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

  • 3,700
    views
  • 638
    downloads
  • 52
    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. Structural Biology and Molecular Biophysics
    Jinsai Shang, Douglas J Kojetin
    Research Advance

    Peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor gamma (PPARγ) is a nuclear receptor transcription factor that regulates gene expression programs in response to ligand binding. Endogenous and synthetic ligands, including covalent antagonist inhibitors GW9662 and T0070907, are thought to compete for the orthosteric pocket in the ligand-binding domain (LBD). However, we previously showed that synthetic PPARγ ligands can cooperatively cobind with and reposition a bound endogenous orthosteric ligand to an alternate site, synergistically regulating PPARγ structure and function (Shang et al., 2018). Here, we reveal the structural mechanism of cobinding between a synthetic covalent antagonist inhibitor with other synthetic ligands. Biochemical and NMR data show that covalent inhibitors weaken—but do not prevent—the binding of other ligands via an allosteric mechanism, rather than direct ligand clashing, by shifting the LBD ensemble toward a transcriptionally repressive conformation, which structurally clashes with orthosteric ligand binding. Crystal structures reveal different cobinding mechanisms including alternate site binding to unexpectedly adopting an orthosteric binding mode by altering the covalent inhibitor binding pose. Our findings highlight the significant flexibility of the PPARγ orthosteric pocket, its ability to accommodate multiple ligands, and demonstrate that GW9662 and T0070907 should not be used as chemical tools to inhibit ligand binding to PPARγ.

    1. Structural Biology and Molecular Biophysics
    Yuanyuan Wang, Fan Xu ... Yongning He
    Research Article

    SCARF1 (scavenger receptor class F member 1, SREC-1 or SR-F1) is a type I transmembrane protein that recognizes multiple endogenous and exogenous ligands such as modified low-density lipoproteins (LDLs) and is important for maintaining homeostasis and immunity. But the structural information and the mechanisms of ligand recognition of SCARF1 are largely unavailable. Here, we solve the crystal structures of the N-terminal fragments of human SCARF1, which show that SCARF1 forms homodimers and its epidermal growth factor (EGF)-like domains adopt a long-curved conformation. Then, we examine the interactions of SCARF1 with lipoproteins and are able to identify a region on SCARF1 for recognizing modified LDLs. The mutagenesis data show that the positively charged residues in the region are crucial for the interaction of SCARF1 with modified LDLs, which is confirmed by making chimeric molecules of SCARF1 and SCARF2. In addition, teichoic acids, a cell wall polymer expressed on the surface of gram-positive bacteria, are able to inhibit the interactions of modified LDLs with SCARF1, suggesting the ligand binding sites of SCARF1 might be shared for some of its scavenging targets. Overall, these results provide mechanistic insights into SCARF1 and its interactions with the ligands, which are important for understanding its physiological roles in homeostasis and the related diseases.