1. Biochemistry and Chemical Biology
  2. Structural Biology and Molecular Biophysics
Download icon

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
Research Article
  • Cited 52
  • Views 4,452
  • Annotations
Cite this article as: eLife 2016;5:e15598 doi: 10.7554/eLife.15598
Voice your concerns about research culture and research communication: Have your say in our 7th annual survey.

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

Publication 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

  • 4,452
    Page views
  • 1,015
    Downloads
  • 52
    Citations

Article citation count generated by polling the highest count across the following sources: Crossref, Scopus, 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. Biochemistry and Chemical Biology
    Hongki Song et al.
    Research Article

    Membrane fusion requires R-, Qa-, Qb-, and Qc-family SNAREs that zipper into RQaQbQc coiled coils, driven by the sequestration of apolar amino acids. Zippering has been thought to provide all the force driving fusion. Sec17/aSNAP can form an oligomeric assembly with SNAREs with the Sec17 C-terminus bound to Sec18/NSF, the central region bound to SNAREs, and a crucial apolar loop near the N-terminus poised to insert into membranes. We now report that Sec17 and Sec18 will drive robust fusion without requiring zippering completion. Zippering-driven fusion is blocked by deleting the C-terminal quarter of any Q-SNARE domain or by replacing the apolar amino acids of the Qa-SNARE which face the center of the 4-SNARE coiled coils with polar residues. These blocks, singly or combined, are bypassed by Sec17 and Sec18, and SNARE-dependent fusion is restored without help from completing zippering.

    1. Biochemistry and Chemical Biology
    2. Cell Biology
    Wan Hua Li et al.
    Research Article

    SARM1 regulates axonal degeneration through its NAD-metabolizing activity and is a drug target for neurodegenerative disorders. We designed and synthesized fluorescent conjugates of styryl derivative with pyridine to serve as substrates of SARM1, which exhibited large red-shifts after conversion. With the conjugates, SARM1 activation was visualized in live cells following elevation of endogenous NMN or treatment with a cell-permeant NMN-analog. In neurons, imaging documented mouse SARM1 activation preceded vincristine-induced axonal degeneration by hours. Library screening identified a derivative of nisoldipine as a covalent inhibitor of SARM1 that reacted with the cysteines, especially Cys311 in its ARM domain and blocked its NMN-activation, protecting axons from degeneration. The Cryo-EM structure showed that SARM1 was locked into an inactive conformation by the inhibitor, uncovering a potential neuroprotective mechanism of dihydropyridines.