Two-way communication between SecY and SecA suggests a Brownian ratchet mechanism for protein translocation

  1. William John Allen
  2. Robin Adam Corey
  3. Peter Oatley
  4. Richard Barry Sessions
  5. Sheena E Radford
  6. Roman Tuma
  7. Ian Collinson  Is a corresponding author
  1. University of Bristol, United Kingdom
  2. University of Leeds, United Kingdom

Abstract

The essential process of protein secretion is achieved by the ubiquitous Sec machinery. In prokaryotes, the drive for translocation comes from ATP hydrolysis by the cytosolic motor-protein SecA, in concert with the proton motive force (PMF). However, the mechanism through which ATP hydrolysis by SecA is coupled to directional movement through SecYEG is unclear. Here, we combine all-atom molecular dynamics (MD) simulations with single molecule FRET and biochemical assays. We show that ATP binding by SecA causes opening of the SecY-channel at long range, while substrates at the SecY-channel entrance feed back to regulate nucleotide exchange by SecA. This two-way communication suggests a new, unifying 'Brownian ratchet' mechanism, whereby ATP binding and hydrolysis bias the direction of polypeptide diffusion. The model represents a solution to the problem of transporting inherently variable substrates such as polypeptides, and may underlie mechanisms of other motors that translocate proteins and nucleic acids.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. William John Allen

    School of Biochemistry, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Robin Adam Corey

    School of Biochemistry, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Peter Oatley

    Astbury Centre for Structural Molecular Biology, University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Richard Barry Sessions

    School of Biochemistry, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Sheena E Radford

    AStbury Centre for Structural Molecular Biology, University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Roman Tuma

    Astbury Centre for Structural Molecular Biology, University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Ian Collinson

    School of Biochemistry, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom
    For correspondence
    ian.collinson@bristol.ac.uk
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

Reviewing Editor

  1. Ramanujan S Hegde, MRC Laboratory of Molecular Biology, United Kingdom

Version history

  1. Received: February 26, 2016
  2. Accepted: May 14, 2016
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: May 16, 2016 (version 1)
  4. Version of Record published: June 14, 2016 (version 2)
  5. Version of Record updated: June 28, 2016 (version 3)

Copyright

© 2016, Allen 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

  • 5,091
    views
  • 1,083
    downloads
  • 81
    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. William John Allen
  2. Robin Adam Corey
  3. Peter Oatley
  4. Richard Barry Sessions
  5. Sheena E Radford
  6. Roman Tuma
  7. Ian Collinson
(2016)
Two-way communication between SecY and SecA suggests a Brownian ratchet mechanism for protein translocation
eLife 5:e15598.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.15598

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.15598

Further reading

    1. Biochemistry and Chemical Biology
    2. Cell Biology
    Natalia Dolgova, Eva-Maria E Uhlemann ... Oleg Y Dmitriev
    Research Article

    Mediator of ERBB2-driven Cell Motility 1 (MEMO1) is an evolutionary conserved protein implicated in many biological processes; however, its primary molecular function remains unknown. Importantly, MEMO1 is overexpressed in many types of cancer and was shown to modulate breast cancer metastasis through altered cell motility. To better understand the function of MEMO1 in cancer cells, we analyzed genetic interactions of MEMO1 using gene essentiality data from 1028 cancer cell lines and found multiple iron-related genes exhibiting genetic relationships with MEMO1. We experimentally confirmed several interactions between MEMO1 and iron-related proteins in living cells, most notably, transferrin receptor 2 (TFR2), mitoferrin-2 (SLC25A28), and the global iron response regulator IRP1 (ACO1). These interactions indicate that cells with high MEMO1 expression levels are hypersensitive to the disruptions in iron distribution. Our data also indicate that MEMO1 is involved in ferroptosis and is linked to iron supply to mitochondria. We have found that purified MEMO1 binds iron with high affinity under redox conditions mimicking intracellular environment and solved MEMO1 structures in complex with iron and copper. Our work reveals that the iron coordination mode in MEMO1 is very similar to that of iron-containing extradiol dioxygenases, which also display a similar structural fold. We conclude that MEMO1 is an iron-binding protein that modulates iron homeostasis in cancer cells.

    1. Biochemistry and Chemical Biology
    2. Structural Biology and Molecular Biophysics
    Isabelle Petit-Hartlein, Annelise Vermot ... Franck Fieschi
    Research Article

    NADPH oxidases (NOX) are transmembrane proteins, widely spread in eukaryotes and prokaryotes, that produce reactive oxygen species (ROS). Eukaryotes use the ROS products for innate immune defense and signaling in critical (patho)physiological processes. Despite the recent structures of human NOX isoforms, the activation of electron transfer remains incompletely understood. SpNOX, a homolog from Streptococcus pneumoniae, can serves as a robust model for exploring electron transfers in the NOX family thanks to its constitutive activity. Crystal structures of SpNOX full-length and dehydrogenase (DH) domain constructs are revealed here. The isolated DH domain acts as a flavin reductase, and both constructs use either NADPH or NADH as substrate. Our findings suggest that hydride transfer from NAD(P)H to FAD is the rate-limiting step in electron transfer. We identify significance of F397 in nicotinamide access to flavin isoalloxazine and confirm flavin binding contributions from both DH and Transmembrane (TM) domains. Comparison with related enzymes suggests that distal access to heme may influence the final electron acceptor, while the relative position of DH and TM does not necessarily correlate with activity, contrary to previous suggestions. It rather suggests requirement of an internal rearrangement, within the DH domain, to switch from a resting to an active state. Thus, SpNOX appears to be a good model of active NOX2, which allows us to propose an explanation for NOX2’s requirement for activation.