research communications
Structure of a catalytic dimer of the α- and β-subunits of the F-ATPase from Paracoccus denitrificans at 2.3 Å resolution
aThe Medical Research Council Mitochondrial Biology Unit, Cambridge Biomedical Campus, Hills Road, Cambridge CB2 0XY, England, bThe Medical Research Council Laboratory of Molecular Biology, Cambridge Biomedical Campus, Francis Crick Avenue, Cambridge CB2 0QH, England, and cDepartmento de Biología, Facultad Química, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Mexico City, Mexico
*Correspondence e-mail: walker@mrc-mbu.cam.ac.uk
The structures of F-ATPases have predominantly been determined from mitochondrial enzymes, and those of the enzymes in eubacteria have been less studied. Paracoccus denitrificans is a member of the α-proteobacteria and is related to the extinct protomitochondrion that became engulfed by the ancestor of eukaryotic cells. The P. denitrificans F-ATPase is an example of a eubacterial F-ATPase that can carry out ATP synthesis only, whereas many others can catalyse both the synthesis and the hydrolysis of ATP. Inhibition of the ATP hydrolytic activity of the P. denitrificans F-ATPase involves the ζ inhibitor protein, an α-helical protein that binds to the catalytic F1 domain of the enzyme. This domain is a complex of three α-subunits and three β-subunits, and one copy of each of the γ-, δ- and ∊-subunits. Attempts to crystallize the F1–ζ inhibitor complex yielded crystals of a subcomplex of the containing the α- and β-subunits only. Its structure was determined to 2.3 Å resolution and consists of a heterodimer of one α-subunit and one β-subunit. It has no bound and it corresponds to the `open' or `empty' catalytic interface found in other F-ATPases. The main significance of this structure is that it aids in the determination of the structure of the intact membrane-bound F-ATPase, which has been crystallized.
Keywords: α-proteobacteria; Paracoccus denitrificans; F-ATPase; structure; catalytic αβ dimer.
1. Introduction
The structures and mechanisms of F-ATPases from eubacteria, chloroplasts and mitochondria have many common features in their structures and mechanisms. Our current knowledge of how they function by a rotary mechanism is based largely on the knowledge of the structures of mostly mitochondrial enzymes (Walker, 2013; Robinson et al., 2013; Bason et al., 2014, 2015) and `single-molecule' experiments conducted almost entirely on enzymes from Escherichia coli and Bacillus stearothermophilus (or Geobacillus stearothermophilus) strain PS3 (Watanabe & Noji, 2013). For example, more than 25 high-resolution structures of the F1 from bovine mitochondria with bound substrates, substrate analogues and inhibitors have been described (Walker, 2013; Robinson et al., 2013; Bason et al., 2014, 2015). In contrast, there are two structures of the F1 of the E. coli enzyme (Cingolani & Duncan, 2011; Roy et al., 2012) and one of the same domain of the enzyme from B. stearothermophilus (Shirakihara et al., 2015), and another of the α3β3 subcomplex derived from the F1 domain (Shirakihara et al., 1997), plus a structure of F1-ATPase from Caldalkalibacillus thermarum (Stocker et al., 2007). In addition, the structures of c-rings from the rotors of several eubacterial species have been determined at high resolution in isolation from the rest of the complex (Meier et al., 2005; Pogoryelov et al., 2009; Preiss et al., 2013, 2014; Matthies et al., 2014). There is also fragmentary structural information concerning the peripheral stalk region of the F-ATPase from E. coli determined by nuclear magnetic resonance in solution, the N-terminal domain of the δ-subunit and its mode of interaction with the N-terminal region of an α-subunit (Wilkens et al., 2005), and for segments of the β-subunit (Dmitriev et al., 1999; Del Rizzo et al., 2002; Priya et al., 2009). Part of the reason for this relative dearth of structural information on the of bacterial F-ATPases is that the F1 domain of the enzyme from E. coli, for example, is rather unstable under the conditions that have been employed for crystallizing mitochondrial enzymes. Also, there is no generic method for purifying eubacterial F-ATPases, whereas it has been demonstrated that mitochondrial enzymes can be purified from a wide range of species by with the inhibitory region of bovine IF1, the protein inhibitor of the bovine mitochondrial F-ATPase (Runswick et al., 2013; Walpole et al., 2015; Liu et al., 2015). Therefore, we have decided to explore the possibility of developing the F-ATPase from Paracoccus denitrificans as a subject for structural analysis. P. denitrificans is a member of the bacterial class α-proteobacteria in the phylum Proteobacteria. The class includes the extinct protomitochondrion that became engulfed by the ancestor of eukaryotic cells, and the respiratory chain of P. denitrificans has been recognized as being especially similar to respiratory chains in mitochondria (John & Whatley, 1975).
