Direct cyclic voltammetry of three ruthenium-modified electron-transfer proteins

F. A. Armstrong; J. N. Butt; K. Govindaraju; Joseph McGinnis; R. Powls; A. G. Sykes

doi:10.1021/ic00349a009

Direct cyclic voltammetry of three ruthenium-modified electron-transfer proteins

F. A. Armstrong, J. N. Butt, K. Govindaraju, Joseph McGinnis, R. Powls, A. G. Sykes

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

18 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

A comparison is made between the voltammetric behavior of three electron-transfer proteins and that of their derivatives obtained by attachment of a single Ru(NH₃)₅^3+/2+ group to specific histidine (imidazole) residues. The native proteins‒plastocyanin (PCu) from the green alga Scenedesmus obliquus (舠blue舡 Cu^2+/1+ center, M_r ∼ 10.5 × 10³), cytochrome c_55l from Pseudomonas stutzeri (porphyrin Fe^3+/2+ center, M_r ∼ 9.25 × 10³), and (to a lesser extent) high-potential iron–sulfur protein (HiPIP) from Chromatium vinosum ([4Fe–4S]^3+/2+ center, M_r ∼ 9.5 × 10³)‒require the presence of a cationic reagent (neomycin is used here) to promote their interaction and electron exchange with the pyrolytic graphite-“edge” electrode. By contrast, each of the derivatives PCu-(His59)Ru(NH₃)₅, HiPIP(His42)Ru(NH₃)₅, and c₅₅₅(His47)Ru(NH₃)₅ displays well-defined peak-type cyclic voltammograms without inclusion of such reagents in the electrolyte. The results indicate the importance of localized (as opposed to overall) protein surface charge as a determining factor underlying protein–electrode interactions that lead to reversible electron exchange. It is shown that reduction potentials of the intrinsic and Ru centers in such derivatives may be significantly different from the respective values for native proteins and the complex [Ru(NH₃)₅(imid)]^3+/2+.

Original language	English
Pages (from-to)	4858-4862
Number of pages	5
Journal	Inorganic Chemistry
Volume	29
Issue number	24
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1021/ic00349a009
Publication status	Published - 1 Jan 1990

Access to Document

10.1021/ic00349a009

Cite this

@article{dd60fb82a304412e9170e300bc72f0fb,

title = "Direct cyclic voltammetry of three ruthenium-modified electron-transfer proteins",

abstract = "A comparison is made between the voltammetric behavior of three electron-transfer proteins and that of their derivatives obtained by attachment of a single Ru(NH3)53+/2+ group to specific histidine (imidazole) residues. The native proteins‒plastocyanin (PCu) from the green alga Scenedesmus obliquus (舠blue舡 Cu2+/1+ center, Mr ∼ 10.5 × 103), cytochrome c55l from Pseudomonas stutzeri (porphyrin Fe3+/2+ center, Mr ∼ 9.25 × 103), and (to a lesser extent) high-potential iron–sulfur protein (HiPIP) from Chromatium vinosum ([4Fe–4S]3+/2+ center, Mr ∼ 9.5 × 103)‒require the presence of a cationic reagent (neomycin is used here) to promote their interaction and electron exchange with the pyrolytic graphite-“edge” electrode. By contrast, each of the derivatives PCu-(His59)Ru(NH3)5, HiPIP(His42)Ru(NH3)5, and c555(His47)Ru(NH3)5 displays well-defined peak-type cyclic voltammograms without inclusion of such reagents in the electrolyte. The results indicate the importance of localized (as opposed to overall) protein surface charge as a determining factor underlying protein–electrode interactions that lead to reversible electron exchange. It is shown that reduction potentials of the intrinsic and Ru centers in such derivatives may be significantly different from the respective values for native proteins and the complex [Ru(NH3)5(imid)]3+/2+.",

author = "Armstrong, {F. A.} and Butt, {J. N.} and K. Govindaraju and Joseph McGinnis and R. Powls and Sykes, {A. G.}",

year = "1990",

month = jan,

day = "1",

doi = "10.1021/ic00349a009",

language = "English",

volume = "29",

pages = "4858--4862",

journal = "Inorganic Chemistry",

issn = "0020-1669",

publisher = "American Chemical Society",

number = "24",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Direct cyclic voltammetry of three ruthenium-modified electron-transfer proteins

AU - Armstrong, F. A.

