Abstract

Cholera toxin (CT) enters and intoxicates host cells after binding cell surface receptors using its B subunit (CTB). The ganglioside (glycolipid) GM1 is thought to be the sole CT receptor; however, the mechanism by which CTB binding to GM1 mediates internalization of CT remains enigmatic. Here we report that CTB binds cell surface glycoproteins. Relative contributions of gangliosides and glycoproteins to CTB binding depend on cell type, and CTB binds primarily to glycoproteins in colonic epithelial cell lines. Using a metabolically incorporated photocrosslinking sugar, we identified one CTB-binding glycoprotein and demonstrated that the glycan portion of the molecule, not the protein, provides the CTB interaction motif. We further show that fucosylated structures promote CTB entry into a colonic epithelial cell line and subsequent host cell intoxication. CTB-binding fucosylated glycoproteins are present in normal human intestinal epithelia and could play a role in cholera.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Amberlyn M Wands

    Department of Biochemistry, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Akiko Fujita

    Department of Biochemistry, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Janet E McCombs

    Department of Biochemistry, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Jakob Cervin

    Department of Microbiology and Immunology, Mucosal Immunobiology and Vaccine Center, Institute of Biomedicine, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Benjamin Dedic

    Department of Biochemistry and Cell Biology, Institute of Biomedicine, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Andrea C Rodriguez

    Department of Biochemistry, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Nicole Nischan

    Department of Biochemistry, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Michelle R Bond

    National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Marcel Mettlen

    Department of Cell Biology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  10. David C Trudgian

    Department of Biochemistry, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  11. Andrew Lemoff

    Department of Biochemistry, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  12. Marianne Quiding-Järbrink

    Department of Microbiology and Immunology, Mucosal Immunobiology and Vaccine Center, Institute of Biomedicine, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  13. Bengt Gustavsson

    Department of Surgery, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  14. Catharina Steentoft

    Copenhagen Center for Glycomics, Departments of Cellular and Molecular Medicine and School of Dentistry, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  15. Henrik Clausen

    Copenhagen Center for Glycomics, Departments of Cellular and Molecular Medicine and School of Dentistry, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  16. Hamid Mirzaei

    Department of Biochemistry, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  17. Susann Teneberg

    Department of Biochemistry and Cell Biology, Institute of Biomedicine, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenberg, Sweden
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  18. Ulf Yrlid

    Department of Microbiology and Immunology, Mucosal Immunobiology and Vaccine Center, Institute of Biomedicine, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  19. Jennifer J Kohler

    Department of Biochemistry, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, United States
    For correspondence
    jennifer.kohler@utsouthwestern.edu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

Reviewing Editor

  1. Reid Gilmore, University of Massachusetts Medical School, United States

Ethics

Human subjects: This study was performed according to the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Regional Board of Ethics in Medical Research in West Sweden, approval no 249-15. Patients received oral and written information about the study by the study nurse the day before surgery, and if they agreed to participate, they signed a consent form stating permission to use the tissue and publish the results in a way that did not reveal the identity of the donor.

Version history

  1. Received: June 19, 2015
  2. Accepted: October 26, 2015
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: October 29, 2015 (version 1)
  4. Version of Record published: December 10, 2015 (version 2)

Copyright

This is an open-access article, free of all copyright, and may be freely reproduced, distributed, transmitted, modified, built upon, or otherwise used by anyone for any lawful purpose. The work is made available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication.

Metrics

  • 5,458
    views
  • 978
    downloads
  • 80
    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. Amberlyn M Wands
  2. Akiko Fujita
  3. Janet E McCombs
  4. Jakob Cervin
  5. Benjamin Dedic
  6. Andrea C Rodriguez
  7. Nicole Nischan
  8. Michelle R Bond
  9. Marcel Mettlen
  10. David C Trudgian
  11. Andrew Lemoff
  12. Marianne Quiding-Järbrink
  13. Bengt Gustavsson
  14. Catharina Steentoft
  15. Henrik Clausen
  16. Hamid Mirzaei
  17. Susann Teneberg
  18. Ulf Yrlid
  19. Jennifer J Kohler
(2015)
Fucosylation and protein glycosylation create functional receptors for cholera toxin
eLife 4:e09545.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.09545

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.09545

Further reading

    1. Biochemistry and Chemical Biology
    2. Neuroscience
    Maximilian Nagel, Marco Niestroj ... Marc Spehr
    Research Article

    In most mammals, conspecific chemosensory communication relies on semiochemical release within complex bodily secretions and subsequent stimulus detection by the vomeronasal organ (VNO). Urine, a rich source of ethologically relevant chemosignals, conveys detailed information about sex, social hierarchy, health, and reproductive state, which becomes accessible to a conspecific via vomeronasal sampling. So far, however, numerous aspects of social chemosignaling along the vomeronasal pathway remain unclear. Moreover, since virtually all research on vomeronasal physiology is based on secretions derived from inbred laboratory mice, it remains uncertain whether such stimuli provide a true representation of potentially more relevant cues found in the wild. Here, we combine a robust low-noise VNO activity assay with comparative molecular profiling of sex- and strain-specific mouse urine samples from two inbred laboratory strains as well as from wild mice. With comprehensive molecular portraits of these secretions, VNO activity analysis now enables us to (i) assess whether and, if so, how much sex/strain-selective ‘raw’ chemical information in urine is accessible via vomeronasal sampling; (ii) identify which chemicals exhibit sufficient discriminatory power to signal an animal’s sex, strain, or both; (iii) determine the extent to which wild mouse secretions are unique; and (iv) analyze whether vomeronasal response profiles differ between strains. We report both sex- and, in particular, strain-selective VNO representations of chemical information. Within the urinary ‘secretome’, both volatile compounds and proteins exhibit sufficient discriminative power to provide sex- and strain-specific molecular fingerprints. While total protein amount is substantially enriched in male urine, females secrete a larger variety at overall comparatively low concentrations. Surprisingly, the molecular spectrum of wild mouse urine does not dramatically exceed that of inbred strains. Finally, vomeronasal response profiles differ between C57BL/6 and BALB/c animals, with particularly disparate representations of female semiochemicals.

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