1. Structural Biology and Molecular Biophysics
Download icon

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
Research Article
  • Cited 14
  • Views 1,092
  • Annotations
Cite this article as: eLife 2015;4:e09066 doi: 10.7554/eLife.09066

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

Publication 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

  • 1,092
    Page views
  • 248
    Downloads
  • 14
    Citations

Article citation count generated by polling the highest count across the following sources: Scopus, Crossref, 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. Structural Biology and Molecular Biophysics
    Yanyan Liu et al.
    Research Article

    Plexins are semaphorin receptors that play essential roles in mammalian neuronal axon guidance and in many other important mammalian biological processes. Plexin signaling depends on a semaphorin-induced dimerization mechanism, and is modulated by small GTPases of the Rho family, of which RND1 serves as a plexin activator yet its close homolog RhoD an inhibitor. Using molecular dynamics (MD) simulations we showed that RND1 reinforces the plexin dimerization interface whereas RhoD destabilizes it due to their differential interaction with the cell membrane. Upon binding plexin at the Rho-GTPase binding domain (RBD), RND1 and RhoD interact differently with the inner leaflet of the cell membrane, and exert opposite effects on the dimerization interface via an allosteric network involving the RBD, RBD linkers, and a buttress segment adjacent to the dimerization interface. The differential membrane interaction is attributed to the fact that, unlike RND1, RhoD features a short C-terminal tail and a positively charged membrane interface.

    1. Microbiology and Infectious Disease
    2. Structural Biology and Molecular Biophysics
    Kanika Khanna et al.
    Research Article Updated

    The Gram-positive bacterium Bacillus subtilis can divide via two modes. During vegetative growth, the division septum is formed at the midcell to produce two equal daughter cells. However, during sporulation, the division septum is formed closer to one pole to yield a smaller forespore and a larger mother cell. Using cryo-electron tomography, genetics and fluorescence microscopy, we found that the organization of the division machinery is different in the two septa. While FtsAZ filaments, the major orchestrators of bacterial cell division, are present uniformly around the leading edge of the invaginating vegetative septa, they are only present on the mother cell side of the invaginating sporulation septa. We provide evidence suggesting that the different distribution and number of FtsAZ filaments impact septal thickness, causing vegetative septa to be thicker than sporulation septa already during constriction. Finally, we show that a sporulation-specific protein, SpoIIE, regulates asymmetric divisome localization and septal thickness during sporulation.