Stepwise visualization of membrane pore formation by suilysin, a bacterial cholesterol-dependent cytolysin

Abstract

Membrane attack complex/perforin/cholesterol-dependent cytolysin (MACPF/CDC) proteins constitute a major superfamily of pore-forming proteins that act as bacterial virulence factors and effectors in immune defence. Upon binding to the membrane, they convert from the soluble monomeric form to oligomeric, membrane-inserted pores. Using real-time atomic force microscopy (AFM), electron microscopy (EM) and atomic structure fitting, we have mapped the structure and assembly pathways of a bacterial CDC in unprecedented detail and accuracy, focussing on suilysin from Streptococcus suis. We show that suilysin assembly is a noncooperative process that is terminated before the protein inserts into the membrane. The resulting ring-shaped pores and kinetically trapped arc-shaped assemblies are all seen to perforate the membrane, as also visible by the ejection of its lipids. Membrane insertion requires a concerted conformational change of the monomeric subunits, with a marked expansion in pore diameter due to large changes in subunit structure and packing.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Carl Leung

    London Centre for Nanotechnology, University College London, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Natalya V Dudkina

    Department of Crystallography, Birkbeck College, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Natalya Lukoyanova

    Department of Crystallography, Birkbeck College, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Adrian W Hodel

    London Centre for Nanotechnology, University College London, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Irene Farabella

    Department of Crystallography, Birkbeck College, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Arun P Pandurangan

    Department of Crystallography, Birkbeck College, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Nasrin Jahan

    Department of Infection, Immunity, and Inflammation, University of Leicester, Leicester, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Mafalda Pires Damaso

    Department of Infection, Immunity, and Inflammation, University of Leicester, Leicester, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Dino Osmanović

    London Centre for Nanotechnology, University College London, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  10. Cyril F Reboul

    Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  11. Michelle A Dunstone

    Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  12. Peter W Andrew

    Department of Infection, Immunity, and Inflammation, University of Leicester, Leicester, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  13. Rana Lonnen

    Department of Infection, Immunity, and Inflammation, University of Leicester, Leicester, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  14. Maya Topf

    Department of Crystallography, Birkbeck College, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  15. Helen R Saibil

    Department of Crystallography, Birkbeck College, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  16. Bart W Hoogenboom

    London Centre for Nanotechnology, University College London, London, United Kingdom
    For correspondence
    b.hoogenboom@ucl.ac.uk
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

Reviewing Editor

  1. Volker Dötsch, Goethe University, Germany

Version history

  1. Received: August 5, 2014
  2. Accepted: November 24, 2014
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: December 2, 2014 (version 1)
  4. Version of Record published: December 24, 2014 (version 2)

Copyright

© 2014, Leung et al.

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License permitting unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.

Metrics

  • 5,935
    views
  • 864
    downloads
  • 141
    citations

Views, downloads and citations are aggregated across all versions of this paper published by eLife.

Download links

A two-part list of links to download the article, or parts of the article, in various formats.

Downloads (link to download the article as PDF)

Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)

Cite this article (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)

  1. Carl Leung
  2. Natalya V Dudkina
  3. Natalya Lukoyanova
  4. Adrian W Hodel
  5. Irene Farabella
  6. Arun P Pandurangan
  7. Nasrin Jahan
  8. Mafalda Pires Damaso
  9. Dino Osmanović
  10. Cyril F Reboul
  11. Michelle A Dunstone
  12. Peter W Andrew
  13. Rana Lonnen
  14. Maya Topf
  15. Helen R Saibil
  16. Bart W Hoogenboom
(2014)
Stepwise visualization of membrane pore formation by suilysin, a bacterial cholesterol-dependent cytolysin
eLife 3:e04247.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.04247

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.04247

Further reading

    1. Biochemistry and Chemical Biology
    2. Structural Biology and Molecular Biophysics
    Damien M Rasmussen, Manny M Semonis ... Nicholas M Levinson
    Research Article

    The type II class of RAF inhibitors currently in clinical trials paradoxically activate BRAF at subsaturating concentrations. Activation is mediated by induction of BRAF dimers, but why activation rather than inhibition occurs remains unclear. Using biophysical methods tracking BRAF dimerization and conformation, we built an allosteric model of inhibitor-induced dimerization that resolves the allosteric contributions of inhibitor binding to the two active sites of the dimer, revealing key differences between type I and type II RAF inhibitors. For type II inhibitors the allosteric coupling between inhibitor binding and BRAF dimerization is distributed asymmetrically across the two dimer binding sites, with binding to the first site dominating the allostery. This asymmetry results in efficient and selective induction of dimers with one inhibited and one catalytically active subunit. Our allosteric models quantitatively account for paradoxical activation data measured for 11 RAF inhibitors. Unlike type II inhibitors, type I inhibitors lack allosteric asymmetry and do not activate BRAF homodimers. Finally, NMR data reveal that BRAF homodimers are dynamically asymmetric with only one of the subunits locked in the active αC-in state. This provides a structural mechanism for how binding of only a single αC-in inhibitor molecule can induce potent BRAF dimerization and activation.