Some eubacterial F-ATPases, exemplified by those from E. coli and B. stearothermophilus, can synthesize ATP from ADP and phosphate using the transmembrane proton motive force as a source of energy, and under anaerobic conditions can operate in reverse and use the energy released by the hydrolysis of ATP made by glycolysis to generate a transmembrane proton motive force. Other eubacterial F-ATPases, exemplified by those from C. thermarum (Cook et al., 2003) and P. denitrificans (Zharova & Vinogradov, 2012), can synthesize ATP in the presence of a proton motive force, but their ATP hydrolase activity is inhibited in its absence (Pacheco-Moisés et al., 2000, 2002). The mechanism of inhibition in C. thermarum is not understood, but in P. denitrificans and other α-proteobacteria the inhibition of ATP hydrolysis involves an inhibitor protein known as the ζ inhibitor protein (Morales-Ríos et al., 2010). This inhibitor protein has not been detected in other classes of bacteria. The structure of the free ζ inhibitor is known from studies employing nuclear magnetic resonance in solution (Serrano et al., 2014). It binds to the F1 of the F-ATPase and can be cross-linked covalently to the α-, β-, γ- and ∊-subunits (Zarco-Zavala et al., 2014). However, the cross-linked residues were not identified, and its mode of interaction with this domain is not known.
Therefore, we have purified the F1-ATPase from P. denitrificans with the ζ inhibitor protein bound to it, and a second complex devoid of the ∊-subunit, known as F1–ζ and F1Δ∊–ζ, respectively. As in other species where the subunit composition of the F1 domain has been established experimentally, the F1 domain in P. denitrificans is probably an assembly of three α-subunits and three β-subunits, where the catalytic sites are found, plus one copy of each of the γ-, δ- and ∊-subunits, with the γ- and ∊-subunits forming the central rotor of the enzyme penetrating along the central axis of the α3β3 domain, and the δ-subunit, a residual component of the peripheral stalk in the intact F-ATPase, sitting `on top' of the α3β3 domain. In the bovine F1-ATPase, for example, the three catalytic sites are found at three of the six interfaces between α- and β-subunits, known as the `catalytic interfaces'. The asymmetry of the central stalk imposes different conformations on the three catalytic sites. In a ground-state structure of the (Abrahams et al., 1994; Bowler et al., 2007), two of them, the βDP and the βTP sites, have similar, but significantly different, closed conformations. Both bind but catalysis occurs at the βDP site. The third, or βE, site has a different open conformation with low nucleotide affinity. These three catalytic conformations correspond to `tight', `loose' and `open' states in a binding-change mechanism of ATP hydrolysis and synthesis (Boyer, 1993).
As described here, we have attempted to crystallize the F1–ζ and F1Δ∊–ζ complexes. Crystals were obtained for the F1Δ∊–ζ complex, but none were obtained for the F1–ζ complex. However, as described below, the crystals with F1Δ∊–ζ as the starting material were found to contain a heterodimer of one α-subunit and one β-subunit, which had formed by dissociation of the complex under the conditions of crystallization. This heterodimer has no bound nucleotide, and it represents the `open' or `empty' βE catalytic interface of the intact F-ATPase.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Protein methods
The protein compositions of various samples were analysed by SDS–PAGE in 12–22% polyacrylamide gradient gels (Laemmli, 1970). Proteins were stained with 0.2% Coomassie Blue dye or with silver. Protein concentrations were measured by the bicinchoninic acid method (Life Technologies, Paisley, Scotland). The latent ATP hydrolase activities of the F1-ATPase and of the enzyme lacking the ∊-subunit (F1Δ∊) from P. denitrificans were activated with 0.1% lauryldimethylamine oxide (LDAO) and 4 mM sodium sulfite, and their activities were measured by coupling them to the oxidation of NADH monitored using the absorbance of ultraviolet light at 340 nm (Pullman et al., 1960).
