Dynamic action of the Sec machinery during initiation, protein translocation and termination

Abstract

Protein translocation across cell membranes is a ubiquitous process required for protein secretion and membrane protein insertion. In bacteria, this is mostly mediated by the conserved SecYEG complex, driven through rounds of ATP hydrolysis by the cytoplasmic SecA, and the trans-membrane proton motive force. We have used single molecule techniques to explore SecY pore dynamics on multiple timescales in order to dissect the complex reaction pathway. The results show that SecA, both the signal sequence and mature components of the pre-protein, and ATP hydrolysis each have important and specific roles in channel unlocking, opening and priming for transport. After channel opening, translocation proceeds in two phases: a slow phase independent of substrate length, and a length-dependent transport phase with an intrinsic translocation rate of ~40 amino acids per second for the proOmpA substrate. Broad translocation rate distributions reflect the stochastic nature of polypeptide transport.

Data availability

Compressed data are available together with the relevant scripts as Supplementary Source Data and Code

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Tomas Fessl

    Astbury Centre for Structural Molecular Biology, University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Daniel Watkins

    School of Biochemistry, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Peter Oatley

    Astbury Centre for Structural Molecular Biology, University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. William John Allen

    School of Biochemistry, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-9513-4786
  5. Robin Adam Corey

    School of Biochemistry, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Jim Horne

    Astbury Centre for Structural Molecular Biology, University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Steve A Baldwin

    Astbury Centre for Structural Molecular Biology, University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Sheena E Radford

    Astbury Centre for Structural Molecular Biology, University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-3079-8039
  9. Ian Collinson

    School of Biochemistry, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom
    For correspondence
    ian.collinson@bristol.ac.uk
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-3931-0503
  10. Roman Tuma

    Astbury Centre for Structural Molecular Biology, University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom
    For correspondence
    r.tuma@leeds.ac.uk
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-0047-0013

Funding

Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BB/N017307/1)

  • Tomas Fessl
  • Sheena E Radford
  • Roman Tuma

Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BB/I008675/1)

  • Daniel Watkins

Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BB/M003604/I)

  • Robin Adam Corey

Wellcome (104632)

  • William John Allen
  • Ian Collinson

Seventh Framework Programme (32240)

  • Sheena E Radford

European Regional Development Fund (CZ.02.1.01/0.0/0.0/15_003/0000441)

  • Tomas Fessl
  • Roman Tuma

Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BB/N015126/1)

  • Daniel Watkins
  • Ian Collinson

Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BB/I008675/1)

  • Peter Oatley
  • Steve A Baldwin
  • Sheena E Radford
  • Roman Tuma

Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BB/M011151/1)

  • Jim Horne

Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BB/I006737/1)

  • William John Allen
  • Ian Collinson

Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC South West Bioscience Doctoral Training Partnership)

  • Robin Adam Corey

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

Copyright

© 2018, Fessl 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

  • 3,039
    views
  • 510
    downloads
  • 58
    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. Tomas Fessl
  2. Daniel Watkins
  3. Peter Oatley
  4. William John Allen
  5. Robin Adam Corey
  6. Jim Horne
  7. Steve A Baldwin
  8. Sheena E Radford
  9. Ian Collinson
  10. Roman Tuma
(2018)
Dynamic action of the Sec machinery during initiation, protein translocation and termination
eLife 7:e35112.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.35112

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.35112

Further reading

    1. Structural Biology and Molecular Biophysics
    Christopher T Schafer, Raymond F Pauszek III ... David P Millar
    Research Article

    The canonical chemokine receptor CXCR4 and atypical receptor ACKR3 both respond to CXCL12 but induce different effector responses to regulate cell migration. While CXCR4 couples to G proteins and directly promotes cell migration, ACKR3 is G-protein-independent and scavenges CXCL12 to regulate extracellular chemokine levels and maintain CXCR4 responsiveness, thereby indirectly influencing migration. The receptors also have distinct activation requirements. CXCR4 only responds to wild-type CXCL12 and is sensitive to mutation of the chemokine. By contrast, ACKR3 recruits GPCR kinases (GRKs) and β-arrestins and promiscuously responds to CXCL12, CXCL12 variants, other peptides and proteins, and is relatively insensitive to mutation. To investigate the role of conformational dynamics in the distinct pharmacological behaviors of CXCR4 and ACKR3, we employed single-molecule FRET to track discrete conformational states of the receptors in real-time. The data revealed that apo-CXCR4 preferentially populates a high-FRET inactive state, while apo-ACKR3 shows little conformational preference and high transition probabilities among multiple inactive, intermediate and active conformations, consistent with its propensity for activation. Multiple active-like ACKR3 conformations are populated in response to agonists, compared to the single CXCR4 active-state. This and the markedly different conformational landscapes of the receptors suggest that activation of ACKR3 may be achieved by a broader distribution of conformational states than CXCR4. Much of the conformational heterogeneity of ACKR3 is linked to a single residue that differs between ACKR3 and CXCR4. The dynamic properties of ACKR3 may underly its inability to form productive interactions with G proteins that would drive canonical GPCR signaling.

    1. Immunology and Inflammation
    2. Structural Biology and Molecular Biophysics
    Colleen A Maillie, Kiana Golden ... Marco Mravic
    Research Article

    A potent class of HIV-1 broadly neutralizing antibodies (bnAbs) targets the envelope glycoprotein’s membrane proximal exposed region (MPER) through a proposed mechanism where hypervariable loops embed into lipid bilayers and engage headgroup moieties alongside the epitope. We address the feasibility and determinant molecular features of this mechanism using multi-scale modeling. All-atom simulations of 4E10, PGZL1, 10E8, and LN01 docked onto HIV-like membranes consistently form phospholipid complexes at key complementarity-determining region loop sites, solidifying that stable and specific lipid interactions anchor bnAbs to membrane surfaces. Ancillary protein-lipid contacts reveal surprising contributions from antibody framework regions. Coarse-grained simulations effectively capture antibodies embedding into membranes. Simulations estimating protein-membrane interaction strength for PGZL1 variants along an inferred maturation pathway show bilayer affinity is evolved and correlates with neutralization potency. The modeling demonstrated here uncovers insights into lipid participation in antibodies’ recognition of membrane proteins and highlights antibody features to prioritize in vaccine design.