Abstract
Pulsed electron-electron double resonance spectroscopy (PELDOR or DEER) and single molecule Förster resonance energy transfer spectroscopy (smFRET) are recent additions to the toolbox of integrative structural biology. Both methods are frequently used to visualize conformational changes and to determine nanometer-scale distances in biomacromolecules including proteins and nucleic acids. A prerequisite for the application of PELDOR/DEER and smFRET is the presence of suitable spin centers or fluorophores in the target molecule, which are usually introduced via chemical biology methods. The application portfolio of the two methods is overlapping: each allows determination of distances, to monitor distance changes and to visualize conformational heterogeneity and -dynamics. Both methods can provide qualitative information that facilitates mechanistic understanding, for instance on conformational changes, as well as quantitative data for structural modelling. Despite their broad application, a comprehensive comparison of the accuracy of PELDOR/DEER and smFRET is still missing and we set out here to fill this gap. For this purpose, we prepared a library of double cysteine mutants of three well-studied substrate binding proteins that undergo large-scale conformational changes upon ligand binding. The distances between the introduced spin- or fluorescence labels were determined via PELDOR/DEER and smFRET, using established standard experimental protocols and data analysis routines. The experiments were conducted in the presence and absence of the natural ligands to investigate how well the ligand-induced conformational changes could be detected by the two methods. Overall, we found good agreement for the determined distances, yet some surprising inconsistencies occurred. In our set of experiments, we identified the source of discrepancies as the use of cryoprotectants for PELDOR/DEER and label-protein interactions for smFRET. Our study highlights strength and weaknesses of both methods and paves the way for a higher confidence in quantitative comparison of PELDOR/DEER and smFRET results in the future.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
