Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

Evidence for a Concerted Mechanism of Ubiquinol Oxidation by the Cytochrome bc 1 Complex

2000; Elsevier BV; Volume: 275; Issue: 18 Linguagem: Inglês

10.1074/jbc.275.18.13535

1083-351X

Christopher H. Snyder, Emma Berta Gutiérrez-Cirlos, Bernard L. Trumpower,

Metal-Catalyzed Oxygenation Mechanisms

To better understand the mechanism of divergent electron transfer from ubiquinol to the iron-sulfur protein and cytochrome b L within the cytochromebc 1 complex, we have examined the effects of antimycin on the presteady state reduction kinetics of thebc 1 complex in the presence or absence of endogenous ubiquinone. When ubiquinone is present, antimycin slows the rate of cytochrome c 1 reduction by ∼10-fold but had no effect upon the rate of cytochromec 1 reduction in bc 1complex lacking endogenous ubiquinone. In the absence of endogenous ubiquinone cytochrome c 1, reduction was slower than when ubiquinone was present and was similar to that in the presence of ubiquinone plus antimycin. These results indicate that the low potential redox components, cytochrome b Hand b L, exert negative control on the rate of reduction of cytochrome c 1 and the Rieske iron-sulfur protein at center P. If electrons cannot equilibrate from cytochrome b H and b L to ubiquinone, partial reduction of the low potential components slows reduction of the high potential components. We also examined the effects of decreasing the midpoint potential of the iron-sulfur protein on the rates of cytochrome b reduction. As the midpoint potential decreased, there was a parallel decrease in the rate ofb reduction, demonstrating that the rate of breduction is dependent upon the rate of ubiquinol oxidation by the iron-sulfur protein. Together these results indicate that ubiquinol oxidation is a concerted reaction in which both the low potential and high potential redox components control ubiquinol oxidation at center P, consistent with the protonmotive Q cycle mechanism. To better understand the mechanism of divergent electron transfer from ubiquinol to the iron-sulfur protein and cytochrome b L within the cytochromebc 1 complex, we have examined the effects of antimycin on the presteady state reduction kinetics of thebc 1 complex in the presence or absence of endogenous ubiquinone. When ubiquinone is present, antimycin slows the rate of cytochrome c 1 reduction by ∼10-fold but had no effect upon the rate of cytochromec 1 reduction in bc 1complex lacking endogenous ubiquinone. In the absence of endogenous ubiquinone cytochrome c 1, reduction was slower than when ubiquinone was present and was similar to that in the presence of ubiquinone plus antimycin. These results indicate that the low potential redox components, cytochrome b Hand b L, exert negative control on the rate of reduction of cytochrome c 1 and the Rieske iron-sulfur protein at center P. If electrons cannot equilibrate from cytochrome b H and b L to ubiquinone, partial reduction of the low potential components slows reduction of the high potential components. We also examined the effects of decreasing the midpoint potential of the iron-sulfur protein on the rates of cytochrome b reduction. As the midpoint potential decreased, there was a parallel decrease in the rate ofb reduction, demonstrating that the rate of breduction is dependent upon the rate of ubiquinol oxidation by the iron-sulfur protein. Together these results indicate that ubiquinol oxidation is a concerted reaction in which both the low potential and high potential redox components control ubiquinol oxidation at center P, consistent with the protonmotive Q cycle mechanism. ubiquinone iron-sulfur protein Although the protonmotive Q1 cycle mechanism of the cytochrome bc 1 complex is generally understood (1.Trumpower B.L. Gennis R.B. Annu. Rev. Biochem. 1994; 63: 675-716Crossref PubMed Scopus (467) Google Scholar, 2.Mitchell P. J. Theor. Biol. 1976; 62: 327-367Crossref PubMed Scopus (916) Google Scholar, 3.Brandt U. Trumpower B.L. Crit. Rev. Biochem. Mol. Biol. 1994; 29: 165-197Crossref PubMed Scopus (292) Google Scholar), the mechanism of ubiquinol oxidation at center P has not been fully elucidated. With the determination of the crystal structure of the cytochrome bc 1 complex (4.Xia D., Yu, C.A. Kim H. Xian J.Z. Kachurin A.M. Zhang L., Yu, L. Deisenhofer J. Science. 1997; 277: 60-66Crossref PubMed Scopus (863) Google Scholar, 5.Zhang Z.L. Huang L.S. Shulmeister V.M. Chi Y.I. Kim K.K. Hung L.W. Crofts A.R. Berry E.A. Kim S.H. Nature. 1998; 392: 677-684Crossref PubMed Scopus (919) Google Scholar), a more extensive examination of the structure-function relationships of the Q cycle mechanism is possible. It is generally accepted that the mechanism of ubiquinol oxidation at center P involves a divergent oxidation in which the iron-sulfur protein oxidizes ubiquinol to semiquinone and the semiquinone reduces cytochrome b L (1.Trumpower B.L. Gennis R.B. Annu. Rev. Biochem. 