1. Structural Biology and Molecular Biophysics
Download icon

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

  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  Is a corresponding author
  1. University College London, United Kingdom
  2. Birkbeck College, United Kingdom
  3. University of Leicester, United Kingdom
  4. Monash University, Australia
Research Article
  • Cited 78
  • Views 5,444
  • Annotations
Cite this article as: eLife 2014;3:e04247 doi: 10.7554/eLife.04247

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

Publication 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

  • 5,444
    Page views
  • 712
    Downloads
  • 78
    Citations

Article citation count generated by polling the highest count across the following sources: Crossref, Scopus, PubMed Central.

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)

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

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

Further reading

    1. Computational and Systems Biology
    2. Structural Biology and Molecular Biophysics
    Xiakun Chu et al.
    Research Article

    The way in which multidomain proteins fold has been a puzzling question for decades. Until now, the mechanisms and functions of domain interactions involved in multidomain protein folding have been obscure. Here, we develop structure-based models to investigate the folding and DNA-binding processes of the multidomain Y-family DNA polymerase IV (DPO4). We uncover shifts in folding mechanism among ordered domain-wise folding, backtracking folding, and cooperative folding, modulated by interdomain interactions. These lead to "U-shaped' folding kinetics. We characterize the effects of interdomain flexibility on the promotion of DPO4-DNA (un)binding, which probably contributes to the ability of DPO4 to bypass DNA lesions, a known biological role of Y-family polymerases. We suggest that the native topology of DPO4 leads to a trade-off between fast, stable folding and tight functional DNA binding. Our approach provides an effective way to quantitatively correlate the roles of protein interactions in conformational dynamics at the multidomain level.