2.2. Cell growth
A starter culture of P. denitrificans (strain PD1222, Rifr, Sper, enhanced conjugation frequencies, m+, or host-specific modification) was grown at 30°C for 18 h in 1 l Luria–Bertani medium (Miller, 1987) containing 100 µg ml−1 spectinomycin. It was inoculated into 70 l succinate medium consisting of 1%(w/v) sodium succinate, 50 mM disodium hydrogen phosphate, 1.25 mM magnesium chloride, 1 mM citric acid, 100 µM calcium chloride, 90 µM ferric chloride, 50 µM manganese chloride, 25 µM zinc chloride, 10 µM cobalt chloride and 10 µM boric acid. The culture was grown at 30°C for 16 h in an Applikon ADI 1075 fermenter (100 l maximum capacity). The yield of wet cells was 2 kg. Inside-out vesicles were prepared by osmotic shock (Pacheco-Moisés et al., 2000).
2.3. Purification of the complex of the F1-ATPase and the ζ inhibitor protein from P. denitrificans
Using modification of an earlier method (Morales-Ríos et al., 2010), the F1–ζ inhibitor complex was released from a suspension of membranes from P. denitrificans (30 ml) by the addition of chloroform (15 ml). The two phases were mixed for 30 s and then centrifuged (2939g, 25°C). The upper aqueous phase was centrifuged again (50 min, 224 468g, 4°C), and the supernatant was applied to a HiTrap Q HP column (5 ml; GE Healthcare) equilibrated with purification buffer consisting of 50 mM Tris–HCl pH 7.5, 10%(v/v) glycerol, 0.5 mM ATP, 2 mM MgCl2 and protease-inhibitor tablets (cOmplete, EDTA-free; Roche; one tablet per 100 ml). The column was eluted with buffer containing a gradient of sodium chloride with steps of 50, 100, 150, 200, 225, 250, 275, 300 and 325 mM. The fractions (15 ml) were analysed by SDS–PAGE, and those containing the purest enzyme–inhibitor complex were pooled and concentrated (final volume 500 µl; protein concentration 15 mg ml−1) with a Vivaspin ultrafiltration concentrator (molecular-weight cutoff 50 kDa; 2939g, 15°C). The two separate concentrates of the F1–ζ and the F1Δ∊–ζ complexes (see below) were applied individually to a column of Superdex 200 (10 × 300 mm; GE Healthcare) equilibrated with purification buffer and eluted at a flow rate of 0.5 ml min−1. The peak fractions (3 ml) were pooled and concentrated as above (final volume 150 µl; protein concentration 10 ml min−1).
2.4. Crystallization of the catalytic dimer of α- and β-subunits of the F-ATPase from P. denitrificans
The crystals were grown at 25°C by the microbatch method under oil in 72-well Nunc plates. Drops (2 µl) were formed by mixing the solution of purified F1Δ∊–ζ (protein concentration 10 ml min−1) with an equal volume of buffer consisting of 50 mM Tris–HCl pH 7.8, 12%(w/v) polyethylene glycol 10 000, 1%(w/v) cadaverine, 10%(v/v) glycerol, 1 mM ATP. They were harvested with micro-mounts (MiTeGen) and vitrified in liquid nitrogen in the presence of cryoprotection buffer consisting of 25 mM Tris–HCl pH 7.8, 15%(v/v) glycerol, 10%(w/v) polyethylene glycol 10 000, 1%(w/v) cadaverine. 25 crystals were washed three times in buffer with the same composition as the mother liquor and analyzed by SDS–PAGE. Similar, but unsuccessful, attempts were made to grow crystals of F1–ζ.