1994; 63: 675-716Crossref PubMed Scopus (467) Google Scholar, 3.Brandt U. Trumpower B.L. Crit. Rev. Biochem. Mol. Biol. 1994; 29: 165-197Crossref PubMed Scopus (292) Google Scholar). It is unclear, however, whether the oxidation of ubiquinol occurs through semiquinone in a sequential mechanism or whether ubiquinol is oxidized by the iron-sulfur protein and cytochrome b L in a concerted reaction. Earlier experiments suggested the presence of a transient semiquinone at center P (6.De Vries S. Albracht S.P.J. Berden J.A. Slater E.C. J. Biol. Chem. 1981; 256: 11996-11998Abstract Full Text PDF PubMed Google Scholar), consistent with a sequential mechanism, although recent experiments suggest otherwise (7.Jünemann S. Heathcote P. Rich P.R. J. Biol. Chem. 1998; 273: 21603-21607Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (98) Google Scholar). There have been two proposals for concerted reaction mechanisms at center P. Link (8.Link T.A. FEBS Lett. 1997; 412: 257-264Crossref PubMed Scopus (137) Google Scholar) proposed a "proton-gated affinity change" mechanism in which stabilization of ubisemiquinone by anti-ferromagnetic coupling to the reduced iron-sulfur protein raises the potential of the iron-sulfur cluster such that the cluster cannot be oxidized by cytochrome c 1 until the semiquinone is oxidized. Jünemann et al. (7.Jünemann S. Heathcote P. Rich P.R. J. Biol. Chem. 1998; 273: 21603-21607Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (98) Google Scholar) suggested that the potential of the ubiquinol/ubisemiquinone couple at center P is more positive than that of the iron-sulfur cluster and that oxidation of the semiquinone is required to lower the potential of the couple. In both of these mechanisms ubisemiquinone must be oxidized to allow a thermodynamically linked reaction to occur. In one case this is required in order to allow reduction of cytochromec 1 by the Rieske cluster (8.Link T.A. FEBS Lett. 1997; 412: 257-264Crossref PubMed Scopus (137) Google Scholar), and in the other, to allow reduction of the Rieske cluster by the ubiquinol/ubisemiquinone couple (7.Jünemann S. Heathcote P. Rich P.R. J. Biol. Chem. 1998; 273: 21603-21607Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (98) Google Scholar). The crystal structures of the cytochrome bc 1complex suggest that movement of the iron-sulfur protein is necessary for divergent electron transfer to cytochrome c 1and cytochrome b (5.Zhang Z.L. Huang L.S. Shulmeister V.M. Chi Y.I. Kim K.K. Hung L.W. Crofts A.R. Berry E.A. Kim S.H. Nature. 1998; 392: 677-684Crossref PubMed Scopus (919) Google Scholar), and recent experiments have confirmed that mobility of the extra-membrane domain of the iron-sulfur protein is essential for function (9.Tian H. White S., Yu, L. Yu C.A. J. Biol. Chem. 1999; 274: 7146-7152Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (73) Google Scholar). Concerted electron transfer mechanisms can accommodate iron-sulfur protein movement either for thermodynamic reasons or if movement of the Rieske center makes the first electron transfer dependent upon the second. Similarly, mechanisms that propose occupancy of two ubiquinol molecules at center P (10.Ding H.G. Robertson D.E. Daldal F. Dutton P.L. Biochemistry. 1992; 31: 3144-3158Crossref PubMed Scopus (174) Google Scholar, 11.Brandt U. Biochim. Biophys. Acta. 1996; 1275: 41-46Crossref PubMed Scopus (53) Google Scholar) can be concerted. We have examined the effects of antimycin and endogenous ubiquinone on the presteady state rates of cytochrome b andc 1 reduction. We also examined the effects of decreasing the midpoint potential of the iron-sulfur protein on the presteady state reduction kinetics of the bc 1complex. Our results indicate that oxidation of ubiquinol at center P occurs through a concerted mechanism in which both the iron-sulfur protein and cytochrome b L must be oxidized. Dodecyl maltoside was obtained from Roche Molecular Biochemicals. DEAE-Biogel A was obtained from Bio-Rad. Antimycin, diisopropyl fluorophosphate, phenylmethylsulfonyl fluoride, and menaquinone were purchased from Sigma. Yeast extract and peptone were from Difco. The yeast Δcoq2 mutant was obtained from Dr. Catherine Clarke (UCLA). This mutant lacks ubiquinone due to deletion of the gene for the polyprenyl transferase that transfers the isoprenoid side chain to p-hydroxybenzoate at an early step in the ubiquinone biosynthetic pathway (12.Ashby M.N. Kutsunai S.Y. Ackerman S. Tzagoloff A. Edwards P.A. J. Biol. Chem. 1992; 267: 4128-4136Abstract Full Text PDF PubMed Google Scholar). Although the Δcoq2 mutant is petite, it assembles a cytochromebc 1 complex that is active with added quinol substrates and exhibits normal sensitivity to both center P and center N inhibitors (13.Snyder C.H. Trumpower B.L. J. Biol. Chem. 1999; 274: 31209-31216Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (29) Google Scholar). The Δcoq2 yeast mutant was grown in 80 liters of yeast extract/peptone/dextrose medium, and the mutants with iron-sulfur mutations Y185F, S183T, S183A, and S183A/Y185F (14.Denke E. Merbitz-Zahradnik