The light-harvesting chlorophyll a/b-binding protein (LHCP) is largely protected against protease (except for about 1 kD on the N terminus) in the thylakoid membrane; this protease resistance is often used to assay successful insertion of LHCP into isolated thylakoids in vitro. In this paper we show that this protease resistance is exhibited by trimeric light-harvesting complex of photosystem 11 (LHCII) but not by monomeric LHCll in which about 5 kD on the N terminus of LHCP are cleaved off by protease. When a mutant version of LHCP that is unable to trimerize in an in vitro reconstitution assay is inserted into isolated thylakoids, it gives rise to only the shorter protease digestion product indicative of monomeric LHCII. We conclude that more of the N-terminal domain of LHCP isshielded in trimeric than in monomeric LHCll and that this difference in protease sensitivity can be used to distinguish between LHCP assembled in LHCll monomers or trimers. The data presented prove that upon insertion of LHCP into isolated thylakoids at least part of the protein spontaneously binds pigments to form LHCII, which then is assembled in trimers. The dependence of the protease sensitivity of thylakoid-inserted LHCP on the oligomerization state of the newly formed LHCll justifies caution when using a protease assay to verify successful insertion of LHCP into the membrane.

Light-harvesting chlorophyll a/b-binding protein, LHCP, or its precursor, pLHCP, cannot be stably inserted into barley etioplast membranes in vitro. However, when these etioplast membranes are supplemented with the chlorophyll analogs Zn-pheophytin a/b, synthesized in situ from Zn-pheophorbide a/b and digeranyl pyrophosphate, pLHCP is inserted into a protease-resistant state. This proves that chlorophyll is the only component lacking in etioplast membranes that is necessary for stable LHCP insertion. Synthesis of Znpheophytin b alone promotes insertion of LHCP in vitro into a protease-resistant state, whereas synthesis of Znpheophytin a alone does not. Insertion of pLHCP into etioplast membranes can also be stimulated by adding chlorophyll a and chlorophyll b to the membranes, albeit at a significantly lower efficiency as compared with Zn-pheophytin a/b synthesized in situ. When pLHCP is inserted into chlorophyll-or Zn-pheophytin-supplemented etioplast membranes and then assayed with protease, only the protease digestion product indicative of the monomeric major light-harvesting chlorophyll a/b complex (LHCII) is found but not the one indicating trimeric complexes. In this respect, chlorophyll-or Znpheophytin-supplemented etioplast membranes resemble thylakoid membranes at an early greening stage: pLHCP inserted into plastid membranes from greening barley is assembled into trimeric LHCII only after more than 1 h of greening.

In order to identify segments of light-harvesting chlorophyll a/b-binding protein (LHCP) that are important for pigment binding, we have tested various LHCP mutants regarding their ability to form stable pigment-protein complexes in an in vitro reconstitution assay. Deletion of 10 C-terminal amino acids in the LHCP precursor, pLHCP, did not significantly affect pigment binding, whereas deletion of one additional amino acid, a tryptophan, completely abolished the formation of stable pigment-protein complexes. This tryptophan, however, can be exchanged with other amino acids in full-length pLHCP without noticeably altering the stability or spectroscopic properties of pigment complexes made with these mutants. Thus, the tryptophan residue is not likely to be involved in a highly specific interaction stabilizing the complex. A double mutant of LHCP lacking 66 N-terminal and 6 C-terminal amino acids still forms pigmented complexes that are virtually identical to those formed with the full-length protein concerning their pigment composition and spectroscopic properties. We conclude that about 30% of the polypeptide chain in LHCP is not involved in pigment binding.

Light‐harvesting chlorophyll a/b‐binding protein (LHCP) can be reconstituted with pigments in detergent solution to yield stable monomeric light‐harvesting chlorophyll a/b complex (LHCII). This reconstitution is not significantly affected when up to ten amino acids are deleted on the C‐terminus of LHCP or when a tryptophan, which is 11 positions from the C terminus (W222), is exchanged with other amino acids [Paulsen, H. & Kuttkat, A. (1993) Photochem. Photobiol. 57, 139–142]. Here we show that the exchange of W222 with histidine or glycine completely abolishes the ability of the protein to assemble into trimeric LHCII, either upon reconstitution of monomeric complexes in detergent solution or upon insertion into isolated thylakoids. It is concluded that part of the hydrophilic domain on the C‐terminus of LHCP, although not essential for the formation of stable monomeric LHCII, is involved in trimer formation. The different degree to which various amino acids in place of W222 affect trainer formation suggests that a hydrophobic amino acid is needed in this position.

No abstract