Assembling the Tat protein translocase

  1. Felicity Alcock
  2. Phillip J Stansfeld  Is a corresponding author
  3. Hajra Basit
  4. Johann Habersetzer
  5. Matthew AB Baker
  6. Tracy Palmer
  7. Mark I Wallace
  8. Ben C Berks  Is a corresponding author
  1. University of Oxford, United Kingdom
  2. Kings College London, United Kingdom
  3. University of Dundee, United Kingdom
  4. University of New South Wales, Australia

Abstract

The twin-arginine protein translocation system (Tat) transports folded proteins across the bacterial cytoplasmic membrane and the thylakoid membranes of plant chloroplasts. The Tat transporter is assembled from multiple copies of the membrane proteins TatA, TatB, and TatC. We combine sequence co-evolution analysis, molecular simulations, and experimentation to define the interactions between the Tat proteins of Escherichia coli at molecular-level resolution. In the TatBC receptor complex the transmembrane helix of each TatB molecule is sandwiched between two TatC molecules, with one of the inter-subunit interfaces incorporating a functionally important cluster of interacting polar residues. Unexpectedly, we find that TatA also associates with TatC at the polar cluster site. Our data provide a structural model for assembly of the active Tat translocase in which substrate binding triggers replacement of TatB by TatA at the polar cluster site. Our work demonstrates the power of co-evolution analysis to predict protein interfaces in multi-subunit complexes.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Felicity Alcock

    Department of Biochemistry, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Phillip J Stansfeld

    Department of Biochemistry, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
    For correspondence
    phillip.stansfeld@bioch.ox.ac.uk
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Hajra Basit

    Department of Chemistry, Kings College London, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Johann Habersetzer

    Division of Molecular Microbiology, College of Life Sciences, University of Dundee, Dundee, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Matthew AB Baker

    EMBL Australia Node for Single Molecule Science, University of New South Wales, Kensington, Australia
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Tracy Palmer

    Division of Molecular Microbiology, College of Life Sciences, University of Dundee, Dundee, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Mark I Wallace

    Department of Chemistry, Kings College London, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-5692-8313
  8. Ben C Berks

    Department of Biochemistry, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
    For correspondence
    ben.berks@bioch.ox.ac.uk
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-9685-4067

Funding

Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BB/L002531/1)

  • Tracy Palmer
  • Ben C Berks

Wellcome (Investigator Award 107929/Z/15/Z)

  • Ben C Berks

Medical Research Council (G1001640)

  • Tracy Palmer
  • Ben C Berks

European Commission (Marie Curie Fellowship Programme: GP7-PEOPLE-2013-IEF 626436)

  • Hajra Basit
  • Mark I Wallace

Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BB/I019855/1)

  • Phillip J Stansfeld

Wellcome (Investigator Award 110183/Z/15/Z)

  • Tracy Palmer

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

Copyright

© 2016, Alcock 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

  • 3,214
    views
  • 813
    downloads
  • 63
    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. Felicity Alcock
  2. Phillip J Stansfeld
  3. Hajra Basit
  4. Johann Habersetzer
  5. Matthew AB Baker
  6. Tracy Palmer
  7. Mark I Wallace
  8. Ben C Berks
(2016)
Assembling the Tat protein translocase
eLife 5:e20718.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.20718

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.20718

Further reading

    1. Biochemistry and Chemical Biology
    Marius Landau, Sherif Elsabbagh ... Joachim E Schultz
    Research Article

    The biosynthesis of cyclic 3′,5′-adenosine monophosphate (cAMP) by mammalian membrane-bound adenylyl cyclases (mACs) is predominantly regulated by G-protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs). Up to now the two hexahelical transmembrane domains of mACs were considered to fix the enzyme to membranes. Here, we show that the transmembrane domains serve in addition as signal receptors and transmitters of lipid signals that control Gsα-stimulated mAC activities. We identify aliphatic fatty acids and anandamide as receptor ligands of mAC isoforms 1–7 and 9. The ligands enhance (mAC isoforms 2, 3, 7, and 9) or attenuate (isoforms 1, 4, 5, and 6) Gsα-stimulated mAC activities in vitro and in vivo. Substitution of the stimulatory membrane receptor of mAC3 by the inhibitory receptor of mAC5 results in a ligand inhibited mAC5–mAC3 chimera. Thus, we discovered a new class of membrane receptors in which two signaling modalities are at a crossing, direct tonic lipid and indirect phasic GPCR–Gsα signaling regulating the biosynthesis of cAMP.

    1. Biochemistry and Chemical Biology
    Shraddha KC, Kenny H Nguyen ... Thomas C Boothby
    Research Article

    The conformational ensemble and function of intrinsically disordered proteins (IDPs) are sensitive to their solution environment. The inherent malleability of disordered proteins, combined with the exposure of their residues, accounts for this sensitivity. One context in which IDPs play important roles that are concomitant with massive changes to the intracellular environment is during desiccation (extreme drying). The ability of organisms to survive desiccation has long been linked to the accumulation of high levels of cosolutes such as trehalose or sucrose as well as the enrichment of IDPs, such as late embryogenesis abundant (LEA) proteins or cytoplasmic abundant heat-soluble (CAHS) proteins. Despite knowing that IDPs play important roles and are co-enriched alongside endogenous, species-specific cosolutes during desiccation, little is known mechanistically about how IDP-cosolute interactions influence desiccation tolerance. Here, we test the notion that the protective function of desiccation-related IDPs is enhanced through conformational changes induced by endogenous cosolutes. We find that desiccation-related IDPs derived from four different organisms spanning two LEA protein families and the CAHS protein family synergize best with endogenous cosolutes during drying to promote desiccation protection. Yet the structural parameters of protective IDPs do not correlate with synergy for either CAHS or LEA proteins. We further demonstrate that for CAHS, but not LEA proteins, synergy is related to self-assembly and the formation of a gel. Our results suggest that functional synergy between IDPs and endogenous cosolutes is a convergent desiccation protection strategy seen among different IDP families and organisms, yet the mechanisms underlying this synergy differ between IDP families.