ELSEVIER
etBiochi~ic~a
BiophysicaA~ta
Rapid Report
Abstract
Here we examine how heterogeneous protein adsorption arises from multivalent interactions with a seemingly homogeneous functional
surface. During adsorption, some arrangement of functional groups on the protein (e.g., charged or hydrophobic amino-acid residues or
specific ligand binding sites) interacts with complementary sites distributed on the adsorbent surface. The protein will show the highest
affinity for the surface arrangements which best match its own distribution of functional sites, resulting in a distribution of binding
energies. To support this interpretation, we show that changing the density of affinity ligands on a surface (immobilized metal ions) is
equivalent to changing the number of target groups on a protein (surface histidines). We also report that reversible protein adsorption
obeys the Temkin isotherm and propose that model as a practical framework for describing the behavior of proteins adsorbing via
multivalent interactions onto surfaces densely derivatized with a random distribution of binding functionalities. This result has important
implications for the design of separations materials and the interpretation of biological recognition phenomena.
Keywords: Biological recognition; Heterogeneous binding; Histidine; Metal affinity chromatography; Copper iminodiacetic acid
The Langmuir model predicts a single maximum binding capacity for a given protein in the absence of significant conformational changes. This model therefore cannot
explain the observed increase in limiting capacity with
increasing surface histidine content for what are otherwise
identical proteins. The capacity of these materials to bind
protein is ultimately dictated by the degree of functionalization (the density of ligands) and steric factors (e.g., the
size of the protein) and should not depend on binding
affinity or competitor concentration. The current investigation was motivated by the presumption that a given protein, or a series of its variants, should reach the same
limiting coverage at sufficiently high concentrations during
reversible adsorption to a functional surface 1
Reversible protein adsorption is better described by
another model also widely used in studies of gas adsorption, the Temkin isotherm. This model assumes that adsorption is characterized by a uniform distribution of binding energies, up to some maximum binding energy
294
R.D. Johnson, F.H. Arnold / Biochimica et Biophysica Acta 1247 (1995) 293-297
2.5
Q = Qrln(1 + K r c )
where K r (M-1) is the equilibrium binding constant corresponding to the maximum binding energy ( K T =
exp(-AGmax/RT)), c (M) is the concentration of protein
in solution at equilibrium, Q (mol protein/ml support) is
the amount of protein adsorbed to the surface, and Qr
(mol protein/ml support) is the differential surface capacity for protein adsorption per unit binding energy.
We have reported equilibrium binding isotherms for ten
yeast cytochrome c surface histidine variants on a copperchelating support (Cu 2 IDA-TSK) used for metal-affinity
chromatography [8]. Increasing the protein's surface histidine content resulted in a dramatic increase in the apparent
binding affinity, presumably a result of multiple histidinecopper coordinate-covalent bonds between the protein and
the surface. Heterogeneity of binding was apparent from
Scatchard plots, and the data were first analyzed using a
bi-Langmuir isotherm with adsorption to two populations
of surface 'binding sites'. Even though the individual
experimental isotherms could all be fit to a bi-Langmuir
isotherm, changes in maximum binding capacity with surface histidine content for otherwise identical proteins could
not be explained. As shown in Fig. 1, semi-logarithmic
plots of the data demonstrate that the Temkin model fits
the individual isotherms as well as does the bi-Langmuir
model. In contrast to the varying limiting capacity that
results from use of the Langmuir model, however, the
.-.
2.5
o
2.0
00
1.5-
~ 1.o
~
0.5
0.0
10 .7
........
........
10 .6
10 5
, .......
10 .4
........
10 .3
"~ 1.5
i 10
0.5
0.13 . . . . . . . . . .
10 "2
10 2
10 4
K,c
Fig. 2. Equilibrium adsorption of cytochrome c to metal-affinity chromatography support. Equilibrium binding data for protein bound to
support (Q) at increasing solution concentration (c) are from Todd et al.
[8], ( O ) binding data for ten yeast cytochrome c variants differing only
in surface histidine content (see Fig. 3A) to Cu 2+ IDA-TSK at maximum
copper loading, ( O ) binding data for horse cytochrome c to Cu 2+ IDATSK prepared at different immobilized copper concentrations. Protein
concentrations are scaled by the maximum binding constant (Kr, see Fig.
R.D. Johnson, F.H. Arnold / Biochimica et Biophysica Acta 1247 (1995) 293-297
~"
10~ i A
10z
t-
106
II
~
II
10 4
" 1
~
10 3 ~
0
number of histidines
A
B
10 s
0
e-
o
O)
.c_
"o
10 4
e-
0 0
E
-,i
E
x
10 3
E
I
5
10
15
20
accessible copper (~mol/ml TSK)
2 This energy gain is consistent with the selectivity displayed ( = 100fold) by rationally designed bis.-mercury receptors for a target bis-imidazole (a two-histidine 'protein analog') over the single imidazole
control [10].
