1. Structural Biology and Molecular Biophysics

Structural basis of interprotein electron transfer in bacterial sulfite oxidation

  1. Aaron P McGrath
  2. Elise L Laming
  3. G Patricia Casas Garcia
  4. Marc Kvansakul
  5. J Mitchell Guss
  6. Jill Trewhella
  7. Benoit Calmes
  8. Paul V Bernhardt
  9. Graeme R Hanson
  10. Ulrike Kappler
  11. Megan J Maher  Is a corresponding author
  1. University of California, San Diego, United States
  2. The Victor Chang Cardiac Research Institute, Australia
  3. La Trobe University, Australia
  4. University of Sydney, Australia
  5. University of Queensland, Australia
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.09066
Share this article
Cite this article
  1. Aaron P McGrath
  2. Elise L Laming
  3. G Patricia Casas Garcia
  4. Marc Kvansakul
  5. J Mitchell Guss
  6. Jill Trewhella
  7. Benoit Calmes
  8. Paul V Bernhardt
  9. Graeme R Hanson
  10. Ulrike Kappler
  11. Megan J Maher
(2015)
Structural basis of interprotein electron transfer in bacterial sulfite oxidation
eLife 4:e09066.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.09066
  2. Download BibTeX
  3. Download .RIS

Abstract

Interprotein electron transfer underpins the essential processes of life and relies on the formation of specific, yet transient protein-protein interactions. In biological systems, the detoxification of sulfite is catalyzed by the sulfite-oxidizing enzymes (SOEs), which interact with an electron acceptor for catalytic turnover. Here, we report the structural and functional analyses of the SOE SorT from Sinorhizobium meliloti and its cognate electron acceptor SorU. Kinetic and thermodynamic analyses of the SorT/SorU interaction showed the complex is dynamic in solution, and that the proteins interact with Kd = 13.5 {plus minus} 0.8 βM. The crystal structures of the oxidized SorT and SorU both in isolation and in complex, reveal the interface to be remarkably electrostatic, with an unusually large number of direct hydrogen bonding interactions. The assembly of the complex is accompanied by an adjustment in the structure of SorU and conformational sampling provides a mechanism for dissociation of the SorT/SorU assembly.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Aaron P McGrath

    Skaggs School of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

  2. Elise L Laming

    The Victor Chang Cardiac Research Institute, Sydney, Australia
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

  3. G Patricia Casas Garcia

    La Trobe Institute for Molecular Science, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Australia
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

  4. Marc Kvansakul

    La Trobe Institute for Molecular Science, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Australia
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

  5. J Mitchell Guss

    School of Molecular Bioscience, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

  6. Jill Trewhella

    School of Molecular Bioscience, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

  7. Benoit Calmes

    Centre for Metals in Biology, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

  8. Paul V Bernhardt

    Centre for Metals in Biology, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

  9. Graeme R Hanson

    Centre for Metals in Biology, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

  10. Ulrike Kappler

    Centre for Metals in Biology, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

  11. Megan J Maher

    School of Molecular Bioscience, University of Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
    For correspondence
    m.maher@latrobe.edu.au
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

Reviewing Editor

  1. Michael A Marletta, University of California, Berkeley, United States

Version history

  1. Received: May 28, 2015
  2. Accepted: November 12, 2015
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: December 19, 2015 (version 1)
  4. Accepted Manuscript updated: December 23, 2015 (version 2)
  5. Version of Record published: February 4, 2016 (version 3)

Copyright

© 2015, McGrath 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

  • 1,323
    views
  • 283
    downloads
  • 18
    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. Aaron P McGrath
  2. Elise L Laming
  3. G Patricia Casas Garcia
  4. Marc Kvansakul
  5. J Mitchell Guss
  6. Jill Trewhella
  7. Benoit Calmes
  8. Paul V Bernhardt
  9. Graeme R Hanson
  10. Ulrike Kappler
  11. Megan J Maher
(2015)
Structural basis of interprotein electron transfer in bacterial sulfite oxidation
eLife 4:e09066.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.09066

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.09066

Categories and tags

Further reading

    1. Biochemistry and Chemical Biology
    2. Structural Biology and Molecular Biophysics

    Caenorhabditis elegans Dicer acts with the RIG-I-like helicase DRH-1 and RDE-4 to cleave dsRNA

    Claudia D Consalvo, Adedeji M Aderounmu ... Brenda L Bass
    Research Article

    Invertebrates use the endoribonuclease Dicer to cleave viral dsRNA during antiviral defense, while vertebrates use RIG-I-like Receptors (RLRs), which bind viral dsRNA to trigger an interferon response. While some invertebrate Dicers act alone during antiviral defense, Caenorhabditis elegans Dicer acts in a complex with a dsRNA binding protein called RDE-4, and an RLR ortholog called DRH-1. We used biochemical and structural techniques to provide mechanistic insight into how these proteins function together. We found RDE-4 is important for ATP-independent and ATP-dependent cleavage reactions, while helicase domains of both DCR-1 and DRH-1 contribute to ATP-dependent cleavage. DRH-1 plays the dominant role in ATP hydrolysis, and like mammalian RLRs, has an N-terminal domain that functions in autoinhibition. A cryo-EM structure indicates DRH-1 interacts with DCR-1’s helicase domain, suggesting this interaction relieves autoinhibition. Our study unravels the mechanistic basis of the collaboration between two helicases from typically distinct innate immune defense pathways.

    1. Biochemistry and Chemical Biology
    2. Structural Biology and Molecular Biophysics

    Allosteric coupling asymmetry mediates paradoxical activation of BRAF by type II inhibitors

    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.

    1. Structural Biology and Molecular Biophysics

    Some mechanistic underpinnings of molecular adaptations of SARS-COV-2 spike protein by integrating candidate adaptive polymorphisms with protein dynamics

    Nicholas James Ose, Paul Campitelli ... Sefika Banu Ozkan
    Research Article

    We integrate evolutionary predictions based on the neutral theory of molecular evolution with protein dynamics to generate mechanistic insight into the molecular adaptations of the SARS-COV-2 spike (S) protein. With this approach, we first identified candidate adaptive polymorphisms (CAPs) of the SARS-CoV-2 S protein and assessed the impact of these CAPs through dynamics analysis. Not only have we found that CAPs frequently overlap with well-known functional sites, but also, using several different dynamics-based metrics, we reveal the critical allosteric interplay between SARS-CoV-2 CAPs and the S protein binding sites with the human ACE2 (hACE2) protein. CAPs interact far differently with the hACE2 binding site residues in the open conformation of the S protein compared to the closed form. In particular, the CAP sites control the dynamics of binding residues in the open state, suggesting an allosteric control of hACE2 binding. We also explored the characteristic mutations of different SARS-CoV-2 strains to find dynamic hallmarks and potential effects of future mutations. Our analyses reveal that Delta strain-specific variants have non-additive (i.e., epistatic) interactions with CAP sites, whereas the less pathogenic Omicron strains have mostly additive mutations. Finally, our dynamics-based analysis suggests that the novel mutations observed in the Omicron strain epistatically interact with the CAP sites to help escape antibody binding.