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

Structural characterization of encapsulated ferritin provides insight into iron storage in bacterial nanocompartments

  1. Didi He
  2. Sam Hughes
  3. Sally Vanden-Hehir
  4. Atanas Georgiev
  5. Kirsten Altenbach
  6. Emma J Tarrant
  7. C Logan Mackay
  8. Kevin J Waldron
  9. David J Clarke  Is a corresponding author
  10. Jon Marles-Wright  Is a corresponding author
  1. The University of Edinburgh, United Kingdom
  2. Newcastle University, United Kingdom
Research Article
  • Cited 22
  • Views 4,332
  • Annotations
Cite this article as: eLife 2016;5:e18972 doi: 10.7554/eLife.18972

Abstract

Ferritins are ubiquitous proteins that oxidise and store iron within a protein shell to protect cells from oxidative damage. We have characterized the structure and function of a new member of the ferritin superfamily that is sequestered within an encapsulin capsid. We show that this encapsulated ferritin (EncFtn) has two main alpha helices, which assemble in a metal dependent manner to form a ferroxidase center at a dimer interface. EncFtn adopts an open decameric structure that is topologically distinct from other ferritins. While EncFtn acts as a ferroxidase, it cannot mineralize iron. Conversely, the encapsulin shell associates with iron, but is not enzymatically active, and we demonstrate that EncFtn must be housed within the encapsulin for iron storage. This encapsulin nanocompartment is widely distributed in bacteria and archaea and represents a distinct class of iron storage system, where the oxidation and mineralization of iron are distributed between two proteins.

Data availability

The following data sets were generated

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Didi He

    Institute of Quantitative Biology, Biochemistry and Biotechnology, The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

  2. Sam Hughes

    The School of Chemistry, The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

  3. Sally Vanden-Hehir

    The School of Chemistry, The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

  4. Atanas Georgiev

    Institute of Quantitative Biology, Biochemistry and Biotechnology, The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

  5. Kirsten Altenbach

    Institute of Quantitative Biology, Biochemistry and Biotechnology, The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

  6. Emma J Tarrant

    Institute for Cell and Molecular Biosciences, Newcastle University, Newcasle upon Tyne, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

  7. C Logan Mackay

    The School of Chemistry, The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

  8. Kevin J Waldron

    Institute for Cell and Molecular Biosciences, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-5577-7357

  9. David J Clarke

    The School of Chemistry, The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom
    For correspondence
    dave.clarke@ed.ac.uk
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

  10. Jon Marles-Wright

    Institute of Quantitative Biology, Biochemistry and Biotechnology, The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom
    For correspondence
    jon.marles-wright1@ncl.ac.uk
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-9156-3284

Funding

Royal Society (RG130585)

  • Jon Marles-Wright

China Scholarship Council

  • Didi He

Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BB/N005570/1)

  • David J Clarke
  • Jon Marles-Wright

Wellcome Trust (098375/Z/12/Z)

  • Emma J Tarrant
  • Kevin J Waldron

The funders had no role in study design, data collection and interpretation, or the decision to submit the work for publication.

Reviewing Editor

  1. Richard Losick, Harvard University, United States

Publication history

  1. Received: June 24, 2016
  2. Accepted: August 14, 2016
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: August 16, 2016 (version 1)
  4. Accepted Manuscript updated: August 24, 2016 (version 2)
  5. Version of Record published: September 6, 2016 (version 3)

Copyright

© 2016, He 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

  • 4,332
    Page views
  • 760
    Downloads
  • 22
    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)

Categories and tags

    1. Of interest

    Virus Engineering: ORACLE reveals a bright future to fight bacteria

    Willow Coyote-Maestas, James S Fraser
  2. Further reading

Further reading

    1. Biochemistry and Chemical Biology

    Virus Engineering: ORACLE reveals a bright future to fight bacteria

    Willow Coyote-Maestas, James S Fraser
    Insight

    A new way to alter the genome of bacteriophages helps produce large libraries of variants, allowing these bacteria-killing viruses to be designed to target species harmful to human health.

    1. Biochemistry and Chemical Biology

    Mapping the functional landscape of the receptor binding domain of T7 bacteriophage by deep mutational scanning

    Phil Huss et al.
    Research Article Updated

    The interaction between a bacteriophage and its host is mediated by the phage's receptor binding protein (RBP). Despite its fundamental role in governing phage activity and host range, molecular rules of RBP function remain a mystery. Here, we systematically dissect the functional role of every residue in the tip domain of T7 phage RBP (1660 variants) by developing a high-throughput, locus-specific, phage engineering method. This rich dataset allowed us to cross compare functional profiles across hosts to precisely identify regions of functional importance, many of which were previously unknown. Substitution patterns showed host-specific differences in position and physicochemical properties of mutations, revealing molecular adaptation to individual hosts. We discovered gain-of-function variants against resistant hosts and host-constricting variants that eliminated certain hosts. To demonstrate therapeutic utility, we engineered highly active T7 variants against a urinary tract pathogen. Our approach presents a generalized framework for characterizing sequence–function relationships in many phage–bacterial systems.

    1. Biochemistry and Chemical Biology
    2. Cell Biology

    Complementary biosensors reveal different G-protein signaling modes triggered by GPCRs and non-receptor activators

    Mikel Garcia-Marcos
    Research Article Updated

    It has become evident that activation of heterotrimeric G-proteins by cytoplasmic proteins that are not G-protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs) plays a role in physiology and disease. Despite sharing the same biochemical guanine nucleotide exchange factor (GEF) activity as GPCRs in vitro, the mechanisms by which these cytoplasmic proteins trigger G-protein-dependent signaling in cells have not been elucidated. Heterotrimeric G-proteins can give rise to two active signaling species, Gα-GTP and dissociated Gβγ, with different downstream effectors, but how non-receptor GEFs affect the levels of these two species in cells is not known. Here, a systematic comparison of GPCRs and three unrelated non-receptor proteins with GEF activity in vitro (GIV/Girdin, AGS1/Dexras1, and Ric-8A) revealed high divergence in their contribution to generating Gα-GTP and free Gβγ in cells directly measured with live-cell biosensors. These findings demonstrate fundamental differences in how receptor and non-receptor G-protein activators promote signaling in cells despite sharing similar biochemical activities in vitro.