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

A general method for determining secondary active transporter substrate stoichiometry

  1. Gabriel A Fitzgerald
  2. Christopher Mulligan
  3. Joseph A Mindell  Is a corresponding author
  1. National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, National Institutes of Health, United States
Research Article
  • Cited 16
  • Views 1,798
  • Annotations
Cite this article as: eLife 2017;6:e21016 doi: 10.7554/eLife.21016

Abstract

The number of ions required to drive substrate transport through a secondary active transporter determines the protein's ability to create a substrate gradient, a feature essential to its physiological function, and places fundamental constraints on the transporter's mechanism. Stoichiometry is known for a wide array of mammalian transporters, but, due to a lack of readily available tools, not for most of the prokaryotic transporters for which high-resolution structures are available. Here, we describe a general method for using radiolabeled substrate flux assays to determine coupling stoichiometries of electrogenic secondary active transporters reconstituted in proteoliposomes by measuring transporter equilibrium potentials. We demonstrate the utility of this method by determining the coupling stoichiometry of VcINDY, a bacterial Na+-coupled succinate transporter, and further validate it by confirming the coupling stoichiometry of vSGLT, a bacterial sugar transporter. This robust thermodynamic method should be especially useful in probing the mechanisms of transporters with available structures.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Gabriel A Fitzgerald

    Membrane Transport Biophysics Section, Porter Neuroscience Research Center, National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Christopher Mulligan

    Membrane Transport Biophysics Section, Porter Neuroscience Research Center, National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Joseph A Mindell

    Membrane Transport Biophysics Section, Porter Neuroscience Research Center, National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, United States
    For correspondence
    mindellj@ninds.nih.gov
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-6952-8247

Funding

NINDS Intramural Program

  • Joseph A Mindell

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

Reviewing Editor

  1. Olga Boudker, Weill Cornell Medical College, United States

Publication history

  1. Received: August 28, 2016
  2. Accepted: January 17, 2017
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: January 25, 2017 (version 1)
  4. Accepted Manuscript updated: February 2, 2017 (version 2)
  5. Version of Record published: February 13, 2017 (version 3)

Copyright

This is an open-access article, free of all copyright, and may be freely reproduced, distributed, transmitted, modified, built upon, or otherwise used by anyone for any lawful purpose. The work is made available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication.

Metrics

  • 1,798
    Page views
  • 422
    Downloads
  • 16
    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
    Johannes Rudolph et al.
    Research Article

    Poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase 1 (PARP1) is an important player in the response to DNA damage. Recently, histone PARylation factor (HPF1) was shown to be a critical modulator of the activity of PARP1 by facilitating PARylation of histones and redirecting the target amino acid specificity from acidic to serine residues. Here we investigate the mechanism and specific consequences of HPF1-mediated PARylation using nucleosomes as both activators and substrates for PARP1. HPF1 provides that catalytic base Glu284 to substantially redirect PARylation by PARP1 such that the histones in nucleosomes become the primary recipients of PAR chains. Surprisingly, HPF1 partitions most of the reaction product to free ADPR, resulting in much shorter PAR chains compared to reactions in the absence of HPF1. This HPF1-mediated switch from polymerase to hydrolase has important implications for the PARP1-mediated response to DNA damage and raises interesting new questions about the role of intracellular ADPR and depletion of NAD+.

    1. Biochemistry and Chemical Biology
    2. Structural Biology and Molecular Biophysics
    Palur V Raghuvamsi et al.
    Research Article Updated

    The spike (S) protein is the main handle for SARS-CoV-2 to enter host cells via surface angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) receptors. How ACE2 binding activates proteolysis of S protein is unknown. Here, using amide hydrogen–deuterium exchange mass spectrometry and molecular dynamics simulations, we have mapped the S:ACE2 interaction interface and uncovered long-range allosteric propagation of ACE2 binding to sites necessary for host-mediated proteolysis of S protein, critical for viral host entry. Unexpectedly, ACE2 binding enhances dynamics at a distal S1/S2 cleavage site and flanking protease docking site ~27 Å away while dampening dynamics of the stalk hinge (central helix and heptad repeat [HR]) regions ~130 Å away. This highlights that the stalk and proteolysis sites of the S protein are dynamic hotspots in the prefusion state. Our findings provide a dynamics map of the S:ACE2 interface in solution and also offer mechanistic insights into how ACE2 binding is allosterically coupled to distal proteolytic processing sites and viral–host membrane fusion. Thus, protease docking sites flanking the S1/S2 cleavage site represent alternate allosteric hotspot targets for potential therapeutic development.