Now it's time to look at this paper:
We can start with this image of the membrane part of complex I from Thermus thermophilus which shows the water channels of the antiporter-like pumping units. The NADH reduction site is not shown but is at the right hand end, above the membrane. Nqo8 is the equivalent of mitochondrial NuoH, the universal adaptor between the redox limb and the membrane section of all similar complexes:
Water channels are important if you want to move protons through a protein. The problem is that protons are hydrated, at their simplest they can be thought of as the hydronium ion, H3O+, but it seems more likely that 4-6 water molecules form a structure around this giving a large molecule restricted to channels where there are adequate ionised amino acids to form an hydrophilic environment rich in water molecules.
The sketch shows the three conventional water pathways through Nqo12, 13 and 14 and a less straight forward probable channel through Nqo8 where the proton exit route is shown as a dashed section of black line rather than the solid line associated with the clear cut water channels in Nqo12, 13 and 14.
The channels open and close in response to the protonation of key amino acids. This is the schematic of how this group feels complex I works:
I'll briefly go in to detail of the section marked within the red oval to look at the key mechanism:
The pumping function is driven by the protonation of an amino acid in Nqo8 affecting a lysine/glutamic acid pair within Nqo14. While Nqo8 is de-protonated the lysine (K)186 is electrostatically attached to the glutamate (E)112.
While Nqo8's amino acid is protonated it attracts the -ve charged glutamic acid and repels the +ve charged lysine.
When Nqo8 is de-protonated the lysine and glutamate return to their original electrostatic association. In detail it looks like this:
The process is repeated at the junctions between Nqo14-13 and 13-12. There is a typo in the diagram on the top line, lysines (K)345 and (K)385 are shown as protonated but clearly can't be for the scheme to work.
Aside: The junction 13-12 actually has a glutamine bumping up against aspartate/lysine electrostatic bonded couplet. This seems to work but is not as intuitive as the glutamate/lysine pairs. I'll leave it alone as the story is complicated enough as it is. End aside.
I've corrected these "blue +" symbols to open circles to make sense of it and have highlighted the repeats with ovals circles again:
Having got that sorted let's fade Nqo12 and 13 out and look at pumping in Nqo14. In the resting state the cytosol side water channels are open and this allows protonation of the central lysine residue:
Nqo8's amino acid then protonates
and separates the adjacent lysine/glutamate pair which pushes the orange-crossed proton from its lysine to another lysine adjacent to Nqo13. It closes the cytosolic water channels in the same action
This displaced orange-crossed proton binds to Nqo13's lysine/glutamine pair and so propagates the effect along the central water channel within the membrane arm
This movement also opens the periplasmic water channels
allowing protons to leave the cell. This allows the lysine/glutamine pairs to return to their starting locations as the yellow-crossed proton exits Nqo8
As the protons exit, the associated conformational changes open the cytosolic water channels and the cycle is ready to repeat
This is all very nice and neat, typos excepted, with four protons pumped per cycle. But there is a fly in the ointment. As the authors comment
"Despite a significant N-side entry channel, we observe no clear exit pathways to the P side of the membrane within Nqo8."
There is no route out of Nqo8, exactly as there is no route out for protons in NuoH of human mitochondria or the equivalent in any of the other membrane bound hydrogenases of strict anaerobes.
Which gives us insightful constraints on where the system might have come from.
Peter
8 comments:
Please be gentle with my high-school-chemistry pea brain. I found in the paper what N side and P side represent (negative charge and positive charge). I'm at the midpoint of Transformer, where Nick Lane has just explained why a pH gradient is necessary to drive continuing reactions. The N and the P represent the gradient?
Off topic, Lane's explanation about the uniqueness of oxygen is fascinating. So much of nature is cyclic. Earth started out with a CO2 atmosphere, then life turned it into an oxygenating atmosphere. Now, if some are to be believed, life is turning it back into a CO2 atmosphere. I wonder if the dominant lifeforms prior to the Cambrian explosion had their own version of global climate change panic…"OMG! We must reverse the oxygen increase!" 😮
Yes, N and P could well denote that. P is mentioned also a periplasm but I never had a clear cut reason for n to be the cytosolic side... Your idea makes sense.
Happily the global warming stupidity is now 100% political, nothing to do with reality. This was clear cut to me from the C14 data (a few miles of rock shields carbon in coal from cosmic rays, when we dig it up it has no C14. Surface carbon always has a percentage C14 from cosmic ray interactions. You can work out how much of the rise in atmospheric CO2 (which is real) is from coal (just over 10%) vs what is released from the oceans due to increased solar warming (just under 90%). Now we have
https://www.mdpi.com/2413-4155/5/3/35
which seems quite clear that solar warming comes first, CO2 rise follows.
All we need to do is to hope we survive government interventions
It's like covid. Surviving the politics is harder than surviving the virus. For most.
