Skip to main content
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2021 Jun 3.
Published in final edited form as: Chembiochem. 2020 Nov 6;22(5):826–829. doi: 10.1002/cbic.202000659

17O NMR studies of yeast ubiquitin in aqueous solution and in the solid state

Binyang Lin [a], Ivan Hung [b], Zhehong Gan [b], Po-Hsiu Chien [b], Holly L Spencer [c], Steven P Smith [c], Gang Wu [a]
PMCID: PMC8175035  NIHMSID: NIHMS1705759  PMID: 33058374

Abstract

We report a general method for amino acid-type specific 17O-labeling of recombinant proteins in Escherichia coli. In particular, we have prepared several [1-13C,17O]-labeled yeast ubiquitin (Ub) samples including Ub-[1-13C,17O]Gly, Ub-[1-13C,17O]Tyr, and Ub-[1-13C,17O]Phe using the auxotrophic E. coli strain DL39 GlyA λDE3 (aspC tyrB ilvE glyA λDE3). We have also produced Ub-[η-17O]Tyr, where the phenolic group of Tyr59 is 17O-labeled. We showed for the first time that 17O NMR signals from protein terminal residues and sidechains can be readily detected in aqueous solution. We also reported solid-state 17O NMR spectra for Ub-[1-13C,17O]Tyr and Ub-[1-13C,17O]Phe obtained at an ultrahigh magnetic field, 35.2 T (1.5 GHz for 1H). This work represents a significant advance in the field of 17O NMR studies of proteins.

Keywords: 17O NMR, isotope labelling, recombinant protein, ubiquitin, auxotrophic strain

Graphical Abstract

graphic file with name nihms-1705759-f0001.jpg

Last piece of the puzzle: We report amino acid-type specific incorporation of 17O isotope into yeast ubiquitin with an auxotrophic E. Coli strain. We show that 17O NMR signals from 17O-labeled proteins can be observed both in aqueous solution and in the solid state.


Biomolecular NMR spectroscopy has become an indispensible tool in structural biology. Now, it is equally possible to determine the three-dimensional structure of biological macromolecules either in aqueous solution[1-5] or in the solid state.[6-9] While tremendous progress has been made over the past few decades in many aspects of biomolecular NMR, most NMR studies in this field have continued to rely on detection of “NMR friendly” spin-1/2 nuclei such as 1H, 13C, 15N, and 31P. Although the oxygen element is also ubiquitous in organic and biological molecules, its detection is severely hampered by the fact that the quadrupolar nature of the only NMR-active oxygen isotope, 17O (I = 5/2), often causes significant line broadening in NMR signals. In addition, because the natural abundance of 17O is exceedingly low (0.037%), 17O isotopic labeling is usually a prerequisite of any 17O NMR study. In recent years, important advances have been made in the development of 17O NMR spectroscopy as a useful tool in studying organic and biological molecules in the solid state.[10-12] In the context of biological macromolecules, 17O NMR has been applied to study [17O]ligand-protein complexes and in the solid state[13-15] and in aqueous solution.[16-17] Solid-state 17O NMR was also useful in probing membrane-bound proteins/peptides.[18-21] A particularly promising approach is to study large biomolecular systems with the 17O quadrupole-central-transition (QCT) methodology.[22-24] However, one major obstacle is the lack of a general approach to incorporate 17O isotopes into proteins. It is somewhat surprising that, although it is routine to produce selectively or uniformly 13C- and 15N-labeled recombinant proteins by heterologous expression in various host cell systems,[25-30] the same approach has not been reported in the literature for 17O-labeling of proteins. In this work, we report successful amino acid-type specific 17O-labeling of recombinant yeast ubiquitin by expression with an auxotrophic Escherichia coli strain and acquisition of 17O NMR spectra for selectively 17O-labeled yeast ubiquitin samples. The main goals of the present work are threefold: (1) to demonstrate the validity of this new 17O-labeling approach, (2) to test the hypothesis that protein sidechain groups may be readily observable by 17O NMR in aqueous solution, and (3) to explore the potential of solid-state 17O NMR of proteins at an ultrahigh magnetic field, 35.2 T (1.5 GHz for 1H).[31]

