Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2021 Oct 21;16(10):e0258821. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0258821

Comprehensive mutagenesis to identify amino acid residues contributing to the difference in thermostability between two originally thermostable ancestral proteins

Satoshi Akanuma 1,*, Minako Yamaguchi 2, Akihiko Yamagishi 2
Editor: Eugene A Permyakov3
PMCID: PMC8530338  PMID: 34673819

Abstract

Further improvement of the thermostability of inherently thermostable proteins is an attractive challenge because more thermostable proteins are industrially more useful and serve as better scaffolds for protein engineering. To establish guidelines that can be applied for the rational design of hyperthermostable proteins, we compared the amino acid sequences of two ancestral nucleoside diphosphate kinases, Arc1 and Bac1, reconstructed in our previous study. Although Bac1 is a thermostable protein whose unfolding temperature is around 100°C, Arc1 is much more thermostable with an unfolding temperature of 114°C. However, only 12 out of 139 amino acids are different between the two sequences. In this study, one or a combination of amino acid(s) in Bac1 was/were substituted by a residue(s) found in Arc1 at the same position(s). The best mutant, which contained three amino acid substitutions (S108D, G116A and L120P substitutions), showed an unfolding temperature more than 10°C higher than that of Bac1. Furthermore, a combination of the other nine amino acid substitutions also led to improved thermostability of Bac1, although the effects of individual substitutions were small. Therefore, not only the sum of the contributions of individual amino acids, but also the synergistic effects of multiple amino acids are deeply involved in the stability of a hyperthermostable protein. Such insights will be helpful for future rational design of hyperthermostable proteins.

Introduction

Elucidation of the mechanisms underlying protein thermostability is an important issue not only for understanding the amino acid sequence-structure-stability relationship, but also for developing proteins that can be used in industrial processes [14]. Comparative structural analyses between thermophilic and mesophilic protein structures have provided insights into the molecular mechanisms responsible for the thermostability of thermophilic proteins [5,6]. The mechanisms suggested by those studies include the formation of intra- or inter-molecular ion-pairs and ion-pair networks in the native structure [79] and also in the denatured state [10], increased hydrophobicity and improved packing in the hydrophobic core [1114], shorter loops [15,16], improved subunit-subunit interactions [3,17,18] and entropic advantages due to the increased flexibility of native structures [19]. However, we have yet to reach a comprehensive understanding of the mechanism of protein thermostability [20]. For example, one paper reported that no consistent trends were found between the amino acid composition of proteins and their stabilities [16], while another paper pointed out that small non-polar amino acids are more frequent in thermostable proteins [21]. Furthermore, in many cases, these factors would only partially explain the differences in thermostability between thermophilic proteins and their mesophilic homologues. A major hindrance in identifying all of the amino acid residues involved in determining the differences in thermostability between a pair of homologous proteins is the fact that many mutations that do not affect thermal stability have accumulated during evolution.

Previously, we inferred ancestral amino acid sequences of nucleoside diphosphate kinases (NDKs) possessed by the last archaeal common ancestor and the last bacterial common ancestor [22]. NDK is an enzyme that catalyzes the transfer of γ-phosphate of a nucleoside triphosphate to a nucleoside diphosphate. We built phylogenetic trees by comparing the amino acid sequences of NDKs possessed by extant archaea and bacteria, and reconstructed several archaeal and bacterial common ancestral NDKs. Among the reconstructed NDKs, the archaeal common ancestor Arc1 and the bacterial common ancestor Bac1 exist as homo-hexamers with a protomer of 139 amino acid residues, and only 12 amino acid residues differ between their amino acid sequences (Fig 1A). The unfolding midpoint temperature of Arc1 (113°C) is 14°C higher than that (99°C) of Bac1 at pH 7.0. Crystal structures of Arc1 and Bac1 have been reported (PDB codes: 3VVT and 3VVU). Ramachandran plots computed by the PROCHECK module of SAVES (https://saves.mbi.ucla.edu/) showed that only one residue (Val113) existed in disallowed regions in both Arc1 and Bac1 structures (S1 Fig). Superposition of the structure of Arc1 upon that of Bac1 (Fig 1B) yielded a root mean square deviation of alpha carbons (Cα rmsd) of 0.61 Å for the 139 aligned residues, as calculated using PDBeFold ver. 2.59 (https://www.ebi.ac.uk/msd-srv/ssm/). Reduced non-polar accessible surface areas, and increased numbers of inter-subunit ion pairs and hydrogen bonds were proposed as structural features that likely contribute to the high thermal stabilities of Arc1 and Bac1 based on the comparison of their crystal structures with that of the NDK from the mesophilic Dictyostelium discoideum (see reference [22] for more details).

Fig 1. Comparison of the amino acid sequences and tertiary structures of the ancestral NDKs.

Fig 1

(a) Pair-wise amino acid sequence alignment of Arc1 and Bac1. Inconsistent amino acid residues are colored. (b) Superimposed structures of Arc1 (orange) and Bac1 (green). Superimposition was performed with PDBeFold ver. 2.59 (https://www.ebi.ac.uk/msd-srv/ssm/) and the superimposed structures were visualized with PyMOL (https://pymol.org/2/).

In this study, in order to understand the structural mechanisms by which originally very thermostable proteins become more stable, we first created twelve Bac1 mutants in which one amino acid was replaced by the residue found at the same position in the amino acid sequence of Arc1. Three mutants indeed showed an enhanced unfolding midpoint temperature of greater than 2°C at pH 6.0, pH 7.0 and pH 7.6. Moreover, combinations of the three beneficial amino acid substitutions further improved the thermal stability of Bac1, thus producing a mutant that displayed an unfolding midpoint temperature quite similar to that of Arc1 at pH 7.6. Therefore, only three of the 12 amino acids that differ between Arc1 and Bac1 play a major role in the difference in the thermostabilities of the two proteins. However, the other nine amino acids in Arc1 contribute somewhat to its greater thermostability although their individual contributions are small. Finally, we compared the tertiary structures of Arc1 and Bac1 and discuss the structural mechanisms for the enhanced stability of the Bac mutant bearing the three amino acid substitutions.

Materials and methods

Site-directed mutagenesis

The gene encoding the ancestral NDK corresponding to the last bacterial common ancestor had been cloned into pET21c [22]. Site-directed mutagenesis was carried out on the Bac1 gene using the splicing-by-overlap extension (SOE) PCR method [23]. SOE PCR consists of two rounds of PCR using the outer primer pairs (T7_forward: 5’- TAATACGACTCACTATAGG-3’ and T7_reverse: 5’-GCTAGTTATTGCTCAGCGG-3’) that are common to all reactions and the inner mutagenic primer pairs (S1 Table). A pair of mutagenic primers have complementary sequences at their 3′-ends. T7_forward and a mutagenic reverse primer were used for amplification of the 5′ gene segment (PCR #1). A mutagenic forward primer and T7_reverse primer were used for amplification of the 3′ gene segment (PCR #2). Both amplifications used pET21c carrying the gene encoding Bac1 as the template. The two amplified fragments generated in PCR #1 and PCR #2 were purified using the FastGene Gel/PCR Extraction Kit (Nippon Genetics) and then mixed. They were used for PCR amplification again in the presence of T7_forward and T7_reverse primers (PCR #3). All PCR amplifications were performed in a reaction mixture containing 1× KOD -plus- PCR buffer (Toyobo), 1 mM MgSO4, 0.2 mM each of dNTPs, 25 μM each of a pair of primers, and 1.0 unit of KOD -plus- DNA polymerase. The time-temperature program was as follows: step 1, 95°C, 3 min; step 2, 95°C, 30 s; step 3, 55°C, 30 s; step 4, 68°C, 1 min. Steps 2–4 were repeated 25 times. After PCR #3, the product was again purified using the FastGene Gel/PCR Extraction Kit (Nippon Genetics).

Construction of expression plasmids

The amplified DNA encoding each Bac1 mutant was digested with NdeI and BamHI (New England Biolabs) and then purified by agarose gel electrophoresis. The purified DNA was ligated into the NdeI-BamHI site of pET21c and then used to transform Escherichia coli JM109. Plasmid DNA was prepared from each transformant after cultivating overnight in 2 mL of Luria-Bertani (LB) medium supplemented with 150 μg/ml of ampicillin at 37°C. The resulting plasmid DNA was subjected to DNA sequencing to confirm the nucleotide sequence of the region encoding the Bac1 mutant.

Protein preparation

For preparation of the Bac1 mutants, E. coli Rosetta2 (DE3) was transformed with each of the expression plasmids. Each transformant was cultured overnight at 37°C in 2 L of LB medium supplemented with 150 μg/ml of ampicillin. Overexpression was induced by the Overnight Express Autoinduction System (Novagen-Merck). The cells were then harvested, resuspended in 20 mM Tris, pH 7.5, 1 mM EDTA, and disrupted by sonication. The cell lysates were centrifuged at 60,000 x g for 20 minutes. The resulting supernatant was individually heat-treated at 75°C for 20 min and then centrifuged again at 60,000 x g for 20 min. To purify the protein, the supernatant was filtered and then subjected to HiTrapQ (Cytiva) column chromatography. The adsorption buffer was 20 mM Tris, pH 7.5, 1 mM EDTA, and the elution buffer was 20 mM Tris, pH 7.5, 1 mM EDTA, 1 M NaCl. The fraction containing the Bac1 mutant was collected and dialyzed overnight against 20 mM Tris, pH 8.8, 1 mM EDTA, followed by ResourceQ (Cytiva) column chromatography. The adsorption buffer was 20 mM Tris, pH 8.8, 1 mM EDTA, and the elution buffer was 20 mM Tris, pH 8.8, 1 mM EDTA, 1 M NaCl. The fractions that were homogeneous judging from the results of Coomassie blue staining after SDS-polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis were used for subsequent analysis.

