protein into a Ni binding protein. Aspects of key design considerations in the construction of these artificial biocatalysts and insights gained into their chemical reactivity are discussed.

Keywords: Renewable Energy, Protein Design, Hydrogenases, Biocatalysis, Artificial Metalloenzymes

Graphical Abstract

graphic file with name nihms-1641666-f0019.jpg

INTRODUCTION

Energy is one of the most pressing challenges of the 21st century. Fossil fuels such as coal oil and natural gas continue to be the primary source catering to the world’s energy need. However, the fossil fuel reserve is finite. Therefore, this form of energy is not sustainable. Furthermore, burning of fossil fuel emits CO2 into the atmosphere causing environmental pollution and climate change.[1] Anthropogenic activities have led to an alarming increase in the atmospheric CO2 level since the industrial revolution.[2] Therefore, producing energy from renewable natural sources such as sunlight, air, and water is desirable.[3] There is an abundant supply of these natural resources that can be employed to generate energy without causing harm to the environment.

Among many different forms of renewable energies, H2 gas is one of them that can potentially replace our heavy dependence on fossil fuels.[4] H2 can be combined in a fuel cell with O2 to produce heat and electricity to perform work. The byproduct of this reaction- H2O is innocuous and non-toxic. Thus, if H2 replaces the fossil fuels, we can obtain energy in a sustainable and environmentally benign way. However, H2 is not directly available from the atmosphere or from any natural resource. Therefore, in order for H2 to be considered as an effective, clean, sustainable, and cheap fuel, it must be produced in an environmentally benign manner from other renewable resources.[5] Potential approaches to produce clean H2 from natural resources include the electrolysis of water, photochemical water splitting, and from microorganisms that produce H2.

Hydrogenase enzymes found in many microorganisms produce H2 naturally and oxidize it as a fuel to drive their cellular processes.[6] H2 produced this way is clean, sustainable, and requires a very low driving force for the reaction. Hydrogenases with binuclear active sites reduce H+ to H2 and oxidize H2 to H+ in a reversible manner (2H+ + 2e ↔ H2). Depending on the organism, H+ can be reduced to produce H2 when there is a need to remove the reducing equivalents or employed as terminal electron acceptors for metabolic purposes, while H2 is oxidized to produce electrons and protons. The mononuclear enzymes contain Fe as the active site metal and they split H2 to carryout the reversible reduction of methenyltetrahydromethanopterin (methenyl-H4MPT+) by H with the subsequent release of a H+. The binuclear active sites consist of the [NiFe] and [FeFe] family (Fig. 1). Bridged thiolates and a mixture of CO and CN are the common ligands in both of the binuclear classes of enzymes. In the [NiFe] hydrogenases two Cys thiolates bridge the Ni and Fe. Two additional terminal Cys ligands exclusively bound to Ni, along with two CN and one CO bound to Fe, complete the coordination environment. There is another bridging ligand that changes its identity between H and OH. depending on the catalytic intermediate that the enzyme passes through. In contrast, the [FeFe] hydrogenases are connected to the protein via a single Cys residue bound to the proximal Fe (Fep) that bridges the [Fe4S4] cluster. The H-cluster also features a bridgehead amide connecting the two bridged S ligands, a bridging CO, a terminal CO and CN bound to each of the Fe. Although hydrogenases have held a significant promise in producing H2 as a green source of energy, their widespread use is limited due to their O2 reactivity, complexity, and low production yield. One approach to circumvent this challenge is to design catalysts inspired by these unique class of enzymes and sustain H2 production via artificial photosynthesis using solar energy.

Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Active sites of [NiFe] (A) and [FeFe] (B) hydrogenases. Fep and Fed in (B) represent proximal and distal Fe, respectively.

Plants contain photosynthetic reaction centers which can sequester the energy derived from sunlight to oxidize H2O to O2 and reduce atmospheric CO2 into sugars to be used as fuels in a manner that is truly environmentally attractive and sustainable. In order to accomplish artificial photosynthesis, hydrogenase-inspired catalysts have been designed employing earth abundant metals which can reduce H+ to H2 mimicking the reductive half of the natural photosynthesis to produce solar fuels.[7] The conception of artificial photosynthesis was first put forth by Giacomo Ciamician in the early 20th century.[8] Ideally, sunlight should be harvested by chemical molecules that can lead to charge separation. The accumulated oxidizing and reducing equivalents should then be transferred to the catalysts for H2O oxidation to O2 and H+ reduction to H2 (Fig. 2). While the theoretical efficiency for the conversion of sunlight into chemical energy is ~6.7%, only 0.3% of the solar energy is stored by plants.[9] Nonetheless, it has been estimated that out of the 120000 TW of available energy from sunlight, if 0.16% of Earth’s land were to be covered with 10% efficient solar cells. ~20TW of energy could be produced - enough to meet the world’s projected energy demand in the mid-21st century.[10]

Figure 2.

Figure 2.

Overview of the reductive half of artificial photosynthesis leading to H2 production. The reducing equivalents on the catalyst are represented as the reductive pool.

A great deal of research has been directed towards understanding the structure, function and catalytic mechanisms of native hydrogenases. For reviews in this topic see references.[6ad, 11] A huge number of molecular catalysts as functional analogs of hydrogenases employing earth abundant metals such as Ni, Co and Fe have been synthesized, characterized and employed as electrocatalytic and photocatalytic hydrogen evolution reaction (HER) catalysts as reviewed in references.[12] A majority of these molecular catalysts are soluble only in organic solvents and require highly acidic conditions for activity. Alternative approaches have been adopted that involve hosting the active metal sites supported with protein or peptide scaffolds that can mimic the protein environment and can be studied in water.[13] Inspired by the native enzymes, remote H-bonding interactions can be installed in these systems by amino acid substitutions to acidic or basic residues which can facilitate H+ transfer to the active site and thus improve activity.[14] Here we describe specific examples of biomolecular artificial HER catalysts (Fig. 3) inspired by the binuclear classes of hydrogenases which have been constructed by i) self-assembly of photosystem I with well-known molecular catalysts; ii) synthetic catalysts attached to peptides; iii) substitution of native cofactors from proteins with macrocyclic non-native metallic cofactors; iv) substitution of native metal bound to endogenous ligands in an ET protein with non-native metals; and v) repurposing a copper storage protein to a Ni binding protein. A summary of catalytic parameters from photo-induced and electrochemical H2 production studies of these select biomolecular catalysts are presented in Table 1.

Figure 3.

Figure 3.

Various approached towards artificial HER catalysts on protein and peptide scaffolds.

Table 1.

Experimental catalytic parameters for H+ rcduction/H2 oxidation for biosynthetic catalysts discussed here. Entries in blue are from electrochemical data.

Catalyst Metal TOF (min−1) TON pH η (mV) FE (%) Duration (h) Ref
Co⊂PSI Co 170a 5.2x103 6.3 1.5 15

PtNP⊂PSI Pt 350a 8x104 6.2 5 16

Ni⊂PSI Ni 44a 1.87x103 6.3 3 18

Fld-Ni⊂PSI Ni 75a 2.8x103 6.3 4 18

Ru-Fld-Ni Ni 6.8b 620 6.2 6 20

Ru-Fd-Co Co 0.8b 210 6.3 6 21

Ru-Fld-Co Co 0.5b 85 6.3 6 22

Thylakoid/PtNP Pt 35c 6.2 3.5 23
(Spinach) 0.8d

Peptide-[Fe2CO6] Fe 0.6 84 4.5 2.3 27

Co-GlyGlyHis Co 275 8 600 91 2.5 28

H-apo cyt c Fe 2.1 82 4.7 3 29
H-apo minicyt c Fe 0.5 12 4.7

[FeFe][Ru]-Pep-18 Fe 0.2 9 8.5 2 30

[NiII(PCy2NGly2)2]4+ Ni 1.98x103e 0.7 150 14a
[NiII(PCy2NArg2)2]8+ Ni 1.4x105f 0.5 750 14b
[Ni(Pph2NNNA2)2]2+ Ni 8.6x106e <3 480 31a, 31b, 31e, 31j
0.3-2x105f 13d

CoMb Co 0.5 234 6.5 8 33
1.5 518 7
0.9 454 7.5
H64ACoMb Co 331 6.5 8
H64 A/H97 ACoMb Co 512 6.5 8

WT Cyt b562 Co 0.3 125 7 8 34
M7A cyt b562 Co 0.7 305 7 8
M7D cyt b562 Co 0.6 275 7 8
M7E cyt b562 Co 0.4 200 7 8

FeFe-NB Fe 2.3 130 4 6 35

CoMP11-Ac Co 402 2.5x104 7 852 95 4 36

Ht-CoM61A Co 2.7x105 7 830 90 6 13e

CoMC6*a Co 2.3x105 6.5 580 96 3 37

1Bio⊂Sav Co 0.2 51 11.5 4 38b
2Bio⊂Sav Co 1.5 166 11.5 4 38b
Fe-Fe⊂Sav Fe 48 4.5 9 38c

NiRd Ni 0.5 32 6.5 1 40
Ni 80 4.5 540 33 2
RuNiRd 0.1 3.5 6.5 2 41
NBP Ni 1 115 7 2 44
3.5 210 5 530 93 1
a

