Structural dynamics of RbmA governs plasticity of Vibrio cholerae biofilms

  1. Jiunn CN Fong
  2. Andrew Rogers
  3. Alicia K Michael
  4. Nicole C Parsley
  5. William-Cole Cornell
  6. Yu-Cheng Lin
  7. Praveen K Singh
  8. Raimo Hartmann
  9. Knut Drescher
  10. Evgeny Vinogradov
  11. Lars EP Dietrich
  12. Carrie L Partch  Is a corresponding author
  13. Fitnat H Yildiz  Is a corresponding author
  1. University of California, Santa Cruz, United States
  2. University of North Carolina Chapel Hill, United States
  3. Columbia University, United States
  4. Max Planck Institute for Terrestrial Microbiology, Germany
  5. National Research Council, Canada

Abstract

Biofilm formation is critical for the infection cycle of Vibrio cholerae. Vibrio exopolysaccharides (VPS) and the matrix proteins RbmA, Bap1 and RbmC are required for the development of biofilm architecture. We demonstrate that RbmA binds VPS directly and uses a binary structural switch within its first fibronectin type III (FnIII-1) domain to control RbmA structural dynamics and the formation of VPS-dependent higher-order structures. The structural switch in FnIII-1 regulates interactions in trans with the FnIII-2 domain, leading to open (monomeric) or closed (dimeric) interfaces. The ability of RbmA to switch between open and closed states is important for V. cholerae biofilm formation, as RbmA variants with switches that are locked in either of the two states lead to biofilms with altered architecture and structural integrity.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Jiunn CN Fong

    Department of Microbiology and Environmental Toxicology, University of California, Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Andrew Rogers

    Department of Microbiology and Environmental Toxicology, University of California, Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Alicia K Michael

    Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, University of California, Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Nicole C Parsley

    Department of Chemistry, University of North Carolina Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. William-Cole Cornell

    Department of Biological Sciences, Columbia University, New York, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Yu-Cheng Lin

    Department of Biological Sciences, Columbia University, New York, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Praveen K Singh

    Max Planck Institute for Terrestrial Microbiology, Marburg, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Raimo Hartmann

    Max Planck Institute for Terrestrial Microbiology, Marburg, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Knut Drescher

    Max Planck Institute for Terrestrial Microbiology, Marburg, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  10. Evgeny Vinogradov

    National Research Council, Ottawa, Canada
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  11. Lars EP Dietrich

    Department of Biological Sciences, Columbia University, New York, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-2049-1137
  12. Carrie L Partch

    Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, University of California, Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz, United States
    For correspondence
    cpartch@ucsc.edu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  13. Fitnat H Yildiz

    Department of Microbiology and Environmental Toxicology, University of California, Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz, United States
    For correspondence
    fyildiz@ucsc.edu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-6384-7167

Funding

National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (RO1AI055987)

  • Fitnat H Yildiz

National Institute of General Medical Sciences (GM107069)

  • Carrie L Partch

Human Frontier Science Program (CDA00084/2015-C)

  • Knut Drescher

National Institute of General Medical Sciences (CA189660)

  • Alicia K Michael

National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (R01 AI103369)

  • Lars EP Dietrich

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

Copyright

© 2017, Fong 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

  • 3,711
    views
  • 641
    downloads
  • 54
    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. Jiunn CN Fong
  2. Andrew Rogers
  3. Alicia K Michael
  4. Nicole C Parsley
  5. William-Cole Cornell
  6. Yu-Cheng Lin
  7. Praveen K Singh
  8. Raimo Hartmann
  9. Knut Drescher
  10. Evgeny Vinogradov
  11. Lars EP Dietrich
  12. Carrie L Partch
  13. Fitnat H Yildiz
(2017)
Structural dynamics of RbmA governs plasticity of Vibrio cholerae biofilms
eLife 6:e26163.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.26163

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.26163

Further reading

    1. Developmental Biology
    2. Structural Biology and Molecular Biophysics
    Elise S Bruguera, Jacob P Mahoney, William I Weis
    Research Article

    Wnt/β-catenin signaling directs animal development and tissue renewal in a tightly controlled, cell- and tissue-specific manner. In the mammalian central nervous system, the atypical ligand Norrin controls angiogenesis and maintenance of the blood-brain barrier and blood-retina barrier through the Wnt/β-catenin pathway. Like Wnt, Norrin activates signaling by binding and heterodimerizing the receptors Frizzled (Fzd) and low-density lipoprotein receptor-related protein 5 or 6 (LRP5/6), leading to membrane recruitment of the intracellular transducer Dishevelled (Dvl) and ultimately stabilizing the transcriptional coactivator β-catenin. Unlike Wnt, the cystine knot ligand Norrin only signals through Fzd4 and additionally requires the co-receptor Tetraspanin12 (Tspan12); however, the mechanism underlying Tspan12-mediated signal enhancement is unclear. It has been proposed that Tspan12 integrates into the Norrin-Fzd4 complex to enhance Norrin-Fzd4 affinity or otherwise allosterically modulate Fzd4 signaling. Here, we measure direct, high-affinity binding between purified Norrin and Tspan12 in a lipid environment and use AlphaFold models to interrogate this interaction interface. We find that Tspan12 and Fzd4 can simultaneously bind Norrin and that a pre-formed Tspan12/Fzd4 heterodimer, as well as cells co-expressing Tspan12 and Fzd4, more efficiently capture low concentrations of Norrin than Fzd4 alone. We also show that Tspan12 competes with both heparan sulfate proteoglycans and LRP6 for Norrin binding and that Tspan12 does not impact Fzd4-Dvl affinity in the presence or absence of Norrin. Our findings suggest that Tspan12 does not allosterically enhance Fzd4 binding to Norrin or Dvl, but instead functions to directly capture Norrin upstream of signaling.

    1. Structural Biology and Molecular Biophysics
    Laura-Marie Silbermann, Benjamin Vermeer ... Katarzyna Tych
    Review Article

    Molecular chaperones are vital proteins that maintain protein homeostasis by assisting in protein folding, activation, degradation, and stress protection. Among them, heat-shock protein 90 (Hsp90) stands out as an essential proteostasis hub in eukaryotes, chaperoning hundreds of ‘clients’ (substrates). After decades of research, several ‘known unknowns’ about the molecular function of Hsp90 remain unanswered, hampering rational drug design for the treatment of cancers, neurodegenerative, and other diseases. We highlight three fundamental open questions, reviewing the current state of the field for each, and discuss new opportunities, including single-molecule technologies, to answer the known unknowns of the Hsp90 chaperone.