Competing scaffolding proteins determine capsid size during mobilization of Staphylococcus aureus pathogenicity islands

  1. Altaira D Dearborn
  2. Erin A Wall
  3. James L Kizziah
  4. Laura Klenow
  5. Laura K Parker
  6. Keith A Manning
  7. Michael S Spilman
  8. John M Spear
  9. Gail E Christie
  10. Terje Dokland  Is a corresponding author
  1. National Institutes of Health, United States
  2. Virginia Commonwealth University, United States
  3. University of Alabama at Birmingham, United States
  4. Direct Electron, LP, United States
  5. Florida State University, United States

Abstract

Staphylococcus aureus pathogenicity islands (SaPIs), such as SaPI1, exploit specific helper bacteriophages, like 80a, for their high frequency mobilization, a process termed 'molecular piracy'. SaPI1 redirects the helper's assembly pathway to form small capsids that can only accommodate the smaller SaPI1 genome, but not a complete phage genome. SaPI1 encodes two proteins, CpmA and CpmB, that are responsible for this size redirection. We have determined the structures of the 80a and SaPI1 procapsids to near-atomic resolution by cryo-electron microscopy, and show that CpmB competes with the 80a scaffolding protein (SP) for a binding site on the capsid protein (CP), and works by altering the angle between capsomers. We probed these interactions genetically and identified second-site suppressors of lethal mutations in SP. Our structures show, for the first time, the detailed interactions between SP and CP in a bacteriophage, providing unique insights into macromolecular assembly processes.

Data availability

The following data sets were generated

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Altaira D Dearborn

    Protein Expression Laboratory, National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Erin A Wall

    Department of Microbiology and Immunology, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. James L Kizziah

    Department of Microbiology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Laura Klenow

    Department of Microbiology and Immunology, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Laura K Parker

    Department of Microbiology and Immunology, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Keith A Manning

    Department of Microbiology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Michael S Spilman

    Direct Electron, LP, San Diego, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. John M Spear

    Biological Science Imaging Resource, Florida State University, Tallahassee, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Gail E Christie

    Department of Microbiology and Immunology, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  10. Terje Dokland

    Department of Microbiology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, United States
    For correspondence
    dokland@uab.edu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-5655-4123

Funding

National Institutes of Health (R01 AI083255)

  • Terje Dokland

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

Copyright

© 2017, Dearborn 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

  • 1,765
    views
  • 324
    downloads
  • 47
    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. Altaira D Dearborn
  2. Erin A Wall
  3. James L Kizziah
  4. Laura Klenow
  5. Laura K Parker
  6. Keith A Manning
  7. Michael S Spilman
  8. John M Spear
  9. Gail E Christie
  10. Terje Dokland
(2017)
Competing scaffolding proteins determine capsid size during mobilization of Staphylococcus aureus pathogenicity islands
eLife 6:e30822.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.30822

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.30822

Further reading

    1. Structural Biology and Molecular Biophysics
    Firdousi Parvez, Devika Sangpal ... Jeetender Chugh
    Research Article

    Trans-activation response (TAR) RNA-binding protein (TRBP) has emerged as a key player in the RNA interference pathway, wherein it binds to different pre-microRNAs (miRNAs) and small interfering RNAs (siRNAs), each varying in sequence and/or structure. We hypothesize that TRBP displays dynamic adaptability to accommodate heterogeneity in target RNA structures. Thus, it is crucial to ascertain the role of intrinsic and RNA-induced protein dynamics in RNA recognition and binding. We have previously elucidated the role of intrinsic and RNA-induced conformational exchange in the double-stranded RNA-binding domain 1 (dsRBD1) of TRBP in shape-dependent RNA recognition. The current study delves into the intrinsic and RNA-induced conformational dynamics of the TRBP-dsRBD2 and then compares it with the dsRBD1 study carried out previously. Remarkably, the two domains exhibit differential binding affinity to a 12-bp dsRNA owing to the presence of critical residues and structural plasticity. Furthermore, we report that dsRBD2 depicts constrained conformational plasticity when compared to dsRBD1. Although, in the presence of RNA, dsRBD2 undergoes induced conformational exchange within the designated RNA-binding regions and other residues, the amplitude of the motions remains modest when compared to those observed in dsRBD1. We propose a dynamics-driven model of the two tandem domains of TRBP, substantiating their contributions to the versatility of dsRNA recognition and binding.

    1. Structural Biology and Molecular Biophysics
    Hitendra Negi, Aravind Ravichandran ... Ranabir Das
    Research Article Updated

    The proteasome controls levels of most cellular proteins, and its activity is regulated under stress, quiescence, and inflammation. However, factors determining the proteasomal degradation rate remain poorly understood. Proteasome substrates are conjugated with small proteins (tags) like ubiquitin and Fat10 to target them to the proteasome. It is unclear if the structural plasticity of proteasome-targeting tags can influence substrate degradation. Fat10 is upregulated during inflammation, and its substrates undergo rapid proteasomal degradation. We report that the degradation rate of Fat10 substrates critically depends on the structural plasticity of Fat10. While the ubiquitin tag is recycled at the proteasome, Fat10 is degraded with the substrate. Our results suggest significantly lower thermodynamic stability and faster mechanical unfolding in Fat10 compared to ubiquitin. Long-range salt bridges are absent in the Fat10 structure, creating a plastic protein with partially unstructured regions suitable for proteasome engagement. Fat10 plasticity destabilizes substrates significantly and creates partially unstructured regions in the substrate to enhance degradation. NMR-relaxation-derived order parameters and temperature dependence of chemical shifts identify the Fat10-induced partially unstructured regions in the substrate, which correlated excellently to Fat10-substrate contacts, suggesting that the tag-substrate collision destabilizes the substrate. These results highlight a strong dependence of proteasomal degradation on the structural plasticity and thermodynamic properties of the proteasome-targeting tags.