Calculated per PSI;

b

calculated per Ru-photosensitizer;

c

in the presence and

d

in the absence of sacrificial electron donor;

e

For H2 oxidation;

f

for H+ reduction.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

I. Assemblies of synthetic cofactors with native proteins.

Utschig and coworkers have developed hybrid bioinorganic systems by combining the light harvesting protein photosystem I (PSI) with self-assembled molecular catalysts for HER. In one such report,[15] a known H2 producing catalyst Co(dmgH)2pyCl (dmgH = dimethylglyoximate, py = pyridine) was mixed with PSI under dark to produce a hybrid system containing 2-4 self-assembled Co catalyst per PSI (Fig. 4A). When irradiated with light in the presence of cytochrome ce (cyt c6) as a mediator of electron transfer (ET) and ascorbate as the sacrificial electron donor, visual appearance of bubbles were observed from the hybrid Co⊂PSI system due to H2 production. A turn over frequency (TOF) of 170 min−1 was obtained under near-neutral pH conditions. The reported TOF for Co⊂PSI system was approximately half of a related PtNP⊂PSI hybrid.[16] The authors hypothesized that the Co complex docked into a hydrophobic patch near the terminal electron acceptor, the [Fe4S4] cluster FB, assuming that the two electrons were delivered to the Co catalyst directly from the reduced FB during catalysis (Fig. 4B). It was necessary to add cyt c6 as a mediator to reduce the photo-oxidized P700+ and ascorbate as a sacrificial electron donor to sustain H2 production. After 1.5h, a significant loss of Co (>90%) was observed from Co⊂PSI that could account for the short duration of the activity. The long-lived charge separated state of ~60 ms for P700+FB and a redox potential of −580 mV (vs NHE) for the FB cluster was expected to provide the required thermodynamic push for H2 production by Co⊂PSI. However, a 160-300 mV more negative Co(II)/Co(I) redox potential of reported Co(dmgH)2pyCl complex compared to FB argues against the possibility that reduced FB is the actual electron donor to the Co complex in Co⊂PSI Several possibilities were put forward to account for this apparent anomaly. For example, one possibility is that the redox potential of the Co complex shifts to anodic potentials when assembled with PSI. A second possibility is that the Co catalyst is accepting electrons from other cofactors with more cathodic redox potentials, such as A1 or Fx instead of FB.

Figure 4.

Figure 4.

A) Overview of artificial photosynthetic system involving hybrid assemblies of PSI, electron donor cyt c, and molecular metal catalysts. B) Schematic of electron flow upon light-irradiation via the artificial photosynthetic system that leads to H2 production. C) Zoomed view of the proposed docking site of a molecular Ni catalyst into the hydrophobic groove of flavodoxin. Panels A and B are adapted with permission from J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2013, 135, 13246-13249. Copyright (2013) American Chemical Society.

Subsequently, the DuBois’ Ni-diposphine catalyst[17] [Ni(P2PhN2Ph)2]-(BF4)2 (P2N2 is 1-aza-3,6-diphosphacycloheptane) was self-assembled with PSI. The Ni⊂PSI hybrid biocatalyst[18] produced H2 under similar experimental conditions to the Co⊂PSI system with a TOF of ~44 min−1. Achieving function from the Ni⊂PSI system under neutral pH conditions was a significantly greener pathway of H2 production compared to the parent Ni catalyst, which required highly acidic conditions for activity. In order to controllably deliver the Ni catalyst in close proximity to the FB site of PSI, the inherent protein-protein interactions between PSI and its natural electron acceptor flavodoxin was exploited. Since flavodoxin (Fld) docks to PSI and accepts electrons via the flavin mononucleotide (FMN), the authors reconstituted apo Fld with the Ni catalyst. The resultant Fld-Ni metalloprotein was then mixed at 30-fold excess with PSI to allow the docking to occur. Under light illumination, this new Fld-Ni⊂PSI hybrid catalyst was active for H2O production with ~2-fold higher TOF compared to the Ni⊂PSI system. While the Ni⊂PSI hybrid produced ~1870 mol H2/mol PSI in 3h, the Fld-Ni⊂PSI complex showed a turnover number of ~2825 over 4h with an initial TOF of ~75 min−1. In comparison, the parent Ni catalyst produced a comparable amount of H2 but over a longer period of ~150h at pH ~2.2 using Eosin Y and [Ru(bpy)3]2+ as photo sensitizers in 50:50 water: acetonitrile mixture.[19] These studies demonstrated a successful implementation of the inherent ET efficiency of PSI in creating hybrid biocatalysts that can generate H2 under environmentally benign reaction conditions. The bulky aromatic nature of the Ni catalyst was proposed to be a significant contributor to enable catalyst incorporation into Fld (Fig. 4C) and subsequent formation of a stable Fld-Ni⊂PSI complex docked into the hydrophobic pocket of PSI, leading to a higher TOF. A Ru-Fld-Ni hybrid was also prepared[20] by covalent attachment of a Ru photosensitizer [Ru(4-CH2Br-4’-bpy)(bpy)2]·2PF6 to ([Ni-(P2PhN2Ph)2](BF4)2)-reconstituted apo Fld. This system had a TOF of ~6.8 min−1. In this system the presence of a charge separated Ni(I) intermediate was observed by EPR spectroscopy.

To simplify the catalyst design, a next generation biocatalyst was developed devoid of the multiple cofactors of PSI,[21] where, a Ru photosensitizer and a Co catalyst, Co(dmgBF2)2.2H2O were covalently attached to two opposite ends of ferredoxin (Fd). The hybrid catalyst Ru-Fd-Co thus prepared (Fig. 5), produced H2 with a TOF of − 0.8 min−1. reaching a TON of 210 over 6h. Control experiments showed that the presence of the [2Fe-2S] cluster was essential for activity, since no H2 production was observed either in the absence of Fd or with apo Fd. From EPR and excited state lifetime studies an oxidative quenching mechanism for the Ru photosensitizer was proposed, where a photoexcited [Ru(bpy)3]2+* transfers an electron either directly to the Co(II) catalyst or mediated via Fd to form the oxidized [Ru(bpy)3]3+. A favorable pathway of ET from Ru to the Co catalyst via the [2Fe-2S] cluster was deduced to be the primary mechanism of ET in this catalyst where the Ru(III)-Fd-Co(I) species was produced. In contrast, when apo Fld lacking the internal FMN cofactor was used as a scaffold instead of Fd, this new hybrid Ru-Fld-Co catalyst produced H2 with a TON of ~85 (TOF 0.5 min−1) via the generation of Ru(I)-Fld-Co(I) following a reductive quenching mechanism[22] These studies highlight the importance of the protein matrix and the role of internal ET sites in distinguishing the direct vs mediated ET pathways that stabilize the charge separated states critical for H2 production. Recently, the internal Z-scheme of ET in thylakoid membranes has been employed to obtain photocatalytic H2 production by in situ self-assembly of PtNPs, Co and Ni catalysts with the membranes.[23] In these assemblies, photoexcited electrons generated from PSII coupled with H2O oxidation to O2 are transferred to the H2 evolving catalyst bound to the stromal side of PSI via internal redox shuttles of the thylakoid membrane. When ET from PSII to PSI was blocked by an inhibitor 3-(3,4-dichlorophenyl)-1,1-dimethylurea (DCMU), the thylakoid/PtNP preparations produced H2 with a TOF of ~35 min−1 in the presence of ascorbate as the sacrificial electron donor. However, when DCMU was removed to open up ET from PSII to PSI, the thylakoid/PtNP composites produced H2 with a TOF of ~0.8 min−1 even in the absence of ascorbate. Control preparations of thylakoid/PtNP containing DCMU but lacking ascorbate did not produce any H2. These results confirmed that the internal Z scheme pathway of natural PS can be employed to sustain photocatalytic H2 production removing the need for external sacrificial electron donors.

Figure 5.

Figure 5.

Structures of molecular Co catalysts (A, B) and Ru photosensitizer (C). Schematic showing photocatalytic H2 generation from this hybrid biocatalyst facilitating ET from the Ru to the Co center via the Fe-S cluster. Reproduced with permission from Chem. Sci., 2016, 7, 7068-7078 Published by The Royal Society of Chemistry.

