Regularization of cw-EPR spectra. To spectroscopically follow the changes of the FeMo cofactor after incorporation of Se, different nitrogenase Av1 samples were produced under various turnover conditions in the absence of N2 (see Table 1); these samples exhibited different labeling positions (position 2B and/or positions 2B, 3A, and 5A) or labeling yields. For this purpose, different KSeCN and KSCN concentrations (samples Av1-Se2B-1, Av1-Se-low, Av1-Se2B- lowflux), different Av1/Av2 ratios (samples Av1-Se2B-lowflux and Av1-S) and different reaction cycles (samples Av1-Se-C2H2 and Av1-S-remigration) were applied. Two S-incorporated samples, one with 33S (Av1-33S) and one with natural abundance 32S (Av1-S) were prepared under turnover conditions and analyzed in comparison. All samples were frozen after the defined number of reaction cycles, but not under freeze-quench conditions. Therefore, no short-lived intermediate states are expected to be trapped. Figure 2 depicts the cw-EPR spectra of all Av1 samples under investigation covering a magnetic field range of 50–283 mT.
--- Please insert Fig. 2 here ---
The Av1-WT sample in its resting state exhibits the well-known S = 3/2 spin state EPR spectrum of the lower Kramer’s doublet (panel A). The two EPR spectra of the S-incorporated samples, Av1-S and Avl-33S (panels B and C) are virtually identical compared to the unmodified protein; therefore, incorporation of S and in particular 33S (with a nuclear spin of I = 3/2) into the FeMo cofactor is not detectable by cw-EPR spectroscopy. All Se-exchanged samples, however, exhibit a complex signal shape with at least five peaks spanning the 120–260 mT magnetic field range. Unexpectedly, the “Se-patterns” of samples Av1-Se2B-1, Av1-Se2B-lowflux, Av1-Se-C2H2, Av1-Se-low, and even of Av1-77Se2B (panels D-H) are similar, only differences in individual peaks intensities can be observed. It is important to note that 77Se has a nuclear spin of I = ½, which is different to the I = 0 of the naturally most abundant isotopes 78Se and 80Se. As those samples show very similar spectral patterns, hyperfine couplings of 77Se and the FeMo cofactor can be excluded as the origin of the Se-pattern. The cw-EPR spectrum of the Av1-S-remigration sample (panel I) again exhibits the Se-pattern, but with decreased intensity. Qualitatively, the observed signal pattern can be described as a mixture of signals from unlabeled and Se-incorporated samples.
For a more quantitative evaluation of S-, Se- and unlabeled samples, the intensity differences of the respective cw-EPR spectra were compared using spin counting via double integration. Samples Av1-WT, Av1Se2B-1, Av1-77Se2B, Av1-Se-low, Av1-Se-C2H2, and Av1-33S were compared, as all were prepared from the same enzyme batch and under identical electron flux. The analysis shows that the signal intensity of sample Av1-33S is comparable to the intensity of the Av1-WT sample, but all Se-incorporated samples have only ≈ 60% of the resting-state intensity (Supporting Figure B2). Consequently, Se incorporation leads to ≈ 40% EPR-inactive (S = 0) and/or non-Kramers states (S = 1, 2, 3, ...).
It is essential to know the origin of the complex Se-pattern to perform correct spectral simulations of the experimental data. Hyperfine couplings have already been ruled out as the source, geometric distortions due to Se incorporation are also unlikely as the only explanation, as there is no evidence for such in the crystal structures28, assuming that the Se incorporation in crystals is representative of that in solutions. Moreover, the EPR signal pattern of sample Av1-Se-C2H2, in which Se should be incorporated over the entire sulfur belt, is almost identical to those of the other Se-incorporated samples labeled mainly at the 2B position (see also below). Therefore, different states of the FeMo cofactor that manifest in different zero-field splitting parameters are the most plausible assumption. In this case, the cw-EPR spectra of all samples are dominated only by the rhombicity parameter (\(\lambda )\) of the zero-field splitting as the effective g-factors \({g}_{\left\{x,y,z\right\}}^{1/2}\) of the lower Kramer doublet of an S = 3/2 system are functions of \(\lambda =|E/D|\) (see Supporting Information Part A, Theory).