T. Hatzfeld O.M. Snyder C.H. Link T.A. Trumpower B.L. J. Biol. Chem. 1998; 273: 9085-9093Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (147) Google Scholar) were grown in 80 liters of minimal medium plus dextrose and harvested by centrifugation. Cytochrome bc 1 complex was isolated as described previously (13.Snyder C.H. Trumpower B.L. J. Biol. Chem. 1999; 274: 31209-31216Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (29) Google Scholar). Kinetic measurements were performed at room temperature by stopped-flow rapid-scanning spectroscopy using the OLIS Rapid-Scanning Monochromator (On-Line Instrument Systems, Inc., Bogart, GA) equipped with a 1200 lines/mm of grating blazed at 500 nm. This produced a spectrum of 75-nm width, centered at 555 nm, with a resolution of 0.4 nm. The dead time of the instrument was ∼2 ms, and the end of this period was chosen as time zero. Data was collected at 1000 scans/s. Reactions were started by mixing 2 μm bc 1 complex in 50 mm potassium phosphate, pH 6.0, containing 250 mm sucrose, 0.2 mm EDTA, and 1.0 mg/ml bovine serum albumin against an equal volume of buffer containing menaquinol. A fresh solution of menaquinol substrate was prepared from menaquinone before each kinetic experiment, as described previously (13.Snyder C.H. Trumpower B.L. J. Biol. Chem. 1999; 274: 31209-31216Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (29) Google Scholar). An oxidized spectrum was obtained by mixing the oxidized bc 1 complex against buffer and averaging the data set to a single scan. For each experiment three data sets were averaged, and the oxidized spectrum was subtracted from each scan. From the three-dimensional data set comprised of wavelength, absorbance, and time, we extracted the time course of cytochrome b and c 1reduction at 563.3 and 554.6 nm, respectively, using software from OLIS. The kinetic plots were analyzed by a "successive integration" method (15.Matheson E.B.C. Anal. Instrum. 1987; 16: 345-474Crossref Scopus (7) Google Scholar) incorporated into the OLIS software. This software establishes whether the reaction consists of one or more kinetic phases and assigns first order rate constants to the exponentials. Second order rate constants were then calculated from the slopes of the curves obtained by plotting the first order rate constants against menaquinol concentration using Fig. P, v 2.2a software from Biosoft, Ferguson, MO. In the proton-motive Q cycle mechanism, oxidation of ubiquinol at center P in the bc 1 complex delivers the two electrons divergently to two separate redox chains within the enzyme: a high potential chain that includes the Rieske iron-sulfur protein and cytochrome c 1 and a low potential chain that includes the di-heme cytochrome b H andb L (Fig. 1). Whether and, if so, how these two thermodynamically separate redox chains influence the activity of each other has not been extensively examined. We recently showed that endogenous ubiquinone residing at center N rapidly reoxidizes cytochrome b H (13.Snyder C.H. Trumpower B.L. J. Biol. Chem. 1999; 274: 31209-31216Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (29) Google Scholar), and it is generally accepted that this reaction is inhibited by antimycin (1.Trumpower B.L. Gennis R.B. Annu. Rev. Biochem. 1994; 63: 675-716Crossref PubMed Scopus (467) Google Scholar, 2.Mitchell P. J. Theor. Biol. 1976; 62: 327-367Crossref PubMed Scopus (916) Google Scholar, 3.Brandt U. Trumpower B.L. Crit. Rev. Biochem. Mol. Biol. 1994; 29: 165-197Crossref PubMed Scopus (292) Google Scholar). To test whether the low potential chain affects reduction of the high potential chain, we examined the effects of antimycin or ubiquinone residing at center N on reduction of cytochromec 1 by menaquinol. In the absence of inhibitors and in the presence of endogenous ubiquinone, the reduction of cytochrome c 1 by 25 μm menaquinol is monophasic, with a rate of 7.9 s−1 (Fig.2), whereas the reduction of cytochromeb is triphasic, as was previously observed (13.Snyder C.H. Trumpower B.L. J. Biol. Chem. 1999; 274: 31209-31216Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (29) Google Scholar). When antimycin was added, the rate of cytochrome c 1reduction slowed 4-fold to 1.8 s−1, and cytochromeb reduction became a biphasic reaction, with each phase comprising 50% of the total absorbance change and rates of 19 s−1 and 1.9 s−1 (Fig. 2). Thus, antimycin binding at center N slows the rate of cytochromec 1 reduction through center P, and the rate matches the slow phase of the biphasic b reduction. We also examined cytochrome b reduction in a Δcoq2 mutant. This mutant is completely devoid of ubiquinone due to deletion of the gene for the enzyme that attaches the isoprenoid side chain (12.Ashby M.N. Kutsunai S.Y. Ackerman S. Tzagoloff A. Edwards P.A. J. Biol. Chem. 1992; 267: 4128-4136Abstract Full Text PDF PubMed Google Scholar). Reduction of cytochrome b in thebc 1 complex from the Δcoq2 mutant is no longer triphasic (13.Snyder C.H. Trumpower B.L. J. Biol. Chem. 1999; 274: 