2.5. Data collection, structure solution and refinement
X-ray diffraction data were collected from the cooled cryoprotected crystals using a Pilatus 6M-F detector (Dectris) on beamline I03 (wavelength 0.9763 Å; beam size 90 × 35 µm) at the Diamond Light Source, Harwell, Oxfordshire, England. The data were processed with programs from the CCP4 suite (Winn et al., 2011). Diffraction images were integrated with iMosflm (Battye et al., 2011) and the data were reduced with AIMLESS (Evans & Murshudov, 2013). was carried out with Phaser (McCoy et al., 2007) with the αE- and βE-subunits of the currently most accurate structure of bovine F1-ATPase (Bowler et al., 2007; PDB entry 2jdi ) as a template. The model was built with Coot (Emsley et al., 2010) and refined with REFMAC5 (Murshudov et al., 2011). The stereochemistry of the model following each round of was assessed with Coot and MolProbity (Chen et al., 2010). Figures were made with PyMOL (Schrödinger).
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Characterization of the complex of the F1-ATPase and the ζ inhibitor protein from P. denitrificans
Three peaks (j, k and l in Fig. 1a) containing subunits of the P. denitrificans F1-ATPase complex were eluted from the Q Sepharose column. Analysis by SDS–PAGE revealed that peak j contained a complex of the α-, β-, γ- and δ-subunits from the F1 domain of the F-ATPase plus the ζ inhibitor protein (the F1Δ∊–ζ complex), and the two subsequent peaks k and l contained a complex of the intact F1-ATPase with the ζ protein (the F1–ζ complex). The ATP hydrolase activities of the F1–ζ and F1Δ∊–ζ complexes were 0.01 ± 0.002 and 0.02 ± 0.001 U per milligram of protein, respectively, and after relief of the inhibitory activity of the inhibitor protein they were 3.5 ± 0.1 and 4 ± 0.1 U per milligram of protein, respectively. These values are comparable with those of other inhibited bacterial F-ATPases where no inhibitor protein is involved. For example, the values for the F1-ATPase from the cyanobacterium Thermosynechococcus elongatus are 0.2 and 9.0 U per milligram of protein before and after activation with LDAO (Sunamura et al., 2012). For C. thermarum they are 0.9 and 28.5 U per milligram of protein before and after activation (Keis et al., 2006), and for the chloroplast F1-ATPase from Spinacia oleracea they are 4.4 and 39.7 U per milligram of protein before and after activation (Groth & Schirwitz, 1999). Enzymes that are not inhibited in ATP hydrolysis have higher recorded values than those of the activated inhibited enzymes. Values in the range 60–130 U per milligram of protein have been reported for the F1-ATPase from E. coli (Dunn et al., 1990). With the bovine F1-ATPase, activities in excess of 120 U per milligram of protein have been recorded routinely (van Raaij et al., 1996).
The concentrated F1Δ∊–ζ complex was subjected to gel-filtration (Fig. 1). This experiment removed minor contaminants, and confirmed that the α-, β-, γ- and δ-subunits from the F1 domain of the F-ATPase, plus the ζ inhibitor protein, form an integral F1Δ∊–ζ complex that is stable under the conditions of (Figs. 1c and 1d). Other experiments (not shown) were conducted with the F1–ζ complex, with similar conclusions.
3.2. Crystallization of the dimer of the α- and β-subunits of the F-ATPase from P. denitrificans
Attempts were made to crystallize both the F1–ζ and F1Δ∊–ζ inhibited complexes. No crystals were obtained for the former, but the latter yielded crystals with two different morphologies: needles and rhomboids (Fig. 2). The rhombic crystals reached their maximum size (approximately 200 × 40 × 5 µm) after 25 d of growth at 25°C and only these crystals gave useful X-ray diffraction data. The dimensions of the calculated from the X-ray diffraction data were a = 72.6, b = 102.9, c = 89.2 Å, and the was determined as P21. The of this cell is too small to accommodate an F1-ATPase complex. Therefore, it seemed likely that a subcomplex of the enzyme had formed under the conditions of crystallization and the subcomplex had crystallized. This conclusion was confirmed by analysis of the rhombic crystals by SDS–PAGE, which showed that the crystals contained only α- and β-subunits (Fig. 2c); presumably this subcomplex had formed by loss of the γ- and δ-subunits and dissociation of the α3β3 subcomplex during the crystallization process. At this stage, the precise composition of the subcomplex was unclear, as it could conceivably have contained one, two or three copies of each of the α- and β-subunits. Again, the size of the, α3β3 subcomplex was incompatible with the unit-cell parameters and, given that the α2β2 subcomplex has never been observed from any F-ATPase, it was most likely that the crystals were formed from one of two possible αβ hetereodimers, containing either a catalytic or a noncatalytic interface of the F1-ATPase.