II. Peptide-appended synthetic complexes.

Jones, Dutton, and co-workers have prepared synthetic peptide models inspired by the H-cluster of Fe-Fe hydrogenases.[24] A Cys-containing peptide (SynHyd1) was designed and reacted with Fe3(CO)12 to assemble the metallopeptide maquette Fe2-SynHyd1. Control experiments showed that in the absence of Cys, no attachment of the di-iron site to the peptide was observed. Circular dichroism (CD) showed a stable helical secondary structure, while the UV features confirmed the incorporation of the di-iron site. The Fe2-SynHyd1 showed three CO bands at 2076,2040 and 2000 cm−1 in FTIR. Using these combined results, the authors demonstrated the synthesis of a first generation hybrid (μ-SR)2Fe2(CO)6 complex attached to a helical peptide scaffold via two Cys residues. A method for preparing peptidomimetic [NiFe] hydrogenase models with defined outer coordination sphere interactions was also developed.[25] In this case, the AlaCysAspLeuProCysGly peptide was used for binding Ni in an N2S2 configuration consisting of N-terminus, an amide nitrogen, and two Cys thiolates that bridge the Ni center with an external organometallic fragment. Various heterometallic fragments (Fe2(CO)6, M(CO)4(piperidine) (M = Mo, W), and Ru(η6-arene)2+) were successfully incorporated into the Ni-bound peptide. The Fe, Mo and W fragments formed trinuclear peptide complexes whereas the Ru-based fragment formed a binuclear complex. The formation of trinuclear complexes was attributed to the steric and thermodynamic constraints of the peptide. Results from various spectroscopic studies showed that the N2S2 coordination environment of the Ni was maintained in all the cases and the Cys thiolates are the reactive sites forming thiol-bridged heterobimetallic complexes with the peptide. Phosphines have been widely employed in models as a surrogate for the CN ligand of hydrogenases. Using this as a base for their work, Jones and co-workers designed a phosphine-containing peptide to create [FeFe] hydrogenase mimics (Fig. 6).[26] In the first approach, a Lys-containing peptide (TrpAlaSerLysLeuProSerGly) derived from the N-terminal sequence of nickel superoxide dismutase was modified on-resin to yield a peptide containing a phosphine derivative of Lys. However, this approach faced challenges in terms of low product yield due to the oxygen sensitivity of phosphine. The peptide was reacted with (μ-pdt)Fe2(CO)6 [pdt = propane-1,3-dithiol] leading to the formation of 1 (Fig. 6). In another strategy, three phosphine-containing unnatural amino acids boc-Epa-OH, boc-Ipa-OH, and boc-Ppa-OH were used to synthesize peptides for direct incorporation of phosphines. This helped in shortening the side chain and minimizing the number of retainers that facilitated the formation of a more compact metal binding site. The tripeptide ValXpaLeu (Xpa= unnatural amino acid) was reacted to with either (μ-pdt)Fe2(CO)6 or (μ-bdt)-Fe2(CO)6 [bdt = benzene-1,2-dithiol] giving rise to 4 distinct complexes: [(Val-Epa-Leu)-(μ-pdt)Fe2(CO)5] (2), [(Val-Ipa-Leu)-(μ-pdt)Fe2(CO)5] (3), [(Val-Ppa-Leu)-(μ-pdt)Fe2(CO)5] (4) and [(Val- Ppa-Leu)-(μ-bdt)Fe2(CO)5] (5) (Fig. 6). The complexes 2, 3 and 4 showed two irreversible voltammetric waves corresponding to the FeIFeI/FeIFe0 and FeIFeI/FeIFeII couples. The irreversibility was attributed to complex decomposition. Among the pdt series, complex 4 was the most easily reduced. The change from pdt to bdt showed reductive and oxidative peaks for complex 5, which was attributed to the donating abilities of phosphines and thiolates as suggested by their respective CO stretching frequencies. This demonstrated that a change from bridging thiolate from pdt to bdt changes the electronic properties of the catalyst. The complexes 2–5 also demonstrated their ability to electrocatalyze H+ reduction in acetic acid. Sequential addition of acetic acid to the pdt complexes showed increased reductive current for H2 production. In these complexes, the catalytic wave was not observed at the FeIFeI/FeIFe0 reduction potential but at more negative potentials. This observation indicated that an ECEC mechanism was likely occurring. The bdt analogue 5 showed a slightly different behavior in the presence of acetic acid where a completely irreversible reduction peak was observed with a small increase in peak current. However, catalysis is observed only at a more negative potential. This suggested that a similar ECEC mechanism is followed. Complex 5 undergoes reduction and protonation to generate 5H, which, upon further reduction produced 5H that accepts a H+ and leads to the reductive elimination of H2. More electrochemical studies were done in acetonitrile/water mixtures, which showed a shift in reductive waves to a lesser reducing potential with increasing water content. However, the oxidative potential remained unaffected by water, suggesting that the reduction may be coupled to the interaction with solvent. In this study the authors demonstrated the synthesis of phosphine-containing peptides which can be used for one step incorporation of the di-iron site. They also showed the differences in the electronics of pdt vs bdt in tuning catalysis. The catalysts were active for H2 production in the presence of acetic acid while the presence of water significantly affected the electrochemical properties of the complexes.

Figure 6.

Figure 6.

Phosphine-containing peptide-Fe-Fe complexes as [Fe-Fe] hydrogenase mimics. Reproduced with permission from Dalton Trans., 2015, 44, 14865–14876 Published by The Royal Society of Chemistry.

A (μ-S–(CH2)3–S)[Fe2(CO)6] Fe-carbonyl cluster was prepared[27] by Ghirlanda and coworkers employing a helical peptide containing a dithiol unnatural amino acid (Dt) anchor (Fig. 7). The presence of a nearby Lys at i, i+3 position with respect to the Dt was proposed to stabilize the cluster. The peptide-[Fe2CO6] complex was active for photo-induced H2 production at pH 4.5 with a TON of ~84 over 2.3h (TOF ~ 0.6 min−1). CV experiments showed the presence of a pH-dependent reductive peak at −1.1 V vs NHE. A more negative current was obtained at lower pH values, suggestive of a pH dependence of the Fe redox couples. Bren and coworkers employed the versatile metal binding peptide motif, ATCUN, and demonstrated that in the Co-bound form, a tripeptide is a HER electrocatalyst at near-neutral pH.[28] The Co-GlyGlyHis tripeptide corresponding to the XxxXxxHis motif of ATCUN was prepared. From voltammograms of Co-GlyGlyHis as a function of pH (4.9-9.4) the maximum current was obtained at pH 6.5. Electrolysis under inert and aerobic conditions at pH 8 produced H2 with a TON of 275 and a Faradic efficiency (FE) of 91%. A similar FE of 88% was obtained in aerobic conditions. This result demonstrated that Co-GlyGlyHis is not only an active HER catalyst in water but that it is also an oxygen-tolerant metallopeptide catalyst. Control experiments with Ni-GlyGlyHis, Cu-GlyGlyHis, apo GlyGlyHis, and CoCl2 showed that none of these were catalytically active, confirming the true catalytic nature of Co-GlyGlyHis. This work presented a simple and easily assembled cobalt tripeptide as an oxygen tolerant electrocatalyst for HER from neutral pH.

Figure 7.

Figure 7.

A hybrid H2 generating catalyst employing a synthetic Fe-Fe comples appended to the dithiol amino acid on a peptide scaffold. Reproduced with permission from Chem. Commun., 2012, 48, 9816–9818 Published by The Royal Society of Chemistry.

The Hayashi group has developed H-cluster models using the assemblies of heme proteins and synthetic metal complexes. Inspired by the -CysXxxXxxCys- motif of covalent heme ligation of cyt c, a di-iron carbonyl complex Fe2(CO)9 was attached to apo cyt c via Cys 14 and Cys 17 (Fig. 8A).[29] Apo cyt c was reacted with the Fe2(CO)9 to form the H-apo cyt c, a mimic of the H cluster bearing the (μ-S-Cys)2Fe2(CO)6 core. The photocatalytic activity assays performed using [Ru(bpy)3]2+/ASC system led to the production of H2 with a TON of 80 per H-apo cyt c and a TOF of 2.1 min−1 at pH 4.7. The authors also made an H-apo minicyt c peptide (TyrLysCysAlaGlnCysHis) bearing the -CysXxxXxxCys- motif instead of the full-length protein, which, when reacted with Fe2(CO)9, showed a lower TOF of ~0.4 min−1 for H2 production. This result indicates the importance of protein scaffold surrounding the di-iron center that presumably stabilized the metal cluster leading to a higher catalytic activity. Furthermore, lowering the pH decreased the activity by 16% due to ascorbate inactivation, while increasing the pH showed a loss of activity by 6.8% due to a decrease in proton concentration. Subsequently,[30] in order to enhance the activity, the authors used -CysXxxXxxCysHis- motif of cyt c to anchor a Ru complex to a model peptide via coordination with His (Fig. 8B). In this work, the Fe2(CO)9 complex was reacted with the peptide (Pep 18-TyrIleGlyLysAlaCysGlyAsnCysHisGluAsnPheArgAspLysGluGly) to form the binuclear Fe2(CO)6 complex of the peptide. After linking the di-iron carbonyl cluster, the peptide was further reacted with [Ru(bpy)(tpy)(H2O)](PF6)2 to be attached to the His residue. Under photochemical conditions, this hybrid system produced H2 with a TON of 9 and TOF of 0.2 min−1. The peptide Pep-18(His10Ala) lacking the His to coordinate to the Ru produced no H2 even in the presence of externally added imidazole complex [Ru(bpy)(tpy)(im)]2+. This result indicated the importance of direct attachment of the Ru photosensitizer close to the Fe-Fe center which facilitated internal electron transfer to the catalytic site for H2 production. While internal electron transfer to the Fe-Fe site is important, the peptide TyrLysCysAlaGlnCysHis showed a higher TOF when employing externally added Ru photo sensitizer that lacked a direct attachment in proximity to the active site.

Figure 8.

Figure 8.

Incorporation of a synthetic Fe-Fe complex into the -CysXxxXxxCys- motif of peptides inspired by heme ligation to cyt c (A). Schematic of internal ET from the peptide-bound Ru photosensitizer to the Fe-Fe catalyst leading to photocatalytic H2 generation (B).

