Resolving dual binding conformations of cellulosome cohesin-dockerin complexes using single-molecule force spectroscopy

  1. Markus A Jobst
  2. Lukas F Milles
  3. Constantin Schoeler
  4. Wolfgang Ott
  5. Daniel B Fried
  6. Edward A Bayer
  7. Hermann E Gaub
  8. Michael A Nash  Is a corresponding author
  1. Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, Germany
  2. Kean University, United States
  3. Weizmann Institute of Science, Israel

Abstract

Receptor-ligand pairs are ordinarily thought to interact through a lock and key mechanism, where a unique molecular conformation is formed upon binding. Contrary to this paradigm, cellulosomal cohesin-dockerin (Coh-Doc) pairs are believed to interact through redundant dual binding modes consisting of two distinct conformations. Here, we combined site-directed mutagenesis and single-molecule force spectroscopy (SMFS) to study the unbinding of Coh:Doc complexes under force. We designed Doc mutations to knock out each binding mode, and compared their single-molecule unfolding patterns as they were dissociated from Coh using an atomic force microscope (AFM) cantilever. Although average bulk measurements were unable to resolve the differences in Doc binding modes due to the similarity of the interactions, with a single-molecule method we were able to discriminate the two modes based on distinct differences in their mechanical properties. We conclude that wild-type Doc from Clostridium thermocellum exocellulase Cel48S populates each binding mode with equal probability.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Markus A Jobst

    Lehrstuhl für Angewandte Physik, Center for Nanoscience, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, Munich, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Lukas F Milles

    Lehrstuhl für Angewandte Physik, Center for Nanoscience, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, Munich, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Constantin Schoeler

    Lehrstuhl für Angewandte Physik, Center for Nanoscience, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, Munich, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Wolfgang Ott

    Lehrstuhl für Angewandte Physik, Center for Nanoscience, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, Munich, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Daniel B Fried

    Kean University, Union, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Edward A Bayer

    Department of Biological Chemistry, Weizmann Institute of Science, Rehovot, Israel
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Hermann E Gaub

    Lehrstuhl für Angewandte Physik, Center for Nanoscience, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, Munich, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Michael A Nash

    Lehrstuhl für Angewandte Physik, Center for Nanoscience, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, Munich, Germany
    For correspondence
    michael.nash@lmu.de
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

Reviewing Editor

  1. Taekjip Ha, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine

Version history

  1. Received: July 23, 2015
  2. Accepted: October 28, 2015
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: October 31, 2015 (version 1)
  4. Version of Record published: January 7, 2016 (version 2)

Copyright

© 2015, Jobst 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

  • 1,507
    views
  • 395
    downloads
  • 39
    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. Markus A Jobst
  2. Lukas F Milles
  3. Constantin Schoeler
  4. Wolfgang Ott
  5. Daniel B Fried
  6. Edward A Bayer
  7. Hermann E Gaub
  8. Michael A Nash
(2015)
Resolving dual binding conformations of cellulosome cohesin-dockerin complexes using single-molecule force spectroscopy
eLife 4:e10319.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.10319

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.10319

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.