31209-31216Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (29) Google Scholar). Rather, in the absence of endogenous ubiquinone b, reduction is rapid and monophasic (Fig. 2,lower left). With 25 μm menaquinol, cytochromeb reduction occurred at 47 s−1. Cytochromec 1 reduction was considerably slower than the rate of cytochrome b reduction and occurred at 2.9 s−1. When antimycin was present, the reduction of cytochrome b in the absence of endogenous ubiquinone became biphasic, with each phase comprising 50% of the total absorbance change and rates of 18 s−1, and 3.4 s−1, respectively (Fig. 2,lower right). Antimycin changes the pattern of cytochromeb reduction in the bc 1 complex from the Δcoq2 mutant from monophasic to biphasic with rates that are similar to those observed with wild-type complex in the presence of antimycin. This similarity in rates of breduction is evident in the traces in the lower right andupper right panels of Fig. 2. The biphasic reduction of cytochrome b in thebc 1 complex from the Δcoq2 mutant in the presence of antimycin (Fig. 2, lower right) differs notably from that in the mutant in the absence of antimycin (Fig. 2,lower left), which is rapid and apparently monophasic. Also, the amount of b that is reduced in thebc 1 complex from the Δcoq2 mutant is significantly greater than in the wild-typebc 1 complex (Fig. 2, upper left). The amount of b reduced in the wild-type enzyme in the presence of antimycin (Fig. 2, upper right) is similar to that reduced in the bc 1 complex from the Δcoq2 mutant in the absence or presence of antimycin. The explanation for these differences in b reduction in the presence of antimycin and in the absence of endogenous ubiquinone is discussed below. Cytochrome c 1 reduction in thebc 1 complex from the Δcoq2 mutant was monophasic in the presence of antimycin and occurred at 3.1 s−1 (Fig. 2, lower right), compared with 2.9 s−1 in the bc 1 complex from the Δcoq2 mutant in the absence of ubiquinone (Fig. 2,lower left). These results indicate that when there is no endogenous ubiquinone, antimycin does not slow the rate of cytochromec 1 reduction. The rate ofc 1 reduction in the bc 1complex from the wild-type yeast in the presence of antimycin (1.8 s−1) is comparable with the rates in thebc 1 complex from the Δcoq2 mutant in the absence (2.9 s−1) or presence of antimycin (3.1 s−1), allowing for some variation in activities of different enzyme preparations. Also, in the bc 1complexes from both the wild-type yeast and the Δcoq2mutant in the presence of antimycin, where the reduction ofb is biphasic, the rate of c 1reduction matches the slow phase of b reduction. To more accurately determine the rates of cytochromec 1 reduction in the presence of antimycin and in the absence of endogenous ubiquinone, the rates were measured at multiple menaquinol concentrations, and second order rate constants for cytochrome c 1 reduction were calculated from the plots shown in Fig. 3. With wild-type enzyme, in which endogenous ubiquinone is present, the second order rate constant for cytochrome c 1 reduction varied, declining ∼4.5 fold from 6.9 × 105m−1 s−1 to 1.55 × 105m−1 s−1 as the concentration of menaquinol increased. The reason for the variable rate constant in the wild-type bc 1 complex in the absence of antimycin is discussed below. When antimycin was added, the rate constant decreased by 10-fold to 6.6 × 104m−1 s−1. With thebc 1 complex from the Δcoq2 mutant, the second order rate constant for c 1 reduction was 1.1 × 105m−1s−1, and when antimycin was added, the rate constant was unchanged. From these rate constants it is clear that in the presence of endogenous ubiquinone antimycin slows the rate ofc 1 reduction, but in the absence of endogenous ubiquinone, antimycin has no effect. The absence of endogenous ubiquinone appears to mimic the effect of antimycin on presteady state reduction of c 1 by menaquinol when ubiquinone is present. Usingbc 1 complexes in which the midpoint potential of the Rieske iron-sulfur protein was altered by site-directed mutations, we previously showed that there is a direct correlation between midpoint potential of the iron-sulfur protein and the catalytic activity of the enzyme (14.Denke E. Merbitz-Zahradnik T. Hatzfeld O.M. Snyder C.H. Link T.A. Trumpower B.L. J. Biol. Chem. 1998; 273: 9085-9093Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (147) Google Scholar). The mutations chosen for these studies did not change the stability of the protein or cause any structural change in the environment of the iron-sulfur cluster, as assessed by various spectroscopic methods (14.Denke E. Merbitz-Zahradnik T. Hatzfeld O.M. Snyder C.H. Link T.A. Trumpower B.L. J. Biol. Chem. 1998; 273: 9085-9093Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (147) Google Scholar). We also previously established that menaquinol reacts directly with thebc 1 complex at center P and not through endogenous ubiquinone (13.Snyder C.H. Trumpower B.L. J. Biol. Chem. 1999; 274: 31209-31216Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (29) Google