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

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

    La Trobe Institute for Molecular Science, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Australia
    For correspondence
    m.maher@latrobe.edu.au
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

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

  • 1,344
    views
  • 290
    downloads
  • 20
    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

Further reading

    1. Biochemistry and Chemical Biology
    2. Structural Biology and Molecular Biophysics
    Cristina Paissoni, Sarita Puri ... Carlo Camilloni
    Research Article

    Both immunoglobulin light-chain (LC) amyloidosis (AL) and multiple myeloma (MM) share the overproduction of a clonal LC. However, while LCs in MM remain soluble in circulation, AL LCs misfold into toxic-soluble species and amyloid fibrils that accumulate in organs, leading to distinct clinical manifestations. The significant sequence variability of LCs has hindered the understanding of the mechanisms driving LC aggregation. Nevertheless, emerging biochemical properties, including dimer stability, conformational dynamics, and proteolysis susceptibility, distinguish AL LCs from those in MM under native conditions. This study aimed to identify a2 conformational fingerprint distinguishing AL from MM LCs. Using small-angle X-ray scattering (SAXS) under native conditions, we analyzed four AL and two MM LCs. We observed that AL LCs exhibited a slightly larger radius of gyration and greater deviations from X-ray crystallography-determined or predicted structures, reflecting enhanced conformational dynamics. SAXS data, integrated with molecular dynamics simulations, revealed a conformational ensemble where LCs adopt multiple states, with variable and constant domains either bent or straight. AL LCs displayed a distinct, low-populated, straight conformation (termed H state), which maximized solvent accessibility at the interface between constant and variable domains. Hydrogen-deuterium exchange mass spectrometry experimentally validated this H state. These findings reconcile diverse experimental observations and provide a precise structural target for future drug design efforts.

    1. Structural Biology and Molecular Biophysics
    Kingsley Y Wu, Ta I Hung, Chia-en A Chang
    Research Article

    PROteolysis TArgeting Chimeras (PROTACs) are small molecules that induce target protein degradation via the ubiquitin-proteasome system. PROTACs recruit the target protein and E3 ligase; a critical first step is forming a ternary complex. However, while the formation of a ternary complex is crucial, it may not always guarantee successful protein degradation. The dynamics of the PROTAC-induced degradation complex play a key role in ubiquitination and subsequent degradation. In this study, we computationally modelled protein complex structures and dynamics associated with a series of PROTACs featuring different linkers to investigate why these PROTACs, all of which formed ternary complexes with Cereblon (CRBN) E3 ligase and the target protein bromodomain-containing protein 4 (BRD4BD1), exhibited varying degrees of degradation potency. We constructed the degradation machinery complexes with Culling-Ring Ligase 4A (CRL4A) E3 ligase scaffolds. Through atomistic molecular dynamics simulations, we illustrated how PROTAC-dependent protein dynamics facilitating the arrangement of surface lysine residues of BRD4BD1 into the catalytic pocket of E2/ubiquitin cascade for ubiquitination. Despite featuring identical warheads in this PROTAC series, the linkers were found to affect the residue-interaction networks, and thus governing the essential motions of the entire degradation machine for ubiquitination. These findings offer a structural dynamic perspective on ligand-induced protein degradation, providing insights to guide future PROTAC design endeavors.