1. Biochemistry and Chemical Biology
  2. Structural Biology and Molecular Biophysics

ClpAP proteolysis does not require rotation of the ClpA unfoldase relative to ClpP

  1. Sora Kim
  2. Kristin L Zuromski
  3. Tristan A Bell
  4. Robert T Sauer
  5. Tania A Baker  Is a corresponding author
  1. Department of Biology, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, United States
  2. Department of Chemistry, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, United States
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.61451
Share this article
Cite this article
  1. Sora Kim
  2. Kristin L Zuromski
  3. Tristan A Bell
  4. Robert T Sauer
  5. Tania A Baker
(2020)
ClpAP proteolysis does not require rotation of the ClpA unfoldase relative to ClpP
eLife 9:e61451.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.61451
  2. Download BibTeX
  3. Download .RIS

Abstract

AAA+ proteases perform regulated protein degradation in all kingdoms of life and consist of a hexameric AAA+ unfoldase/translocase in complex with a self-compartmentalized peptidase. Based on asymmetric features of cryo-EM structures and a sequential hand-over-hand model of substrate translocation, recent publications have proposed that the AAA+ unfoldases ClpA and ClpX rotate with respect to their partner peptidase ClpP to allow function. Here, we test this model by covalently crosslinking ClpA to ClpP to prevent rotation. We find that crosslinked ClpAP complexes unfold, translocate, and degrade protein substrates in vitro, albeit modestly slower than uncrosslinked enzyme controls. Rotation of ClpA with respect to ClpP is therefore not required for ClpAP protease activity, although some flexibility in how the AAA+ ring docks with ClpP may be necessary for optimal function.

Introduction

The AAA+ (ATPases Associated with diverse cellular Activities) protease subfamily uses the energy of ATP hydrolysis to disassemble and degrade proteins that are misfolded, deleterious, or unneeded (Sauer and Baker, 2011). AAA+ proteases are composed of a hexameric single- or double-ringed AAA+ unfoldase/translocase and a self-compartmentalized partner peptidase. The AAA+ rings form a shallow helix and stack with planar peptidase rings (Puchades et al., 2020). After protein substrate recognition by the unfoldase, repeated cycles of ATP hydrolysis power conformational changes in the AAA+ motor, promoting substrate unfolding and processive translocation of the resulting polypeptide into the proteolytic chamber of the peptidase for degradation. Recent structural and biochemical studies have illuminated some aspects of this process, but the molecular nature of the stepwise cycles these proteolytic machines use to carry out mechanical unfolding and translocation of protein substrates is still being actively explored (Puchades et al., 2020).

The ClpAP protease consists of the ClpA6 AAA+ unfoldase, a double-ring AAA+ enzyme with two AAA+ modules per subunit, and the tetradecameric ClpP14 peptidase, which contains two heptameric rings (Sauer and Baker, 2011; Figure 1A). Thus, the interface between ClpA and ClpP involves an asymmetric six-to-seven subunit mismatch. The ClpXP protease, composed of the single-ring AAA+ ClpX6 unfoldase and the ClpP14 peptidase, also has a six-to-seven mismatch, as do proteasomal AAA+ enzymes. How such mismatches are accommodated structurally and whether the mismatches play important roles in the mechanisms of these ATP-dependent proteases has long been a subject of interest. Recent near-atomic-resolution cryo-EM structures of ClpAP and ClpXP reveal that each unfoldase has six flexible peptidase-binding loops protruding from the bottom face of the AAA+ ring that can interact with ClpP14 (Fei et al., 2020a; Fei et al., 2020b; Ripstein et al., 2020; Lopez et al., 2020). Part of each loop containing a conserved tripeptide motif (IGL in ClpA; IGF in ClpX) docks into hydrophobic clefts on the top of the ClpP7 ring, engaging a total of five or six of the seven clefts and leaving one or two clefts unoccupied (Figure 1A; Fei et al., 2020a; Fei et al., 2020b; Ripstein et al., 2020; Lopez et al., 2020).

Figure 1
Download asset Open asset
ClpAP structure and rotary translocation model.

(A) Complex of ClpP with ClpA (PDB 6UQO). Subunits of ClpA, labeled S1 through S6, are ordered from the highest to the lowest position in the spiral relative to ClpP at the beginning of the …