Quantification of protein concentration

Protein concentrations were determined using the A280 values of the protein solutions. The molar absorption coefficient at 280 nm for each Bac1 mutant was calculated as reported by Pace and colleagues [24], who modified the procedure described by Gill and von Hippel [25].

Thermal stability measurement

The Tm value of each protein was estimated from the thermal denaturation curve obtained by monitoring the change in ellipticity at 222 nm using a J-1100 spectropolarimeter (Jasco) equipped with a programmable temperature controller and a pressure-proof cell compartment that prevented the aqueous solution from bubbling and evaporating at high temperatures. Protein solutions were diluted to a final concentration of 20 μM with 20 mM potassium phosphate (pH 6.0 or 7.6), 50 mM KCl, 1 mM EDTA. A 0.1 cm path-length cell was used. The temperature was increased at a rate of 1.0°C/min.

Activity measurement

The enzymatic reaction catalyzed by Arc1, Bac1 and its mutants was assayed at 70°C by monitoring the increase in the amount of the product ATP using the Kinase-Glo Plus Luminescent Kinase Assay kit (Promega). The assay solution consisted of 50 mM HEPES (pH 8.0), 25 mM KCl, 10 mM (NH4)2SO4, 2.0 mM Mg(CH3COO)2, 1.0 mM dithiothreitol, 1.0 mM ADP and 2.5 mM GTP. One enzyme unit equaled 1 μmol ATP formed per min. The Michaelis constant values (Kms) for the substrate ADP and the catalytic rate constant (kcat) were calculated based on the steady-state kinetic data with an assay solution of 50 mM HEPES (pH 8.0), 25 mM KCl, 10 mM (NH4)2SO4, 2.0 mM Mg(CH3COO)2, 1.0 mM dithiothreitol, 2.5 mM GTP, with ADP at concentrations between 50 and 1000 μM. The kinetic parameters were calculated by nonlinear least-square fitting of the steady-state velocity data to the Michaelis-Menten equation using the Enzyme Kinetics module of SigmaPlot Ver. 13 (Systat Software).

Results

Mutagenesis of residues in the bacterial common ancestral NDK, Bac1

A pairwise alignment of the amino acid sequences of Arc1 and Bac1 (Fig 1A) showed that 127 out of 139 aligned residues are identical between the two proteins. Therefore, only 12 sites were occupied by different amino acids in the two proteins. To identify amino acid substitutions that enhance the thermal stability of Bac1, an amino acid in Bac1 was substituted with the residue found at the same position in Arc1. Accordingly, we created twelve mutants of Bac1.

The genes encoding the mutant proteins were PCR amplified and then overexpressed in E. coli Rosetta2 (DE3). Each mutant protein was purified to homogeneity by successive column chromatography steps and then used for temperature-induced unfolding experiments (S2 Fig). The unfolding experiments were first performed at pH 6.0, pH 7.0 and pH 8.0. Although all of the proteins showed cooperative two-state transitions at pH 6.0 and pH 7.0, G60A and S108D showed atypical unfolding curves at pH 8.0 (S3 Fig). In particular, S108D seemed to undergo a structural change in which the content of helical structure increases, rather than denaturing into a random coil, as the temperature rose. Therefore, the thermal unfolding experiments were also performed at pH 7.6. The unfolding midpoint temperatures (Tm) of Arc1, Bac1 and the 12 mutants are listed in S2 Table and compared in Fig 2. Three mutants (S108D, G116A, L120P) had significantly increased Tms of greater than 2°C compared to Bac1 at pH 6.0, pH 7.0 and pH 7.6. The mutant with the highest Tm value among the mutants was G116A, which exhibited 5–7°C greater Tms than those of Bac1. The Tm value of S108D was 6°C greater than that of Bac1 at pH 7.6, whereas the Tms of the mutant was only 3°C greater than those of Bac1 at pH 6.0 and pH 7.0. Therefore, the negative charge of the aspartate residue’s side chain is thought to be responsible for the increase in thermostability of S108D. The Tm values of L120P were also higher than those of Bac1 by 2–3°C between pH 6.0 and pH 7.6. Conversely, no mutants showed decreased Tms of greater than 2°C between pH 6.0 and 7.6. At pH 8.0, four mutants (L37M, Q42R, L44M, I88V) showed decreased Tms compared to Bac1.

Fig 2. Tms of Arc1, Bac1 and its mutants at pH 6.0 (magenta), pH 7.0 (green), pH 7.6 (cyan) and pH 8.0 (blue).

Fig 2

The Tm values were estimated from the data shown in S2 Fig. Tm values are not presented for G60A, S108D, S108D/G116A and S108D/G116A/L120P at pH 8.0 because atypical unfolding curves were observed for the proteins at pH 8.0 (S3 Fig).

To understand the effects of amino acid substitutions on catalytic properties, the kinetic parameters of Arc1, Bac1 and the 12 mutants were obtained from steady-state kinetic experiments using various concentrations of ADP and 2.5 mM GTP (Fig 3 and S2 Table). The specific activity measurements of Arc1 and Bac1 as a function of temperature revealed that both ancestral NDKs showed the highest specific activity at 70°C under the condition employed (S4 Fig). Therefore, it is reasonable to expect that all of the Bac1 mutants also showed the highest specific activity at 70°C. Accordingly, the steady-state kinetic experiments were performed at 70°C. It should be noted that the twelve mutated positions are not in the active site. The hexamers of Arc1 and Bac1 have six active sites, respectively, and each active site consists of residues in a single subunit. In addition, the inter-subunit contacts are robust even at unfolding temperature (see Discussion). Therefore, the effect of subunit dissociation on activity was not considered. To ensure high affinity with the substrate at a very high temperature, hyperthermophilic enzymes should require smaller Km values at a given temperature than those of their less stable homologues. However, Arc1 had a Km value for ADP (430 μM) that is 2.4 times more unfavorable than that (180 μM) of Bac1. The overall enzyme efficiency is customarily expressed as kcat/Km. The kcat/Km value (4.1 μM-1 s-1) of Arc1 was two times better than that of Bac1 (2.0 μM-1 s-1) due to the kcat value (1800 s-1) of Arc1 that was 4.9 times greater than that (370 s-1) of Bac1. Six mutants (L37M, Q42R, L44M, M107L, G116A, L120P) had smaller kcat/Km values compared to Bac1. Conversely, F30L, G60A, F64Y, V80A, I88V and S108D had greater kcat/Km values compared to Bac1. When compared to the kinetic parameters of Arc1, all of the Bac1 mutants showed more favorable Km values but smaller kcat and kcat/Km values.

Fig 3. The kcat/Km values of Arc1, Bac1 and its mutants at 70°C.

Fig 3

Km for ADP, and kcat were calculated by nonlinear least-square fitting of the steady-state kinetic data to the Michaelis-Menten equation using the Enzyme Kinetics module of SigmaPlot Ver. 13 (Systat Software, Richmond) and listed in S2 Table.

Combination of the beneficial mutations

Fig 2 shows that no single mutation was sufficient to improve the thermal stability of Bac1 to the same level as that of Arc1. It is reasonable to assume that combining multiple beneficial substitutions in a protein would further improve its thermostability if the effects of the substitutions are not conflicting. Therefore, we simultaneously introduced S108D and G116A substitutions into Bac1. Temperature-induced unfolding curves of the resulting double mutant (S108D/G116A) at pH 6.0, pH 7.0 and pH 7.6 were compared to those of Arc1, Bac1 and G116A (Fig 4). Similar to the S108D mutant, S108D/G116A showed atypical unfolding curves at pH 8.0. The Tm value (105°C) of S108D/G116A at pH 6.0 was 8°C and 2°C higher than those of Bac1 and G116A, respectively, but 8°C lower than that of Arc1. At pH 7.0, Tm (107°C) of S108D/G116A was 8°C and 3°C higher than those of Bac1 and G116A, respectively, and 6°C lower than that of Arc1. At pH 7.6, the Tm (112°C) of S108D/G116A was 12°C and 5°C higher than those of Bac1 and G116A, respectively, and only 2°C lower than that of Arc1. Thus, a greater synergistic effect of the combination of the two amino acid substitutions was observed at pH 7.6 than at pH 6.0 and pH 7.0.

Fig 4.

Fig 4

Temperature-induced unfolding curves of Arc1, Bac1 and its mutants at pH 6.0 (a), pH 7.0 (b) and pH 7.6 (c). The change in ellipticity at 222 nm was monitored as a function of temperature. The scan rate was 1.0°C/min. The samples contained 20 μM protein in 20 mM potassium phosphate (pH 6.0 or 7.6), 50 mM KCl, 0.5 mM EDTA. The plots were normalized with respect to the baseline of the native and denatured states. Orange, Arc1; green, Bac1; blue, G116A; purple, S108D/G116A; yellow, S108D/G116A/L120P; magenta, Bac1-mu9.