3.3. Structure of the dimer of the α- and β-subunits of the F-ATPase from P. denitrificans
The structure of the P. denitrificans αβ complex (Fig. 3) was solved by with data to 2.3 Å resolution. Both the catalytic and noncatalytic αβ dimers of bovine F1-ATPase were tried, but it was clear that the former was appropriate and the latter was not. The packing of the protein complexes in the provided additional confirmation that the consisted of αβ dimers and not α3β3 hexamers (Fig. 2d). Data-processing and are summarized in Table 1. The final model contains residues 24–511 of the α-subunit and residues 4–273, 279–314 and 320–469 of the β-subunit. Associated with the structure are eight molecules of glycerol, 79 molecules of water and one phosphate ion. As in other structures of F1-ATPases, the α- and β-subunits of the F-ATPase from P. denitrificans have very similar folds (r.m.s.d. of 5.1 Å). Both are composed of three domains. The N-terminal domains (residues 24–95 in the α-subunit and residues 4–77 in the β-subunit) consist of six β-strands. In the intact enzyme in other species, alternating N-terminal domains from each of the three α- and β-subunits are hydrogen-bonded together in the stable circular `crown' structure of the F1-ATPase. The N-terminal domains of the α- and β-subunits in the αβ dimer from P. denitrificans are followed by the central nucleotide-binding domains (residues 96–381 in the α-subunit and residues 78–355 in the β-subunit). They consist of ten β-strands and eight α-helices and seven β-strands and five α-helices, respectively. The remainder of the α- and β-subunits, residues 382–511 in the α-subunit and residues 356–469 in the β-subunit, are folded into a bundle of six and seven α-helices that form the C-terminal domains of the subunits.
‡R factor = , where Fobs and Fcalc are the observed and calculated structure-factor amplitudes, respectively. §Rfree = , where Fobs and Fcalc are the observed and the calculated structure-factor amplitudes, respectively, and T is the test set of data omitted from |
Despite the presence of ATP and magnesium ions in the mother liquor during the formation of crystals, in the structure of the αβ dimer no nucleotide was found to be associated with either of the subunits. The nucleotide-binding and C-terminal domains of the β-subunit are in a conformation similar to the open or empty conformations in βE-subunits in almost all of the known structures of F1-ATPase, and therefore the αβ interface appears to correspond to the empty or open catalytic interface of the P. denitrificans F-ATPase. However, the αEβE interface is more open than in bovine F1-ATPase because of contacts in the Thus, the global r.m.s.d. of the αβ dimer from P. denitrificans compared with the αEβE dimer from the bovine ground-state F1-ATPase is 3.0 Å (Fig. 4). The values for the α- and β-subunits alone are 2.1 and 2.0 Å, respectively.
Although there are no P. denitrificans αEβE catalytic dimer, electron density interpreted as a phosphate ion is associated with the phosphate-binding loop or P-loop region (residues 169–176) in the nucleotide-binding domain of the α-subunit. It is bound via interactions with residues Thr173, Gly174, Lys175 and Thr176 (Fig. 5). The P-loop is a feature of many NTPases, and is so named because it interacts with phosphate moieties of bound NTP or NDP molecules (Walker et al., 1982). Neither phosphate nor sulfate was present in any of the buffers employed in the purification and crystallization processes, and it probably arises from hydrolysis of ATP in the purification and crystallization buffers.