Subunits in both the ClpA and ClpX hexamers adopt a shallow helical conformation with axial pore loops that interact with an extended substrate polypeptide to form a structure reminiscent of a spiral staircase. By contrast, ClpP subunits are arranged in near-planar rings that enclose a chamber with luminal peptidase active sites. Other AAA+ proteases have similar architectures, with spiral AAA+ rings and planar peptidase rings (Puchades et al., 2020). In structures of heterohexameric AAA+ protease motors in which the positions of unique subunits can be determined, different subunits can occupy the highest and lowest spiral positions, suggesting that dynamic rearrangement of subunits within the spiral is part of the ATP-fueled mechanical cycle that powers substrate translocation (de la Peña et al., 2018; Dong et al., 2019). In one model for this cycle, an enzyme power stroke is initiated when the second lowest subunit in the spiral hydrolyzes ATP (S5 at the beginning of the cycle, Figure 1A), resulting in a rearrangement that moves this subunit and higher subunits, together with bound substrate, each down one position in the spiral, at the same time that the lowest subunit (S6) disengages from substrate and moves to the top of the spiral (Figure 1B; Puchades et al., 2020). Intriguingly, in recent cryo-EM structures of ClpAP and ClpXP, an empty ClpP cleft is always flanked by clefts that interact with the IGL/IGF loops of the second lowest and lowest subunits within the spiral (S5 and S6 in Figure 1A; Fei et al., 2020a; Fei et al., 2020b; Ripstein et al., 2020; Lopez et al., 2020). If different subunits in the ClpA or ClpX hexamers pass sequentially through each position in the spiral during substrate translocation and the empty cleft in ClpP is always between clefts that interact with specific subunits in the spiral, then the AAA+ ring should rotate with respect to ClpP during protein translocation (Figure 1B; Ripstein et al., 2020; Lopez et al., 2020).

Here, we test the effects of preventing rotation of the ClpA ring with respect to the ClpP ring by covalently crosslinking multiple IGL loops of ClpA to ClpP (Figure 1C). We find that an enzyme containing multiple covalent crosslinks between ClpA and ClpP retains substantial proteolytic activity against unfolded and metastable native substrates but displays defects in degrading more stably folded proteins. We conclude that rotation of ClpA with respect to ClpP is not required for substrate translocation or unfolding, but some freedom of movement at the ClpA-ClpP interface is likely to be important for optimal mechanical activity.

Results and discussion

Crosslinking ClpA to ClpP

For crosslinking studies, we used cysteine-free genetic backgrounds for ClpA (C47S, C203S, C243S; Zuromski et al., 2020) and ClpP (C91V, C113A; Amor et al., 2016). We then introduced an E613C mutation into the IGL loop of otherwise cysteine-free ClpA (E613CClpA‡) and appended a cysteine after Asn193, the C-terminal residue of otherwise cysteine-free ClpP (ClpP+C). Based on cryo-EM structures of ClpAP (Lopez et al., 2020), the cysteines introduced by these mutations should be close enough to allow crosslinking of specific subunits of ClpA to neighboring subunits of ClpP. For example, Figure 2A shows that Glu613 in each subunit of the ClpA hexamer is close to a ClpP Arg192 residue, the last ClpP amino acid visible in the ClpAP structure, in six of the seven ClpP protomers. We mixed E613CClpA‡ with ClpP+C in the presence of a homobifunctional cysteine crosslinker and then separated covalently joined E613CClpA‡–ClpP+C complexes (peak 1) from uncrosslinked ClpP+C (peak 2) by size-exclusion chromatography (Figure 2B). After pooling fractions containing E613CClpA‡–ClpP+C complexes (Figure 2B), quantification by SDS-PAGE revealed that 90 ± 1% of the ClpA was crosslinked to ClpP (designated A–P) (Figure 2C lane 7, Figure 2—source data 1). Based on this crosslinking efficiency, the vast majority of ClpA hexamers should contain one or more crosslinked A–P subunits (>99.99%, assuming independent crosslinking), and ~98% of hexamers should contain four, five, or six ClpA subunits crosslinked to ClpP (Figure 2—figure supplement 1). The E613CClpA‡–ClpP+C pool also contained uncrosslinked ClpP+C, as expected, and some crosslinked ClpP+C dimers (Figure 2C, lane 7).

Figure 2 with 1 supplement
Download asset Open asset
ClpA‒ClpP crosslinking and purification.

(A) Proximity of Glu613 residues in six subunits of the hexameric ClpA ring (shown in the dashed outline) to Arg192 residues in six of the seven subunits of a heptameric ClpP ring (shown in the …

Figure 2—source data 1

Quantification of A–P crosslinking efficiency.

Values are relative fluorescent units (RFUs) calculated from the area under the curve of each species band on a Coomassie-stained SDS-PAGE gel. The volume of samples (3 or 5 µL) loaded in each lane is indicated and used to generate two standard curves for each sample load volume. No RFUs were recorded for the E613CClpA‡ samples containing only uncrosslinked ClpA that were used for the standard curves (represented by N/A). Concentrations of ClpA were calculated from the standard curve with matching sample load volumes.

https://cdn.elifesciences.org/articles/61451/elife-61451-fig2-data1-v1.docx
Figure 2—figure supplement 1
Download asset Open asset
Histogram of the expected number of crosslinks between E613CClpA‡ and ClpP+C in the A–P pool assuming independent crosslinking of individual ClpA and ClpP subunits with 90 ± 1% efficiency.