We also introduced the L120P substitution into the S108D/G116A mutant because the substitution also increased the Tm of Bac1 by 2–3°C. Fig 4 shows that the resulting S108D/G116A/L120P mutant had further improved thermostability. Moreover, the Tm value (113°C) of the resulting S108D/G116A/L120P mutant was close to that (114°C) of Arc1 at pH 7.6. Thus, although twelve amino acids are different between the sequences of Arc1 and Bac1, the difference in Tm of 14°C between the two ancestral NDKs can be almost eliminated at pH 7.6 by only three amino acid substitutions.

The kinetic parameters of S108D/G116A and S108D/G116A/L120P at 70°C are provided in S2 Table. The Km values of the double and triple mutants were between those of Bac1 and Arc1. The kcat values of both mutants were slightly greater than that of Bac1 but much smaller than that of Arc1. The mutants had kcat/Km values that are smaller than that of Bac1. Thus, unlike thermostability, the catalytic efficiency was not improved by the combination of the two or three amino acid substitutions.

Combination of S108D or G116A substitution with other substitutions

As mentioned above, the S108D and G116A substitutions had the most positive impact on the thermostability of Bac1. It is reasonable to expect that multiple amino acid substitutions at sites that are close to each other are more likely to show a synergistic effect than those that are far apart. In the tertiary structures of Bac1 and Arc1, the amino acid residue at position 108 is located at the subunit boundary (Fig 5) and is in close proximity to the amino acid at position 30 of a neighboring subunit and the amino acid at position 107 in the same subunit (Fig 6A). We therefore constructed a mutant protein in which two amino acid substitutions (F30L and M107L substitutions) were combined with the S108D substitution. The Tm value of the resulting F30L/M107L/S108D mutant was 4°C higher than that of the S108D mutant at pH 7.0 (S5 Fig). When the F30L substitution was individually introduced into Bac1, its Tm was increased by only 1°C. Moreover, the M107L substitution decreased the Tm of Bac1 by 1°C. Thus, although the individual contributions of the F30L and M107L substitutions to the improvement in thermostability were small or negative, they showed a synergetic effect with the S108D substitution at pH 7.6.

Fig 5.

Fig 5

Hexameric structures of Bac1 (a) and Arc1 (b). The subunits of the proteins are each colored differently. Residues at positions 108, 116 and 120 in a subunit of each hexamer are indicated.

Fig 6.

Fig 6

(a) Local structures around position 108 of Bac1 (upper panel) and Arc1 (lower panel). Two subunits are colored differently. In Arc1, the carboxyl group of Asp108 forms a middle-range (4.2 Å) ion-pair with the amino group of Lys78 in the adjacent subunit. (b) Structures around position 116. In Bac1 (upper panel), Gly116 is located within a hydrophobic core and is surrounded by aliphatic residues including Val84, Ile88, Ile101 and Ile114. In Arc1 (lower panel), Val and Ala occupy positions 88 and 116, respectively. (c) Leu120 in Bac1 (upper panel) and Pro120 in Arc1 (lower panel) are each located at the N-terminal end of an α-helix.

In the structure of Bac1, Gly116 is located on a β-strand and surrounded by residues 84, 88, 101, and 114 (Fig 6B). In Arc1, the side chain of Ala116 is pointed toward the interior core. The same amino acids occupy positions 84, 101 and 114 between the two ancestral proteins. However, an isoleucine occupies position 88 in Bac1, whereas a valine occupies this position in Arc1. We therefore created one more mutant by introducing the I88V substitution into the G116A mutant. However, the resulting I88V/G116A mutant showed the same Tm value as that of G116A at pH 7.0 (S5 Fig). In other words, regardless of whether residue 116 was Gly or Ala, the I88V substitution did not improve the thermostability of the proteins.

Combinatorial effects of amino acid substitutions whose individual contributions to the thermostability are small

While three of the amino acid substitutions (S108D, G116A and L120P substitutions) substantially enhanced the thermostability of Bac1, the individual effects of the remaining nine amino acid substitutions on the thermostability of Bac1 were small. Therefore, we initially predicted that the remaining nine amino acid substitutions would not improve the thermostability of Bac1 even if the nine amino acid substitutions were introduced into Bac1 together. To test this prediction, we replaced residues 30, 37, 42, 44, 60, 64, 80, 88 and 107 in Bac1 by the amino acids found at the same positions in Arc1. The resulting mutant, named Bac1-mu9, was overexpressed in E. coli and then used for temperature-induced unfolding measurements at pH 6.0, pH 7.0, pH 7.6 and pH 8.0 (Fig 4 and S2 Table). Contrary to the expectation, the Tm value of Bac1-mu9 was greater than that of Bac1 by 6°C at pH 6.0 and pH 7.0, by 7°C at pH 7.6, and by 4°C at pH 8.0. At pH 7.0 in particular, the magnitude of the increase in Tm by the combination of amino acid substitutions was greater than the sum of the magnitude of the increase or decrease in Tm by the individual amino acid substitutions.

The kinetic parameters of Bac1-mu9 at 70°C are presented in S2 Table. The Km value of Bac1-mu9 was more unfavorable than that of Arc1, although the difference is within the margin of error. Bac1-mu9 had a greater kcat value than that of Bac1, but its kcat/Km value is smaller than that of Bac1.

Discussion

Several methods for creating more thermostable proteins have been proposed. Two conventional methods to create proteins with enhanced thermostability are rational design [9,14,26,27] and directed evolution [3,2830]. As alternative approaches, consensus design and ancestral sequence reconstruction (ASR) have also been developed to create thermostable proteins. Consensus design has been used in conjunction with multiple amino acid sequence alignments (MSAs) of homologous proteins [3133]. Its theoretical basis is that amino acids that contribute to a protein’s stability have a higher probability of being selected during the evolutionary process than those that do not contribute to stability [34]. ASR is a way to design amino acid sequences that are predicted to have been possessed by extinct species [3539]. In conjunction with the topology of a phylogenetic tree and MSAs of homologous proteins, ASR has also created many thermostable proteins. The design of thermostable proteins by ASR assumes that the ancestral organisms were (hyper)thermophilic and therefore ancestral residues would be responsible for the thermostability of a protein to a much greater extent than non-ancestral residues [40]. Many studies have validated the reliability of consensus design and ASR as methods to create highly thermostable proteins [22,4148], which could serve as industrially useful tools and good models for examining the structural mechanisms of protein thermostability.

More stable proteins are preferred as potential scaffolds for protein engineering [49,50]. Therefore, it is an attractive challenge to further improve the thermostability of an originally thermostable protein [9,51]. The two ancestral NDKs, Bac1 and Arc1, were created in our previous ASR experiments [22]. The amino acid sequences of the two ancestral proteins are very similar, differing only by 12 out of 139 amino acids. Although Bac1 is a very thermostable protein, Arc1 is much more thermostable and its Tm is greater than that of Bac1 by 14°C at pH 7.0. Therefore, comparison of Bac1 and Arc1 can provide insight into the structural mechanisms by which originally very thermostable proteins become more stable. The difference in thermostability between a pair of homologous proteins has sometimes been discussed on the basis of protein topology and oligomerization state. High-resolution three-dimensional structures of Bac1 and Arc1 have been determined at 2.2 Å resolution by X-ray crystallography [22], showing that both proteins are hexamers composed of six identical subunits each consisting of 139 amino acid residues (Fig 5). Moreover, significant similarity is found between the backbone structures of Bac1 and Arc1 (Cα rmsd = 0.61 Å; Fig 1B). Therefore, differences in protein topology or oligomerization state are not the basis of the differences in thermostability between Bac1 and Arc1.

From the thermostability analysis of the series of mutant proteins, we found that all of the proteins, except for Arc1, showed higher Tms at alkaline pHs than at acidic pH (Fig 2 and S2 Table). Because the isoelectric points of Arc1 and Bac1 are both 6.40, the isoelectric point may not be related to the difference in pH dependence of thermal stability. Perhaps the negative charges of acidic amino acids contribute significantly to the thermostability of Bac1 and its mutants, whereas the positive charges of basic amino acids contribute more significantly to the thermostability of Arc1. Indeed, similar to Arc1, the Q42R mutant showed a lower Tm at pH 8.0 than at pH 7.6, although the extent of the decrease in Tm was smaller than that observed for Arc1. However, the data presented here are not necessarily sufficient to explain the differences in pH-dependent thermal stability. Further experimental and/or computational studies are therefore necessary to explain more precisely the structural features that are related to the pH dependence of thermal stability.

We also found that three (positions 108, 116, 120) out of twelve positions where different amino acids are present in Bac1 and Arc1 are primarily responsible for the difference in thermostability between the two ancestral proteins. Serine108 is located on a surface loop that contacts an adjacent subunit (Figs 5A and 6A). The S108D substitution increased the Tm of Bac1 by 6°C at pH 7.6, but only by 3°C at pH 6.0. The fact that the magnitude of the improvement in thermostability by the S108D substitution is dependent on pH suggests that the negative charge of the aspartate sidechain contributes to the enhanced thermostability. In the Arc1 tertiary structure, the carboxyl group of Asp108 is 4.2 Å away from the positively charged sidechain of Lys78 in a neighboring subunit, forming a middle-range ion pair (Fig 6A). The ion pair is the only possible interaction involving the negative charge of the aspartate side chain. Since the ancestral NDK is a homo-hexamer, the presence of aspartate instead of serine at position 108 generates six more inter-subunit ion pairs. The contribution of an increased number of inter-subunit ion-pairs to greater protein thermostability has been proposed previously [52,53]. In addition, because residues 78 and 108 are both located in flexible loops, the formation of an ion pair would make the loops more rigid, thus contributing to improved thermostability. Less flexible surface regions have also been pointed out as a key feature associated with great stability of thermophilic proteins [16].