Scholar, 16.Snyder C. Trumpower B.L. Biochim. Biophys. Acta. 1998; 1365: 125-134Crossref PubMed Scopus (44) Google Scholar). In the present study we have examined the effects of iron-sulfur protein mid-point potential on the presteady state reduction kinetics of cytochromes b andc 1. In these experiments antimycin was included to isolate the reaction at center P, so that cytochrome breduction is linked to iron-sulfur protein reduction. With wild-type enzyme, in which iron-sulfur protein Em,7 = +285 mV (14.Denke E. Merbitz-Zahradnik T. Hatzfeld O.M. Snyder C.H. Link T.A. Trumpower B.L. J. Biol. Chem. 1998; 273: 9085-9093Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (147) Google Scholar), cytochrome b reduction was biphasic and occurred at 58 s−1 and 9.6 s−1 (Fig.4, top left). Cytochromec 1 reduction was monophasic and occurred at 8.4 s−1. With the bc 1 complex containing iron-sulfur protein with a Y185F mutation (Em,7= +217 mV), b reduction was biphasic and occurred at 44 s−1 and 11.7 s−1 (Fig. 4, top right), whereas c 1 reduction was monophasic and occurred at 12.1 s−1. The decrease in the fast phase of b reduction in the bc 1 complex with the Y185F iron-sulfur protein compared with the rate in the wild-type enzyme is consistent with the decrease in the potential difference between the iron-sulfur protein and the substrate menaquinol. The increase in the rate of c 1reduction is also consistent with the decrease in iron-sulfur protein midpoint potential, which would be expected to increase the rate of electron transfer from the iron-sulfur protein toc 1. In the bc 1 complex containing the S183A iron-sulfur protein mutation (Em,7 = 155 mV) and thebc 1 complex containing the S183A/Y185F double mutation (Em,7 = 105 mV), reduction of both cytochromeb and c 1 was monophasic. With the S183A iron-sulfur protein mutation, the rate of b reduction was 15 times slower than the fast phase of b reduction in the wild-type enzyme, whereas the rate of c 1reduction was 2 times slower (Fig. 4). With thebc 1 complex containing the S183A/Y185F iron-sulfur protein double mutation, the rates of both b andc 1 reduction were 1.0 s−1, which are 58 times and 8 times slower than the corresponding rates in the wild-type enzyme. To demonstrate the effects of iron-sulfur protein midpoint potential on the rate of b reduction, second order rate constants were calculated and plotted versus iron-sulfur protein midpoint potential (Fig. 5). For this plot the midpoint potentials of the iron-sulfur proteins at pH 7 were used (14.Denke E. Merbitz-Zahradnik T. Hatzfeld O.M. Snyder C.H. Link T.A. Trumpower B.L. J. Biol. Chem. 1998; 273: 9085-9093Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (147) Google Scholar). However, we also checked the mid-point potentials at pH 6.0 of the wild-type protein and the S183A and Y185F proteins and confirmed that the mutations do not eliminate the pH dependence of the midpoint potential. For the wild-type bc 1 complex the rate constant for b reduction was 8.2 × 105m−1 s−1. There is a direct correlation between the rate of b reduction and the midpoint potential of the iron-sulfur protein. For the enzymes with the S183A and the S183A/Y185F double mutations the rate constants decreased 13.4- and 75-fold, respectively. These results demonstrate that cytochromeb reduction is linked to and limited by the oxidation of quinol by the iron-sulfur protein. The oxidation of ubiquinol at center P has been thought to occur by a sequential mechanism in which the iron-sulfur protein oxidizes the quinol to semiquinone, which then reduces cytochromeb L (1.Trumpower B.L. Gennis R.B. Annu. Rev. Biochem. 1994; 63: 675-716Crossref PubMed Scopus (467) Google Scholar, 3.Brandt U. Trumpower B.L. Crit. Rev. Biochem. Mol. Biol. 1994; 29: 165-197Crossref PubMed Scopus (292) Google Scholar). Our results suggest that ubiquinol oxidation occurs by a concerted mechanism that requires that both the iron-sulfur protein and cytochrome b L be oxidized and that cytochrome b L reduction precedes iron-sulfur protein reduction of cytochromec 1. In the presteady state experiments, two molecules of menaquinol are sequentially oxidized at center P. During the first turnover, the iron-sulfur protein and cytochromeb L are reduced (reactions 1a–1c in Fig. 1). The iron-sulfur protein will remain predominately reduced since its potential is higher than that of cytochrome c 1. However, cytochromeb L will immediately reduce cytochromeb H, which then reduces ubiquinone to ubisemiquinone at center N (reactions 2 and 3 in Fig. 1). The second turnover at center P is dependent upon the redox state of cytochrome b L and the iron-sulfur protein and will only occur when both are oxidized. After the second turnover, both the iron-sulfur protein and cytochromec 1 are reduced, and the second electron in the low potential chain reduces semiquinone to ubiquinol at center N (reaction 4 in Fig. 1). When ubiquinone is absent or when antimycin occupies center N, the single electron introduced during