Enzymatic and Biophysical Analysis of two Highly Related Cytochrome P450 Reductases from Artemisia annua Reveals Differences in Their Ligand Interactions and Domain Motions

Abstract

Artemisinin is an effective antimalarial drug sourced from Artemisia annua, but its low and variable yields require enhancement either semi-synthetically or in-planta to meet the global demand for treatment. Though essential enzymes have been identified in the artemisinin biosynthetic pathway, including an essential Cytochrome P450 monooxygenase (CYP71AV1), there are still many unknowns. Cytochrome P450 reductase 1 (herein, AaCPR1), has been experimentally confirmed as an electron transfer partner for CYP71AV1 in its three step oxygenation of key artemisinin precursors. However, the recent discovery of a highly related CPR, herein AaCPR2, introduces the possibility that another, potentially more catalytically favourable interaction, could exist for CYP71AV1. Therefore, enzyme kinetics and differential scanning fluorimetry (DSF) were used in the characterisation of both AaCPR1 and AaCPR2 to determine the existence and source of their catalytic differences. Tested enzyme activity under cytochrome c and NADPH concentrations revealed that AaCPR1 had lower Km and higher kcat/Km values, while AaCPR2 had higher Vmax and kcat values. This suggests that AaCPR1 is more effective at reducing cytochrome c when substrate conditions are limiting, whereas AaCPR2 is more effective than AaCPR1 at reducing cytochrome c when substrate conditions are saturating. This implies a functional partitioning of the two enzymes on the basis of substrate availability. The DSF results provided deeper insight into the different protein-ligand interactions between the two enzymes. AaCPR2 reached lower maximum melting temperatures across all tested conditions, whereas AaCPR1 had higher maximum melting temperatures. Thus, AaCPR1 exhibits higher thermal stability and has a higher temperature threshold than AaCPR2. This contributes to the notion that the AaCPRs are functionally divergent also on the basis of temperature. The cumulative differences in melting behaviour between the two enzymes led to the hypothesis that AaCPR1 and AaCPR2 exhibit different domain motions that may lead to preferential catalysis for one redox partner over another. This was further supported by the prediction of a highly variable loop region between the two enzymes at the connecting domain just after the flexible hinge. If such loops are highly mobile, as predicted, then the residue differences therein could provide a bio-structural basis for the kinetic and thermal/biophysical differences observed between AaCPR1 and AaCPR2. These data support that AaCPR1 and AaCPR2 possess fundamental biophysical differences despite their high degree of relatedness. Ultimately, these differences suggest differential metabolic functions of the two enzyme in artemisinin biosynthesis and/or other important secondary metabolic processes.