The effect of outer coordination sphere proton shuttles on the rates and overpotentials of both H2 oxidation and H2 production activity of DuBois’ Ni catalyst [Ni(P2RN2R’)2]2+ has been systematically studied.[13d, 14, 31] The parent Ni catalyst has served as an excellent biomimetic model system for the bridgehead amine group of the H-clustcr.[12f, 17, 32] Detailed mechanistic studies have revealed how the protonation state of the bridgehead amine and the isomeric forms of the catalyst dictate the nature of intermediates formed in the catalytic cycle influencing turnovers. Combined, these studies have led to an understanding of the critical parameters in molecular catalyst design for reversible H+ reduction and H2 oxidation. Shaw and coworkers introduced ionizable functional groups, single amino acids substitutions that can deliver protons during catalysis (Fig. 9), and small peptide fragments at the outer coordination sphere to mimic the protein environment of native enzymes. Upon substitution of the benzyl (Bn) groups from the parent H2 oxidizing catalyst[17] [Ni(PCy2NBn2)2]2+ with (3-pyridazyl)methyl, the resultant [Ni(PCy2N3-pyridazyl)methyl2)2]2+ catalyst improved the overpotential for the reaction by 300 mV by facilitating H+ movement from the active site to the N-atoms of pyridazyl groups via the pendant amines of the ligand scaffold.[31d] The mechanism of H2 oxidation in the parent catalyst is thought to proceed by oxidation of H2 by the Ni(II) form of the catalyst, which protonates the pendant amines that make H-bonds to the resultant Ni(0) form. The strength of the NH---Ni H-bond is the highest in the endo-endo conformation of the catalyst, which makes the subsequent oxidation process more difficult, thus increasing the overpotential. The addition of 3-pyridazyl groups at the outer sphere promoted fast proton movement that weakened the strength of the NH---Ni H-bond in the endo-endo isomer and promoted its conversion to more readily oxidizable isomers, such as the endo-exo form, thus lowering the overpotential for H2 oxidation. Amino acids were next introduced at the outer sphere to make a closer connection to the enzymes. Initially, the Ala and Phe esters were introduced on the para position of Bn groups of [Ni(PCy2NBn2)2]2+, which was active for H2 oxidation,[31i] although the rate was slower than the parent catalyst.[17] The lower rate was attributed to a higher pKa of the pendant amines due to an electron withdrawing effect of the esters and steric hindrance to the active site caused by the benzyl groups. To address the limitations with tins system, Gly was introduced in the ligand scaffold with the -CH2-COOH group of Gly hanging out from the pendant amines.[14a] The presence of -COOH groups of Gly at the outer coordination sphere facilitated fast H+ movement resulting in a 150 mV overpotential for H2 oxidation at pH 0.1 reaching the fastest TOF of 33 s−1 (1980 min−1) at pH 0.7. The Gly derivative was also active for H2 production with a rate of ~2400 s−1 (1.4x105 min−1) at pH 0.5 with a corresponding overpotential of 750 mV. When covalently attached to an electrode, the [Ni(PCy2NGly2)2]2+ derivative demonstrated better catalytic performance compared to native [NiFe] hydrogenase at low pH, while at pH 7 the enzyme was a better catalyst.[31f] Along the same lines, an Arg derivative was prepared instead of -COOH, to add a third proton relay at the outer coordination sphere.[14b] The Arg derivative [Ni(PCy2NArg2)2]8+ oxidized H2 with 6-fold higher rate at 1 atm H2. compared to the Gly derivative and operated at 180 mV. At higher H2 pressures and lower pH (<3), while the rate of oxidation was very high- 144 000 s−1 (8.6x106 min−1). the overpotential also increased to 480 mV. The higher rate in this Arg derivative was attributed to a faster H2 addition to the catalyst, as opposed to an enhanced proton transfer from the active site to the outer sphere Arg via the pendant amines. Intramolecular interactions between the Arg side chains that lead to an ideal distance of the outer sphere N atoms from the active site was also thought to be crucial to achieve a faster rate. At pH >3 the deprotonated -COO groups of Arg disrupted the proton transfer pathway leading to higher overpotentials. The observations that even though faster rates of H2 oxidation were observed at lower pH and high H2 pressures, the associated high overpotentials were a result of either altering the proton transfer or electron transfer process from equilibrium conditions. The beneficial role of -COOH groups of Arg was further proved by preparing a methyl ester derivative of Arg, which demonstrated slower TOFs in both H2 oxidation and H2 production compared to the Arg derivative.[31c] The fact that the outer sphere proton relays enhance the rates for reversible H+/H2 interconversion is evidenced by the engineered functionalities on the ligand scaffold of these classes of catalysts. The high H2 oxidizing activity of the Arg derivative was exploited as an active anodic catalyst in fuel cells.[31h] For this purpose, the catalyst was assembled on carbon nanotubes (CNTs) via electrostatic interactions of the Arg residues and the -COO groups on modified CNTs. The catalyst/CNT composites were then employed as anodic H2 oxidation catalyst in constructing enzymatic fuel cell using bilirubin oxidase the cathode or in proton exchange membrane fuel cell (PEMFC) using Pt/C as the cathode. The assembled fuel cells reached power densities of ~2 mW/cm2 and 14 mW/cm2 for the enzymatic and PEMFC, respectively. This study opens up the possibility of direct applicability of biomimetic catalysts in fuel cells to generate green energy from renewable resources.

Figure 9.

Figure 9.

Schematic representation of reversible Ni-P catalysts with strategically positioned inner and outer coordination spheres where the introduction of functional groups capable of H+ delivery enhances turnovers.

To more closely mimic the outer sphere of enzymes, peptide fragments were introduced to the parent catalyst. Initially, single and dual peptide fragments were appended.[31a] These substitutions led to an increase in the TOF for H2 production up to 1000 s−1 (6x104 min−1) at an overpotential of ~300 mV. When H2O was used as the H+ source a rate enhancement of ~ 2-7 times was achieved. A series of dipeptides were then prepared by attaching 3-(4-aminophenyl)propionic acid (NNA) to the parent ligand framework followed by coupling amino acids and esters to NNA.|31b, 31j] The identity of the amino acid was chosen to vary the side chain polarity, aromaticity, and size of the side chain to probe how these changes affect the H2 production activity. The Glu, Ala, Ser, Phe, Tyr, Lys and Asp derivatives thus prepared, all were active electrocatalysts. Depending on the side chain polarity and pKa, rate enhancements of an order of magnitude were found among these dipeptide derivatives (Fig. 10) with TOFs ~1000 s−1 (6x104 min−1). The rates were not dependent upon the size and polarity of side chains; however, amide bonds increased the rates. Esterification of the -COOH and -NH2 groups of the dipeptides led to a decrease in the rate by upto 70%, demonstrating the importance of H+-donating functionality at the outer sphere in facilitating catalysis. Subsequently, a structured peptide-based outer sphere was introduced, rather than flexible dipeptides, by attaching a β hairpin peptide on two sides of the parent complex that contained only the NNA.[31e] The peptide-Ni catalyst was also an active catalyst with rates that are ~2-fold compared to the parent Ni complex. Overall, these approaches aimed towards mimicking the protein environment around the active site of hydrogenases represent preparation of peptide-inorganic hybrids as active HER catalysts where the outer coordination sphere influences the turnovers by not only providing H+ delivery to the active site but also by securing the metal site and providing suitable local dielectric environments amenable to catalysis.

Figure 10.

Figure 10.

TOFs for H2 production by Ni catalysts with NNA-dipeptides on the outer sphere. Reprinted with permission from Acc. Chem. Res. 2014, 47, 2621–2630. Copyright (2014) American Chemical Society.

III. Substitution of native cofactors with non-native macrocyclic cofactors.

A Co-protoporphyrin IX (CoP)-substituted myoglobin (Mb) protein[33] has been demonstrated to be an active H2 generation catalyst both electrochemically and photochemically by the Ghirlanda group. Optimal catalytic current observed from cyclic voltammetry was at pH 7.5, while at lower pH values the activity decreased due to protonation of the coordinating proximal His 93, which led to CoP loss from the protein. This possibility was verified by rinse tests, where catalytic current was sustained at lower pH due to electrodeposited free CoP dissociated from the protein, while at higher pH no catalytic current was observed after rinse test. No significant loss of current was observed under aerobic conditions, although the possibility of O2 reduction contributing to the current has not be eliminated. The CoP-Mb was photocatalytically active, producing H2 with a TON of 518 at pH 7 (TOF ~0.5 min−1). This TON is ~3-fold higher compared to what is observed for free CoP, demonstrating a beneficial role of the protein scaffold in modulating the activity. Similar to electrochemistry experiments, pH dependence was also observed for photo-induced catalysis with activity decreasing when the pH deviated from neutral to more acidic or more basic conditions. Proximal and distal His mutants were prepared in the form of His64Ala and His97Ala, and the corresponding double mutant His64AlaHis97Ala, to probe how the protonation states of these residues modulates activity. A higher activity was observed for His64Ala and the double mutant compared to that of the WT protein. The His97Ala mutant showed activity that is similar to free CoP. The higher activity for the distal His mutant His64Ala was rationalized by the fact that more H+ are available near the Co site to produce the Co(II)-hydride intermediate during catalysis, since there is no demand to protonate the His64 in this mutant. However, given the pKa of this His is ~5, at the experimental condition of pH 6.5 this His is expected to be deprotonated, making minimal competition of H+ for Co(0). The lower activity for His97Ala was attributed to increased CoP mobility since this mutation obliterated the H-bond with one of the propionate groups. A CoP-substituted ET protein cyt b562 was also employed as a H+ reduction catalyst[34] producing H2 with TON of 120 over 8h (TOF ~0.26 min−1) under photocatalytic conditions. Variants prepared by replacing the axial Met, Met7Ala, Met7Asp, and Met7Glu were shown to produce H2 with higher TONs of 310, 270, and 195, respectively, at neutral pH. The higher activity in these variants was attributed to a combination of lower sterics and more structural flexibility of CoP that led to a rapid production of the rate-limiting Co(II)-hydride intermediate. With a gradual increase in the O2 concentration, the TON for photocatalytic H2 production decreased. In air, the TON decreased by ~3.75-fold compared to strictly anaerobic conditions, possibly due to competitions with O2 and CO2 reduction. Further expanding the choice of scaffolds within heme proteins, Hayashi and coworkers employed a rigid β-barrel heme protein nitrobindin to site-specifically incorporate a synthetic di-iron complex (μ-S)2Fe2(CO)6 into the apo protein cavity (Fig. 11).[35] The complex was introduced into the protein by covalent attaclunent to Cys96 via a maleimide moiety appended to the di-iron complex. The hybrid biosynthetic catalyst was active for H2 production under photocatalytic conditions with a TON of 130 over 6h and an initial TOF of 2.3 min−1. The naked di-iron catalyst under similar conditions but in the absence of the protein matrix produced H2 with a higher TON and TOF, which was attributed to the fact that upon protein encapsulation access of Ru(bpy)32+ to the Fe-Fe site is hindered.

Figure 11.

Figure 11.

