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
  • 282
    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. Structural Biology and Molecular Biophysics

    Dependence of nucleosome mechanical stability on DNA mismatches

    Thuy TM Ngo, Bailey Liu ... Taekjip Ha
    Research Article

    The organization of nucleosomes into chromatin and their accessibility are shaped by local DNA mechanics. Conversely, nucleosome positions shape genetic variations, which may originate from mismatches during replication and chemical modification of DNA. To investigate how DNA mismatches affect the mechanical stability and the exposure of nucleosomal DNA, we used an optical trap combined with single-molecule FRET and a single-molecule FRET cyclization assay. We found that a single base-pair C-C mismatch enhances DNA bendability and nucleosome mechanical stability for the 601-nucleosome positioning sequence. An increase in force required for DNA unwrapping from the histone core is observed for single base-pair C-C mismatches placed at three tested positions: at the inner turn, at the outer turn, or at the junction of the inner and outer turn of the nucleosome. The results support a model where nucleosomal DNA accessibility is reduced by mismatches, potentially explaining the preferred accumulation of single-nucleotide substitutions in the nucleosome core and serving as the source of genetic variation during evolution and cancer progression. Mechanical stability of an intact nucleosome, that is mismatch-free, is also dependent on the species as we find that yeast nucleosomes are mechanically less stable and more symmetrical in the outer turn unwrapping compared to Xenopus nucleosomes.

    1. Cell Biology
    2. Structural Biology and Molecular Biophysics

    PURA syndrome-causing mutations impair PUR-domain integrity and affect P-body association

    Marcel Proske, Robert Janowski ... Dierk Niessing
    Research Article

    Mutations in the human PURA gene cause the neurodevelopmental PURA syndrome. In contrast to several other monogenetic disorders, almost all reported mutations in this nucleic acid-binding protein result in the full disease penetrance. In this study, we observed that patient mutations across PURA impair its previously reported co-localization with processing bodies. These mutations either destroyed the folding integrity, RNA binding, or dimerization of PURA. We also solved the crystal structures of the N- and C-terminal PUR domains of human PURA and combined them with molecular dynamics simulations and nuclear magnetic resonance measurements. The observed unusually high dynamics and structural promiscuity of PURA indicated that this protein is particularly susceptible to mutations impairing its structural integrity. It offers an explanation why even conservative mutations across PURA result in the full penetrance of symptoms in patients with PURA syndrome.

    1. Microbiology and Infectious Disease
    2. Structural Biology and Molecular Biophysics

    Molecular mechanism of complement inhibition by the trypanosome receptor ISG65

    Alexander D Cook, Mark Carrington, Matthew K Higgins
    Research Article

    African trypanosomes replicate within infected mammals where they are exposed to the complement system. This system centres around complement C3, which is present in a soluble form in serum but becomes covalently deposited onto the surfaces of pathogens after proteolytic cleavage to C3b. Membrane-associated C3b triggers different complement-mediated effectors which promote pathogen clearance. To counter complement-mediated clearance, African trypanosomes have a cell surface receptor, ISG65, which binds to C3b and which decreases the rate of trypanosome clearance in an infection model. However, the mechanism by which ISG65 reduces C3b function has not been determined. We reveal through cryogenic electron microscopy that ISG65 has two distinct binding sites for C3b, only one of which is available in C3 and C3d. We show that ISG65 does not block the formation of C3b or the function of the C3 convertase which catalyses the surface deposition of C3b. However, we show that ISG65 forms a specific conjugate with C3b, perhaps acting as a decoy. ISG65 also occludes the binding sites for complement receptors 2 and 3, which may disrupt recruitment of immune cells, including B cells, phagocytes, and granulocytes. This suggests that ISG65 protects trypanosomes by combining multiple approaches to dampen the complement cascade.