Peter
'Yes, N and P could well denote that. P is mentioned also a periplasm but I never had a clear cut reason for n to be the cytosolic side... Your idea makes sense.'
It's not my idea, it's actually specified at one point in the paper. It took some hunting to find it though.
Hello Peter,
Have you looked into BCAA/excess BCAA as a cause of obesity and diabetes at all? I have been aware of it for a little bit now and interest seems to be picking up in The Crossiant Diet/ Brad Marshall saturated fat corner of the interet now. I wondered if you had any opinions on it
I apologize for this total threadjack. I was wondering if you would want to write about this at some point? Not the first time I am hearing this story. Humans have lost the ability to produce sialic acid Neu5Gc and have an excess of Neu5Ac. This means we can keep the garbage collection in our brains functional for more years, and certain viruses have evolved to take advantage of our biology. On top, the hypothesis is that eating red meat means Neu5Ac get readily incorporated into cells (which sounds like a good thing) but apparently the immune systems recognizes these sugars as foreign, leading to low grade inflammation and cancer.
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2023/dec/10/sugar-coating-cells-illness-pathogens-evolutions-glycans-sialic-acids
Does this even hold water? Last time I looked, there was no evidence of increased cancer once you look at meat consumption without cured meat. How about Inuit or Massai who concume lots of animal protein? Maybe their overall longevity is not so high due to other factors. French paradox? Just think of all that cheese (just returned from a trip with a bounty to last into the new year).
@Petro
Yes - it is complex - as if biology was the result of billions of years of evolution. What works is preserved. I've seen this presented at the high level - first time at this level. Sort of like the assembly code version. What a great post!
The GW data always had a nagging detail/elephant; the noise floor was not well defined. With the noise having a 1/f characteristic it really matters. The meandering ocean currents - often with decade or long periods can flip cold water up as the loops change. Not to mention the LONG list of confounding variables. If the noise floor is not well defined - how can they possible say that X amount of change matters? I saw arbitrary picking of start and end points in a Nature paper. I've kept a graph of the global satellite temperature data for decades now - the amplitude of the noise is greater than any trend. It takes faith to believe - science won't get you there.
I have to actually thank the GW grifters - figuring out the flaws in their narratives really improved my BS detector. One of the obvious gaslightings was the hand waving about irrigation. I would always text search the IPPC reports for mention of key words about irrigation and humidity. Strangely, humidity records do go back quite a ways - and there is a significant increase, which no one mentions - nor do they mention the fluctuations in the energy delivered by the solar current - the estimates of this energy span magnitudes - or do they explain the emissivity fudge factors in the models they use. The point is, it is an open-system - we have no way to control for the long list of confounding variables. If you use a first principal model, the errors blow up in a few weeks.. no end of bovine excrement.
@eric
One of the reasons for sex is to battle parasites. Being able to rapidly change is important. Back when I started my quest on understanding CVD I had bought into the 'meat=bad' narrative - but every time I dug down I found ungrounded narratives. The old advise mothers would tell the kids about eating their vegetables leaves out any idea that they were saving the more nutritious meat for those producing it. Today, I think a lot of those pushing this think they are virtue signaling.
Hi Chris, I’ve thought about it occasionally in a sideways sort of manner. Ultimately it’s a hack, possibly a very effective one, for weight loss. Something has gone wrong which metabolism is doing the best it can to surmount. That problems requires or results in calories that are diverted to fat stores and metabolism uses BCAAs to do this. It’s not saying anything fundamental about what we are adapted to, the divergence from which requires insulin resistance.
It’s also another situation of difficult terminology as I discussed here https://high-fat-nutrition.blogspot.com/2023/09/insulin-sensitivity-makes-you-fat.html . At the adipocyte level it *must* decrease insulin signalling, otherwise there would be no fat release. But whole body it shows as improved glycemic control. But fat loss = fat oxidation. Fat oxidation = ROS = insulin resistance.
This would show as decreased glucose disposal in the last 40 minutes of a 2-3 hour hyperinsulinaemic euglycaemic clamp.
It would not show on fasting glucose or HOMA-IR score, this would improve.
But ultimately it doesn’t make me want to dive down that rabbit hole. Brad is in there, he’s quite capable of thinking it through.
Peter
Hi Eric, it doesn't make any sense. Humans evolved to eat meat and ate little else other than meat, with a preference for fatty meat, until our descent in to the morass of agriculture. Especially if you ignore Wrangham and tubers. If meat caused cancer in humans alone, as apex carnivores, we would be extinct.
Almost by definition I consider anything in the modern Grauniad to be misinformation. And on this basis it should be allowed to be published but no one, ever, should read that rag. If people voted with their wallets they could find cheaper (and more effective) toilet roll than the Grauniad...
Peter
Post a Comment