In order to investigate whether the dissociation of subunits occurs during denaturation, we performed denaturation experiments of Bac1 at different protein concentrations. If the subunits are dissociated upon thermal denaturation, then their stability would increase as the protein concentration increases. As shown in S6 Fig, the Tm was 99°C when the protein concentration was 12 μM. In contrast, when the protein concentration was 48 μM, the Tm (98°C) was slightly smaller. Therefore, subunit dissociation associated with degeneration was unlikely to have occurred. Nevertheless, the formation of the inter-subunit ion-pairs in the natural state can enthalpically contribute to the stability of the protein if the ion-pairs are lost in the denatured state.

Another interpretation may be also possible for the molecular mechanism of enhanced thermostability by the S108D substitution. Fig 7 compares the distribution of electrostatic potential in Bac1 and Arc1 hexamers computed by the Adaptive Poisson-Boltzmann Solver (APBS) software [54]. The area around residue 108 is completely positive in Bac1, while the electrostatic potential is shifted toward neutral in Arc1. Therefore, localized charge repulsion may be occurring in Bac1. The presence of a negatively charged aspartate residue at position 108 might mitigate the repulsion between the local positive charges and thus contribute to the greater stability of Arc1 and the S108D mutant compared to Bac1.

Fig 7. Electrostatic potentials on the surfaces of Bac1 and Arc1 hexamers.

Fig 7

Electrostatic potentials were calculated and visualized using APBS [54] integrated into PyMOL (https://pymol.org/2/). Red and blue indicate negative and positive potentials, respectively. Ser108 or Asp108 are indicated in each hexameric structure.

The G116A substitution had the greatest impact on the thermostability of Bac1. According to the tertiary structure of Bac1, Gly116 is located on a β-strand and surrounded by the hydrophobic residues Val84, Val88, Ile101 and Ile114 (Fig 6B). It is well accepted that hydrophobicity within a protein’s interior core is one of the major driving forces that stabilize the native structures [55]. The contribution of the hydrophobic residues involved in the formation of the hydrophobic core of a hyperthermophilic protein to its extreme thermostability has been suggested by a study using ribonuclease HII from Thermococcus kodakaraensis [11]. Arc1 has an alanine instead of a glycine at position 116 (Fig 6B). The additional methyl group of the alanine residue would increase the hydrophobicity of the interior core and thus enhance the thermostabilities of Arc1 and the G116A mutants of Bac1.

However, it cannot simply be expected that an increase in the interior hydrophobicity of a protein improves its thermostability. Because more hydrophobic amino acids have larger side chains, increasing the hydrophobicity of an interior core requires the introduction of larger amino acids, which often causes structural stress. It has been shown that the difference in stability between a pair of proteins can be attributed to both hydrophobic interactions and packing density with an equivalent energetic magnitude [56]. Therefore, improving a protein’s stability by increasing the hydrophobicity of the interior core would be successful only when the amino acid substitutions also improve the packing density of the core. The addition of one methyl group to the interior core of Bac1 by the G116A substitution may have been the best way to improve the balance of hydrophobicity and packing density of the core.

Leucine 120 of Bac1 is located at the N-terminus of the sixth α-helix (Fig 6C). Leucine residues have a relatively high helix propensity, whereas prolines have the lowest helix propensity and are considered to be helix breakers [57]. However, it has been pointed out that the introduction of one or a few proline residue(s) into a loop region decreases the flexibility of the denatured state, making the denatured state entropically unfavorable and thus stabilizing the folded structure [58,59]. The greater thermostabilities of Arc1, which has a proline at position 120, and the L120P mutant compared to Bac1 indicate that, as suggested before [60], the presence of a proline at the end of the α-helix can contribute to enhanced protein thermostability.

In this study, we found that three amino acid residues are primarily responsible for the difference in the thermostability between Bac1 and Arc1. In order to explore whether the structural mechanisms for the great thermostability of Arc1 suggested in this study are also used in NDKs from extant hyperthermophiles, we compared the amino acid sequences of extant mesophilic, thermophilic and hyperthermophilic NDKs (S7 Fig). Table 1 shows that all NDKs from hyperthermophiles have an alanine at position 116, while all NDKs from mesophiles have a glycine. Thus, for residue 116, Arc1 has acquired high thermostability by a mechanism that is also employed by the hyperthermophilic NDKs. In contrast, the amino acid residues at positions 108 and 120 do not parallel those found in NDKs from extant hyperthermophiles; there was no tendency for the NDKs from hyperthermophiles to have aspartate and proline at positions 108 and 120, respectively. Rather, a hyperthermophilic NDK from Sulfurisphaera tokodaii has a serine at position 108 and some hyperthermophilic NDKs have a positively or negatively charged amino acid residue instead of a proline at position 120. In addition, a mesophilic NDK from Dictyostelium discoideum has an aspartate at position 108 and the Methanothermobacter thermautotrophicus NDK, whose Tm is 17°C lower than that of Bac1, has a proline at position 120. Thus, the structural mechanisms that confer high thermostability on Arc1 are not always employed by the hyperthermophilic NDKs found in nature.

Table 1. Optimal growth temperatures (OGT) of eleven microorganisms, Tms of their NDKs and amino acid residues at positions corresponding to those at 108, 116 and 120 in the ancestral NDKs.

Source a Accession number b OGT (°C) Tm (°C) c Amino acid
108 116 120
Pho O58429 98 111 E A K
Ape Q9Y9B0 95 108 D A P
Mja Q58661 85 101 T A E
Afu O29491 83 100 D A P
Sto Q976A0 80 107 S A E
Tth Q72GQ0 75 99 T G L
Mth O26358 65 82 E A P
Tac Q9HJ59 57 99 G A P
Bsu P31103 37 57 F G L
Eco P0A763 37 56 S G V
Ddi P22887 22 62 D G V

a The eleven microorganisms are: Pho, Pyrococcus horikoshii (strain ATCC 700860/DSM 12428/JCM9974/NBRC 100139/OT-3); Ape, Aeropyrum pernix (strain ATCC 700893/DSM11879/JCM 9820/NBRC 100138/K1); Mja, Methanocaldococcus jannaschii (strain ATCC 43067/DSM 2661/JAL-1/JCM 10045/NBRC 100440); Afu, Archaeoglobus fulgidus (strain ATCC 49558/VC-16/DSM 4304/JCM 9628/NBRC 100126); Sto, Sulfurisphaera tokodaii (strain DSM 16993/JCM 10545/NBRC 100140/7); Tth, Thermus thermophilus (strain ATCC BAA-163/DSM 7039/HB27); Mth, Methanothermobacter thermautotrophicus (strain ATCC 29096/DSM 1053/JCM 10044/NBRC 100330/Delta H); Tac, Thermoplasma acidophilum (strain ATCC 25905/DSM 1728/JCM 9062/NBRC 15155/AMRC-C165); Bsu, Bacillus subtilis (strain 168); Eco, E. coli (strain K12); Ddi, Dictyostelium discoideum (Slime mold).

b The accession number for each species obtained from UniProt Knowledgebase (https://www.uniprot.org/).

c The Tm values of the extant microbial NDKs are from reference 22.

Conclusion

Three out of twelve amino acid residues that differ between Bac1 and Arc1 are likely to be the primary determinants for the difference in the thermostability of the two proteins. Our mutagenesis experiments on Bac1 and comparisons of the tertiary structures around the three positions of Bac1 and Arc1 suggest that the formation of inter-subunit ion pairs, elimination of electronic potential bias, improvement of hydrophobicity and packing effects of the interior core, and introduction of a proline at the terminus of an α-helix contributed to further improving the thermostability of the already thermostable Bac1. However, the remaining nine amino acid residues also contribute to the difference in thermostability between the two ancestral proteins. Therefore, a combination of many factors, some of which have very small individual effects, are responsible for the greater thermostability of Arc1 compared to Bac1. The last point reminds us that not only the sum of the contributions of individual amino acids, but also the synergistic effects of multiple amino acids are deeply involved in the stability of a protein.

Supporting information

S1 Fig. Ramachandran plots for the dimeric structures of Arc1 (PDB ID: 3VVT) and Bac1 (PDB ID: 3VVU) computed by the PROCHECK module of SAVES (https://saves.mbi.ucla.edu/).

The most favored regions are represented by red; additional allowed regions are represented by yellow; generously allowed regions are represented by light yellow; disallowed regions are represented by white. Glycine residues are shown as triangles and the other residues are shown as squares. In each plot, only Val113 exists in disallowed regions.

(TIF)

S2 Fig. Temperature-induced unfolding curves of Arc1, Bac1 and its mutants at pH 6.0, pH 7.0, pH 7.6 and pH 8.0.

The change in ellipticity at 222 nm was monitored as a function of temperature. The scan rate was 1.0°C/min. The samples comprised 20 μM protein in 20 mM potassium phosphate, 50 mM KCl, 0.5 mM EDTA. The plots were normalized with respect to the baseline of the native and unfolded states. Orange filled circles, Arc1; green filled circles, Bac1; cyan open circles, F30L; blue open circles, L37M; yellow open circles, Q42R; brown filled circles, L44M; black filled circles, G60A; magenta open circles, F64Y; gray filled circles, V80A; cyan filled circles, I88V; yellow filled circles, M107L; magenta filled circles, S108D; blue, G116A; purple filled circles, L120P.

