Cytochrome <i>c</i> Peroxidase−Cytochrome <i>c</i> Complex: Locating the Second Binding Domain on Cytochrome <i>c</i> Peroxidase with Site-Directed Mutagenesis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cytochrome c peroxidase (CcP) can bind as many as two cytochrome c (Cc) molecules in an electrostatic complex. The location of the two binding domains on CcP has been probed by photoinduced interprotein electron transfer (ET) between zinc-substituted horse cytochrome c (ZnCc) and CcP with surface charge-reversal mutations and by isothermal titration calorimetry (ITC). These results, which are the first experimental evidence for the location of domain 2, indicate that the weak-binding domain includes residues 146-150 on CcP. CcP(E290K) has a charge-reversal mutation in the tight-binding domain, which should weaken binding, and it weakens the 1:1 complex; K(1) decreases 20-fold at 18 mM ionic strength. We have employed two mutations to probe the proposed location for the weak-binding domain on the CcP surface: (i) D148K, a "detrimental" mutation with a net (+2) change in the charge of CcP, and (ii) K149E, a "beneficial" mutation with a net (-2) change in the charge. The interactions between FeCc and CcP(WT and K149E) also have been studied with ITC. The CcP(D148K) mutation causes no substantial change in the 2:1 binding but an increase in the reactivity of the 2:1 complex. The latter can be interpreted as a long-range influence on the heme environment or, more likely, the enhancement of a minority subset of binding conformations with favorable pathways for ET. CcP(K149E) has a charge-reversal mutation in the weak-binding domain that produces a substantial increase in the 2:1 binding constant as measured by both quenching and ITC. For the 1:1 complex of CcP(WT), DeltaG(1) = -8.2 kcal/mol (K(1) = 1.3 x 10(6) M(-)(1)), DeltaH(1) = +2.7 kcal/mol, and DeltaS(1) = +37 cal/K.mol at 293 K; for the second binding stage, K(2) < 5 x 10(3) M(-)(1), but accurate thermodynamic parameters were not obtained. For the 1:1 complex of CcP(K149E), DeltaG(1) = -8.5 kcal/mol (K(1) = 2 x 10(6) M(-)(1)), DeltaH(1) = +2. 0 kcal/mol, and DeltaS(1) = +36 cal/K.mol; for the second stage, DeltaG(2) = -5.5 kcal/mol (K(1) = 1.3 x 10(4) M(-)(1)), DeltaH(2) = +2.9 kcal/mol, and DeltaS(2) = +29 cal/K.mol.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".