the first turnover will remain in the low potential chain. If the second turnover at center P is not dependent upon the redox state of the low potential chain and solely dependent upon the iron-sulfur protein, then the rate of cytochromec 1 reduction should remain unchanged. However, we have shown that when ubiquinone is absent or when antimycin is present, the rate of cytochrome c 1 reduction is dramatically slowed. Furthermore, antimycin had no additional slowing effect when ubiquinone is absent. These results show that equilibration of an electron between cytochrome b H andb L in the low potential chain slows reduction of the high potential chain. This suggests that ubiquinol oxidation at center P occurs by a concerted mechanism in which the redox status of the low potential chain exerts reciprocal control on reduction of the high potential chain. This same effect accounts for the decline in the second order rate constant for c 1 reduction in the wild-typebc 1 complex as the concentration of menaquinol increases. We previously showed that menaquinol reduces the endogenous ubiquinone by a transhydrogenase reaction at center N, and this reaction is slower than the direct reduction of b andc 1 through center P (13.Snyder C.H. Trumpower B.L. J. Biol. Chem. 1999; 274: 31209-31216Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (29) Google Scholar). It would be expected that as the menaquinol concentration increases, the endogenous ubiquinone would become partly reduced, resulting in equilibration of an electron between ubiquinone and the low potential chain and a reciprocal slowing of reduction of the high potential chain. Consequently, as the concentration of menaquinol increases, the second order rate constant for c 1 reduction in the wild-type enzyme approaches the rate constants seen in the presence of antimycin or absence of ubiquinone. The slowing effect of antimycin on presteady state reduction of cytochrome c 1 that we have described here was first reported by Degli-Esposti and Lenaz (17.Degli-Esposti M. Lenaz G. FEBS Lett. 1982; 277: 49-53Crossref Scopus (16) Google Scholar), although they interpreted this result as a block of electron transfer between cytochrome b and c 1 and inconsistent with the protonmotive Q cycle mechanism. We attribute this effect of antimycin to lack of equilibration of ferro-cytochromeb H with ubiquinone through center N (reactions 4 and 5 in Fig. 1), as evidenced by duplication of the effect in bc 1 complex that lacks ubiquinone, and explain these results in terms of a concerted oxidation mechanism in the Q cycle. Elsewhere we have shown that the inhibitory effect of antimycin on catalytic activity of thebc 1 complex is distinct from the slowing effect manifested during presteady state reduction of the enzyme (18.Bowyer J.R. Trumpower B.L. J. Biol. Chem. 1981; 256: 2245-2251Abstract Full Text PDF PubMed Google Scholar). We have also shown that there is a direct correlation between the midpoint potential of the iron-sulfur protein and the rate of cytochrome b reduction, the other half of the reciprocal control implicit in a concerted mechanism whereby the high potential chain controls reduction of the low potential chain. These results agree with previous findings that the oxidation of ubiquinol by the iron-sulfur protein is the rate-limiting step under conditions of catalytic turnover and that the midpoint potential of the iron-sulfur protein is quantitatively the predominant determinant of that rate (14.Denke E. Merbitz-Zahradnik T. Hatzfeld O.M. Snyder C.H. Link T.A. Trumpower B.L. J. Biol. Chem. 1998; 273: 9085-9093Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (147) Google Scholar). The effects of iron-sulfur protein midpoint potential on rates of cytochrome b reduction are incompatible with linear mechanisms of the type QH2 → [b H , b L] → ISP →c 1 → c, in which ubiquinol reduces cytochrome b H, which then reduces the iron-sulfur protein via cytochrome b L (19.Matsuno-Yagi A. Hatefi Y. J. Biol. Chem. 1999; 274: 9283-9288Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (16) Google Scholar). If ubiquinol reduces cytochrome b directly, the midpoint potential of the iron-sulfur protein should have no effect upon the rate of b reduction. However, our results clearly show that as the midpoint potential of the iron-sulfur protein decreases, the rate of b reduction decreases. We observed that the amount of cytochrome b that is reduced in the bc 1 complex from the Δcoq2mutant is greater than in the wild-type bc 1complex (Fig. 2). Furthermore, the addition of antimycin to the wild-type enzyme caused the extent of b reduction to be identical to that in the Δcoq2 mutant. These differences are due to reoxidation of cytochrome bthrough center N, which is obviated by the absence of endogenous ubiquinone or inhibited by antimycin when ubiquinone is present (13.Snyder C.H. Trumpower B.L. J. Biol. Chem. 1999; 274: 31209-31216Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (29) Google Scholar). When antimycin is present, reduction