Exact \(|E/D|\) values are thus desired for a precise simulation of pulsed EPR data as the zero-field Hamiltonian \({H}_{\text{Z}\text{F}\text{S}}\) depends on \(\left|D\right|\) and \(\lambda =|E/D|\). \(\left|D\right|\) can be estimated experimentally by temperature-dependent measurements of the intensity ratios of the lower and upper Kramers doublet at g ≈ 641. These measurements were conducted on samples Av1-WT and Av1-Se2B-1 at 6 K and 15 K (Supporting Figure B3), and small differences were observed: The signal of the latter sample is slightly shifted to ≈ 115 mT and shows a more complex signal pattern compared to the single signal at 111 mT in the Av1-WT sample. However, quantitative extraction of signal intensities was not possible due to the substantial overlap of the signals from the lower and upper Kramer doublet (Supporting Figure B3). Nevertheless, the analysis demonstrates that \(\left|D\right|\) is of the same magnitude in the Se-incorporated samples and hence, using the WT value of \(D=180 \text{M}\text{H}\text{z}\) is a valid approximation. Please note that the effective \(g\)-values are independent of \(D\), if the energy of the Zeeman interaction is small compared to zero-field energy.
Inhomogeneous broadening of the magnetic parameters of protein-bound (metal) cofactors is usually approximated by a random distribution of the EPR parameters, in particular the \(\varvec{D}\) tensor and the \(\varvec{g}\) matrix, using Gaussian distributions, so-called strain models42–45. These distribution models are valid as long as the width of the distribution is small compared to its magnitude. However, the experimental spectra of the high-spin Se-FeMo cofactor exhibit a large splitting compared to their size (Fig. 2), so that such simple strain models cannot correctly reproduce these data sets, and thus other approaches are required.
Having only the parameter \(\lambda\) that dominates the cw-EPR spectrum, a regularization method was applied to disentangle the complex signal pattern in the Se-incorporated samples (see Supporting Information Part A for theoretical details). Briefly, ill-posed problems can be solved by Tikhonov regularization, and although this method is commonly used in the analysis of DEER datasets33,34, its application to cw-EPR spectra of high-spin transition metal clusters is yet not established. First, the potential and robustness of the regularization method was thoroughly tested using three calculated model datasets (Supporting Table 1). After the optimal regularization parameter \({\alpha }_{\text{O}\text{p}\text{t}}\) was determined by different methods, the distribution function was obtained. From this, the respective cw-EPR spectrum was calculated (Supporting Figures A3–12). The regularization reproduced the calculated model spectra very well (Supporting Figure A9–12), and therefore, the method was used to analyze all experimental Av1 cw-EPR spectra. As the regularization allows only one free parameter (\(\lambda\)), an intrinsic linewidth (lwpp) analysis of all samples was first performed, and optimal intrinsic Lorentzian peak-to-peak line shapes of 2.5–3 mT, 3.0–3.5 mT, and 3.5–4.0 mT were obtained for spectra recorded at 5–6 K, 9 K and 12 K, respectively (Supporting Information Part A and Supporting Figures B4–8). The distribution functions obtained from regularization are shown in Fig. 3 and the individual \(\lambda\) values of all species are summarized in Table 2. A multi-Gaussian fit was applied to quantify the individual distributions (Supporting Figure B11 and Table B1).