(TIF)

S3 Fig. Atypical unfolding curves observed for G60A, S108D, S108D/G116A and S108D/G116A/L120P at pH 8.0.

The raw data for the change in ellipticity at 222 nm are presented as a function of temperature. The scan rate was 1.0°C/min. The samples comprised 20 μM protein in 20 mM potassium phosphate (pH 8.0), 50 mM KCl, 0.5 mM EDTA.

(TIF)

S4 Fig. Temperature dependence of the specific activities of Arc1 and Bac1.

The specific activities were measured using a reaction mixture consisting of 50 mM HEPES (pH 8.0), 25 mM KCl, 10 mM (NH4)2SO4, 2.0 mM Mg(CH3COO)2, 1.0 mM dithiothreitol, 1.0 mM ADP and 2.5 mM GTP. One enzyme unit equaled 1 μmol ATP formed per min. Each value is the average of at least three replicas.

(TIF)

S5 Fig. Temperature-induced unfolding curves of Bac1 mutants with single or multiple amino acid substitution(s).

The change in ellipticity at 222 nm was monitored as a function of temperature. The scan rate was 1.0°C/min. The samples comprised 20 μM protein in 20 mM potassium phosphate (pH 7.0), 50 mM KCl, 0.5 mM EDTA. The plots were normalized with respect to the baseline of the native and denatured states. Magenta, S108D; red, F30L/M107L/S108D; blue, G116A; cyan, I88V/G116A.

(TIF)

S6 Fig. Temperature-induced unfolding curves of Bac1 at two different protein concentrations.

Bac1 was dissolved in 20 mM potassium phosphate, pH 7.0, 50 mM KCl, 1 mM EDTA. The protein concentration was 12 μM (light green) or 48 μM (dark green). The scan rate was 1.0°C/min. The plots were normalized with respect to the baseline of the native and denatured states.

(TIF)

S7 Fig. Multiple amino acid sequence alignment of eleven microbial NDKs.

Positions corresponding to those at 108, 116 and 120 of the ancestral NDKs are indicated above the sequences. The sequences were aligned with MAFFT (https://mafft.cbrc.jp/alignment/server/) and visualized using ClustalX (http://www.clustal.org/clustal2/).

(TIF)

S1 Table. Mutagenic primers used in this study.

(DOCX)

S2 Table. The numerical data for Tm, Km, kcat and kcat/Km of Arc1, Bac1 and its mutants.

(DOCX)

Data Availability

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

Funding Statement

This work was supported by JSPS KAKENHI (Grant Number 19K21903) and Individual Research Allowance of Waseda University to SA, and Basic Research Fund of Tokyo University of Pharmacy and Life Sciences to AY. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. There was no additional external funding received for this study.

