Search

Heme–copper oxidases (HCuOs) are the terminal components of the respiratory chain in the mitochondrial membrane or the cell membrane in many bacteria. These enzymes reduce oxygen to water and use the free energy from this reaction to maintain a proton-motive force across the membrane in which they are embedded. The heme–copper oxidases of the cbb3-type are only found in bacteria, often pathogenic ones since they have a low Km for O2, enabling the bacteria to colonize semi-anoxic environments. Cbb3-type (C) oxidases are highly divergent from the mitochondrial-like aa3-type (A) oxidases, and within the heme–copper oxidase family, cbb3 is the closest relative to the most divergent member, the bacterial nitric oxide reductase (NOR). Nitric oxide reductases reduce NO to N2O without coupling the reaction to the generation of any electrochemical proton gradient. The significant structural differences between A- and C-type heme–copper oxidases are manifested in the lack in cbb3 of most of the amino acids found to be important for proton pumping in the A-type, as well as in the different binding characteristics of ligands such as CO, O2 and NO. Investigations of the reasons for these differences at a molecular level have provided insights into the mechanism of O2 and NO reduction as well as the proton-pumping mechanism in all heme–copper oxidases. In this paper, we discuss results from these studies with the focus on the relationship between proton transfer and ligand binding and reduction. In addition, we present new data, which show that CO binding to one of the c-type hemes of CcoP is modulated by protein–lipid interactions in the membrane. These results show that the heme c-CO binding can be used as a probe of protein–membrane interactions in cbb3 oxidases, and possible physiological consequences for this behavior are discussed.

Cytochrome c oxidase (CytcO) is a redox-driven proton pump in the respiratory chain of mitochondria and many aerobic bacteria. The results from several studies have shown that zinc ions interfere with both the uptake and release of protons, presumably by binding near the orifice of the proton entrance and exit pathways. To elucidate the effect of Zn2+ binding on individual electron and proton-transfer reactions, in this study, we have investigated the reaction of the fully reduced R. sphaeroides CytcO with O2, both with enzyme in detergent solution and reconstituted in phospholipid vesicles, and, with and without, Zn2+. The results show that addition of Zn2+ at concentrations ofor = 250 microM to the outside of the vesicles did not alter the transition rates between intermediates PR (P3)--F3--O4. However, proton pumping was impaired specifically during the P3--F3, but not during the F3--O4 transition at Zn2+ concentrations ofor = 25 microM. Furthermore, proton pumping during the P3--F3 transition was typically impaired with the "as isolated" CytcO, which was found to contain Zn2+ ions at microM concentration. As has already been shown, Zn2+ was also found to obstruct proton uptake during the P3--F3 transition, presumably by binding to a site near the orifice of the D-pathway. In this work we found a KI of approximately 1 microM for this binding site. In conclusion, the results show that Zn2+ ions bind on both sides of CytcO and that binding of Zn2+ at the proton output side selectively impairs proton release during the P3--F3 transition.

Cytochrome oxidase is one of the functionally most intriguing redox-driven proton pumps. During the last decade our increased understanding of the system has greatly benefited from theoretical calculations and modeling in the framework of three-dimensional structures of cytochrome c oxidases from different species. Because these studies are based on results from experiments, it is important that any ambiguities in the conclusions extracted from these experiments are discussed and elucidated. In a recent study Szundi et al. (Szundi et al. Biochemistry 2012, 51, 9302) investigated the reaction of the reduced Rhodobacter sphaeroides cytochrome c oxidase with O2 and arrived at conclusions different from those derived from earlier investigations. In this short communication we compare these very recent data to those obtained from earlier studies and discuss the origin of the differences.