AU - Butt, J. N.

AU - Govindaraju, K.

AU - McGinnis, Joseph

AU - Powls, R.

AU - Sykes, A. G.

PY - 1990/1/1

Y1 - 1990/1/1

N2 - A comparison is made between the voltammetric behavior of three electron-transfer proteins and that of their derivatives obtained by attachment of a single Ru(NH3)53+/2+ group to specific histidine (imidazole) residues. The native proteins‒plastocyanin (PCu) from the green alga Scenedesmus obliquus (舠blue舡 Cu2+/1+ center, Mr ∼ 10.5 × 103), cytochrome c55l from Pseudomonas stutzeri (porphyrin Fe3+/2+ center, Mr ∼ 9.25 × 103), and (to a lesser extent) high-potential iron–sulfur protein (HiPIP) from Chromatium vinosum ([4Fe–4S]3+/2+ center, Mr ∼ 9.5 × 103)‒require the presence of a cationic reagent (neomycin is used here) to promote their interaction and electron exchange with the pyrolytic graphite-“edge” electrode. By contrast, each of the derivatives PCu-(His59)Ru(NH3)5, HiPIP(His42)Ru(NH3)5, and c555(His47)Ru(NH3)5 displays well-defined peak-type cyclic voltammograms without inclusion of such reagents in the electrolyte. The results indicate the importance of localized (as opposed to overall) protein surface charge as a determining factor underlying protein–electrode interactions that lead to reversible electron exchange. It is shown that reduction potentials of the intrinsic and Ru centers in such derivatives may be significantly different from the respective values for native proteins and the complex [Ru(NH3)5(imid)]3+/2+.

AB - A comparison is made between the voltammetric behavior of three electron-transfer proteins and that of their derivatives obtained by attachment of a single Ru(NH3)53+/2+ group to specific histidine (imidazole) residues. The native proteins‒plastocyanin (PCu) from the green alga Scenedesmus obliquus (舠blue舡 Cu2+/1+ center, Mr ∼ 10.5 × 103), cytochrome c55l from Pseudomonas stutzeri (porphyrin Fe3+/2+ center, Mr ∼ 9.25 × 103), and (to a lesser extent) high-potential iron–sulfur protein (HiPIP) from Chromatium vinosum ([4Fe–4S]3+/2+ center, Mr ∼ 9.5 × 103)‒require the presence of a cationic reagent (neomycin is used here) to promote their interaction and electron exchange with the pyrolytic graphite-“edge” electrode. By contrast, each of the derivatives PCu-(His59)Ru(NH3)5, HiPIP(His42)Ru(NH3)5, and c555(His47)Ru(NH3)5 displays well-defined peak-type cyclic voltammograms without inclusion of such reagents in the electrolyte. The results indicate the importance of localized (as opposed to overall) protein surface charge as a determining factor underlying protein–electrode interactions that lead to reversible electron exchange. It is shown that reduction potentials of the intrinsic and Ru centers in such derivatives may be significantly different from the respective values for native proteins and the complex [Ru(NH3)5(imid)]3+/2+.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0005155783&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1021/ic00349a009

DO - 10.1021/ic00349a009

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:0005155783

SN - 0020-1669

VL - 29

SP - 4858

EP - 4862

JO - Inorganic Chemistry

JF - Inorganic Chemistry

IS - 24

ER -

Direct cyclic voltammetry of three ruthenium-modified electron-transfer proteins

Abstract

Access to Document

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this