It is observed that samples Av1-WT, Av1-S, and Av1-33S (panels A–C) contain only one spin species with an average value of \({\lambda }_{2}\) = 0.054. In contrast, samples Av1-Se2B-1, Av1-Se2B-lowflux, Av1-Se-C2H2, Av1-Se-low and Av1-77Se2B (panels D-H) contain five species with average \(\lambda\) values of \({\lambda }_{1}\) = 0.033, \({\lambda }_{2}\) = 0.057, \({\lambda }_{3}\) = 0.082, \({\lambda }_{4}\) = 0.116 and \({\lambda }_{5}\)≈ 0.19. The second value, \({\lambda }_{2}\), matches that of the Av1-WT and accordingly was assigned to the electronic resting state of the FeMo cofactor. Even though the other four "Se-species" are present in all Se-incorporated samples, noticeable population differences between samples can be detected. In Av1-Se2B-1 and Av1-77Se2B, all four Se-species are populated, with \({\lambda }_{4}\) being the largest fraction (~ 36%). In Av1-Se-low, on the other hand, the fraction of species \({\lambda }_{2}\) is below 10%, the Se-species are more highly populated, in particular \({\lambda }_{4}\). It is worth noting that the \(\lambda\) populations of samples Av1-Se2B-1 and Av1-Se2B-lowflux differ; In contrast to Av1-Se2B-1, sample Av1-Se2B-lowflux shows predominantly \({\lambda }_{2}\) and only small amounts of any of the Se-species. This can be rationalized by a lower electron flux in sample Av1-Se2B-lowflux due to the lower Av2/Av1 ratio, which in turn might result in a decreased formation rate of Se-species per time. The largest \({\lambda }_{5}\) value of ≈ 0.19 has a very broad \(\lambda\) distribution and in most cases only a low (< 10%) population. Sample Av1-S-remigration (panel I), in which the Se is expected to be re-replaced by S, shows a different distribution than any of the other Se-incorporated samples: Species \({\lambda }_{1}\) and \({\lambda }_{4}\) are depopulated, and in addition to the resting state, only the \({\lambda }_{3}\) state is populated.
To evaluate the relaxation behavior of the individual spin species, cw-EPR spectra were recorded at different microwave powers of 0.377 mW, 3.77 mW, and 37.7 mW for analysis by regularization (Fig. 3, red and blue lines, additional microwave powers are shown as Supporting Figure B9). The relaxation behavior of all Se-species is similar, but different from that of the resting-state FeMo cofactor (\({\lambda }_{2}\)). Temperature-dependent measurements at 6, 9, and 12 K produced similar results (Supporting Figure B5–8).
From the normalized population distributions (Fig. 3), cw-EPR spectra were calculated (red lines in Fig. 2). The agreement between experiment and regularization is remarkably good in all samples and demonstrates the potential of the regularization method. Slight differences, e.g., in the signals at 145 mT and 200 mT (panels D-I), are only intensity differences and are most likely caused by small baseline artifacts.
Analysis of cw-EPR spectra using the grid-of-error method. The question remains whether the cw-EPR spectra are dominated only by the \(\lambda\) parameter or whether the intrinsic line shape lwpp is a second important parameter that differs between samples and/or between individual spin species. Therefore, the established grid-of-error approach37 was used as a second method to re-evaluate all Av1 cw-EPR spectra. The results are depicted in Fig. 4 and demonstrate that this method yields similar distribution functions compared to the regularization method. It is noteworthy that the P(\(\lambda\)) functions are significantly narrower than those obtained by regularization. This is not surprising, as the width of the distribution is partially compensated by a distribution of the intrinsic spectral linewidths. Again, samples Av1-WT Av1-S and Av1-33S (panel A–C) contain only one species with a \(\lambda\) = 0.054 value, and samples Av1-Se2B-1, Av1-Se2B-lowflux, Av1-Se-C2H2, Av1-Se-low and Av1-77Se2B (panels D–H) contain four Se-species with \(\lambda\) values of \({\lambda }_{1}\) = 0.035, \({\lambda }_{2}\) = 0.058, \({\lambda }_{3}\) = 0.085, \({\lambda }_{4}\) = 0.12. A fifth species with a \(\lambda\) value of around ≈ 0.19 can be detected in samples Av1-Se2B-1, Av1-Se-C2H2, Av1-Se-low, and Av1-77Se2B. Sample Av1-S-remigration (panel I) shows only three species with \(\lambda\) values of 0.058, 0.085, and 0.12. These \(\lambda\) values are very similar to those obtained by regularization.
