Revealing an outward-facing open conformational state in a CLC Cl-/H+ exchange transporter

  1. Chandra M Khantwal
  2. Sherwin J Abraham
  3. Wei Han
  4. Tao Jiang
  5. Tanmay S Chavan
  6. Ricky C Cheng
  7. Shelley M Elvington
  8. Corey W Liu
  9. Irimpan I Mathews
  10. Richard A Stein
  11. Hassane S Mchaourab
  12. Emad Tajkhorshid
  13. Merritt Maduke  Is a corresponding author
  1. Stanford University School of Medicine, United States
  2. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, United States
  3. Stanford University, United States
  4. Vanderbilt University, United States

Abstract

CLC secondary active transporters exchange Cl- for H+. Crystal structures have suggested that the conformational change from occluded to outward-facing states is unusually simple, involving only the rotation of a conserved glutamate (Gluex) upon its protonation. Using 19F NMR, we show that as [H+] is increased to protonate Gluex and enrich the outward-facing state, a residue ~20 Å away from Gluex, near the subunit interface, moves from buried to solvent-exposed. Consistent with functional relevance of this motion, constriction via inter-subunit cross-linking reduces transport. Molecular dynamics simulations indicate that the cross-link dampens extracellular gate-opening motions. In support of this model, mutations that decrease steric contact between Helix N (part of the extracellular gate) and Helix P (at the subunit interface) remove the inhibitory effect of the cross-link. Together, these results demonstrate the formation of a previously uncharacterized 'outward-facing open' state, and highlight the relevance of global structural changes in CLC function.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Chandra M Khantwal

    Department of Molecular and Cellular Physiology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Sherwin J Abraham

    Department of Molecular and Cellular Physiology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Wei Han

    Department of Biochemistry, College of Medicine, Center for Biophysics and Computational Biology, Beckman Institute for Advanced Science and Technology, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Tao Jiang

    Department of Biochemistry, College of Medicine, Center for Biophysics and Computational Biology, Beckman Institute for Advanced Science and Technology, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Tanmay S Chavan

    Department of Molecular and Cellular Physiology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Ricky C Cheng

    Department of Molecular and Cellular Physiology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Shelley M Elvington

    Department of Molecular and Cellular Physiology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Corey W Liu

    Stanford Magnetic Resonance Laboratory, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Irimpan I Mathews

    Stanford Synchrotron Radiation Lightsource, Stanford University, Menlo Park, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  10. Richard A Stein

    Department of Molecular Physiology and Biophysics, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  11. Hassane S Mchaourab

    Department of Molecular Physiology and Biophysics, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  12. Emad Tajkhorshid

    Department of Biochemistry, College of Medicine, Center for Biophysics and Computational Biology, Beckman Institute for Advanced Science and Technology, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  13. Merritt Maduke

    Department of Molecular and Cellular Physiology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, United States
    For correspondence
    maduke@stanford.edu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

Copyright

© 2016, Khantwal 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

  • 2,429
    views
  • 664
    downloads
  • 44
    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. Chandra M Khantwal
  2. Sherwin J Abraham
  3. Wei Han
  4. Tao Jiang
  5. Tanmay S Chavan
  6. Ricky C Cheng
  7. Shelley M Elvington
  8. Corey W Liu
  9. Irimpan I Mathews
  10. Richard A Stein
  11. Hassane S Mchaourab
  12. Emad Tajkhorshid
  13. Merritt Maduke
(2016)
Revealing an outward-facing open conformational state in a CLC Cl-/H+ exchange transporter
eLife 5:e11189.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.11189

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.11189

Further reading

    1. Biochemistry and Chemical Biology
    2. Structural Biology and Molecular Biophysics
    Yamato Niitani, Kohei Matsuzaki ... Michio Tomishige
    Research Article

    The two identical motor domains (heads) of dimeric kinesin-1 move in a hand-over-hand process along a microtubule, coordinating their ATPase cycles such that each ATP hydrolysis is tightly coupled to a step and enabling the motor to take many steps without dissociating. The neck linker, a structural element that connects the two heads, has been shown to be essential for head–head coordination; however, which kinetic step(s) in the chemomechanical cycle is ‘gated’ by the neck linker remains unresolved. Here, we employed pre-steady-state kinetics and single-molecule assays to investigate how the neck-linker conformation affects kinesin’s motility cycle. We show that the backward-pointing configuration of the neck linker in the front kinesin head confers higher affinity for microtubule, but does not change ATP binding and dissociation rates. In contrast, the forward-pointing configuration of the neck linker in the rear kinesin head decreases the ATP dissociation rate but has little effect on microtubule dissociation. In combination, these conformation-specific effects of the neck linker favor ATP hydrolysis and dissociation of the rear head prior to microtubule detachment of the front head, thereby providing a kinetic explanation for the coordinated walking mechanism of dimeric kinesin.

    1. Structural Biology and Molecular Biophysics
    Christopher T Schafer, Raymond F Pauszek III ... David P Millar
    Research Article

    The canonical chemokine receptor CXCR4 and atypical receptor ACKR3 both respond to CXCL12 but induce different effector responses to regulate cell migration. While CXCR4 couples to G proteins and directly promotes cell migration, ACKR3 is G-protein-independent and scavenges CXCL12 to regulate extracellular chemokine levels and maintain CXCR4 responsiveness, thereby indirectly influencing migration. The receptors also have distinct activation requirements. CXCR4 only responds to wild-type CXCL12 and is sensitive to mutation of the chemokine. By contrast, ACKR3 recruits GPCR kinases (GRKs) and β-arrestins and promiscuously responds to CXCL12, CXCL12 variants, other peptides and proteins, and is relatively insensitive to mutation. To investigate the role of conformational dynamics in the distinct pharmacological behaviors of CXCR4 and ACKR3, we employed single-molecule FRET to track discrete conformational states of the receptors in real-time. The data revealed that apo-CXCR4 preferentially populates a high-FRET inactive state, while apo-ACKR3 shows little conformational preference and high transition probabilities among multiple inactive, intermediate and active conformations, consistent with its propensity for activation. Multiple active-like ACKR3 conformations are populated in response to agonists, compared to the single CXCR4 active-state. This and the markedly different conformational landscapes of the receptors suggest that activation of ACKR3 may be achieved by a broader distribution of conformational states than CXCR4. Much of the conformational heterogeneity of ACKR3 is linked to a single residue that differs between ACKR3 and CXCR4. The dynamic properties of ACKR3 may underly its inability to form productive interactions with G proteins that would drive canonical GPCR signaling.