Conformational and dynamical plasticity in substrate-binding proteins underlies selective transport in ABC importers

  1. Marijn de Boer
  2. Giorgos Gkouridis
  3. Ruslan Vietrov
  4. Stephanie L Begg
  5. Gea K Schuurman-Wolters
  6. Florence Husada
  7. Nikolaos Eleftheriadis
  8. Bert Poolman  Is a corresponding author
  9. Christopher A McDevitt  Is a corresponding author
  10. Thorben Cordes  Is a corresponding author
  1. University of Groningen, Netherlands
  2. KU Leuven, Belgium
  3. University of Melbourne, Australia
  4. Ludwig Maximilians-Universität München, Germany

Abstract

Substrate-binding proteins (SBPs) are associated with ATP-binding cassette importers and switch from an open to a closed conformation upon substrate binding, providing specificity for transport. We investigated the effect of substrates on the conformational dynamics of six SBPs and the impact on transport. Using single-molecule FRET, we reveal an unrecognized diversity of plasticity in SBPs. We show that a unique closed SBP conformation does not exist for transported substrates. Instead, SBPs sample a range of conformations that activate transport. Certain non-transported ligands leave the structure largely unaltered or trigger a conformation distinct from that of transported substrates. Intriguingly, in some cases similar SBP conformations are formed by both transported and non-transported ligands. In this case, the inability for transport arises from slow opening of the SBP or the selectivity provided by the translocator. Our results reveal the complex interplay between ligand-SBP interactions, SBP conformational dynamics and substrate transport.

Data availability

Data generated or analysed during this study are included in the manuscript and supporting files. Source data files are available for smFRET histogrammes, representative smFRET time-traces and smFRET dwell-time histogrammes as shown in the manuscript. Primer sequences for created protein mutants are included.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Marijn de Boer

    Molecular Microscopy Research Group, University of Groningen, Groningen, Netherlands
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Giorgos Gkouridis

    Department of Microbiology and Immunology, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Ruslan Vietrov

    Department of Biochemistry, University of Groningen, Groningen, Netherlands
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Stephanie L Begg

    Department of Microbiology and Immunology, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Gea K Schuurman-Wolters

    Department of Biochemistry, University of Groningen, Groningen, Netherlands
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Florence Husada

    Molecular Microscopy Research Group, University of Groningen, Groningen, Netherlands
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Nikolaos Eleftheriadis

    Molecular Microscopy Research Group, University of Groningen, Groningen, Netherlands
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Bert Poolman

    Department of Biochemistry, University of Groningen, Groningen, Netherlands
    For correspondence
    b.poolman@rug.nl
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-1455-531X
  9. Christopher A McDevitt

    Department of Microbiology and Immunology, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia
    For correspondence
    christopher.mcdevitt@unimelb.edu.au
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-1596-4841
  10. Thorben Cordes

    Faculty of Biology, Ludwig Maximilians-Universität München, Planegg Martinsried, Germany
    For correspondence
    cordes@bio.lmu.de
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-8598-5499

Funding

European Commission (638536)

  • Thorben Cordes

European Molecular Biology Organization (ALF 47-2012)

  • Giorgos Gkouridis

Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (GRK2062/1 (C03))

  • Thorben Cordes

Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (SFB863 (A13))

  • Thorben Cordes

National Health and Medical Research Council (1080784)

  • Christopher A McDevitt

National Health and Medical Research Council (1122582)

  • Christopher A McDevitt

Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek (722.012.012)

  • Giorgos Gkouridis

European Commission (670578)

  • Bert Poolman

Australian Research Council (DP170102102)

  • Christopher A McDevitt

Australian Research Council (FT170100006)

  • Christopher A McDevitt

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

Copyright

© 2019, de Boer 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

  • 4,628
    views
  • 704
    downloads
  • 106
    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. Marijn de Boer
  2. Giorgos Gkouridis
  3. Ruslan Vietrov
  4. Stephanie L Begg
  5. Gea K Schuurman-Wolters
  6. Florence Husada
  7. Nikolaos Eleftheriadis
  8. Bert Poolman
  9. Christopher A McDevitt
  10. Thorben Cordes
(2019)
Conformational and dynamical plasticity in substrate-binding proteins underlies selective transport in ABC importers
eLife 8:e44652.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.44652

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.44652

Further reading

    1. Biochemistry and Chemical Biology
    2. Chromosomes and Gene Expression
    Ting-Wen Chen, Hsiao-Wei Liao ... Chung-Te Chang
    Research Article

    The mRNA 5'-cap structure removal by the decapping enzyme DCP2 is a critical step in gene regulation. While DCP2 is the catalytic subunit in the decapping complex, its activity is strongly enhanced by multiple factors, particularly DCP1, which is the major activator in yeast. However, the precise role of DCP1 in metazoans has yet to be fully elucidated. Moreover, in humans, the specific biological functions of the two DCP1 paralogs, DCP1a and DCP1b, remain largely unknown. To investigate the role of human DCP1, we generated cell lines that were deficient in DCP1a, DCP1b, or both to evaluate the importance of DCP1 in the decapping machinery. Our results highlight the importance of human DCP1 in decapping process and show that the EVH1 domain of DCP1 enhances the mRNA-binding affinity of DCP2. Transcriptome and metabolome analyses outline the distinct functions of DCP1a and DCP1b in human cells, regulating specific endogenous mRNA targets and biological processes. Overall, our findings provide insights into the molecular mechanism of human DCP1 in mRNA decapping and shed light on the distinct functions of its paralogs.

    1. Biochemistry and Chemical Biology
    2. Cell Biology
    Julia Shangguan, Ronald S Rock
    Research Article

    Myosin 10 (Myo10) is a motor protein known for its role in filopodia formation. Although Myo10-driven filopodial dynamics have been characterized, there is no information about the absolute number of Myo10 molecules during the filopodial lifecycle. To better understand molecular stoichiometries and packing restraints in filopodia, we measured Myo10 abundance in these structures. We combined SDS-PAGE densitometry with epifluorescence microscopy to quantitate HaloTag-labeled Myo10 in U2OS cells. About 6% of total intracellular Myo10 localizes to filopodia, where it enriches at opposite cellular ends. Hundreds of Myo10s are in a typical filopodium, and their distribution across filopodia is log-normal. Some filopodial tips even contain more Myo10 than accessible binding sites on the actin filament bundle. Live-cell movies reveal a dense cluster of over a hundred Myo10 molecules that initiates filopodial elongation. Hundreds of Myo10 molecules continue to accumulate during filopodial growth, but accumulation ceases when retraction begins. Rates of filopodial elongation, second-phase elongation, and retraction are inversely related to Myo10 quantities. Our estimates of Myo10 molecules in filopodia provide insight into the physics of packing Myo10, its cargo, and other filopodia-associated proteins in narrow membrane compartments. Our protocol provides a framework for future work analyzing Myo10 abundance and distribution upon perturbation.