of cytochrome b is biphasic, both in the absence or presence of endogenous ubiquinone. This is because when antimycin occupies center N, the first electron to enter the low potential chain cannot equilibrate with ubiquinone but remains in the b cytochromes. Entry of a second electron into the low potential chain is then limited by the distribution of the first electron between the two b hemes if they cannot equilibrate with ubiquinone. Consequently, in these presteady state experiments antimycin inhibits entry of the second electron into the high potential chain but has no effect on the first turnover of the enzyme. The basis for the concerted mechanism of ubiquinol oxidation can be seen in a thermodynamic profile of the redox components of thebc 1 complex as shown in Fig.6. Reciprocal control of ubiquinol oxidation by the low potential and high potential redox components of the bc 1 complex results from thermodynamic coupling of the electron transfer from ubiquinol to iron-sulfur protein to electron transfer from ubisemiquinone to cytochromeb L. The essential feature of this coupling is that the potential of the Q⨪/QH2 couple is too high to reduce the Rieske iron-sulfur cluster unless the potential is lowered by removal of Q⨪ by reduction of cytochromeb L as suggested by Jünemann et al. (7.Jünemann S. Heathcote P. Rich P.R. J. Biol. Chem. 1998; 273: 21603-21607Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (98) Google Scholar). If a conservatively estimated 10-fold lowering of the semiquinone:quinol ratio is required to bring the Q⨪/QH2 couple within the redox range of the Rieske center (Em,7 = +285 mV), this would require that Em,7 (Q⨪/QH2) be at least +340 mV. The resulting low potential of the Q/Q⨪ couple (−160 mV) would provide a significant kinetic advantage to reduction of heme b L (Em,7 = −60 mV) by ubisemiquinone. The exergonic nature of this reaction and the proximity of the semiquinone to heme b L(5.Zhang Z.L. Huang L.S. Shulmeister V.M. Chi Y.I. Kim K.K. Hung L.W. Crofts A.R. Berry E.A. Kim S.H. Nature. 1998; 392: 677-684Crossref PubMed Scopus (919) Google Scholar) would ensure that this electron transfer is extremely rapid provided heme b L is oxidized. Several consequences follow from the potentials of the semiquinone couples associated with a concerted mechanism of this type. If Em (Q⨪/QH2) = +340 mV, then the equilibrium constant for formation of ubisemiquinone from quinone and quinol would be ∼4.6 × 10−9. In EPR experiments in which the concentration of bc 1 complex is typically 10–50 μm, this equilibrium would have to be shifted 8 orders of magnitude to detect one equivalent of semiquinone. Clearly, this paramagnetic species, if it exists, is below the limits of detection by EPR spectroscopy. The formation of superoxide anion by the bc 1complex, a reaction that occurs at center P and is stimulated by antimycin (21.Ksenzenko M. Konstantinov A.A. Khomutove G.B. Tikhonov A.N. Ruuge E.K. FEBS Letts. 1983; 155: 19-24Crossref PubMed Scopus (149) Google Scholar), also depends on the potentials of the semiquinone couples and, by inference, the stability of the semiquinone. This reaction most likely results from aberrant reduction of oxygen instead of b L by ubisemiquinone. The one-electron reduction of oxygen requires a relatively strong reductant, since Em,7(O2/O2−) = −330 mV in aqueous solvents (22.Fee J.A. Valentine J.S. Michelson A.M. McCord J.M. Fridovich I. Superoxide and Superoxide Dismutases. Academic Press, Inc., New York1977: 19-60Google Scholar). If one assumes Em (Q/Q⨪) = −280 mV is sufficiently low to allow the observed rates of superoxide anion formation, it would infer that Em (Q⨪/QH2) = +460 mV and that the stability constant of the reacting ubisemiquinone is extremely low, ∼4.6 × 10−13. These considerations suggest that the semiquinone that reacts with oxygen is highly unstable. The thermodynamic profile in Fig. 6 also illustrates why cytochromeb reduction in the bc 1 complex from the wild-type yeast and in the enzyme with the Y185F iron-sulfur mutation is biphasic, whereas b reduction in the enzymes with the S183A and S183A/Y185F iron-sulfur mutations is monophasic. Oxidation of the second menaquinol molecule at center P is limited by the distribution of the first electron in the high potential chain between iron-sulfur protein and cytochrome c 1. Only when the iron-sulfur protein is oxidized can the second molecule of menaquinol reduce the iron-sulfur protein and cytochromeb L. The midpoint potential of the Rieske iron-sulfur protein is pH-dependent, and this pH dependence is also manifested in the iron-sulfur proteins carrying site-directed mutations. At pH 6 the midpoint potential is +305 mV in the wild-type protein and +250 mV in the iron-sulfur protein with the Y185F mutation (23.Link T.A. Biochim. Biophys. Acta. 1994; 1185: 81-84Crossref Scopus (54) Google Scholar, 24.Snyder C.H. Merbitz-Zahradnik T. Link T.A. Trumpower B.L. J. Bioenerg. Biomembr. 