Qualitatively, both methods yield similar population trends for all Se-incorporated samples. However, the individual populations differ depending on the method of analysis, and as we believe that the regularization provides more reliable populations, only for this method, a quantitative evaluation was carried out (Table 2). One major advantage of the grid-of-error method is that two (or even more) parameters can be optimized simultaneously so that linewidths are obtained for all species analyzed. A 2-dimensional representation (\(\lambda\) and lwpp) shows that the non-Se-incorporated cofactors exhibit a lwpp between 1 mT and 3 mT (Supporting Figure B10), consistent with the result of 2.5 mT from regularization. The analysis of the Se-incorporated samples confirms that the lwpp of \({\lambda }_{1}\), \({\lambda }_{2}\) and \({\lambda }_{3}\) are between 1–3 mT, and only the lwpp of \({\lambda }_{4}\) is significantly larger than 5 mT. This result is unexpected, as the analyses of the relaxation times led to similar values for all Se-incorporated samples (see below). One explanation could be that the bandwidth of the individual \({\lambda }_{4}\) values is significantly broader than \({\lambda }_{1-3}\), mainly because the grid-of-error method tends to overrate the parameter lwpp (see also section “Regularization versus grid-of-error approach”).
--- Please insert Fig. 4 here ---
Light excited experiments.
Hoffman and coworkers14 have used intra-EPR cavity photolysis at 450 nm to characterize hydride containing states of the FeMo cofactor; by irradiating nitrogenase samples with blue light and subsequent annealing at 150 K, a conversion of two E2(2H) isomers (denoted as 1b and 1c) could be demonstrated. Following these studies, samples Av1-Se2B-1 and Av1-Se-low were used to perform such experiments. The respective cw-EPR spectra (Supporting Figure B12) were analyzed by regularization and are shown in Fig. 5. It is evident that both samples respond to light irradiation and subsequent cryo-annealing, i.e. the probability distributions of the species change, but the changes are more pronounced in sample Av1-Se-low. This may be due to the fact that this sample contains a higher Se concentration.
In contrast to the results presented in reference14, no species appear upon light illumination, but rather only reduction of signal intensities can be detected (blue arrows in Fig. 5). A one-to-one correspondence to the published results cannot be expected, however, as the FeMo cofactor used in reference14 and the Se-FeMo cofactors and accompanying intermediates studied in our experiments do have slightly different properties such as binding strengths and absorption coefficients. The regularization clearly shows that the population probabilities of the individual species are different: while \({\lambda }_{2}\) and \({\lambda }_{3}\) do not change, the population probabilities of \({\lambda }_{1}\) and \({\lambda }_{4}\) decrease significantly, and similarly. As the ground state \({\lambda }_{2}\) is not supposed to change, we can identify two distinct responses: The population probabilities of \({\lambda }_{1}\) and \({\lambda }_{4}\) change with light, those of \({\lambda }_{3}\) do not.
--- Please insert Fig. 5 here ---
Pulse EPR experiments. Prior analyses of hyperfine couplings, transient nutation, inversion recovery, and 2-pulse ESEEM experiments were conducted at Q-band microwave frequencies to determine the relaxation times and spin states of all samples. The transient nutation experiments revealed that unlabeled and Se-incorporated samples contain the same nutation frequencies, and only the intensities and linewidths of individual signals differ to a small extent (Supporting Figure C1). Therefore, all “Se-species” must possess the same total spin as the FeMo cofactor in its resting state (S = 3/2). Analysis of 2-pulse ESEEM and inversion recovery spectra yielded the relaxation times \({T}_{\text{M}}^{\text{e}\text{f}\text{f}}\) and \({T}_{1}^{\text{e}\text{f}\text{f}}\), which are in the range of 200–400 ns and 1–3 µs, respectively (Supporting Figures C2 and C3). The relaxation times of all samples are similar, and are too short to conduct certain pulse experiments like ENDOR spectroscopy under our experimental conditions.