associated with thePhosphate has not been observed bound in the vicinity of the P-loop regions of α-subunits in other structures of F1-ATPase. However, electron density in the βE-subunit adjacent to the P-loop has been interpreted as either a phosphate or a sulfate ion in the structures of bovine F1-ATPase in the ground state (Abrahams et al., 1994; PDB entry 1bmf ), in complexes inhibited with beryllium fluoride (Kagawa et al., 2004; PDB entry 1w0j ) or azide (Bowler et al., 2006; PDB entry 2ck3 ) and in the complex of F1-ATPase and the peripheral stalk subcomplex (Rees et al., 2009; PDB entry 2wss ). However, the anion-binding site in the βE P-loop is about 8 Å from where the γ-phosphate of the substrate ATP is bound in the catalytically active βDP-subunit and from where presumably phosphate is released following scission of the bond between the β- and γ-phosphates (Bason et al., 2015; PDB entry 4yxw ). Currently, there is no experimental evidence supporting the involvement of a phosphate ion bound in the vicinity of the βE P-loop of F1-ATPase in the catalytic mechanism of the enzyme.
3.4. Significance of the structure
The F-ATPase from P. denitrificans is an attractive target for further structural and functional study, especially because the mechanism of the regulation of its ATP hydrolase activity involving the ζ inhibitor protein is not understood. The intact enzyme has been crystallized and diffraction data have been collected (Morales-Ríos et al., 2015). The current structure should be helpful in the interpretation of the structural data for the intact F-ATPase.
Acknowledgements
This work was funded by the intramural program of the Medical Research Council via MRC program U105663150 to JEW; additionally, EM-R was supported partially by Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnología as part of the program `Estancias Posdoctorales y Sabáticas en el Extranjero para la Consolidación de Grupos de Investigación', grant 175676. AGWL was supported by MRC program U105184325. JJG-T was supported by grant CB-2011-01-167622 from the Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnología de México and grant PAPIIT-IN211012 from the Dirección General de Asuntos del Personal Académico of UNAM. We are grateful to the staff at beamline I03, Diamond Light Source, Harwell, England for their help.
References
Abrahams, J. P., Leslie, A. G. W., Lutter, R. & Walker, J. E. (1994). Nature (London), 370, 621–628. CrossRef CAS PubMed Web of Science Google Scholar
Bason, J. V., Montgomery, M. G., Leslie, A. G. W. & Walker, J. E. (2014). Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA, 111, 11305–11310. CrossRef CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Bason, J. V., Montgomery, M. G., Leslie, A. G. W. & Walker, J. E. (2015). Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA, 112, 6009–6014. CrossRef CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Battye, T. G. G., Kontogiannis, L., Johnson, O., Powell, H. R. & Leslie, A. G. W. (2011). Acta Cryst. D67, 271–281. Web of Science CrossRef CAS IUCr Journals Google Scholar
Bowler, M. W., Montgomery, M. G., Leslie, A. G. W. & Walker, J. E. (2006). Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA, 103, 8646–8649. Web of Science CrossRef PubMed CAS Google Scholar
Bowler, M. W., Montgomery, M. G., Leslie, A. G. W. & Walker, J. E. (2007). J. Biol. Chem. 282, 14238–14242. Web of Science CrossRef PubMed CAS Google Scholar
Boyer, P. D. (1993). Biochim. Biophys. Acta, 1140, 215–250. CrossRef CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Chen, V. B., Arendall, W. B., Headd, J. J., Keedy, D. A., Immormino, R. M., Kapral, G. J., Murray, L. W., Richardson, J. S. & Richardson, D. C. (2010). Acta Cryst. D66, 12–21. Web of Science CrossRef CAS IUCr Journals Google Scholar
