Underground isoleucine biosynthesis pathways in E. coli

  1. Charles AR Cotton
  2. Iria Bernhardsgrütter
  3. Hai He
  4. Simon Burgener
  5. Luca Schulz
  6. Nicole Paczia
  7. Beau Dronsella
  8. Alexander Erban
  9. Stepan Toman
  10. Marian Dempfle
  11. Alberto De Maria
  12. Joachim Kopka
  13. Steffen N Lindner
  14. Tobias J Erb
  15. Arren Bar-Even  Is a corresponding author
  1. Max Planck Institute of Molecular Plant Physiology, Germany
  2. Max Planck Institute of Terrestrial Microbiology, Germany
  3. Max Planck Insitute of Molecular Plant Physiology, Germany

Abstract

The promiscuous activities of enzymes provide fertile ground for the evolution of new metabolic pathways. Here, we systematically explore the ability of E. coli to harness underground metabolism to compensate for the deletion of an essential biosynthetic pathway. By deleting all threonine deaminases, we generated a strain in which isoleucine biosynthesis was interrupted at the level of 2-ketobutyrate. Incubation of this strain under aerobic conditions resulted in the emergence of a novel 2-ketobutyrate biosynthesis pathway based upon the promiscuous cleavage of O-succinyl-L-homoserine by cystathionine γ-synthase (MetB). Under anaerobic conditions, pyruvate formate-lyase enabled 2-ketobutyrate biosynthesis from propionyl-CoA and formate. Surprisingly, we found this anaerobic route to provide a substantial fraction of isoleucine in a WT strain, when propionate is available in the medium. This study demonstrates the selective advantage underground metabolism offers, providing metabolic redundancy and flexibility which allow for the best use of environmental carbon sources.

Data availability

All data generated or analysed during this study are included in the manuscript and supporting files. Source data files have been provided for Figures 2 and 7 as well as for the metabolomic analysis.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Charles AR Cotton

    Max Planck Institute of Molecular Plant Physiology, Potsdam, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Iria Bernhardsgrütter

    Max Planck Institute of Terrestrial Microbiology, Marburg, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-5019-8188
  3. Hai He

    Max Planck Institute of Molecular Plant Physiology, Potsdam, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-1223-2813
  4. Simon Burgener

    Max Planck Institute of Terrestrial Microbiology, Marburg, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Luca Schulz

    Max Planck Institute of Terrestrial Microbiology, Marburg, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Nicole Paczia

    Max Planck Institute of Terrestrial Microbiology, Marburg, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Beau Dronsella

    Max Planck Institute of Molecular Plant Physiology, Potsdam, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Alexander Erban

    Dept. III, Max Planck Insitute of Molecular Plant Physiology, Potsdam-Golm, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Stepan Toman

    Max Planck Institute of Molecular Plant Physiology, Potsdam, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  10. Marian Dempfle

    Max Planck Institute of Molecular Plant Physiology, Potsdam, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  11. Alberto De Maria

    Max Planck Institute of Molecular Plant Physiology, Potsdam, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  12. Joachim Kopka

    Dept. III, Max Planck Insitute of Molecular Plant Physiology, Potsdam-Golm, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-9675-4883
  13. Steffen N Lindner

    Max Planck Institute of Molecular Plant Physiology, Potsdam, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-3226-3043
  14. Tobias J Erb

    Max Planck Institute of Terrestrial Microbiology, Marburg, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  15. Arren Bar-Even

    Max Planck Institute of Molecular Plant Physiology, Potsdam, Germany
    For correspondence
    Bar-Even@mpimp-golm.mpg.de
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-1039-4328

Funding

Max Planck Society

  • Arren Bar-Even

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

Copyright

© 2020, Cotton 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

  • 3,942
    views
  • 491
    downloads
  • 23
    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. Charles AR Cotton
  2. Iria Bernhardsgrütter
  3. Hai He
  4. Simon Burgener
  5. Luca Schulz
  6. Nicole Paczia
  7. Beau Dronsella
  8. Alexander Erban
  9. Stepan Toman
  10. Marian Dempfle
  11. Alberto De Maria
  12. Joachim Kopka
  13. Steffen N Lindner
  14. Tobias J Erb
  15. Arren Bar-Even
(2020)
Underground isoleucine biosynthesis pathways in E. coli
eLife 9:e54207.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.54207

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.54207

Further reading

    1. Biochemistry and Chemical Biology
    Emily L Dearlove, Chatrin Chatrin ... Danny T Huang
    Research Article

    Ubiquitination typically involves covalent linking of ubiquitin (Ub) to a lysine residue on a protein substrate. Recently, new facets of this process have emerged, including Ub modification of non-proteinaceous substrates like ADP-ribose by the DELTEX E3 ligase family. Here, we show that the DELTEX family member DTX3L expands this non-proteinaceous substrate repertoire to include single-stranded DNA and RNA. Although the N-terminal region of DTX3L contains single-stranded nucleic acid binding domains and motifs, the minimal catalytically competent fragment comprises the C-terminal RING and DTC domains (RD). DTX3L-RD catalyses ubiquitination of the 3’-end of single-stranded DNA and RNA, as well as double-stranded DNA with a 3’ overhang of two or more nucleotides. This modification is reversibly cleaved by deubiquitinases. NMR and biochemical analyses reveal that the DTC domain binds single-stranded DNA and facilitates the catalysis of Ub transfer from RING-bound E2-conjugated Ub. Our study unveils the direct ubiquitination of nucleic acids by DTX3L, laying the groundwork for understanding its functional implications.

    1. Biochemistry and Chemical Biology
    Jaskamaljot Kaur Banwait, Liana Islam, Aaron L Lucius
    Research Article

    Escherichia coli ClpB and Saccharomyces cerevisiae Hsp104 are AAA+ motor proteins essential for proteome maintenance and thermal tolerance. ClpB and Hsp104 have been proposed to extract a polypeptide from an aggregate and processively translocate the chain through the axial channel of its hexameric ring structure. However, the mechanism of translocation and if this reaction is processive remains disputed. We reported that Hsp104 and ClpB are non-processive on unfolded model substrates. Others have reported that ClpB is able to processively translocate a mechanically unfolded polypeptide chain at rates over 240 amino acids (aa) per second. Here, we report the development of a single turnover stopped-flow fluorescence strategy that reports on processive protein unfolding catalyzed by ClpB. We show that when translocation catalyzed by ClpB is challenged by stably folded protein structure, the motor enzymatically unfolds the substrate at a rate of ~0.9 aa s−1 with a kinetic step-size of ~60 amino acids at sub-saturating [ATP]. We reconcile the apparent controversy by defining enzyme catalyzed protein unfolding and translocation as two distinct reactions with different mechanisms of action. We propose a model where slow unfolding followed by fast translocation represents an important mechanistic feature that allows the motor to rapidly translocate up to the next folded region or rapidly dissociate if no additional fold is encountered.