Abstract

Phytochrome proteins control the growth, reproduction, and photosynthesis of plants, fungi, and bacteria. Light is detected by a bilin cofactor, but it remains elusive how this leads to activation of the protein through structural changes. We present serial femtosecond X-ray crystallographic data of the chromophore-binding domains of a bacterial phytochrome at delay times of 1 ps and 10 ps after photoexcitation. The data reveal a twist of the D-ring, which leads to partial detachment of the chromophore from the protein. Unexpectedly, the conserved so-called pyrrole water is photodissociated from the chromophore, concomitant with movement of the A-ring and a key signalling aspartate. The changes are wired together by ultrafast backbone and water movements around the chromophore, channeling them into signal transduction towards the output domains. We suggest that the observed collective changes are important for the phytochrome photoresponse, explaining the earliest steps of how plants, fungi and bacteria sense red light.

Data availability

Crystallography data have been submitted to protein data bank (PDB)dark:ID: D_1292104678 and PDB ID: 6T3L1ps:ID: D_1292104679 and PDB ID: 6T3URaw diffraction images are in the process of being uploaded to CXIDB

The following data sets were generated

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Elin Claesson

    Department of Chemistry and Molecular Biology, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Weixiao Yuan Wahlgren

    Department of Chemistry and Molecular Biology, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Heikki Takala

    Department of Biological and Environmental Sciences, University of Jyvaskyla, Jyvaskyla, Finland
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Suraj Pandey

    University of Wisconsin-Milwauke, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, Wisconsin, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Leticia Castillon

    Department of Chemistry and Molecular Biology, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Valentyna Kuznetsova

    Department of Biological and Environmental Sciences, University of Jyvaskyla, Jyvaskyla, Finland
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Léocadie Henry

    Department of Chemistry and Molecular Biology, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Matthijs Panman

    Department of Chemistry and Molecular Biology, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-3853-123X
  9. Melissa Carrillo

    Department of Biology, Northeastern Illinois University, Chicago, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  10. Joachim Kübel

    Department of Chemistry and Molecular Biology, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  11. Rahul Nanekar

    Department of Biological and Environmental Sciences, University of Jyvaskyla, Jyvaskyla, Finland
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  12. Linnéa Isaksson

    Department of Chemistry and Molecular Biology, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  13. Amke Nimmrich

    Department of Chemistry and Molecular Biology, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  14. Andrea Cellini

    Department of Chemistry and Molecular Biology, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  15. Dmitry Morozov

    Department of Chemistry, University of Jyvaskyla, Jyvaskyla, Finland
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  16. Michał Maj

    Department of Chemistry and Molecular Biology, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  17. Moona Kurttila

    Department of Biological and Environmental Sciences, University of Jyvaskyla, Jyvaskyla, Finland
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  18. Robert Bosman

    Department of Chemistry and Molecular Biology, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  19. Eriko Nango

    Department of Cell Biology, Kyoto University, Kyoto, Japan
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  20. Rie Tanaka

    Department of Cell Biology, Kyoto University, Kyoto, Japan
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  21. Tomoyuki Tanaka

    Department of Cell Biology, Kyoto University, Kyoto, Japan
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  22. Luo Fangjia

    Department of Cell Biology, Kyoto University, Kyoto, Japan
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  23. So Iwata

    Department of Cell Biology, Kyoto University, Kyoto, Japan
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  24. Shigeki Owada

    RIKEN SPring-8 Center, Kyoto University, Hyogo, Japan
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  25. Keith Moffat

    Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, University of Chicago, Chicago, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  26. Gerrit Groenhof

    Department of Chemistry, University of Jyvaskyla, Jyvaskyla, Finland
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  27. Emina A. Stojković

    Department of Biology, Northeastern Illinois University, Chicago, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  28. Janne A. Ihalainen

    Department of Biological and Environmental Sciences, University of Jyvaskyla, Jyvaskyla, Finland
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  29. Marius Schmidt

    University of Wisconsin-Milwauke, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, Wisconsin, United States
    For correspondence
    smarius@uwm.edu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  30. Sebastian Westenhoff

    Department of Chemistry and Molecular Biology, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden
    For correspondence
    sebastian.westenhoff.2@gu.se
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-6961-8015

Funding

European Research Council (279944)

  • Sebastian Westenhoff

Academy of Finland (285461)

  • Sebastian Westenhoff

Academy of Finland (296135)

  • Sebastian Westenhoff

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

Reviewing Editor

  1. Werner Kühlbrandt, Max Planck Institute of Biophysics, Germany

Version history

  1. Received: November 11, 2019
  2. Accepted: March 13, 2020
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: March 31, 2020 (version 1)
  4. Version of Record published: April 17, 2020 (version 2)

Copyright

© 2020, Claesson 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

  • 3,694
    views
  • 438
    downloads
  • 81
    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. Elin Claesson
  2. Weixiao Yuan Wahlgren
  3. Heikki Takala
  4. Suraj Pandey
  5. Leticia Castillon
  6. Valentyna Kuznetsova
  7. Léocadie Henry
  8. Matthijs Panman
  9. Melissa Carrillo
  10. Joachim Kübel
  11. Rahul Nanekar
  12. Linnéa Isaksson
  13. Amke Nimmrich
  14. Andrea Cellini
  15. Dmitry Morozov
  16. Michał Maj
  17. Moona Kurttila
  18. Robert Bosman
  19. Eriko Nango
  20. Rie Tanaka
  21. Tomoyuki Tanaka
  22. Luo Fangjia
  23. So Iwata
  24. Shigeki Owada
  25. Keith Moffat
  26. Gerrit Groenhof
  27. Emina A. Stojković
  28. Janne A. Ihalainen
  29. Marius Schmidt
  30. Sebastian Westenhoff
(2020)
The primary structural photoresponse of phytochrome proteins captured by a femtosecond X-ray laser
eLife 9:e53514.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.53514

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.53514

Further reading

    1. Structural Biology and Molecular Biophysics
    Simon M Lichtinger, Joanne L Parker ... Philip C Biggin
    Research Article

    Proton-coupled oligopeptide transporters (POTs) are of great pharmaceutical interest owing to their promiscuous substrate binding site that has been linked to improved oral bioavailability of several classes of drugs. Members of the POT family are conserved across all phylogenetic kingdoms and function by coupling peptide uptake to the proton electrochemical gradient. Cryo-EM structures and alphafold models have recently provided new insights into different conformational states of two mammalian POTs, SLC15A1, and SLC15A2. Nevertheless, these studies leave open important questions regarding the mechanism of proton and substrate coupling, while simultaneously providing a unique opportunity to investigate these processes using molecular dynamics (MD) simulations. Here, we employ extensive unbiased and enhanced-sampling MD to map out the full SLC15A2 conformational cycle and its thermodynamic driving forces. By computing conformational free energy landscapes in different protonation states and in the absence or presence of peptide substrate, we identify a likely sequence of intermediate protonation steps that drive inward-directed alternating access. These simulations identify key differences in the extracellular gate between mammalian and bacterial POTs, which we validate experimentally in cell-based transport assays. Our results from constant-PH MD and absolute binding free energy (ABFE) calculations also establish a mechanistic link between proton binding and peptide recognition, revealing key details underpining secondary active transport in POTs. This study provides a vital step forward in understanding proton-coupled peptide and drug transport in mammals and pave the way to integrate knowledge of solute carrier structural biology with enhanced drug design to target tissue and organ bioavailability.

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

    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.