Abstract

Mammalian glutamate transporters are crucial players in neuronal communication as they perform neurotransmitter reuptake from the synaptic cleft. Besides L-glutamate and L-aspartate, they also recognize D-aspartate, which might participate in mammalian neurotransmission and/or neuromodulation. Much of the mechanistic insight in glutamate transport comes from studies of the archaeal homologues GltPh from Pyrococcus horikoshii and GltTk from Thermococcus kodakarensis. Here, we show that GltTk transports D-aspartate with identical Na+ : substrate coupling stoichiometry as L-aspartate, and that the affinities (Kd and Km) for the two substrates are similar. We determined a crystal structure of GltTk with bound D-aspartate at 2.8 Å resolution. Comparison of the L- and D-aspartate bound GltTk structures revealed that D-aspartate is accommodated with only minor rearrangements in the structure of the binding site. The structure explains how the geometrically different molecules L- and D-aspartate are recognized and transported by the protein in the same way.

Data availability

Diffraction data and the derived model have been deposited in PDB under the accession code 6R7R.

The following data sets were generated

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Valentina Arkhipova

    Groningen Biomolecular and Biotechnology Institute (GBB), University of Groningen, Groningen, Netherlands
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Gianluca Trinco

    Groningen Biomolecular and Biotechnology Institute (GBB), University of Groningen, Groningen, Netherlands
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Thijs W Ettema

    Groningen Biomolecular and Biotechnology Institute (GBB), University of Groningen, Groningen, Netherlands
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Sonja Jensen

    Groningen Biomolecular and Biotechnology Institute (GBB), University of Groningen, Groningen, Netherlands
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Dirk Slotboom

    Groningen Biomolecular and Biotechnology Institute (GBB), University of Groningen, Groningen, Netherlands
    For correspondence
    d.j.slotboom@rug.nl
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-5804-9689
  6. Albert Guskov

    Groningen Biomolecular and Biotechnology Institute (GBB), University of Groningen, Groningen, Netherlands
    For correspondence
    a.guskov@rug.nl
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-2340-2216

Funding

Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek (723014.002)

  • Albert Guskov

Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek (865.11.001)

  • Dirk Slotboom

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

Copyright

© 2019, Arkhipova 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

  • 2,561
    views
  • 288
    downloads
  • 26
    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. Valentina Arkhipova
  2. Gianluca Trinco
  3. Thijs W Ettema
  4. Sonja Jensen
  5. Dirk Slotboom
  6. Albert Guskov
(2019)
Binding and transport of D-aspartate by the glutamate transporter homologue GltTk
eLife 8:e45286.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.45286

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.45286

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.