1999; 31: 235-242Crossref PubMed Scopus (23) Google Scholar). With both of these iron-sulfur proteins the equilibrium of the first electron in the high potential chain between the iron-sulfur protein and cytochrome c 1 lies more toward the iron-sulfur protein. This causes b reduction to be biphasic. The fast phase of b reduction is linked to the optically invisible reduction of the Rieske center, whereas the rate of the second, slow phase matches that of c 1 reduction (Fig. 4). The midpoint potential of the iron-sulfur protein with the S183A mutation, Em = +185 mV at pH 6 (24.Snyder C.H. Merbitz-Zahradnik T. Link T.A. Trumpower B.L. J. Bioenerg. Biomembr. 1999; 31: 235-242Crossref PubMed Scopus (23) Google Scholar), is lower than that ofc 1 (+240 mV), and the midpoint potential of the S183A/Y185F iron-sulfur protein is even lower (14.Denke E. Merbitz-Zahradnik T. Hatzfeld O.M. Snyder C.H. Link T.A. Trumpower B.L. J. Biol. Chem. 1998; 273: 9085-9093Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (147) Google Scholar). Thus, in the bc 1 complexes from these mutants, the first electron entering the high potential chain will be predominately located in cytochrome c 1, and cytochrome b reduction will proceed as fast as the menaquinol can be oxidized at center P. The latter reaction is slowed so much by the decrease in iron-sulfur protein midpoint potential that entry of a second electron into the low potential chain is not limited by the distribution of the first electron between the two bhemes. Consequently, in the bc 1 complexes with the S183A and the S183A/Y185F iron-sulfur protein mutations, reduction of b is slow and monophasic. From these results, we propose a mechanism for the divergent oxidation of ubiquinol at center P that incorporates iron-sulfur protein mobility and concerted electron transfer. The overall mechanism can be summarized by a minimum of four steps designated 1a-1d, the first three of which are concerted as described in Fig. 1. The concerted reaction begins when ubiquinol replaces the ionizable proton from the imidazole nitrogen of histidine-181, which is one of the ligands to the redox active iron of the Rieske cluster (25.Iwata S. Saynowits M. Link T.A. Michel H. Structure (Lond.). 1996; 4: 567-579Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (276) Google Scholar), to form a ubiquinol-imidazolate complex (reaction 1a in Fig. 1). Formation of a ubiquinol-imidazolate complex in this manner circumvents prerequisite ionization of ubiquinol, which has a pK a = 11.25 (26.Rich P.R. Biochim. Biophys. Acta. 1984; 768: 53-79Crossref PubMed Scopus (315) Google Scholar). It is this reaction that is responsible for the pK a = 6.5–6.7 component of the bell-shaped activity versus pH curves documented in both bovine and yeast bc 1 complexes by Brandt and Okun (27.Brandt U. Okum J.G. Biochemistry. 1997; 36: 11234-11240Crossref PubMed Scopus (89) Google Scholar). The ubiquinol-imidazolate complex is the electron donor for the redox active iron (reaction 1b in Fig. 1). This electron transfer does not occur unless the resulting semiquinone is simultaneously removed by reduction of cytochromeb L (reaction 1c in Fig. 1), which only occurs when the iron-sulfur protein is in proximity to cytochromeb L. This linkage is the basis of the concerted reaction. As noted above, the low potential of the Q/Q⨪ couple and the proximity of the semiquinone to hemeb L cause this reaction to be extremely fast, provided that b L is oxidized. Binding of ubiquinol only occurs when the iron-sulfur protein is proximal to cytochrome b, since formation of the ubiquinol-imidazolate complex (reaction 1a) is dependent on reduction of b L by the semiquinone (reaction 1c). If either cytochromeb L or iron-sulfur protein is reduced, ubiquinol oxidation cannot occur, and ubiquinol cannot bind. As cytochromeb is reduced and ubiquinone dissociates, the reduced iron-sulfur protein moves to the cytochrome c 1position, and electron transfer to c 1 ensues (reaction 1d in Fig. 1). In this manner association of ubiquinol and dissociation of ubiquinone are linked to the movement of the iron-sulfur protein between the interfaces of cytochromeb and cytochrome c 1. The overall rate of the concerted reaction can be influenced by several constituent reactions. The rate of electron transfer into the cluster is determined by the increment in redox potential between the ubiquinol-imidazolate complex and the iron-sulfur cluster, and this increment is the predominant determinant of the catalytic activity of the enzyme (14.Denke E. Merbitz-Zahradnik T. Hatzfeld O.M. Snyder C.H. Link T.A. Trumpower B.L. J. Biol. Chem. 1998; 273: 9085-9093Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (147) Google Scholar). In addition to the dependence on midpoint potential of the Rieske protein, the rate of ubiquinol oxidation is also partly determined by the rate of formation of the ubiquinol-imidazolate complex, reflected in the pH dependence of the ubiquinol-cytochromec reductase reaction (27.Brandt U. Okum J.G. Biochemistry. 1997; 36: 11234-11240Crossref PubMed Scopus (89) Google Scholar).