Ubiquitin is a small regulatory protein (76 amino acid residues) and one of the standard proteins for NMR methodology development. In this work, we utilized an auxotrophic E. coli strain DL39 GlyA λDE3 (aspC tyrB ilvE glyA λDE3)[32-33] to produce yeast ubiquitin (Ub) where glycine (Gly), tyrosine (Tyr), phenylalanine (Phe) residues were selectively 17O-labeled. This general approach was first tested with 15N-labeled amino acids and subsequently used to incorporate [1-13C,17O]-labeled Gly, Phe, Tyr as well as [η-17O]Tyr into yeast ubiquitin for 17O NMR studies. We chose this [1-13C,17O] double-labeling scheme for two reasons. First, the 13C-labeling can be used to monitor for any potential isotope dilution and scrambling. Second, [1-13C,17O]-labeled protein samples may be useful for further development of heteronuclear 13C/17O correlation spectroscopy. All experimental details on chemical synthesis of 17O-labeled amino acids, recombinant protein expression, purification, and characterization are provided in the Supporting Information.

Now let us first examine the hypothesis that, because protein sidechains often experience substantial local motion in aqueous solution, their nuclear quadrupole relaxation characteristics may be similar to those of small molecules. As a result, it may be possible to detect 17O NMR signals from protein sidechains in aqueous solution. To this end, we prepared two samples: yeast ubiquitin (Ub)-[1-13C,17O]Gly and Ub-[η-17O]Tyr. In yeast ubiquitin, there are six Gly residues, one of which, G76, is at the C-terminus. Thus, we may consider the COOH group of G76 as a “sidechain”. Since there is only one Tyr residue, Y59, in yeast ubiquitin, any 17O NMR signal from Ub-[η-17O]Tyr would be from the phenolic group of Y59. The 13C solution NMR spectrum of Ub-[1-13C,17O]Gly confirmed that there was no substantial isotope scrambling and that all six Gly residues in yeast ubiquitin were [1-13C,17O]-labeled (see Figure S6; our 1H-15N HSQC signals and 13C chemical shifts are consistent with those reported in the literature).[34-36] Figure 1 shows the 17O NMR spectra of Ub-[1-13C,17O]Gly and Ub-[η-17O]Tyr in aqueous solution. Clearly, relatively sharp 17O NMR signals are observed in both cases. The 17O NMR signal from Ub-[1-13C,17O]Gly appears at 272 ppm, typical of carboxylic acids. This signal broadened as the temperature was lowered, but the signal position and line width were independent of the applied magnetic field, which suggests that G76 is under the so-called extreme narrowing condition (i.e., ω0τC << 1); see Figure S8. The 17O NMR signals from other 5 Gly residues in yeast ubiquitin were too broad to be detected in aqueous solution at room temperature because they are in the slow motion regime, ω0τC > 1. It is interesting to note that while G75 and G76 may have similar order parameters from the perspective of 13C and 15N NMR, the additional carboxylate 180°-flipping motion[37] must contribute to the very short correlation time of G76 from the 17O NMR point of view. When the tumbling motion of yeast ubiquitin was slowed down by dissolving the protein in glycerol/H2O (20%/80%), 17O QCT NMR signals from G10, G35, G47, G53, and G75 residues were observed at 253 K, as shown in Figure S8. This suggests that, under this condition, the protein is in the ultraslow motion regime (i.e., ω0τC >> 1).[12] However, we will not pursue this line of investigation further in the present study. As also seen in Figure 1, the 17O NMR signal from Ub-[η-17O]Tyr appears at 87 ppm, which is also consistent with that observed for the free amino acid L-Tyr.[38] Further, the 17O NMR signal from the phenolic group in Y59 is broader than that for the carboxyl group in G76, because the phenolic group is known to have a larger CQ(17O) value.[39] This is the first time that 17O NMR signals from protein sidechains have been observed. One immediate application is to utilize 17O NMR as a new probe for pKa measurement. As seen in Figure 1(c), the pKa values for the carboxyl group of G76 and the phenolic group in Y59 were determined to be 2.32 ± 0.04 and 10.44 ± 0.04, respectively. It is interesting to note that, for the phenolic group of Y59, the 17O chemical shifts in the two ionization states differ by 75 ppm. This is in agreement with the previous results for free amino acid L-Tyr both in aqueous solution[38] and in the solid state.[39] While the two pKa values determined for yeast ubiquitin may not have any important implication for its biological functions per se, this proof-of-concept experiment provides a novel method for studying ionization state, hydrogen bonding or ion binding of oxygen-containing amino acid sidechains (Asp, Glu, Ser, Thr, Asn, Gln) of proteins in aqueous solution.