References

  • 1.Mozhaev VV, Berezin IV, Martinek K. Structure-stability relationship in proteins: fundamental tasks and strategy for the development of stabilized enzyme catalysts for biotechnology. CRC Crit Rev Biochem. 1988;23(3):235–81. doi: 10.3109/10409238809088225 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Amadei A, Del Galdo S, D’Abramo M. Density discriminates between thermophilic and mesophilic proteins. J Biomol Struct Dyn. 2018;36(12):3265–73. doi: 10.1080/07391102.2017.1385537 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Xu Z, Cen YK, Zou SP, Xue YP, Zheng YG. Recent advances in the improvement of enzyme thermostability by structure modification. Crit Rev Biotechnol. 2020;40(1):83–98. doi: 10.1080/07388551.2019.1682963 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Rigoldi F, Donini S, Redaelli A, Parisini E, Gautieri A. Review: Engineering of thermostable enzymes for industrial applications. APL Bioeng. 2018;2(1):011501. doi: 10.1063/1.4997367 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Chakravarty S, Varadarajan R. Elucidation of factors responsible for enhanced thermal stability of proteins: a structural genomics based study. Biochemistry. 2002;41(25):8152–61. doi: 10.1021/bi025523t [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Razvi A, Scholtz JM. Lessons in stability from thermophilic proteins. Protein Sci. 2006;15(7):1569–78. doi: 10.1110/ps.062130306 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Tanaka T, Sawano M, Ogasahara K, Sakaguchi Y, Bagautdinov B, Katoh E, et al. Hyper-thermostability of CutA1 protein, with a denaturation temperature of nearly 150 degrees C. FEBS Lett. 2006;580(17):4224–30. doi: 10.1016/j.febslet.2006.06.084 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Rahman RN, Muhd Noor ND, Ibrahim NA, Salleh AB, Basri M. Effect of ion pair on thermostability of F1 protease: integration of computational and experimental approaches. J Microbiol Biotechnol. 2012;22(1):34–45. doi: 10.4014/jmb.1105.05055 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Irumagawa S, Kobayashi K, Saito Y, Miyata T, Umetsu M, Kameda T, et al. Rational thermostabilisation of four-helix bundle dimeric de novo proteins. Sci Rep. 2021;11(1):7526. doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-86952-2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Yutani K, Matsuura Y, Naitow H, Joti Y. Ion-ion interactions in the denatured state contribute to the stabilization of CutA1 proteins. Sci Rep. 2018;8(1):7613. doi: 10.1038/s41598-018-25825-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Dong H, Mukaiyama A, Tadokoro T, Koga Y, Takano K, Kanaya S. Hydrophobic effect on the stability and folding of a hyperthermophilic protein. J Mol Biol. 2008;378(1):264–72. doi: 10.1016/j.jmb.2008.02.039 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Han M, Liao S, Peng X, Zhou X, Chen Q, Liu H. Selection and analyses of variants of a designed protein suggest importance of hydrophobicity of partially buried sidechains for protein stability at high temperatures. Protein Sci. 2019;28(8):1437–47. doi: 10.1002/pro.3643 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Sammond DW, Kastelowitz N, Himmel ME, Yin H, Crowley MF, Bomble YJ. Comparing Residue Clusters from Thermophilic and Mesophilic Enzymes Reveals Adaptive Mechanisms. PLoS One. 2016;11(1):e0145848. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0145848 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Kimura N, Mochizuki K, Umezawa K, Hecht MH, Arai R. Hyperstable De Novo Protein with a Dimeric Bisecting Topology. ACS Synth Biol. 2020;9(2):254–9. doi: 10.1021/acssynbio.9b00501 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Nagi AD, Regan L. An inverse correlation between loop length and stability in a four-helix-bundle protein. Fold Des. 1997;2(1):67–75. doi: 10.1016/S1359-0278(97)00007-2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Ang DL, Hoque MZ, Hossain MA, Guerriero G, Berni R, Hausman JF, et al. Computational Analysis of Thermal Adaptation in Extremophilic Chitinases: The Achilles’ Heel in Protein Structure and Industrial Utilization. Molecules. 2021;26(3). doi: 10.3390/molecules26030707 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Nakka M, Iyer RB, Bachas LG. Intersubunit disulfide interactions play a critical role in maintaining the thermostability of glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase from the hyperthermophilic bacterium Aquifex aeolicus. Protein J. 2006;25(1):17–21. doi: 10.1007/s10930-006-0015-3 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Pang J, Allemann RK. Molecular dynamics simulation of thermal unfolding of Thermatoga maritima DHFR. Phys Chem Chem Phys. 2007;9(6):711–8. doi: 10.1039/b611210b [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Liu Z, Lemmonds S, Huang J, Tyagi M, Hong L, Jain N. Entropic contribution to enhanced thermal stability in the thermostable P450 CYP119. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2018;115(43):E10049–e58. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1807473115 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Okafor CD, Pathak MC, Fagan CE, Bauer NC, Cole MF, Gaucher EA, et al. Structural and Dynamics Comparison of Thermostability in Ancient, Modern, and Consensus Elongation Factor Tus. Structure. 2018;26(1):118-29.e3. doi: 10.1016/j.str.2017.11.018 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Panja AS, Bandopadhyay B, Maiti S. Protein Thermostability Is Owing to Their Preferences to Non-Polar Smaller Volume Amino Acids, Variations in Residual Physico-Chemical Properties and More Salt-Bridges. PLoS One. 2015;10(7):e0131495. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0131495 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Akanuma S, Nakajima Y, Yokobori S, Kimura M, Nemoto N, Mase T, et al. Experimental evidence for the thermophilicity of ancestral life. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2013;110(27):11067–72. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1308215110 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Horton RM, Ho SN, Pullen JK, Hunt HD, Cai Z, Pease LR. Gene splicing by overlap extension. Methods Enzymol. 1993;217:270–9. doi: 10.1016/0076-6879(93)17067-f [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Pace CN, Vajdos F, Fee L, Grimsley G, Gray T. How to measure and predict the molar absorption coefficient of a protein. Protein Sci. 1995;4(11):2411–23. doi: 10.1002/pro.5560041120 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Gill SC, von Hippel PH. Calculation of protein extinction coefficients from amino acid sequence data. Anal Biochem. 1989;182(2):319–26. doi: 10.1016/0003-2697(89)90602-7 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Ulmer KM. Protein engineering. Science. 1983;219(4585):666–71. doi: 10.1126/science.6572017 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Bommarius AS, Paye MF. Stabilizing biocatalysts. Chem Soc Rev. 2013;42(15):6534–65. doi: 10.1039/c3cs60137d [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Arnold FH, Wintrode PL, Miyazaki K, Gershenson A. How enzymes adapt: lessons from directed evolution. Trends Biochem Sci. 2001;26(2):100–6. doi: 10.1016/s0968-0004(00)01755-2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Arnold FH, Volkov AA. Directed evolution of biocatalysts. Curr Opin Chem Biol. 1999;3(1):54–9. doi: 10.1016/s1367-5931(99)80010-6 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Wang M, Si T, Zhao H. Biocatalyst development by directed evolution. Bioresour Technol. 2012;115:117–25. doi: 10.1016/j.biortech.2012.01.054 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Steipe B. Consensus-based engineering of protein stability: from intrabodies to thermostable enzymes. Methods Enzymol. 2004;388:176–86. doi: 10.1016/S0076-6879(04)88016-9 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Porebski BT, Buckle AM. Consensus protein design. Protein Eng Des Sel. 2016;29(7):245–51. doi: 10.1093/protein/gzw015 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Sternke M, Tripp KW, Barrick D. The use of consensus sequence information to engineer stability and activity in proteins. Methods Enzymol. 2020;643:149–79. doi: 10.1016/bs.mie.2020.06.001 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Steipe B, Schiller B, Pluckthun A, Steinbacher S. Sequence statistics reliably predict stabilizing mutations in a protein domain. J Mol Biol. 1994;240(3):188–92. doi: 10.1006/jmbi.1994.1434 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Thornton JW. Resurrecting ancient genes: experimental analysis of extinct molecules. Nat Rev Genet. 2004;5(5):366–75. doi: 10.1038/nrg1324 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Gaucher EA, Kratzer JT, Randall RN. Deep phylogeny—how a tree can help characterize early life on Earth. Cold Spring Harb Perspect Biol. 2010;2(1):a002238. doi: 10.1101/cshperspect.a002238 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Merkl R, Sterner R. Ancestral protein reconstruction: techniques and applications. Biol Chem. 2016;397(1):1–21. doi: 10.1515/hsz-2015-0158 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Akanuma S. Characterization of Reconstructed Ancestral Proteins Suggests a Change in Temperature of the Ancient Biosphere. Life. 2017;7(3). doi: 10.3390/life7030033 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Wheeler LC, Lim SA, Marqusee S, Harms MJ. The thermostability and specificity of ancient proteins. Curr Opin Struct Biol. 2016;38:37–43. doi: 10.1016/j.sbi.2016.05.015 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Akanuma S, Iwami S, Yokoi T, Nakamura N, Watanabe H, Yokobori S, et al. Phylogeny-based design of a B-subunit of DNA gyrase and its ATPase domain using a small set of homologous amino acid sequences. J Mol Biol. 2011;412(2):212–25. doi: 10.1016/j.jmb.2011.07.042 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Nikolova PV, Henckel J, Lane DP, Fersht AR. Semirational design of active tumor suppressor p53 DNA binding domain with enhanced stability. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1998;95(25):14675–80. doi: 10.1073/pnas.95.25.14675 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Lehmann M, Kostrewa D, Wyss M, Brugger R, D’Arcy A, Pasamontes L, et al. From DNA sequence to improved functionality: using protein sequence comparisons to rapidly design a thermostable consensus phytase. Protein Eng. 2000;13(1):49–57. doi: 10.1093/protein/13.1.49 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Bloom JD, Glassman MJ. Inferring stabilizing mutations from protein phylogenies: application to influenza hemagglutinin. PLoS Comput Biol. 2009;5(4):e1000349. doi: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1000349 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Jäckel C, Bloom JD, Kast P, Arnold FH, Hilvert D. Consensus protein design without phylogenetic bias. J Mol Biol. 2010;399(4):541–6. doi: 10.1016/j.jmb.2010.04.039 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Gaucher EA, Thomson JM, Burgan MF, Benner SA. Inferring the palaeoenvironment of ancient bacteria on the basis of resurrected proteins. Nature. 2003;425(6955):285–8. doi: 10.1038/nature01977 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Butzin NC, Lapierre P, Green AG, Swithers KS, Gogarten JP, Noll KM. Reconstructed ancestral Myo-inositol-3-phosphate synthases indicate that ancestors of the Thermococcales and Thermotoga species were more thermophilic than their descendants. PLoS One. 2013;8(12):e84300. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0084300 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Akanuma S, Yokobori S, Nakajima Y, Bessho M, Yamagishi A. Robustness of predictions of extremely thermally stable proteins in ancient organisms. Evolution. 2015;69(11):2954–62. doi: 10.1111/evo.12779 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Busch F, Rajendran C, Heyn K, Schlee S, Merkl R, Sterner R. Ancestral Tryptophan Synthase Reveals Functional Sophistication of Primordial Enzyme Complexes. Cell Chem Biol. 2016;23(6):709–15. doi: 10.1016/j.chembiol.2016.05.009 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Finch AJ, Kim JR. Thermophilic Proteins as Versatile Scaffolds for Protein Engineering. Microorganisms. 2018;6(4). doi: 10.3390/microorganisms6040097 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Trudeau DL, Tawfik DS. Protein engineers turned evolutionists-the quest for the optimal starting point. Curr Opin Biotechnol. 2019;60:46–52. doi: 10.1016/j.copbio.2018.12.002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Kotsuka T, Akanuma S, Tomuro M, Yamagishi A, Oshima T. Further stabilization of 3-isopropylmalate dehydrogenase of an extreme thermophile, Thermus thermophilus, by a suppressor mutation method. J Bacteriol. 1996;178(3):723–7. doi: 10.1128/jb.178.3.723-727.1996 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Cheung YY, Lam SY, Chu WK, Allen MD, Bycroft M, Wong KB. Crystal structure of a hyperthermophilic archaeal acylphosphatase from Pyrococcus horikoshii—structural insights into enzymatic catalysis, thermostability, and dimerization. Biochemistry. 2005;44(12):4601–11. doi: 10.1021/bi047832k [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Karlström M, Stokke R, Steen IH, Birkeland NK, Ladenstein R. Isocitrate dehydrogenase from the hyperthermophile Aeropyrum pernix: X-ray structure analysis of a ternary enzyme-substrate complex and thermal stability. J Mol Biol. 2005;345(3):559–77. doi: 10.1016/j.jmb.2004.10.025 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Jurrus E, Engel D, Star K, Monson K, Brandi J, Felberg LE, et al. Improvements to the APBS biomolecular solvation software suite. Protein Sci. 2018;27(1):112–28. doi: 10.1002/pro.3280 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Gromiha MM, Pathak MC, Saraboji K, Ortlund EA, Gaucher EA. Hydrophobic environment is a key factor for the stability of thermophilic proteins. Proteins. 2013;81(4):715–21. doi: 10.1002/prot.24232 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Font J, Benito A, Torrent J, Lange R, Ribó M, Vilanova M. Pressure- and temperature-induced unfolding studies: thermodynamics of core hydrophobicity and packing of ribonuclease A. Biol Chem. 2006;387(3):285–96. doi: 10.1515/BC.2006.038 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Pace CN, Scholtz JM. A helix propensity scale based on experimental studies of peptides and proteins. Biophys J. 1998;75(1):422–7. doi: 10.1016/s0006-3495(98)77529-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Matthews BW, Nicholson H, Becktel WJ. Enhanced protein thermostability from site-directed mutations that decrease the entropy of unfolding. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1987;84(19):6663–7. doi: 10.1073/pnas.84.19.6663 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Kheirollahi A, Khajeh K, Golestani A. Rigidifying flexible sites: An approach to improve stability of chondroitinase ABC I. Int J Biol Macromol. 2017;97:270–8. doi: 10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2017.01.027 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Takano K, Higashi R, Okada J, Mukaiyama A, Tadokoro T, Koga Y, et al. Proline effect on the thermostability and slow unfolding of a hyperthermophilic protein. J Biochem. 2009;145(1):79–85. doi: 10.1093/jb/mvn144 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Eugene A Permyakov

5 Aug 2021

PONE-D-21-21944

Comprehensive mutagenesis to identify amino acid residues contributing to the difference in thermostability between two originally thermostable ancestral proteins

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Akanuma,

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

==============================

ACADEMIC EDITOR: Would you like to answer reviewers' questions and try to correct your manuscript according to their serious criticism.

==============================

Please submit your revised manuscript by Sep 19 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Eugene A. Permyakov, Ph.D., Dr.Sci.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

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

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

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Thank you for stating in your Funding Statement: 

"This work was partly supported by JSPS KAKENHI (Grant Number 19K21903) to SA. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript."

Please provide an amended statement that declares *all* the funding or sources of support (whether external or internal to your organization) received during this study, as detailed online in our guide for authors at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submit-now.  Please also include the statement “There was no additional external funding received for this study.” in your updated Funding Statement. 

Please include your amended Funding Statement within your cover letter. We will change the online submission form on your behalf.

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

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

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

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

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Partly

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

Reviewer #1: N/A

Reviewer #2: No

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

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

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

5. Review Comments to the Author

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

Reviewer #1: Comprehensive mutagenesis to identify amino acid residues contributing to the difference in thermostability between two originally thermostable ancestral proteins

The paper explains an effort to modify a thermostable protein Bac1 to hyperthermostable one following some amino acid sequence pattern of one naturally hyperthermostable Arc1 sequence.

No doubt the application of this work is important. But the way the investigation is done is inadequate. The methodology section is insufficient. The database id of different gene or the proteins are missing. The description of the organism, strain etc is not sufficient.

The protocol of this investigation is the several point mutations, but that information like primers and PCR protocol is not there.

Proteins structural validity studies its different energetic value, Ramachandran plot data are missing.