Cingolani, G. & Duncan, T. M. (2011). Nature Struct. Mol. Biol. 18, 701–707. CrossRef CAS Google Scholar
Cook, G. M., Keis, S., Morgan, H. W., von Ballmoos, C., Matthey, U., Kaim, G. & Dimroth, P. (2003). J. Bacteriol. 185, 4442–4449. CrossRef PubMed CAS Google Scholar
Del Rizzo, P. A., Bi, Y., Dunn, S. D. & Shilton, B. H. (2002). Biochemistry, 41, 6875–6884. CrossRef PubMed CAS Google Scholar
Dmitriev, O., Jones, P. C., Jiang, W. & Fillingame, R. H. (1999). J. Biol. Chem. 274, 15598–15604. CrossRef PubMed CAS Google Scholar
Dunn, S. D., Tozer, R. G. & Zadorozny, V. D. (1990). Biochemistry, 29, 4335–4340. CrossRef CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Emsley, P., Lohkamp, B., Scott, W. G. & Cowtan, K. (2010). Acta Cryst. D66, 486–501. Web of Science CrossRef CAS IUCr Journals Google Scholar
Evans, P. R. & Murshudov, G. N. (2013). Acta Cryst. D69, 1204–1214. Web of Science CrossRef CAS IUCr Journals Google Scholar
Groth, G. & Schirwitz, K. (1999). Eur. J. Biochem. 260, 15–21. CrossRef PubMed CAS Google Scholar
John, P. & Whatley, F. R. (1975). Nature (London), 254, 495–498. CrossRef CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Kagawa, R., Montgomery, M. G., Braig, K., Leslie, A. G. W. & Walker, J. E. (2004). EMBO J. 23, 2734–2744. Web of Science CrossRef PubMed CAS Google Scholar
Keis, S., Stocker, A., Dimroth, P. & Cook, G. M. (2006). J. Bacteriol. 188, 3796–3804. CrossRef PubMed CAS Google Scholar
Laemmli, U. K. (1970). Nature (London), 227, 680–685. CrossRef CAS PubMed Web of Science Google Scholar
Liu, S., Charlesworth, T. J., Bason, J. V., Montgomery, M. G., Harbour, M. E., Fearnley, I. M. & Walker, J. E. (2015). Biochem. J. 468, 167–175. CrossRef CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Matthies, D., Zhou, W., Klyszejko, A. L., Anselmi, C., Yildiz, O., Brandt, K., Müller, V., Faraldo-Gómez, J. D. & Meier, T. (2014). Nature Commun. 5, 5286. CrossRef Google Scholar
McCoy, A. J., Grosse-Kunstleve, R. W., Adams, P. D., Winn, M. D., Storoni, L. C. & Read, R. J. (2007). J. Appl. Cryst. 40, 658–674. Web of Science CrossRef CAS IUCr Journals Google Scholar
Meier, T., Polzer, P., Diederichs, K., Welte, W. & Dimroth, P. (2005). Science, 308, 659–662. CrossRef PubMed CAS Google Scholar
Menz, R. I., Leslie, A. G. W. & Walker, J. E. (2001). FEBS Lett. 494, 11–14. CrossRef PubMed CAS Google Scholar
Miller, H. (1987). Methods Enzymol. 152, 145–170. CrossRef CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Morales-Ríos, E., Montgomery, M. G., Leslie, A. G. W. & Walker, J. E. (2015). Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA. In the press. Google Scholar
Morales-Ríos, E., de la Rosa-Morales, F., Mendoza-Hernández, G., Rodríguez-Zavala, J. S., Celis, H., Zarco-Zavala, M. & García-Trejo, J. J. (2010). FASEB J. 24, 599–608. PubMed Google Scholar
Murshudov, G. N., Skubák, P., Lebedev, A. A., Pannu, N. S., Steiner, R. A., Nicholls, R. A., Winn, M. D., Long, F. & Vagin, A. A. (2011). Acta Cryst. D67, 355–367. Web of Science CrossRef CAS IUCr Journals Google Scholar
Pacheco-Moisés, F., García, J. J., Rodríguez-Zavala, J. S. & Moreno-Sánchez, R. (2000). Eur. J. Biochem. 267, 993–1000. PubMed Google Scholar
Pacheco-Moisés, F., Minauro-Sanmiguel, F., Bravo, C. & García, J. J. (2002). J. Bioenerg. Biomembr. 34, 269–278. PubMed Google Scholar
Pogoryelov, D., Yildiz, O., Faraldo-Gómez, J. D. & Meier, T. (2009). Nature Struct. Mol. Biol. 16, 1068–1073. Web of Science CrossRef CAS Google Scholar