Representative Q-Band \(\tau\)-averaged 2-pulse ESEEM experiments of samples Av1-WT and Av1-Se2B-1 are depicted as upper panels of Fig. 6. Additionally, the pseudo-modulated spectra are shown for a direct comparison with the cw-EPR spectra shown in Fig. 2A/D. Both spectra are quite similar to the ones obtained from X-band microwave frequencies: the Av1-WT sample shows the typical spectrum of the FeMo cofactor in its resting state (Fig. 6, left), and the Av1-Se2B-1 sample shows the already described complex Se-pattern (Fig. 6, right). However, the signal-to-noise ratio (S/N) of the pulse EPR spectrum is significantly lower, which is mainly due to the lock-in detection of the cw-EPR spectra, and the intensities of the individual signals differ slightly due to the incomplete compensation of different ESEEM modulation depths at different magnetic field positions by \(\tau\)-averaging.
3P-ESEEM spectra (Fig. 6, lower panels) of Av1-WT (black traces), Av1-Se2B-1 (red traces), and Av1-S (dark blue traces) are depicted at four different magnetic-field positions (580, 660, 740, and 880 mT), these spectra show nearly identical hyperfine couplings close to the proton Larmor frequency and in the range between 0–5 MHz; the latter signals have been assigned to two nitrogen atoms of the surrounding amino acids40,46. Using literature values40,46, the ESEEM signals of the three samples can be simulated with good agreement. This result confirms that the direct protein environment of the FeMo cofactor remains structurally intact after turnover with KSeCN, and that no other ligand such as SeCN– or CN– is attached to the cluster. In addition, it is reconfirmed that the overall spin of the cluster remains the same, otherwise, additional nitrogen hyperfine couplings would be expected.
On the other hand, samples Av1-77Se2B (orange traces) and Av1-33S (light blue traces) show additional resonances (shaded orange and light blue areas in Fig. 6), which originate from hyperfine couplings of the respective EPR-active nuclei (33S and 77Se) and the FeMo cofactor. Differences in the frequencies and signal patterns are due to different Larmor frequencies of the two nuclei and additional quadrupole couplings in the case of 33S. Sample Av1-Se2B-1 does not show any Se hyperfine couplings as the natural abundance of 77Se is below 8%. Spectral simulations of these additional hyperfine couplings are required for a quantitative analysis. However, such simulations are complex because at almost all magnetic positions the EPR spectra of the Se-species overlap, and therefore the observed 33S and 77Se hyperfine couplings are the weighted sum of each species’ contribution.
Additional difficulties arise when simulating the 33S hyperfine couplings in sample Av1-33S, as the quadrupole coupling of the 33S nucleus overlaps strongly with the resonances of the two 14N nuclei. Moreover, depending on the magnetic-field position, different ESEEM resonances are suppressed due to cross-suppression effects, and the 3P-ESEEM spectrum of two 14N nuclei and one 33S nucleus shows a large number of peaks due to the product rule. Therefore, no unequivocal spectral simulation could be achieved. Qualitatively, the few signals in the 580 mT and 660 mT spectra indicate that a single 33S nucleus with hyperfine and quadrupole couplings of a few MHz can generate such a pattern.
Using published 14N hyperfine couplings and assuming one 77Se nucleus, the analysis of the spectral pattern in the Av1-77Se2B sample was done by manual optimization (see Methods section for details) and yielded principal 77Se hyperfine coupling values of Ax = 3 MHz, Ay = 10.5 MHz and Az = 0 MHz (aiso (77Se) ~ 4 MHz) (grey shaded dotted traces in Fig. 5). Of these values, only Ay can be trusted, as B0 = 560 mT corresponds to the effective gy principal value of the \({\lambda }_{2}\) species. Variations of Ax and Az, especially at higher magnetic fields, do not affect the quality of the simulations, so both values are undefined.
--- Please insert Fig. 6 here ---