Abstract

ABC transporters facilitate the movement of diverse molecules across cellular membranes, but how their activity is regulated post-translationally is not well understood. Here we report the crystal structure of MlaFB from E. coli, the cytoplasmic portion of the larger MlaFEDB ABC transporter complex, which drives phospholipid trafficking across the bacterial envelope to maintain outer membrane integrity. MlaB, a STAS domain protein, binds the ABC nucleotide binding domain, MlaF, and is required for its stability. Our structure also implicates a unique C-terminal tail of MlaF in self-dimerization. Both the C-terminal tail of MlaF and the interaction with MlaB are required for the proper assembly of the MlaFEDB complex and its function in cells. This work leads to a new model for how an important bacterial lipid transporter may be regulated by small proteins, and raises the possibility that similar regulatory mechanisms may exist more broadly across the ABC transporter family.

Data availability

The structure factors and coordinates for crystal structures were deposited in the Protein Data Bank with accession codes 6XGY (dimeric MlaFB with ADP+Mg) and 6XGZ (monomeric MlaFB in apo state). Plasmids generated in this study have been deposited in Addgene. All data generated or analysed during this study are included in the manuscript and supporting files.

The following data sets were generated

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Ljuvica R Kolich

    Department of Cell Biology, New York University School of Medicine, New York, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-6696-9645
  2. Ya-Ting Chang

    Department of Cell Biology, New York University School of Medicine, New York, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Nicolas Coudray

    Department of Cell Biology and Applied Bioinformatics Laboratory, New York University School of Medicine, New York, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Sabrina I Giacometti

    Department of Cell Biology, New York University School of Medicine, New York, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Mark R MacRae

    Department of Cell Biology, New York University School of Medicine, New York, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-4941-9526
  6. Georgia L Isom

    Department of Cell Biology, New York University School of Medicine, New York, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Evelyn M Teran

    Department of Cell Biology, New York University School of Medicine, New York, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Gira Bhabha

    Department of Cell Biology, New York University School of Medicine, New York, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-0624-6178
  9. Damian C Ekiert

    Department of Cell Biology and Department of Microbiology, New York University School of Medicine, New York, United States
    For correspondence
    damian.ekiert@EKIERTLAB.ORG
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-2570-0404

Funding

American Heart Association (20POST35210202)

  • Georgia L Isom

National Institutes of Health (T32 GM088118)

  • Mark R MacRae

National Institutes of Health (R35GM128777)

  • Damian C Ekiert

Damon Runyon Cancer Research Foundation (DFS‐20‐16)

  • Gira Bhabha

National Institutes of Health (R00GM112982)

  • Gira Bhabha

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

Copyright

© 2020, Kolich 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

  • 2,067
    views
  • 322
    downloads
  • 37
    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. Ljuvica R Kolich
  2. Ya-Ting Chang
  3. Nicolas Coudray
  4. Sabrina I Giacometti
  5. Mark R MacRae
  6. Georgia L Isom
  7. Evelyn M Teran
  8. Gira Bhabha
  9. Damian C Ekiert
(2020)
Structure of MlaFB uncovers novel mechanisms of ABC transporter regulation
eLife 9:e60030.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.60030

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.60030

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.