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

  • 4,727
    views
  • 722
    downloads
  • 109
    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. Genetics and Genomics
    Kira Breunig, Xuifen Lei ... Luiz O Penalva
    Research Article

    RNA binding proteins (RBPs) containing intrinsically disordered regions (IDRs) are present in diverse molecular complexes where they function as dynamic regulators. Their characteristics promote liquid-liquid phase separation (LLPS) and the formation of membraneless organelles such as stress granules and nucleoli. IDR-RBPs are particularly relevant in the nervous system and their dysfunction is associated with neurodegenerative diseases and brain tumor development. Serpine1 mRNA-binding protein 1 (SERBP1) is a unique member of this group, being mostly disordered and lacking canonical RNA-binding domains. We defined SERBP1’s interactome, uncovered novel roles in splicing, cell division and ribosomal biogenesis, and showed its participation in pathological stress granules and Tau aggregates in Alzheimer’s brains. SERBP1 preferentially interacts with other G-quadruplex (G4) binders, implicated in different stages of gene expression, suggesting that G4 binding is a critical component of SERBP1 function in different settings. Similarly, we identified important associations between SERBP1 and PARP1/polyADP-ribosylation (PARylation). SERBP1 interacts with PARP1 and its associated factors and influences PARylation. Moreover, protein complexes in which SERBP1 participates contain mostly PARylated proteins and PAR binders. Based on these results, we propose a feedback regulatory model in which SERBP1 influences PARP1 function and PARylation, while PARylation modulates SERBP1 functions and participation in regulatory complexes.

    1. Biochemistry and Chemical Biology
    Parnian Arafi, Sujan Devkota ... Michael S Wolfe
    Research Article

    Missense mutations in the amyloid precursor protein (APP) and presenilin-1 (PSEN1) cause early-onset familial Alzheimer’s disease (FAD) and alter proteolytic production of secreted 38-to-43-residue amyloid β-peptides (Aβ) by the PSEN1-containing γ-secretase complex, ostensibly supporting the amyloid hypothesis of pathogenesis. However, proteolysis of APP substrate by γ-secretase is processive, involving initial endoproteolysis to produce long Aβ peptides of 48 or 49 residues followed by carboxypeptidase trimming in mostly tripeptide increments. We recently reported evidence that FAD mutations in APP and PSEN1 cause deficiencies in early steps in processive proteolysis of APP substrate C99 and that this results from stalled γ-secretase enzyme-substrate and/or enzyme-intermediate complexes. These stalled complexes triggered synaptic degeneration in a Caenorhabditis elegans model of FAD independently of Aβ production. Here, we conducted full quantitative analysis of all proteolytic events on APP substrate by γ-secretase with six additional PSEN1 FAD mutations and found that all six are deficient in multiple processing steps. However, only one of these (F386S) was deficient in certain trimming steps but not in endoproteolysis. Fluorescence lifetime imaging microscopy in intact cells revealed that all six PSEN1 FAD mutations lead to stalled γ-secretase enzyme-substrate/intermediate complexes. The F386S mutation, however, does so only in Aβ-rich regions of the cells, not in C99-rich regions, consistent with the deficiencies of this mutant enzyme only in trimming of Aβ intermediates. These findings provide further evidence that FAD mutations lead to stalled and stabilized γ-secretase enzyme-substrate and/or enzyme-intermediate complexes and are consistent with the stalled process rather than the products of γ-secretase proteolysis as the pathogenic trigger.