The possible mechanisms of thermostability or hyperstability factors are not clearly discussed.

What is the basis to test only at pH 6 or 7.6? why not 7? If 6 is chosen then why not 8?

Thermal stability increased for all the isolates from pH 6 to pH7.6 except Arc1, add an explanation. I am curious to see one more alkaline pH.

Though hyperthermostable, the Km of Arc1 is very high than Bac1 that suggests its less efficiency.

How the structural superimposition was done?

In fig. S3 not too much change is noticed.

The objective of the work is important and could be useful after these modifications.

Reviewer #2: The authors have presented a comprehensive mutational study on two similar nucleoside diphosphate kinases (NDK), aiming at understanding the role of specific amino acid residues in their extreme thermal stability. They have constructed a comprehensive range of mutant enzymes and studied their thermal stability and enzymatic activity.

The data related to the melting temperature (Tm) of different mutants raises few, if any, questions. However, when the authors turn to enzyme kinetics and its interpretation, they open a whole big can of worms.

For starters, a correct interpretation of the kinetics results requires answering the following questions:

1. How the enzyme activity depends on the oligomeric state of the NDK’s. Is an isolated subunit catalytically active?

2. How the oligomeric state of the enzymes depends on the temperature?

3. What is the temperature optimum for each studied mutant? In the current study the authors have uniformly measured the kinetics at 70C for all. However, if the enzymes’ temperature optimum varies as greatly as Tm, these results cannot be compared in a meaningful way. This point also highlights issues with the experiment planning. I would suggest that the kinetics measurements to be repeated at Topt for each enzyme variant.

Unfortunately, due to the points above, the kinetics part of the study warrants a significant review (probably involving re-planning and re-doing the kinetics). Other remarks are given below.

Major comments

1. What’s the reason to have two pH for the study, 6.0 and 7.6?

2. Ln. 169. Since S108D is one of the important mutations, it would be worth to show a structural fragment of the enzyme with possible interactions for the aspartate.

3. Kinetics discussion: the overall enzyme efficiency is customarily expressed as kcat/Km. Then Fig. 3 could be condensed into a single plate showing bars for kcat/Km only; individual data for kcat and Km must be presented in a table.

4. Ln. 290-291: related to the issues above: in a currently presented form it’s not clear if these intersubunit contacts are important, since the authors don’t know if the melting starts in the aggregated or dissociated protein.

5. The original numerical data for Tm, kcat, Km must be tabulated (at least in supplements). The bar charts should have grid lines for easier referencing. Also, it’s better to combine uniform data on one plot for easier comparison (e.g. Fig. 2 could be combined into a single plate).

6. For the double, triple, mu9 mutants (Fig 4) — it would be beneficial to have measured their kinetics too, at optimal temperature.

Minor and technical comments

7. All non-standard abbreviations must be introduced (e.g. KOD, ln. 89; LB, ln. 100 etc.)

8. Ln. 155-159: This is a standard notation for mutants, no need to dedicate that much space for its description.

9. Ln. 177-178: “better” is not the best word to use in this instance.

10. Ln. 190, 191 and elsewhere: “Ser108�Asp” — I suggest to the authors to stick to uniform standard notation for the substitutions like “S108D”.

11. Ln. 298, 300 — this is “electrostatic potential”, not electronic. Fig. 7 title — a proper reference for APBS must be given, this is a major computational package, not just a “plugin”.

12. Fig. 4 needs a legend.

13. Fig. S1, S2 better be overlaid for easier comparison.

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

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes: Smarajit Maiti

Reviewer #2: No

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

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

PLoS One. 2021 Oct 21;16(10):e0258821. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0258821.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


5 Oct 2021

Dr. Eugene A. Permyakov

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Permyakov,

We thank the referees very much for their valuable comments. Basically, we have incorporated all the suggestions from the reviewers into our revised manuscript. The changes that we have made in response to their comments follow with the associated page and line numbers of our revisions in parentheses. In our revised text, the changes are shown in blue.

Responses to Reviewer #1

1) The database id of different gene or the proteins are missing. The description of the organism, strain etc is not sufficient.

In response to the reviewer’s comment, we added the accession numbers and strain names into Table 1. For the two ancestral proteins, their PDB codes were provided in the original manuscript.

2) The protocol of this investigation is the several point mutations, but that information like primers and PCR protocol is not there.

According to the reviewer’s suggestion, the sequences of mutagenic primers used in this study are now listed in S1 Table. The sequences of the universal primers are given in the revised text (p. 5 lines 94 - 95). The protocol for the site-directed mutagenesis was also added to the Materials and methods (p. 5 lines 93 - 103, lines 107 - 108).

3) Proteins structural validity studies its different energetic value, Ramachandran plot data are missing.

According to the reviewer’s suggestion, Ramachandran plots for Arc1 (PDB code: 3vvt) and Bac1 (PDB code: 3vvu) were newly produced and provided as S1 Fig. Related descriptions were added to the Introduction (p. 3 line 65 - p. 4 line 67).

4) The possible mechanisms of thermostability or hyperstability factors are not clearly discussed.

We have already discussed the structural basis for the unusually high thermal stabilities of Arc1 and Bac1 in our previous article (Akanuma et al., PNAS 2013, doi: 10.1073/pnas.1308215110). In that article, we pointed out that reduced non-polar accessible surface areas, and increased numbers of inter-subunit ion pairs and hydrogen bonds likely contribute to their high thermal stabilities. Relevant sentences were added to the Introduction (p. 4 lines 70 - 74).

5) What is the basis to test only at pH 6 or 7.6? why not 7? If 6 is chosen then why not 8?

We first conducted the unfolding experiments at pH 6.0 and pH 8.0. However, some mutants showed atypical unfolding curves at pH 8.0 although all of the proteins showed cooperative two-state transitions at pH 6.0. Therefore, we also conducted the unfolding experiments at pH 7.6. In response to the reviewer’s comment, we provided the unfolding data at pH 8.0 in the revised manuscript. In addition, we conducted new unfolding experiments at pH 7.0, and modified Fig 2, Fig 4, S2 Fig (original S1 and S2 Figs) and S5 Fig (original S3 Fig). We also newly created S3 Fig. Related sentences were added to the revised text (p. 8 lines 174 - 185; p. 9 lines 186 - 189; p. 10 lines 220 -227; p. 11 lines 251 - 257; p. 12 lines 263 - 264; p. 12 lines 277 - 281).

6) Thermal stability increased for all the isolates from pH 6 to pH7.6 except Arc1, add an explanation. I am curious to see one more alkaline pH.

According to the reviewer’s suggestion, we added a discussion that may explain the difference in the pH dependence of thermostability among the proteins (p. 14 lines 321 - 332). As mentioned in response 5), we provided the unfolding data at pH 8.0 in the revised manuscript.

6) Though hyperthermostable, the Km of Arc1 is very high than Bac1 that suggests its less efficiency.

As Reviewer #1 pointed out, more thermostable enzymes typically have smaller Km values at a given temperature than their less stable homologues. However, as Reviewer #2 commented, the overall enzyme efficiency is customarily expressed as kcat/Km and the kcat/Km value (4.1 µM-1 s-1) of Arc1 was two times better than that of Bac1 (2.0 µM-1 s-1). A related description was added (p. 9 lines 201 - 207).

7) How the structural superimposition was done?

Superposition of the structure of Arc1 upon that of Bac1 and calculation of the root mean square deviation of alpha carbons were performed using PDBeFold ver. 2.59 (https://www.ebi.ac.uk/msd-srv/ssm/). Related sentences are found in the text (p. 4 line 67 - 70) and the legend to Fig. 1b (p. 29 lines 667 - 668).

8) In fig. S3 not too much change is noticed.

Although the original S3 Fig represented the unfolding curves produced at pH 7.6, the newly created S5 Fig (original S3 Fig) represents the unfolding curves at pH 7.0. Related sentences were added to the revised text (p. 11 lines 251 - 257)

Responses to Reviewer #2

9) How the enzyme activity depends on the oligomeric state of the NDK’s. Is an isolated subunit catalytically active?

Since we have not been able to isolate the protein into protomers, the effect of protein hexamerization on enzyme activity has not been fully investigated. However, the active site of each protomer is spatially completely independent, and no allosteric effect was observed. Also, since the NDKs of some organisms (e.g., NDKs from E. coli) exist in a tetrameric form, it seems that hexamerization is not essential for activity. In addition, there was no increase in the denaturation temperature when the protein concentration was increased, suggesting that the inter-subunit interactions are very stable and that dissociation of the hexamer upon thermal denaturation does not occur. Moreover, heat treatment of Arc1, Bac1 and mutants at 100°C for 3 min in the presence of 2% SDS followed by SDS-PAGE revealed a band at a molecular weight corresponding to the hexamer (therefore, we also added 4 M urea to the protein solutions and then heat treated for 10 min prior to SDS-PAGE). Accordingly, the hexameric structures of the ancestral NDKs and the mutants must have been maintained under the activity measurement conditions. Related sentences were added to the Results (p. 9 lines 197 - 201).

10) How the oligomeric state of the enzymes depends on the temperature?

As mentioned above, the thermal stabilities of the proteins are independent of protein concentration. Therefore, the hexameric states are always maintained even at unfolding temperatures. A comparison of the denaturation curves at two different concentrations of Bac1 was provided in S6 Fig. Related sentences were added to the Discussion (p. 15 line 350 - p. 16 line 358).

