Membrane Depth-Dependent Energetic Contribution of the Tryptophan Side Chain to the Stability of Integral Membrane Proteins

Abstract

Lipid solvation provides the primary driving force for the insertion and folding of integral membrane proteins. Although the structure of the lipid bilayer is often simplified as a central hydrophobic core sandwiched between two hydrophilic interfacial regions, the complexity of the liquid-crystalline bilayer structure and the gradient of water molecules across the bilayer fine-tune the energetic contributions of individual amino acid residues to the stability of membrane proteins at different depths of the bilayer. The tryptophan side chain is particularly interesting because despite its widely recognized role in anchoring membrane proteins in lipid bilayers, there is little consensus about its hydrophobicity among various experimentally determined hydrophobicity scales. Here we investigated how lipid-facing tryptophan residues located at different depths in the bilayer contribute to the stability of integral membrane proteins using outer membrane protein A (OmpA) as a model. We replaced all lipid-contacting residues of the first transmembrane β-strand of OmpA with alanines and individually incorporated tryptophans in these positions along the strand. By measuring the thermodynamic stability of these proteins, we found that OmpA is slightly more stable when tryptophans are placed in the center of the bilayer and that it is somewhat destabilized as tryptophans approach the interfacial region. However, this trend may be partially reversed when a moderate concentration of urea rather than water is taken as the reference state. The measured stability profiles are driven by similar profiles of the <i>m</i>-value, a parameter that reflects the shielding of hydrophobic surface area from water. Our results indicate that knowledge of the free energy level of the protein’s unfolded reference state is important for quantitatively assessing the stability of membrane proteins, which may explain differences in observed profiles between <i>in vivo</i> and <i>in vitro</i> scales