295
tion bonds between protein and surface, increasing apparent binding affinity. This functional equivalence between
histidines on the protein and metal ions on the adsorbent is
to be expected when the binding energy reflects the number of metal-ligand interactions formed between the protein and surface 'binding sites' of multiple metal ions
[3-5,11].
Strictly speaking, the Temkin isotherm stated above
does not reach a finite limiting capacity for protein adsorption at infinite protein concentration. An analogous threeparameter Temkin isotherm includes a minimum binding
energy to satisfy this limit [12]. If, however, cytochrome c
variants are presumed to share the s a m e limiting capacity
and minimum binding energy, then consensus values of
these two parameters can be obtained [13]. The resultant
limiting capacity for protein adsorption (3.5 /~mol/ml
TSK) is consistent with our estimate of the cytochrome c
monolayer coverage (3-4 /zmol/ml TSK) based on the
protein's dimensions in the crystal structure 3
The Temkin model predicts that the binding energy
decreases linearly with increasing amounts of protein bound
to the surface. Why should this be? A distribution of
binding energies can be explained if we consider protein
adsorption to surface sites involving multivalent contacts
in terms of two opposing contributions [15]: a favorable
energy from the specific metal-to-protein contacts ('intrinsic binding energy') and an unfavorable energy required to
match each binding site and protein to make these contacts
('rearrangement energy'). On a densely derivatized surface, a random distribution of functional sites or affinity
ligands can be viewed as a set of individual 'binding sites',
each supporting specific protein-ligand interactions to a
different degree. As illustrated in Fig. 4A, the protein will
adsorb with the highest binding energy to those arrangements of metal ions which most closely match its pattern
of histidines. Less optimal patterns of metal ions would
require some rearrangement to obtain the same number of
interactions, resulting in a lower net binding energy. The
Temkin model predicts a uniform distribution of binding
energies over the population of surface binding sites. Theoretically, such a uniform distribution of binding energies
would arise from a truly random arrangement of surface
binding sites (Wang, Z.-G., unpublished results). The range
and distribution of binding energies should depend strongly
on the density and distribution of functional groups, both
on the protein and on the surface, as demonstrated in Fig.
3.
Binding heterogeneity is a recurrent theme among chromatographic systems in which adsorption involves multi-
296
R.D. Johnson, F.H. Arnold / Biochimica et Biophysica Acta 1247 (1995) 293-297
1
suboptimal surface sites
$
E
t-
B
Langmuir
1
w
E
t-
I/
~ r n Hill
kin
Acknowledgements
m
4 None of the other isotherms considered (Hill [16], Freundlich, Dubinin-Raduskevich, and Toth [17]) resulted in a reasonable fit for a
majority of the binding isotherms.
References
[1] Horstmann, B.J. and Chase, H.A. (1989) Chem. Eng. Res. 67,
243-254.
[2] Belew, M.B., Yip, T.T., Andersson, L. and Porath J. (1987) J.
Chromatogr. 403, 197-206.
[3] Kopaciewicz, W., Rounds, M.A., Fausnaugh, J. and Regnier, F.
(1983) J. Chromatogr. 266, 3-21.
[4] Whitley, R.D., Brown, J.M., Karajgikar, N.D. and Wang, N.H.L.
(1989) J. Chromatogr. 483, 137-155.
[5] Yon, R. (1988) J. Chromatogr. 457, 13-23.
[6] Livingston, A.G. and Chase, H.A. (1989) J. Chromatogr. 481,
159-174.
[7] Gill, D.S., Roush, D.J. and Willson, R.C. (1994) J. Colloid Interface
Sci. 167, 1-7.
[8] Todd, R.J., Johnson, R.D. and Arnold, F.H. (1994) J. Chromatogr. A
662, 13-26.
[9] Sips, R. (1950) J. Chem. Phys. 18, 1024-1026.
[10] Mallik, S. Johnson, R.D. and Arnold, F.H. (1994) J. Am. Chem.
Soc. 116, 8902-8911.
[11] Lancet, D., Sadovsky, E. and Seidelmann, E. (1993) Proc. Natl.
Acad. Sci. USA 90, 3715-3719.
[12] Garrone, E., Bolis, V., Fubini, B. and Morterra, C. (1989) Langmuir
5, 892-899.
[13] Johnson, R.D. (1995) Ph.D. Thesis, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA.
[14] Louie, G.V. and Brayer, G.D. (1990) J. Mol. Biol. 214, 527-555.
[15] Jencks, W.P. (1981) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 78, 4046-4050.
[16] Levitzki, A. (1984) Receptors: A Quantitative Approach, pp. 19-36,
Benjamin-Cummings, Menilo Park, CA.
297
[17] Jaroniec, M., Dabrowski, A. and Toth, J. (1984) Chem. Eng. Sci. 39,
65-70.
[18] Yang, C. (1993) J. Phys. Chem. 97, 7097-7101.
[19] Arnold, F.H., Schofield, S.A. and Blanch, H.W. (1986) J. Chromatogr. 335, 1-12.