Figure 1.

Figure 1.

17O NMR spectra obtained at 16.4 T (700 MHz for 1H) for (a) Ub-[1-13C,17O]Gly and (b) Ub-[η-17O]Tyr in aqueous solution (1.2 mM protein, H2O, 25 mM Tris buffer, 250 mM NaCl, pH 8, 25 °C). (c) Titration results. For Ub-[1-13C,17O]Gly at low pH values, a 50-mM phosphate buffer was used.

To explore the potential of solid-state 17O NMR in detecting 17O signals from a protein backbone, we prepared two yeast ubiquitin samples: Ub-[1-13C,17O]Tyr and Ub-[1-13C,17O]Phe. Once again, since only one Tyr residue is present in yeast ubiquitin, Ub-[1-13C,17O]Tyr serves as an ideal sample to avoid any ambiguity in spectral analysis. Figure 2(a) shows an overlay of the 2D 1H-15N HSQC spectra of Ub-[15N]Tyr and Ub-[15N]Phe in aqueous solution. The observed 1H and 15N chemical shifts are consistent with the literature values.[34] This data confirmed that no isotope scrambling occurred. Figures 2(b) and 2(c) show the 13C CP/MAS NMR spectra of hydrated solid samples of Ub-[1-13C,17O]Tyr and Ub-[1-13C,17O]Phe. The observed line width of 0.4 ppm is similar to those observed for ubiquitin microcrystals.[40-42] The 13C chemical shifts for Y59, F4, and F45 are also in agreement with those reported in previous solution[35-36] and solid-state NMR studies.[40, 42] Figure 2(d) shows the 17O MAS NMR spectrum of Ub-[1-13C,17O]Tyr obtained at 35.2 T. Since there is a single Tyr backbone carbonyl oxygen in this sample, the spectrum can be readily analysed, which yielded the following 17O NMR tensor parameters: δiso = 308 ppm, CQ = 9.0 MHz, ηQ = 0.7, ΔCS = δ33 – δiso = −320 ppm, ηCS = (δ22 – δ11)/ΔCS = 0.2. The 17O MAS NMR spectrum of Ub-[1-13C,17O]Phe, shown in Figure 2(e), displays signals that are broader than those seen for Ub-[1-13C,17O]Tyr, suggesting the presence of two oxygen sites. This is also consistent with the 13C and 15N NMR data mentioned earlier. Once again, spectral analysis yielded a complete set of 17O NMR tensor parameters for both sites: F45, δiso = 299 ppm, CQ = 8.9 MHz, ηQ = 0.7, ΔCS = −320 ppm, ηCS = 0.2; Y4, δiso = 281 ppm, CQ = 8.2 MHz, ηQ = 0.4, ΔCS = −310 ppm, ηCS = 0.3. This is the first time that complete 17O NMR tensor parameters have been obtained for oxygen atoms on a protein backbone. All 17O NMR tensor parameters obtained for the yeast ubiquitin samples are summarized in Table S1, together with some relevant literature data.[18-20, 43-47] As seen from Table S1, the overall 17O NMR parameters observed for yeast ubiquitin samples are similar to those reported previously for peptides. The most striking observation is the sensitivity of δiso(17O) and CQ(17O) toward molecular structure. For example, the crystal structures of ubiquitin suggest that both F45 and Y59 are involved in loop regions, whereas F4 is within a β-sheet.[48-49] Thus, strong hydrogen bonding is expected around the backbone carbonyl oxygen of F4. Indeed, the values of δiso(17O) and CQ(17O) found for F45 and Y59 are similar, but are significantly larger than the corresponding values observed for F4. It is interesting to point out that the difference in δiso(13C) values between F4 and F45 is approximately 1 ppm, as seen from Figure 2(c), whereas the corresponding δiso(17O) values differ by 18 ppm. These observations are entirely consistent with the previously known trends in the dependence of 17O NMR parameters on hydrogen bonding (i.e., strong hydrogen bonding leads to reduction in both δiso(17O) and CQ(17O) values for carbonyl compounds).[10] The sensitivity offered by the 35.2-T magnet is also impressive. The levels of 17O enrichment in the Ub-[1-13C,17O]Tyr and Ub-[1-13C,17O]Phe samples were about 30-40%. Approximately 20 mg of lyophilized protein was packed in a 3.2-mm MAS rotor. The total experimental times to record the 17O MAS spectra shown in Figures 2(d) and 2(e) were 4-5 hr. With higher 17O enrichment levels, it may be possible to apply techniques such as MQMAS[50] or STMAS[51] for proteins to obtain even higher spectral resolution. In principle, the solid-state 17O NMR approach is not impacted by the size of the protein under study.

Figure 2.

Figure 2.

(a) Overlay of the 1H-15N 2D HSQC NMR spectra obtained at 16.4 T (700 MHz for 1H) for Ub-[15N]Phe and Ub-[15N]Tyr in aqueous solution (0.8 mM protein, 95%H2O/5%D2O, 25 mM Tris buffer, 300 mM NaCl, pH 8, 25 °C). Solid-state 13C CP/MAS spectra obtained at 19.6 T (833 MHz for 1H) for (b) rehydrated Ub-[1-13C,17O]Tyr and (c) Ub-[1-13C,17O]Phe. Solid-state 17O 18-kHz MAS NMR spectra obtained at 35.2 T (1.5 GHz for 1H) for (d) Ub-[1-13C,17O]Tyr (665600 transients, recycle delay 20 ms) and (e) Ub-[1-13C,17O]Phe (313856 transients, recycle delay 20 ms). Home-built 3.2-mm MAS probes were used at 19.6 and 35.2 T.

In summary, we have demonstrated that it is feasible to achieve amino acid-type specific 17O-labeling of proteins via recombinant expression in an auxotrophic E. coli strain. This approach allows incorporation of 17O isotopes into both the protein backbone and sidechains. We have shown that since protein sidechains often exhibit significant local motion they behave like small molecules from the perspective of nuclear quadrupole relaxation, thus making the detection of their 17O NMR signals straightforward. Such an approach offers a new method for probing protein sidechain structure, interactions and dynamics. For example, it would be interesting to apply this 17O NMR approach to study ion binding to protein sidechains or hydrogen bonding. We have also explored the use of an ultrahigh magnetic field, 35.2 T, to record high-quality solid-state 17O NMR spectra for proteins. The information offered by the complete 17O NMR tensor characterization will be complementary to that obtainable from more conventional NMR probes, such as 1H, 13C and 15N. The results reported in this study are encouraging. One can envision that the sensitivity and resolution in solid-state 17O NMR for proteins can be further improved by 13C/17O heteronuclear correlation spectroscopy perhaps in combination with nuclear dynamic polarization. It is highly desirable to make 17O accessible by NMR in studies of biological macromolecules in aqueous solution and in the solid state, so that one would be able to utilize all magnetic nuclei available in proteins, nucleic acids, and carbohydrates (1H, 2H, 13C, 14N, 15N, 17O, 31P) to gain information about molecular structure, chemical bonding, and dynamics. The present work represents a key step towards this ultimate goal. Research to further expand the current work is under way in our laboratories.

Supplementary Material

supporting information

Acknowledgements

S.P.S. and G.W. thank the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC) of Canada for Discovery Grants to support this work (Grant No. 298508 and 23308-11). This work was also supported by the National High Magnetic Field Laboratory through NSF DMR-1644779 and the State of Florida and by a grant from NIH (P41 GM122698). We thank Professor Gary Shaw (University of Western Ontario) for providing the yeast ubiquitin encoding plasmid and Professor Lawrence P. McIntosh (University of British Columbia) for supplying the auxotrophic bacterial strain.

References

  • [1].Wüthrich K, NMR of Proteins and Nucleic Acids, Wiley, New York, N. Y., 1986. [Google Scholar]
  • [2].Bax A, Grzesiek S, Acc. Chem. Res 1993, 26, 131–138. [Google Scholar]
  • [3].Clore GM, Gronenborn AM, Methods Enzymol. 1994, 239, 349–363. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [4].Evans JNS, Biomolecular NMR Spectroscopy, Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK., 1995. [Google Scholar]
  • [5].Wider G, Wüthrich K, Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol 1999, 9, 594–601. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [6].Cross TA, Opella SJ, Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol 1994, 4, 574–581. [Google Scholar]
  • [7].McDermott A, Annu. Rev. Biophys 2009, 38, 385–403. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [8].Su Y, Andreas L, Griffin RG, Annu. Rev. Biochem 2015, 84, 465–497. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [9].Mandala VS, Williams JK, Hong M, Annu. Rev. Biophys 2018, 47, 201–222. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [10].Wu G, Prog. Nucl. Magn. Reson. Spectrosc 2008, 52, 118–169. [Google Scholar]
  • [11].Wu G, Solid State Nucl. Magn. Reson 2016, 73, 1–14. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [12].Wu G, Prog. Nucl. Magn. Reson. Spectrosc 2019, 114-115, 135–191. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [13].McMahon MT, de Dios AC, Godbout N, Salzmann R, Laws DD, Le HB, Havlin RH, Oldfield E, J. Am. Chem. Soc 1998, 120, 4784–4797. [Google Scholar]
  • [14].Zhu J, Ye E, Terskikh V, Wu G, Angew. Chem., Int. Ed 2010, 49, 8399–8402. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [15].Tang AW, Kong X, Terskikh V, Wu G, J. Phys. Chem. B 2016, 120, 11142–11150. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [16].Lee HC, Cummings K, Hall K, Hager LP, Oldfield E, J. Biol. Chem 1988, 263, 16118–16124. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [17].Lee HC, Oldfield E, J. Am. Chem. Soc 1989, 111, 1584–1590. [Google Scholar]
  • [18].Lemaitre V, De Planque MRR, Howes AP, Smith ME, Dupree R, Watts A, J. Am. Chem. Soc 2004, 126, 15320–15321. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [19].Hu J, Chekmenev EY, Gan Z, Gor’kov PL, Saha S, Brey WW, Cross TA, J. Am. Chem. Soc 2005, 127, 11922–11923. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [20].Wong A, Beevers AJ, Kukol A, Dupree R, Smith ME, Solid State Nucl. Magn. Reson 2008, 33, 72–75. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [21].Paulino J, Yi M, Hung I, Gan Z, Wang X, Chekmenev EY, Zhou H-X, Cross TA, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2020, 117, 11908–11915. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [22].Zhu J, Kwan ICM, Wu G, J. Am. Chem. Soc 2009, 131, 14206–14207. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [23].Zhu J, Wu G, J. Am. Chem. Soc 2011, 133, 920–932. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [24].Young RP, Caulkins BG, Borchardt D, Bulloch DN, Larive CK, Dunn MF, Mueller LJ, Angew. Chem. Int. Ed 2016, 55, 1350–1354. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [25].Muchmore DC, McIntosh LP, Russell CB, Anderson DE, Dahlquist FW, Methods in Enzymol. 1989, 177, 44–73. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [26].LeMaster DM, Prog. Nucl. Magn. Reson. Spectrosc 1994, 26, 371–419. [Google Scholar]