11) What is the temperature optimum for each studied mutant? In the current study the authors have uniformly measured the kinetics at 70C for all. However, if the enzymes’ temperature optimum varies as greatly as Tm, these results cannot be compared in a meaningful way. This point also highlights issues with the experiment planning. I would suggest that the kinetics measurements to be repeated at Topt for each enzyme variant.

We had known that both Arc1 and Bac1 had the highest specific activity at 70℃ under the conditions employed here. Therefore, it is reasonable to expect that the other Bac1 mutants will also show the highest activity at 70°C under these conditions. Therefore, kinetics analyses were always performed at 70°C. Related sentences were added to the Results (p. 9 lines 192 - 197)

12) What’s the reason to have two pH for the study, 6.0 and 7.6?

Please see our response to comment 5) from Reviewer #1, which addresses this comment.

13) Ln. 169. Since S108D is one of the important mutations, it would be worth to show a structural fragment of the enzyme with possible interactions for the aspartate.

Fig 6a illustrates the structural fragment of the enzyme with possible interactions for the aspartate. The ion pair between Asp108 and Lys78 in an adjacent subunit is the only possible electrostatic interaction involving the negative charge of the side chain of Asp108 (p. 15 lines 341 - 342).

14) Kinetics discussion: the overall enzyme efficiency is customarily expressed as kcat/Km. Then Fig. 3 could be condensed into a single plate showing bars for kcat/Km only; individual data for kcat and Km must be presented in a table.

According to the reviewer’s suggestion, we modified Fig 3 to show the bars for kcat/Km values. The individual values for kcat and Km are listed in S2 Table. Related sentences were modified (p. 9 line 204 – p. 10 line 211).

15) Ln. 290-291: related to the issues above: in a currently presented form it’s not clear if these intersubunit contacts are important, since the authors don’t know if the melting starts in the aggregated or dissociated protein.

As mentioned above, it is likely that the unfolding started in the hexameric state and dissociation of subunits did not occur upon thermal unfolding. Nevertheless, it is possible that the inter-subunit ion pair between Asp108 and Lys78 in an adjacent subunit contributes to the increased stability of the S108D mutants. Related discussion was added to the revised text (p. 15 line 350 – p. 16 line 358).

16) The original numerical data for Tm, kcat, Km must be tabulated (at least in supplements). The bar charts should have grid lines for easier referencing. Also, it’s better to combine uniform data on one plot for easier comparison (e.g. Fig. 2 could be combined into a single plate).

According to the reviewer’s suggestion, the numerical data for Tm, kcat and Km are tabulated in S2 Table. Grid lines were added to Figs 2 and 3. Fig 2 was modified according to the reviewer’s suggestion.

17) For the double, triple, mu9 mutants (Fig 4) — it would be beneficial to have measured their kinetics too, at optimal temperature.

According to the reviewer’s suggestion, the kinetic parameters for S108D/G116A, S108D/G116A/L120P and Bac1-mu9 were newly determined (S2 Table). Related sentences were added to the revised text (p. 10 line 235 – p. 11 line 240; p. 12 line 282 – p. 13 line 285).

Minor and technical comments

18) All non-standard abbreviations must be introduced (e.g. KOD, ln. 89; LB, ln. 100 etc.)

KOD is the official product name, not an abbreviation. As for LB and ABPS, their full names were added at the first appearance as suggested by the reviewer.

19) Ln. 155-159: This is a standard notation for mutants, no need to dedicate that much space for its description.

According to the suggestion, the relevant sentences were deleted.

20) Ln. 177-178: “better” is not the best word to use in this instance.

The entire sentence containing the relevant word was modified (p. 9 lines 203 - 204).

21) Ln. 190, 191 and elsewhere: “Ser108�Asp” — I suggest to the authors to stick to uniform standard notation for the substitutions like “S108D”.

As suggested by the reviewer, we changed the notations of amino acid substitutions throughout the manuscript.

22) Ln. 298, 300 — this is “electrostatic potential”, not electronic. Fig. 7 title — a proper reference for APBS must be given, this is a major computational package, not just a “plugin”.

As pointed out by the reviewer, we corrected the phrase “electronic potential” to “electrostatic potential”. In addition, reference 54 was newly cited for APBS (p. 16 line 362).

23) Fig. 4 needs a legend.

The legend to Fig. 4 is in the original and revised manuscripts (p. 29 lines 680 - 685).

24) Fig. S1, S2 better be overlaid for easier comparison.

S2 Fig (originally S1 and S2 Figs) was modified as suggested.

In addition to the aforementioned changes, we have reconducted the temperature-induced unfolding experiment at pH 6.0 because we noticed that the original data might have been measured at around pH 6.3.

We think that our revised manuscript is much improved and hope that its content satisfies the reviewers and the editor.

Thank you in advance for your favorable consideration.

Sincerely yours,

Dr. Satoshi Akanuma

Faculty of Human Sciences,

Waseda University,

2-579-15 Mikajima, Tokorozawa,

Saitama 359-1192, Japan.

Phone: +81-4-2946-6727, Fax: +81-4-2947-6811

E-mail: akanuma@waseda.jp

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 1

Eugene A Permyakov

6 Oct 2021

Comprehensive mutagenesis to identify amino acid residues contributing to the difference in thermostability between two originally thermostable ancestral proteins

PONE-D-21-21944R1

Dear Dr. Satoshi Akanuma,

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

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

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

Kind regards,

Eugene A. Permyakov, Ph.D., Dr.Sci.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

Eugene A Permyakov

12 Oct 2021

PONE-D-21-21944R1

Comprehensive mutagenesis to identify amino acid residues contributing to the difference in thermostability between two originally thermostable ancestral proteins

Dear Dr. Akanuma:

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

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

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Prof. Eugene A. Permyakov

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

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

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Fig. Ramachandran plots for the dimeric structures of Arc1 (PDB ID: 3VVT) and Bac1 (PDB ID: 3VVU) computed by the PROCHECK module of SAVES (https://saves.mbi.ucla.edu/).

    The most favored regions are represented by red; additional allowed regions are represented by yellow; generously allowed regions are represented by light yellow; disallowed regions are represented by white. Glycine residues are shown as triangles and the other residues are shown as squares. In each plot, only Val113 exists in disallowed regions.

    (TIF)

    S2 Fig. Temperature-induced unfolding curves of Arc1, Bac1 and its mutants at pH 6.0, pH 7.0, pH 7.6 and pH 8.0.

    The change in ellipticity at 222 nm was monitored as a function of temperature. The scan rate was 1.0°C/min. The samples comprised 20 μM protein in 20 mM potassium phosphate, 50 mM KCl, 0.5 mM EDTA. The plots were normalized with respect to the baseline of the native and unfolded states. Orange filled circles, Arc1; green filled circles, Bac1; cyan open circles, F30L; blue open circles, L37M; yellow open circles, Q42R; brown filled circles, L44M; black filled circles, G60A; magenta open circles, F64Y; gray filled circles, V80A; cyan filled circles, I88V; yellow filled circles, M107L; magenta filled circles, S108D; blue, G116A; purple filled circles, L120P.

    (TIF)

    S3 Fig. Atypical unfolding curves observed for G60A, S108D, S108D/G116A and S108D/G116A/L120P at pH 8.0.

    The raw data for the change in ellipticity at 222 nm are presented as a function of temperature. The scan rate was 1.0°C/min. The samples comprised 20 μM protein in 20 mM potassium phosphate (pH 8.0), 50 mM KCl, 0.5 mM EDTA.

    (TIF)

    S4 Fig. Temperature dependence of the specific activities of Arc1 and Bac1.

    The specific activities were measured using a reaction mixture consisting of 50 mM HEPES (pH 8.0), 25 mM KCl, 10 mM (NH4)2SO4, 2.0 mM Mg(CH3COO)2, 1.0 mM dithiothreitol, 1.0 mM ADP and 2.5 mM GTP. One enzyme unit equaled 1 μmol ATP formed per min. Each value is the average of at least three replicas.

    (TIF)

    S5 Fig. Temperature-induced unfolding curves of Bac1 mutants with single or multiple amino acid substitution(s).

    The change in ellipticity at 222 nm was monitored as a function of temperature. The scan rate was 1.0°C/min. The samples comprised 20 μM protein in 20 mM potassium phosphate (pH 7.0), 50 mM KCl, 0.5 mM EDTA. The plots were normalized with respect to the baseline of the native and denatured states. Magenta, S108D; red, F30L/M107L/S108D; blue, G116A; cyan, I88V/G116A.

    (TIF)

    S6 Fig. Temperature-induced unfolding curves of Bac1 at two different protein concentrations.

    Bac1 was dissolved in 20 mM potassium phosphate, pH 7.0, 50 mM KCl, 1 mM EDTA. The protein concentration was 12 μM (light green) or 48 μM (dark green). The scan rate was 1.0°C/min. The plots were normalized with respect to the baseline of the native and denatured states.

    (TIF)

    S7 Fig. Multiple amino acid sequence alignment of eleven microbial NDKs.

    Positions corresponding to those at 108, 116 and 120 of the ancestral NDKs are indicated above the sequences. The sequences were aligned with MAFFT (https://mafft.cbrc.jp/alignment/server/) and visualized using ClustalX (http://www.clustal.org/clustal2/).

    (TIF)

    S1 Table. Mutagenic primers used in this study.

    (DOCX)

    S2 Table. The numerical data for Tm, Km, kcat and kcat/Km of Arc1, Bac1 and its mutants.

    (DOCX)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    Data Availability Statement

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


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES