Conformational Coupling between the Cytoplasmic Carboxylic Acid and the Retinal in a Fungal Light-Driven Proton Pump
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many fungal rhodopsins, eukaryotic structural homologues of the archaeal light-driven proton pump bacteriorhodopsin, have been discovered in the course of genome sequencing projects. Recently, two fungal rhodopsins were characterized in vitro and exhibited very different photochemical behavior. Neurospora rhodopsin possesses a slow photocycle and shows no ion transport, reminiscent of sensory rhodopsins, while Leptosphaeria rhodopsin has a fast bacteriorhodopsin-like photocycle and pumps protons light-dependently. Such a dramatic difference is surprising considering the very high degree of sequence homology of the two proteins. In this paper, we investigate whether the chemical structure of a cytoplasmic carboxylic acid, the homologue of Asp-96 of bacteriorhodopsin serving as a proton donor for the retinal Schiff base, can define the photochemical properties of fungal rhodopsins. We studied mutants of Leptosphaeria rhodopsin in which this aspartic acid was replaced with Glu or Asn using spectroscopy in the infrared and visible ranges. We show that Glu at this position is inefficient as a proton donor similar to a nonprotonatable Asn. Moreover, this replacement induces long-range structural perturbations of the retinal environment, as evidenced by changes in the vibrational bands of retinal (especially, hydrogen-out-of-plane modes) and neighboring aspartic acids and water molecules. The conformational coupling of the mutation site to the retinal may be mediated by helical rearrangements as suggested by the changes in amide and proline vibrational bands. We conclude that the difference in the photochemical behavior of fungal rhodopsins from Leptosphaeria and Neurospora may be ascribed, to some extent, to the replacement of the cytoplasmic proton donor Asp with Glu.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".