  • [27].Goto NK, Kay LE, Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol 2000, 10, 585–592. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [28].Lian L-Y, Middleton DA, Prog. Nucl. Magn. Reson. Spectrosc 2001, 39, 171–190. [Google Scholar]
  • [29].Yokoyama S, Curr. Opin. Chem. Biol 2003, 7, 39–43. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [30].Ohki S, Kainosho M, Prog. Nucl. Magn. Reson. Spectrosc 2008, 53, 208–226. [Google Scholar]
  • [31].Gan Z, Hung I, Wang X, Paulino J, Wu G, Litvak IM, Gor'kov PL, Brey WW, Lendi P, Schiano JL, Bird MD, Dixon IR, Toth J, Boebinger GS, Cross TA, J. Magn. Reson 2017, 284, 125–136. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [32].LeMaster DM, Richards FM, Biochemistry 1988, 27, 142–150. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [33].Smith SP, Barber KR, Dunn SD, Shaw GS, Biochemistry 1996, 35, 8805–8814. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [34].Hamilton KS, Ellison MJ, Shaw GS, J. Biomol. NMR 2000, 18, 319–327. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [35].Wang AC, Grzesiek S, Tschudin R, Lodi PJ, Bax A, J. Biomol. NMR 1995, 5, 376–382. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [36].Wand AJ, Urbauer JL, McEvoy RP, Bieber RJ, Biochemistry 1996, 35, 6116–6125. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [37].Lu J, Hung I, Brinkmann A, Gan Z, Kong X, Wu G, Angew. Chem. Int. Ed 2017, 56, 6166–6170. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [38].Eckert H, Fiat D, Int. J. Pept. Protein Res 1986, 27, 613–616. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [39].Zhu J, Lau JYC, Wu G, J. Phys. Chem. B 2010, 114, 11681–11688. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [40].Igumenova TI, McDermott AE, Zilm KW, Martin RW, Paulson EK, Wand AJ, J. Am. Chem. Soc 2004, 126, 6720–6727. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [41].Zech SG, Wand AJ, McDermott AE, J. Am. Chem. Soc 2005, 127, 8618–8626. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [42].Seidel K, Etzkorn M, Heise H, Becker S, Baldus M, ChemBioChem 2005, 6, 1638–1647. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [43].Yamada K, Dong S, Wu G, J. Am. Chem. Soc 2000, 122, 11602–11609. [Google Scholar]
  • [44].Waddell KW, Chekmenev EY, Wittebort RJ, J. Phys. Chem. B 2006, 110, 22935–22941. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [45].Chekmenev EY, Waddell KW, Hu J, Gan Z, Wittebort RJ, Cross TA, J. Am. Chem. Soc 2006, 128, 9849–9855. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [46].Yamauchi K, Okonogi M, Kurosu H, Tansho M, Shimizu T, Gullion T, Asakura T, J. Magn. Reson 2008, 190, 327–332. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [47].Keeler EG, Michaelis VK, Colvin MT, Hung I, Gor’kov PL, Cross TA, Gan Z, Griffin RG, J. Am. Chem. Soc 2017, 139, 17953–17963. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [48].Vijay-Kumar S, Bugg CE, Cook WJ, J. Mol. Biol 1987, 194, 531–544. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [49].Vijay-Kumar S, Bugg CE, Wilkinsonll KD, Vierstra RD, Hatfield PM, Cook WJ, J. Biol. Chem 1987, 262, 6396–6399. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [50].Frydman L, Harwood JS, J. Am. Chem. Soc 1995, 117, 5367–5368. [Google Scholar]
  • [51].Gan Z, J. Am. Chem. Soc 2000, 122, 3242–3243. [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

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

Supplementary Materials

supporting information

RESOURCES