Incorporation of a non-native Fe-Fe complex into the cavity of apo heme protein NB as an artificial H2 evolving catalyst.

Bren and co-workers have employed engineered hemoproteins as catalysts for HER (Fig. 12).[13e] In one example,[36] a cobalt-containing microperoxidase-11 (MP11) was reported as an H2 evolving catalyst. MP11 was produced by pepsin digestion of cyt c that produced a covalently attached heme to an 11-residue peptide fragment. The peptide was acetylated to protect the free amines followed by iron extraction using reductive demetallation and subsequent introduction of Co into the porphyrin ring by heating the peptide with Co(II)-acetate, which produced the bis-acetylated Co(III) microperoxidase-11 (CoMP11-Ac). Under neutral conditions, the H+ reduction current increased linearly with an increase in catalyst concentration. After 10 min of CPE using 1 μM catalyst under anaerobic conditions at − 1.5V vs Ag/AgCl at pH 7, 20 μmol of H2 was produced corresponding to a TOF of ~6.7 and a Faradic efficiency (FE) of ~ 95%. However, the catalyst operated at a high overpotential of 852 mV and after 10 min of CPE porphyrin degradation was observed. Control experiments with the Zn derivative and demetallated Ac-MP11 confirmed that Co porphyrin was the catalytically active species. Oxygen tolerance is an important feature of H2 evolution catalysts. CoMP11-Ac, upon electrolysis in the presence of O2 showed a FE similar to that in presence of nitrogen. Upon prolonged electrolysis (~4 h) the catalyst showed a TON of ~ 2.5×104 and 1.9×104 under anaerobic and aerobic conditions, respectively. Combined, these results demonstrated that CoMP11-Ac is an efficient oxygen tolerant biomolecular catalyst for H2 evolution at neutral pH. The degradation of CoMP11-Ac was attributed to the high flexibility of the scaffold. To alleviate this problem, a thermostable cytochrome c552 was chosen as a scaffold. The new electrocatalyst, Co-substituted M61A c552 (Ht-CoM61A) sustained activity for 24h and demonstrated a high TON of >105 for H2 production after 6h of electrolysis with a high FE of ~90% at an overpotential of ~830 mV.[13e] Subsequently, to develop robust and stable electrocatalysts, a cobalt-mimochrome VI*a (CoMC6*a) synthetic miniprotein was designed as an electrocatalyst for HER.[37] The CoMC6*a consists of a covalently bound cobalt deuteroporphyrin with a distal 10-mer peptide and a proximal tetradecapeptide. CoMC6*a is an active catalyst under both inert and aerobic conditions with FE of 96% and 97%, respectively, indicating the robustness of the metallopeptide. The activity results of CoMC6*a were compared with the CoP bound to a single proximal peptide chain (CoMP11-Ac) to discern the effects of peptide and its secondary structure in CoMC6*a that can influence the activity. The CoMC6*a showed enhanced α-helical secondary structure compared to CoMP11-Ac, which was primarily present in a random coil conformation. Electrocatalytic activity of both the systems was also investigated in the presence of TFE, which showed a ~90 mV decrease in overpotential for CoMC6*a compared to CoMP11-Ac. Tins difference in activity was attributed to the TFE-induced folding of CoMC6*a. CoMC6*a was also shown to be more stable under electrolysis conditions and produced H2 with a ~9-fold high TON of 2.3x105 compared to CoMP11-Ac.

Figure 12.

Figure 12.

Models of cobalt-substituted M61A Cyt c552 (A) prepared from PDB ID 1AYG and CoMC6* (B). Chemical structure of CoMP11-Ac (C). Reproduced with permission from Chem. Sci., 2018, 9, 8582–8589 Published by The Royal Society of Chemistry.

Biotin-streptavidin technology has been employed to construct artificial hydrogenases featuring Co and Fe-Fe cofactors.[38] Biotinylated macrocyclic Co complexes employing pentapyridyl[38a] and 1,4-di(picolyl)-1,4,7-triazacyclononane (HPy2tacn)[38b] ligands with varying linker lengths have been synthesized followed by investigating the H2 production activity of protein-encapsulated cofactors (Fig. 13). Upon incorporation of the biotinylated pentapyridyl Co complex into streptavidin (Sav), a significant decrease in the activity was observed for photocatalytic H2 production. Introduction of both acidic and basic residues at the second coordination sphere of Sav was able to restore some of the initial activity observed with the naked catalyst. For the HPy2tacn ligand, incorporation of these biotinylated Co complexes into Sav resulted in an anodic shift of the pH-dependent catalytic waves ranging from 20-100 mV (overpotential ~ 700 mV) compared to the naked Co catalysts, suggesting the beneficial effect of the protein matrix in tuning the redox potentials of Co. While the peak potentials at half of maximum current showed approximately 2-electron 1-proton process vs pH for 1Bio, 2Bio and 1Bio⊂Sav, the 2Bio⊂Sav was intriguingly almost unchanged with pH (~9 mV/pH). CPE also suggested some influence of the protein environment on the electrochemical behavior of these hybrid bioinorganic catalysts. Both the Sav-incorporated catalysts showed higher TON (1Bio = 7; 1Bio⊂Sav = 51; 2Bio = 46; 2Bio⊂Sav = 166) and TOF (1Bio ~ 0.03 min−1; 1Bio⊂Sav ~ 0.17; 2Bio −0.26; 2Bio⊂Sav ~ 1.46) for photo-induced H2 production compared to the naked catalysts. A bell-shape pH vs TON curve was observed in these cases with optimum activity being observed in pH values ~10.5-11.5. The origin of higher activity in 2Bio⊂Sav was investigated by MD simulations. The 2Bio⊂Sav hybrid having a longer and more flexible linker between the biotin and ligand scaffolds, sampled two different conformations with the Co center ending up in close proximity to polar residues and internal H2O molecules of Sav, which presumably influenced catalysis by making H-bonding interactions. A biotinylated Fe-Fe complex featuring CO and bridging thiols was incorporated into Sav where encapsulation of the Fe-Fe complex into the protein enhanced its activity.[38c] Under photocatalytic conditions, while naked biotinylated Fe-Fe complex produced H2 with a TON of ~6.4 after 3h, the Fe-Fe⊂Sav had a TON of ~48 over 11h. The parent Fe-Fe complex was active for 100 min while the protein-encapsulated complex produced H2 for 9h due to the longer lifetime of the catalyst upon its incorporation into the protein scaffold.

Figure 13.

Figure 13.

Schematic showing streptavidin-encapsulated Co complexes as artificial H2 evolving biocatalysts.

IV. Metal substitution from an ET protein.

Moura and co-workers isolated rubredoxins from three different strains of sulfate-reducing bacteria and probed their H2 evolution and H/D exchange rates upon substituting the native metal Fe with Ni.[39] The D. desulfuricans (ATCC 27774) NiRd was the most active among the three, producing H2 at a rate of ~10 nmol/min/mg of protein showing an H/D exchange rate of 29 mnol/min/mg of protein. From the ratios of H2 to H2+H(D) of 0.45-0.6 found in the NiRd proteins, it was deduced that the activity of NiRd had a closer resemblance to the NiFeSe hydrogenases than the NiFe hydrogenases. The NiRd protein was also inactivated by CO requiring only ~0.5 μM CO for 50% inhibition of hydrogenase activity compared to native enzymes that require ~20-30 μM CO for the same level of inhibition. This report is one of the earliest examples of an artificial biomolecular hydrogenase. Shafaat and co-workers have further developed the NiRd as a model system to probe into the mechanism and fine-tuning the activity.[40] The activity of NiRd was probed by protein-film electrochemistry (PFE) and photocatalytic conditions. In contrast to FeRd which was non-catalytic, the NiRd displayed catalytic currents due to H+ reduction in a pH-dependent manner. With a decrease in pH from 5 to 3 the onset potentials shifted cathodically with a concomitant increase in catalytic currents. The initial reduction potentials from pH 3 to 5 showed a linear relationship with a slope of ~67 mV/pH, indicating a proton-coupled electron transfer (PCET) mechanism. NiRd operated at an overpotential of ~540 mV. When electrolyzed for 2h at ~0.9V vs NHE, NiRd produced ~3 μmoles of H2 with a FE of ~33%. Under photocatalytic conditions, NiRd produced H2 with a TOF of ~0.5 min−1 and a TON of ~32 after 1h, while at lower catalyst concentrations a TON of ~100 was obtained over 8 h. About 90% of the sample could be recovered, indicating the stability of NiRd under photocatalytic conditions. Solution-based assays in the dark with titanium citrate as the reducing agent showed a TON ~300 over a period of 8h with almost no catalyst degradation.

Subsequently, photocatalytic H2 evolution was studied (Fig. 14) by covalent attachment of a free Cys (Cys31) near the metal binding site of NiRd using a ruthenium-based chromophore [RuII(2,2’-bipyridine)2(5,6-epoxy-5,6-dihydro-[1,10]-phenanthroline)]2+.[41] The hybrid RuNiRd protein produced ~110 mnol H2 within 45 min corresponding to a TON of 3.5 and TOF of ~ 0.1 min−1. The optical spectra obtained before and after photocatalysis indicated degradation of the ruthenium complex which was attributed to the observed loss of activity after 45 min. The influence of the chromophore’s location on the protein surface relative to active site was also studied by preparing three different variants Glu17Cys/Cys31Ala, His18Ala/Cys31Ala/Ser38Cys, and Cys31Ala/Ala45Cys, each of which contained a Cys for Ru attachment. Results from these variants indicated a strong distance dependence for activity. All three mutants exhibited a lower activity compared to the WT RuNiRd, which was attributed to a weaker coupling between the chromophore and the active site. This was also supported by the fact that the enhancement factor (calculated as the ratio of H2 produced by Ru-attached protein to H2 produced by the protein with an equivalent amount of [Ru(bpy)3]2+ in solution) was ~8 for RuNiRd and only ~2 for the other variants. Steady state and time-resolved emission spectroscopy were used to look into the photophysical properties of these hybrids. A significant component of the transient emission traces exhibited a short lifetime in all the constructs, revealing a direct electron transfer between ruthenium and nickel center. These results also suggested that intramolecular ET might play a key role in the activity of covalently bound RuNiRd and the mutants.

Figure 14.

Figure 14.

Schematic of internal ET from a covalently appended RuPS to the Ni site of Ni-Rd. Reproduced with permission from ChemSusChem 2017, 10, 4424 – 4429 Published by The Royal Society of Chemistry.

The mechanism of H2 evolution in NiRd was probed by protein film electrochemistry (PFE), spectroscopy, and computational studies.[42] The non-catalytic FeIII/II redox couple was used as an internal standard with NiRd to obtain the total electroactive protein coverage and quantitative information from the PFE studies. In NiRd catalysis, pH and solvent isotope-based effects indicated that the intramolecular H+ transfer is the rate limiting step, which occurs via a thiol inversion to generate the NiIII–hydride species. Temperature-dependent studies revealed an exponential change in activity and a negative entropy for the activation process indicating an ordered transition state and supported the intramolecular proton transfer step to be the rate limiting step. In the presence of O2, while the peak corresponding to O2 reduction was observed at −500 mV this didn’t seem to affect the activity of NiRd toward H+ reduction in the experimental timescale. Secondary sphere mutations with His in two different sites revealed interesting tunability of the NiRd system. The Val8His mutation exhibited 3-fold enhanced activity with slightly higher overpotential and kinetics similar to that of NiRd. The Val34His mutant on the other hand, showed similar activity like NiRd but different kinetics with respect to pH dependence. The authors also investigated the pH-induced structural changes by employing optical absorption and resonance Raman spectroscopy. These results indicated that NiRd mutants undergo structural changes at low pH. DFT calculations and MD simulations complemented the experimental results leading to a proposed model for the reaction process (Fig. 15). MD simulations on NiRd revealed that only two Cys sites located on the surface of the protein are more likely to interact with solvent molecules and changes at the active site do not affect the global structure of the protein significantly. MD studies on the mutants of NiRd indicated significant structural changes based on the different degree of protonation of His residues. MD simulations of the Val34His mutant suggested that the protonation of Cys9 could be occurring from water or buffer which could account for the pH-dependence on activity. Results from ValHis8 on the other hand, led to the hypothesis that His8 may help in the protonation of Cys35 leading to enhanced catalysis.

Figure 15.

Figure 15.

Proposed mechanism of Ni-Rd catalyzed H2 generation. Reprinted with permission from J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2018, 140, 10250–10262. Copyright (2018) American Chemical Society.

Based on studies from a series of secondary sphere NiRd mutants[43] it was found that the mutations modulated the activity, H-bonding network and active site solvent accessibility. The mutant library was made by mutagenesis of three residues in the metal binding loops, Val8, Val34 and Val37. When the TOF vs overpotentials were compared for the various mutants introduced at these sites, it was observed that the site of mutation dictates the correlation between TOF and overpotential as opposed to the nature of the specific side chain in the mutant library (Fig. 16). For example, the Val8 mutants exhibit ~10-fold higher activity and overpotentials within ~20 mV of WT. The Val34 variants exhibited a similar activity like WT with ~25 mV decrease in overpotentials, while the Val37 mutants showed a 3-fold decrease in activity and ~62 mV increase in overpotential for the Val37Asn variant. Similar to NiRd, a majority of the mutants showed a pH dependence of the onset potentials between pH 3-5, indicating a PCET, while a few mutants showed a shallower dependence on pH. Some mutants showed a decrease in activity with pH, which could be due to changes in the secondary sphere. While the spectral features of NiRd remained unaffected in the pH range of 4-8, mutants with side chain pKa of 4-8 showed changes in the spectral features, indicating sensitivity of the spectra to the side chain protonation state. MD simulations showed that the secondary sphere mutants impacted the H-bonding network and the solvent accessibility. Perturbations in the H-bond by shortening the length between the amide backbone and the active site thiolates coordinated to the Fe or Ni center led to increased potentials, because hydrogen bond provides a means to delocalize and stabilize negative charge in the reduced state. The highest increase in activity found for mutations at Val8 also suggested that solvent accessibility plays a significant role in catalysis. This result was consistent with MD simulations which indicated that a majority of the Val8 mutations opened up the active site, exposing the Cys35 residue to solvent, which in turn correlates with an increase in TOF. Out of all the mutants studied, Val8Asp and Val8Asn were particularly interesting due to ~10-fold and a ~2-fold increase in activity, respectively. While the MD simulations of these mutants suggested a similar solvent accessibility, the presence of an ionizable side chain in Val8Asp suggested the likely involvement of this residue in forming a H+ shuttle that promoted turnovers. These studies demonstrated the importance of protein environment in tuning the activity for HER.

Figure 16.

Figure 16.

Correlation between TOF and overpotential of WT, Val8, Val34 and Val37 mutant library of NiRd showing dependence of catalytic parameters on the site of mutation. Reprinted with permission from ACS Catal. 2019, 9, 8928-8942. Copyright (2019) American Chemical Society.

V. Reengineering a Cu storage protein into a Ni binding protein.

We have reported the redesign of a naturally existing copper storage protein (Csp1) into a mononuclear nickel binding protein (NBP) featuring a NiS4 active site as a HER catalyst.[44] Csp1 is a four-helix bundle that binds 13 equivalents of Cu(I) to 13 Cys residues along the protein core.[45] NBP was designed by replacing 9 out of the 13 Cys residues with non-coordinating hydrophobic residues. A majority of these were Ala since it is similar in size to Cys and it is likely to maintain a similar helix-helix distance at the core to facilitate metal binding to the target Cys residues. Bulky hydrophobic residues were introduced at exposed ends of the bundle to avoid fraying. We chose a central Cu bound to Cys 26, Cys 62 and Cys 87 as the potential location to introduce the desired Ni site where the 4th Cys was provided by the nearby Cys 113. To avoid competition, 6 surface His were mutated to noncoordinating but polar Asn and Gln, totaling 15 mutations into Csp1 to produce the NiS4 active site (Fig. 17 AE). Combined CD, UV-vis, X-ray absorption, NMR and computational studies showed that NBP is α-helical, thermostable, and bound Ni(II) in a distorted square planar geometry to four Cys with Ni-S bond distances of 2.2-2.4 Å (Fig. 17F), comparable to the Ni-S distances of [NiFe] hydrogenases (2.2-2.6 Å). NiNBP produced H2 under photochemical conditions with a TON of −115 over 2h, corresponding to a TOF of ~1 min−1 (Fig. 18A). The H2 production followed a reductive quenching mechanism where the photoexcited *Ru(bpy)32+ is quenched by ASC to produce Ru(bpy)3+, which reduces NiNBP into the catalytically active Ni(I) state for H2 production. PFE studies on NiNBP demonstrated that NiNBP is also active for electrochemical H+ reduction showing pH-dependent catalytic waves in pH in the range of 4-6 operating with an overpotential of ~560-510 mV (Fig. 18 B) depending on the pH. While these overpotentials are higher than the native [NiFe] hydrogenases these values are lower or similar to many biomolecular and molecular catalysts[12m, 13e, 27, 30, 40] absence of Ni(II)/Ni(I) redox peak in the voltammogram suggested that the ET, H+ transfer and chemical reactions occur within the catalytic wave itself. The Pourbaix diagram suggested that the NiNBP followed a PCET mechanism. At pH 5 NiNBP produced H2 with a TON of ~210 at a FE of 93 ± 5 % after 1h of electrolysis at −1 V (vs NHE) (Fig. 18 CD). Rinse tests and suitable control experiments showed the homogeneous nature of NiNBP. Some changes in the UV-vis (Fig. 18D inset) of the samples after electrolysis were observed, which we attributed to slight changes in helix orientations (Fig. 18E) that can alter the electronic properties of the Ni site. Mass spectra of NiNBP after electrolysis did not show any fragmentation (Fig. 18F), suggesting that the protein is stabile under these conditions. In summary, the NiNBP system highlights an example where rational protein engineering can lead to metalloproteins with new functions that are not native to the starting protein constructs.

Figure 17.

Figure 17.

Redesign strategy (A-B) of Csp1 into NBP. C) 1ns NAMD structure of NBP, D) the thiol pocket, E) overlay of NBP (green), apo Csp1 (purple: PDB 5FJD) and Cu-Csp1 (cyan: PDB 5FJE), F) is the QM/MM model of NiNBP. Reprinted with permission from ACS Catal. 2019, 9, 5847-5859. Copyright (2019) American Chemical Society.

Figure 18.

Figure 18.

Summary of catalytic assays by NiNBP. A) Photocatalytic H2 production by NiNBP, B) pH-dependent voltammograms (inset shows the Pourbaix diagram), C) charge passed during 1h electrolysis at −1V vs NHE at pH 5, D) the corresponding TON (inset shows the UV-vis), (E) CD and (F) MALDI of samples before (red) and after (green) electrolysis. In A, C, D: NiNBP (blue); apo NBP (red); NiNBP in the absence of photosensitizer (green); NiSO4 (black); NiNBP after rinse test (orange); buffer alone (gray). Reprinted with permission from ACS Catal. 2019, 9, 5847-5859. Copyright (2019) American Chemical Society.

CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE PERSPECTIVES

Important progress has been made during the last two decades in constructing hybrid biosynthetic catalysts containing active sites surrounded by a polypeptide matrix. The choice of redox-active metal center, the nature of amino acid residues near the metal site, and the presence of ET sites within these hybrid constructs are shown to influence the activity and mechanisms. From a protein design perspective, however, significant territories need to be covered to advance the field of artificial hydrogenases. An “ideal” example of an artificial hydrogenase should not only mimic the active site metals and ligands of native enzymes, but also the non-covalent interactions around the active site. These include both amino acid and water-mediated H-bonding networks, and the internal ET sites. This design aspect is important to achieve reversible reactivity of native hydrogenases while still maintaining very low overpotentials. Computational protein design using versatile platforms such as Rosetta[46] may be a viable handle to create artificial hydrogenases in a suitable foreign protein keeping in mind the critical design considerations such as the inner dielectric environment, positioning the active site in an optimum location within the protein pocket, construction of ET sites, and the H-bonding pathway originating from the active site to the protein’s surface. The computational approach should also provide insight into the requirement for the minimal but a large enough protein pocket to stabilize the active site and maintain the reversible functionality. In addition, the design of artificial hydrogenases that can function in an oxic environment at elevated temperatures is highly desired if these are to be employed in enzymatic fuel cells. Parametric protein design may be useful in this regard.[47] Another important area that need to be explored is a systematic incorporation of versatile unnatural amino acids at the first coordination sphere and to evaluate the effect of such ligand alterations on the electronic and catalytic activity of such biosynthetic hydrogenases. The application of genetic engineering by directed evolution methods[48] should be explored to create artificial hydrogenases that are optimized for stability and function. In addition, methods to suitably attach the designed proteins on the electrode surfaces in orientations that can lead to productive catalysis should be developed by careful mutagenesis and by decorating the protein surface with suitable redox-active moieties. Mechanistic insights gained from this design process will lead to a complete understanding of the native enzymes paving way to the creation of biosynthetic proteins with stability and functionality paralleling or even better than the native enzymes.

SYNOPSIS.

Green Biosynthetic Hydrogen:

Approaches to engineer artificial hydrogen evolution catalysts are discussed in this review. These bioinorganic hybrids are based on the redesign of various natural proteins and the assemblies of molecular catalysts with polypeptide scaffolds. Important design considerations in the first coordination sphere and remote interactions around the active site in tuning the physical catalytic, and mechanistic properties of these artificial biohybrids are also covered.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT:

We thank the National Institutes of Health Grant 1R15GM131260-01 for support.

REFERENCES

  • [1].Jackson RB, Friedlingstein P, Canadell JG, Andrew RM, The Bridge 2015, 42, 16–21. [Google Scholar]
  • [2].Peters GP, Le Quéré C, Andrew RM, Canadell JG, Friedlingstein P, Ilyina T, Jackson RB, Joos F, Korsbakken JI, McKinley GA, Sitch S, Tans P, Nat. Clim. Change 2017, 7, 848–850. [Google Scholar]
  • [3].Dresselhaus MS, Thomas IL, Nature 2001, 414, 332–337. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [4].a) Rand DAJ, Dell RM, Hydrogen Energy: Challenges and Prospects, Royal Society of Chemistry, 2008; [Google Scholar]; b) Crabtree GW, Dresselhaus MS, MRS Bull. 2008, 33, 421–428; [Google Scholar]; c) Sartbaeva A, Kuznetsov V, Wells S, Edwards P, Energy Environ. Sci. 2008, 1, 79–85. [Google Scholar]
  • [5].a) Armaroli N, Balzani V, Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2007, 46, 52–66; [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; b) Balzani V, Credi A, Venturi M, ChemSusChem 2008, 1, 26–58; [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; c) Armaroli N, Balzani V, ChemSusChem 2011, 4, 21–36. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [6].a) Lubitz W, Ogata H, Ruediger O, Reijerse E, Chem. Rev. 2014, 114, 4081; [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; b) Ogata H, Lubitz W, Higuchi Y, Dalton Trans. 2009, 7577–7587; [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; c) Ogata H, Lubitz W, Higuchi Y, Biochem J. 2016, 160, 251–258; [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; d) Fontecilla-Camps JC, Volbeda A, Cavazza C, Nicolet Y, Chem. Rev. 2007, 107, 4273–4303; [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; e) Volbeda A, Charon MH, Piras C, Hatchikian EC, Frey M, Fontecilla-Camps JC, Nature 1995, 373, 580–587; [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; f) Ogata H, Nishikawa K, Lubitz W, Nature 2015, 520, 571–574; [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; g) Armstrong FA, Fontecilla-Camps JC, Science 2008, 321, 498–499. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [7].a) Lewis NS, Science 2007, 315, 798–801; [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; b) Lewis NS, Nocera DG, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 2006, 103, 15729–15735. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [8].Ciamician G, Science 1912, 36, 385–394. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [9].Smil V, Energy: A Beginner’s Guide, 2nd ed., Oneworld Publications, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  • [10].R. F. Service, Science 2005, 309, 548–551. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [11].a) Armstrong FA, Curr. Opin. Chem. Biol. 2004, 8, 133–140; [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; b) Armstrong FA, Curr. Opin. Chem. Biol. 2005, 9, 110–117; [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; c) Armstrong FA, Belsey NA, Cracknell JA, Goldet G, Parkin A, Reisner E, Vincent KA, Wait AF, Chem. Soc. Rev. 2009, 38, 36–51; [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; d) Cracknell JA, Vincent KA, Armstrong FA, Chem. Rev. 2008, 108, 2439–2461; [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; e) de Lacey AL, Fernández VM, Rousset M, Coord. Chem. Rev. 2005, 249, 1596–1608; [Google Scholar]; f) De Lacey AL, Fernández VM, Rousset M, Cammack R, Chem. Rev. 2007, 107, 4304–4330; [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; g) Vignais PM, Billoud B, Chem. Rev. 2007, 107, 4206–4272; [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; h) Vincent KA, Parkin A, Armstrong FA, Chem. Rev. 2007, 107, 4366–4413; [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; i) Mulder DW, Shepard EM, Meuser JE, Joshi N, King PW, Posewitz MC, Broderick JB, Peters JW, Structure 2011, 19, 1038–1052; [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; j) Shima S, Ermler U, Eur. J. Inorg. Chem. 2011, 963–972; [Google Scholar]; k) Thauer RK, Raster AK, Goenrich M, Schick M, Hiromoto T, Shima S, Annu. Rev. Biochem. 2010, 79, 507–536; [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; l) Baltazar CSA, Marques MC, Soares CM, de Lacey AM, Pereira IAC, Matias PM, Eur. J. Inorg. Chem. 2011, 948–962; [Google Scholar]; m) Friedrich B, Fritsch J, Lenz O, Curr. Opin. Biotech. 2011, 22, 358–364; [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; n) Fritsch J, Lenz O, Friedrich B, Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 2013, 11, 106–114; [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; o) Shafaat HS, Rüdiger O, Ogata H, Lubitz W, Biochim. Biophys. Acta 2013, 1827, 986–1002; [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; p) Stiebritz MT, Reiher M, Chem. Sci. 2012, 3, 1739–1751; [Google Scholar]; q) Birrell JA, Rüdiger O, Reijerse EJ, Lubitz W, Joule 2017, 1, 61–76; [Google Scholar]; r) Carr Stephen B., Evans Rhiannon M., Brooke Emily J., Wehlin Sara A. M., Nomerotskaia E, Sargent F, Armstrong Fraser A., Phillips Simon E. V., Biochem. Soc. Trans. 2016, 44, 863–868; [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; s) del Barrio M, Sensi M, Orain C, Baffert C, Dementin S, Fourmond V, Léger C, Acc. Chem. Res. 2018, 51, 769–777; [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; t) Sensi M, del Barrio M, Baffert C, Fourmond V, Léger C, Curr. Opin. Electrochem. 2017, 5, 135–145; [Google Scholar]; u) Wittkamp F, Senger M, Stripp ST, Apfel UP, Chem. Commun. 2018, 54, 5934–5942. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [12].a) Sun L, Åkermark B, Ott S, Coord. Chem. Rev. 2005, 249, 1653–1663; [Google Scholar]; b) Bouwman E, Reedijk J, Coord. Chem. Rev. 2005, 249, 1555–1581; [Google Scholar]; c) Capon J-F, Gloaguen F, Schollhammer P, Talarmin J, Coord. Chem. Rev. 2005, 249,1664–1676; [Google Scholar]; d) Capon J-F, Gloaguen F, Pétillon FY, Schollhammer P, Talarmin J, Coord. Chem. Rev. 2009, 253, 1476–1494; [Google Scholar]; e) Gloaguen F, Rauchfuss TB, Chem. Soc. Rev. 2009, 38, 100–108; [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; f) Rakowski DuBois M, DuBois DL, Chem. Soc. Rev 2009, 38, 62–72; [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; g) Tard C, Pickett CJ, Chem. Rev. 2009,109, 2245–2274; [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; h) Heinekey DM, J. Organomet. Chem. 2009, 694, 2671–2680; [Google Scholar]; i) Barton BE, Olsen MT, Rauchfuss TB, Curr. Opin. Biotech. 2010, 21, 292–297; [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; j) Eckenhoff WT, McNamara WR, Du P, Eisenberg R, Biochim. Biophys. Acta 2013, 1827, 958–973; [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; k) Dey S, Das PK, Dey A, Coord. Chem. Rev. 2013, 257, 42–63; [Google Scholar]; l) Artero V, Fontecave M, Chem. Soc. Rev. 2013, 42, 2338–2356; [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; m) Thoi VS, Sun Y, Long JR, Chang CJ, Chem. Soc. Rev. 2013, 42, 2388–2400; [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; n) Simmons TR, Berggren G, Bacchi M, Fontecave M, Artero V, Coord. Chem. Rev. 2014, 270–271, 127–150; [Google Scholar]; o) Han Z, Eisenberg R, Acc. Chem. Res. 2014, 47, 2537–2544; [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; p) Xu T, Chen D, Hu X, Coord. Chem. Rev. 2015, 303, 32–41; [Google Scholar]; q) Denny JA, Darensbourg MY, Chem. Rev. 2015,115, 5248–5273; [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; r) Ogo S, Coord. Chem. Rev. 2017, 334, 43–53. [Google Scholar]
  • [13].a) Utschig LM, Soltau SR, Tiede DM, Curr. Opin. Chem. Biol. 2015, 25, 1–8; [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; b) Mulfort KL, Utschig LM, Acc. Chem. Res. 2016, 49, 835–843; [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; c) Onoda A, Hayashi T, Curr. Opin. Chem. Biol. 2015, 25, 133–140; [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; d) Ginovska-Pangovska B, Dutta A, Reback ML, Linehan JC, Shaw WJ, Acc. Chem. Res. 2014, 47, 2621–2630; [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; e) Kandemir B, Chakraborty S, Guo Y, Bren KL, Inorg. Chem. 2016, 55, 467–477. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [14].a) Dutta A, Lense S, Hou J, Engelhard MH, Roberts JA, Shaw WJ, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2013,135, 18490–18496; [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; b) Dutta A, Roberts JA, Shaw WJ, Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2014, 53, 6487–6491. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [15].Utschig LM, Silver SC, Mulfort KL, Tiede DM, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2011, 133, 16334–16337. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [16].Utschig LM, Dimitrijevic NM, Poluektov OG, Chemerisov SD, Mulfort KL, Tiede DM, J. Phys. Chem. Lett 2011,2, 236–241. [Google Scholar]
  • [17].Wilson AD, Newell RH, McNevin MJ, Muckerman JT, Rakowski DuBois M, DuBois DL, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2006,128, 358–366. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [18].Silver SC, Niklas J, Du P, Poluektov OG, Tiede DM, Utschig LM, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2013,135, 13246–13249. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [19].McLaughlin MP, McCormick TM, Eisenberg R, Holland PL, Chem. Commun. 2011, 47, 7989–7991. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [20].Soltau SR, Niklas J, Dahlberg PD, Mulfort KL, Poluektov OG, Utschig LM, ACS Energy Lett 2016, 2, 230–237. [Google Scholar]
  • [21].Soltau SR, Niklas J, Dahlberg PD, Poluektov OG, Tiede DM, Mulfort KL, Utschig LM, Chem. Commun. 2015, 51, 10628–10631. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [22].Soltau SR, Dahlberg PD, Niklas J, Poluektov OG, Mulfort KL, Utschig LM, Chem. Sci 2016, 7, 7068–7078. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [23].Utschig Lisa M., Soltau SR, Mulfort KL, Niklas J, Poluektov OG, Chem. Sci 2018, 9, 8504–8512. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [24].Jones AK, Lichtenstein BR, Dutta A, Gordon G, Dutton PL, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2007, 129, 14844–14845. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [25].Dutta A, Hamilton GA, Hartnett HE, Jones AK, Inorg. Chem. 2012, 51, 9580–9588. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [26].Roy S, Nguyen T-AD, Gan L, Jones AK, Dalton Trans. 2015, 44, 14865–14876. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [27].Roy A, Madden C, Ghirlanda G, Chem. Commun. 2012, 48, 9816–9818. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [28].Kandemir B, Kubie L, Guo Y, Sheldon B, Bren KL, Inorg. Chem. 2016, 55, 1355–1357. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [29].Sano Y, Onoda A, Hayashi T, Chem. Commun. 2011, 47, 8229–8231. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [30].Sano Y, Onoda A, Hayashi T, J. Inorg. Biochem. 2012,108, 159–162. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [31].a) Jain A, Lense S, Linehan JC, Raugei S, Cho H, DuBois DL, Shaw WJ, Inorg. Chem. 2011, 50, 4073–4085; [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; b) Jain A, Reback ML, Lindstrom ML, Thogerson CE, Helm ML, Appel AM, Shaw WJ, Inorg. Chem. 2012, 51, 6592–6602; [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; c) Dutta A, DuBois DL, Roberts JA, Shaw WJ, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 2014, 111, 16286–16291; [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; d) Lense S, Dutta A, Roberts JA, Shaw WJ, Chem. Commun. 2014, 50, 792–795; [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; e) Reback ML, Buchko GW, Kier BL, Ginovska-Pangovska B, Xiong Y, Lense S, Hou J, Roberts JAS, Sorensen CM, Raugei S, Squier TC, Shaw WJ, Chem. Eur. J. 2014, 20, 1510–1514; [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; f) Rodriguez-Maciá P, Dutta A, Lubitz W, Shaw WJ, Rüdiger O, Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2015, 54, 12303–12307; [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; g) Priyadarshani N, Dutta A, Ginovska B, Buchko GW, O’Hagan M, Raugei S, Shaw WJ, ACS Catal. 2016, 6, 6037–6049; [Google Scholar]; h) Gentil S, Lalaoui N, Dutta A, Nedellec Y, Cosnier S, Shaw WJ, Artero V, Le Goff A, Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2017, 56, 1845–1849; [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; i) Lense S, Ho M-H, Chen S, Jain A, Raugei S, Linehan JC, Roberts JA, Appel AM, Shaw W, Organometallics 2012, 31, 6719–6731; [Google Scholar]; j) Reback ML, Ginovska-Pangovska B, Ho MH, Jain A, Squier TC, Raugei S, Roberts JAS, Shaw WJ, Chem. Eur. J. 2013, 19, 1928–1941. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [32].a) Fraze K, Wilson AD, Appel AM, Rakowski DuBois M, DuBois DL, Organometallics 2007, 26, 3918–3924; [Google Scholar]; b) Helm ML, Stewart MP, Bullock RM, Rakowski DuBois M, DuBois DL, Science 2011, 333, 863–866; [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; c) Jacobsen GM, Yang JY, Twamley B, Wilson AD, Bullock RM, Rakowski DuBois M, DuBois DL, Energy Environ. Sci. 2008,1, 167–174; [Google Scholar]; d) Smith SE, Yang JY, DuBois DL, Bullock RM, Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2012, 51, 3152–3155; [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; e) Wilson AD, Fraze K, Twamley B, Miller SM, DuBois DL, Rakowski DuBois M, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2008,130, 1061–1068; [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; f) Wilson AD, Shoemaker R, Miedaner A, Muckerman J, DuBois DL, DuBois MR, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 2007, 104, 6951–6956; [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; g) Yang JY, Bullock RM, Rakowski DuBois M, DuBois DL, MRS Bull. 2011, 36, 39–47. [Google Scholar]
  • [33].Sommer DJ, Vaughn MD, Ghirlanda G, Chem. Commun. 2014, 50, 15852–15855. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [34].Sommer DJ, Vaughn MD, Clark BC, Tomlin J, Roy A, Ghirlanda G, Biochim. Biophys. Acta 2016, 1857, 598–603. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [35].Onoda A, Kihara Y, Fukumoto K, Sano Y, Hayashi T, ACS Catal. 2014, 4, 2645–2648. [Google Scholar]
  • [36].Kleingardner JG, Kandemir B, Bren KL, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2014, 136, 4–7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [37].Firpo V, Le JM, Pavone V, Lombardi A, Bren KL, Chem. Sci. 2018, 9, 8582–8589. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [38].a) Keller SG, Probst B, Heinisch T, Alberto R, Ward TR, Helv. Chim. Acta 2018, 101, e1800036; [Google Scholar]; b) Call A, Casadevall C, Romero-Rivera A, Martin-Diaconescu V, Sommer DJ, Osuna S, Ghirlanda G, Lloret-Fillol J, ACS Catal. 2019, 9, 5837–5846; [Google Scholar]; c) Roy A, Vaughn MD, Tomlin J, Booher GJ, Kodis G, Simmons CR, Allen JP, Ghirlanda G, Chem. Eur. J. 2020, 26, 6240–6246. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [39].Saint-Martin P, Lespinat PA, Fauque G, Berlier Y, LeGall J, Moura I, Teixeira M, Xavier AV, Moura JJ, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 1988, 85, 9378–9380. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [40].Slater JW, Shafaat HS, J. Phys. Chem. Lett 2015, 6, 3731–3736. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [41].Stevenson MJ, Marguet SC, Schneider CR, Shafaat HS, ChemSusChem 2017, 10, 4424–4429. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [42].Slater JW, Marguet SC, Monaco HA, Shafaat HS, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2018, 140, 10250–10262. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [43].Slater JW, Marguet SC, Gray ME, Monaco HA, Sotomayor M, Shafaat HS, ACS Catal. 2019, 9, 8928–8942. [Google Scholar]
  • [44].Selvan D, Prasad P, Farquhar ER, Shi Y, Crane S, Zhang Y, Chakraborty S, ACS Catal. 2019, 9, 5847–5859. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [45].Vita N, Platsaki S, Baslé A, Allen SJ, Paterson NG, Crombie AT, Murrell JC, Waldron KJ, Dennison C, Nature 2015, 525, 140–143. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [46].a) Koga N, Tatsumi-Koga R, Liu G, Xiao R, Acton TB, Montelione GT, Baker D, Nature 2012, 491, 222–227; [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; b) Das R, Baker D, Annu. Rev. Biochem. 2008, 77, 363–382. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [47].Huang P-S, Oberdorfer G, Xu C, Pei XY, Nannenga BL, Rogers JM, DiMaio F, Gonen T, Luisi B, Baker D, Science 2014, 346, 481–485. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [48].Yang KK, Wu Z, Arnold FH, Nat. Methods 2019, 16, 687–694. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

RESOURCES