Preiss, L., Klyszejko, A. L., Hicks, D. B., Liu, J., Fackelmayer, O. J., Yildiz, Ö., Krulwich, T. A. & Meier, T. (2013). Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA, 110, 7874–7879. CrossRef CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Preiss, L., Langer, J. D., Hicks, D. B., Liu, J., Yildiz, O., Krulwich, T. A. & Meier, T. (2014). Mol. Microbiol. 92, 973–984. CrossRef CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Priya, R., Biukovic, G., Gayen, S., Vivekanandan, S. & Grüber, G. (2009). J. Bacteriol. 191, 7538–7544. CrossRef PubMed CAS Google Scholar
Pullman, M. E., Penefsky, H., Datta, A. & Racker, E. (1960). J. Biol. Chem. 235, 3322–3329. PubMed CAS Google Scholar
Raaij, M. J. van, Orriss, G. L., Montgomery, M. G., Runswick, M. J., Fearnley, I. M., Skehel, J. M. & Walker, J. E. (1996). Biochemistry, 35, 15618–15625. PubMed Google Scholar
Rees, D. M., Leslie, A. G. W. & Walker, J. E. (2009). Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA, 106, 21597–21601. Web of Science CrossRef PubMed CAS Google Scholar
Robinson, G. C., Bason, J. V., Montgomery, M. G., Fearnley, I. M., Mueller, D. M., Leslie, A. G. W. & Walker, J. E. (2013). Open Biol. 3, 120164. CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
Roy, A., Hutcheon, M. L., Duncan, T. M. & Cingolani, G. (2012). Acta Cryst. F68, 1229–1233. CrossRef IUCr Journals Google Scholar
Runswick, M. J., Bason, J. V., Montgomery, M. G., Robinson, G. C., Fearnley, I. M. & Walker, J. E. (2013). Open Biol. 3, 120160. CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
Serrano, P., Geralt, M., Mohanty, B. & Wüthrich, K. (2014). J. Mol. Biol. 426, 2547–2553. CrossRef CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Shirakihara, Y., Leslie, A. G. W., Abrahams, J. P., Walker, J. E., Ueda, T., Sekimoto, Y., Kambara, M., Saika, K., Kagawa, Y. & Yoshida, M. (1997). Structure, 5, 825–836. CrossRef CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Shirakihara, Y., Shiratori, A., Tanikawa, H., Nakasako, M., Yoshida, M. & Suzuki, T. (2015). FEBS J. 282, 2895–2913 CrossRef CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Stocker, A., Keis, S., Vonck, J., Cook, G. M. & Dimroth, P. (2007). Structure, 15, 904–914. Web of Science CrossRef PubMed CAS Google Scholar
Sunamura, E., Konno, H., Imashimizu, M., Mochimaru, M. & Hisabori, T. (2012). J. Biol. Chem. 287, 38695–38704. CrossRef CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Walker, J. E. (2013). Biochem. Soc. Trans. 41, 1–16. CrossRef CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Walker, J. E., Saraste, M., Runswick, M. J. & Gay, N. J. (1982). EMBO J. 1, 945–951. CAS PubMed Web of Science Google Scholar
Walpole, T. B., Palmer, D. N., Jiang, H., Ding, S., Fearnley, I. M. & Walker, J. E. (2015). Mol. Cell. Proteomics, 14, 828–840. CrossRef CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Watanabe, R. & Noji, H. (2013). FEBS Lett. 587, 1030–1035. CrossRef CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Wilkens, S., Borchardt, D., Weber, J. & Senior, A. E. (2005). Biochemistry, 44, 11786–11794. CrossRef PubMed CAS Google Scholar
Winn, M. D. et al. (2011). Acta Cryst. D67, 235–242. Web of Science CrossRef CAS IUCr Journals Google Scholar
Zarco-Zavala, M., Morales-Ríos, E., Mendoza-Hernández, G., Ramírez-Silva, L., Pérez-Hernández, G. & García-Trejo, J. J. (2014). FASEB J. 28, 2146–2157. CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Zharova, T. V. & Vinogradov, A. D. (2012). Biochemistry, 77, 1000–1007. CAS PubMed Google Scholar
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) Licence, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original authors and source are cited.