Crosslinked complexes degrade model substrates

To test if ClpA rotation relative to ClpP is required for ATP-fueled proteolysis, we measured ATP hydrolysis and degradation of model substrates by the purified crosslinked A–P pool in vitro compared to an A•P control consisting of assembled but uncrosslinked E613CClpA‡ and wild-type ClpP (ClpPWT). The A–P pool hydrolyzed ATP at a steady-state rate of 412 ± 40 min−1 enz−1, whereas this rate was 1035 ± 78 min−1 enz−1 for the A•P control. The A•P control hydrolyzed ATP and degraded ssrA-tagged proteins at comparable rates to wild-type ClpAP (ClpAWTClpPWT) and a cysteine-free ClpA (ClpACF) variant (ClpACFClpPWT), demonstrating that the C47S, C203S, C243S, and E613C mutations do not impair activity (Figure 3—figure supplement 1A–B, Figure 3—source data 5). We also observed similar rates of ATP hydrolysis and ssrA-tagged protein degradation when ClpP+C, the ClpP variant used for crosslinking, was paired with ClpAWT, ClpACF, or E613CClpA‡.

To test the effects of crosslinking ClpA to ClpP on proteolysis, we measured the rate at which the A–P and A•P enzymes degraded proteins with a range of native stabilities. These substrates included the N-terminal domain of the phage λ cI repressor with an ssrA tag (λ cIN-ssrA; Gottesman et al., 1998), cp7GFP-ssrA (Nager et al., 2011), 5-IAFV13P titinI27-ssrA (Kenniston et al., 2003; Iosefson et al., 2015), and FITC-casein (Twining, 1984; Thompson et al., 1994). Under the conditions of these assays in vitro, the A–P sample degraded the folded substrates (λ cIN-ssrA and cp7GFP-ssrA) at rates that were 31 ± 5% and 32 ± 4%, respectively, of the A•P control, and degraded unfolded 5-IAFV13P titinI27-ssrA and FITC-casein at 46 ± 2% and 97 ± 7%, respectively, of the control rates (Figure 3A–B, Figure 3—source datas 1–2). The rate of degradation of FITC-casein by the A–P pool was reduced ~6-fold when ATPγS was substituted for ATP (Figure 3C, Figure 3—source data 3), indicating that robust degradation of this molten-globule substrate requires ATP hydrolysis. We also determined steady-state kinetic parameters for degradation of cp7GFP-ssrA by the A–P pool and A•P control (Figure 3D, Figure 3—source data 4). Compared to the A•P control, Vmax was ~50% and KM was ~3-fold weaker for degradation of this substrate by the A–P pool. This reduction in Vmax for the A–P pool was roughly comparable to its reduced ATP-hydrolysis activity, suggesting that slower degradation of folded substrates by the A–P pool results from slower ATPase activity. Thus, our results show that multiple crosslinks between ClpA and ClpP in the A–P pool cause modest slowing of the rates of ATP hydrolysis and protein degradation compared to the uncrosslinked controls (Figure 3—figure supplement 1A–B), with more prominent degradation defects for native substrates. Notably, however, crosslinks between ClpA and ClpP do not prevent the protein unfolding or translocation steps required for proteolysis. Only the crosslinked A–P sample exhibited substantially lower ATP-hydrolysis and protein degradation activity compared to the uncrosslinked controls; thus, the reduced A–P enzymatic activities are likely to be direct consequences of introducing specific covalent crosslinks between ClpA and ClpP rather than other modifications introduced in the experimental design.

Figure 3 with 1 supplement
Download asset Open asset
Substrate degradation by crosslinked ClpAP (A–P) and uncrosslinked ClpAP (A•P).

(A) Top, SDS-PAGE assay of the kinetics of λ cIN-ssrA degradation by A–P and the A•P control (CK is creatine kinase). Bottom, quantification of λ cIN-ssrA degradation. Values are means ± 1 SD (n = 3)…

Figure 3—source data 1

Quantification of λ cIN-ssrA degradation kinetics.

Values are means of fraction remaining of λ cIN-ssrA from three technical replicates ± 1 SD. Values were not recorded (NR) for A–P at 8 min.

https://cdn.elifesciences.org/articles/61451/elife-61451-fig3-data1-v1.docx
Figure 3—source data 2

Degradation of substrates of varying thermodynamic stability.

In columns 2–3, degradation rates are mean degradation rates from 3 to 4 technical replicates ±1 SD. In column 4, the fractional rates were calculated from dividing the mean A–P degradation rate by the mean A•P degradation rate, and the error is a propagated error calculated using the following formula.

https://cdn.elifesciences.org/articles/61451/elife-61451-fig3-data2-v1.docx
Figure 3—source data 3

Degradation of FITC-casein (18 µM) by the purified A–P pool in the presence of ATP or ATPγS.

Values are mean FITC-casein degradation rates from three technical replicates ± 1 SD.

https://cdn.elifesciences.org/articles/61451/elife-61451-fig3-data3-v1.docx
Figure 3—source data 4

Michaelis-Menten analysis of cp7GFP-ssrA degradation kinetics.

Values are mean degradation rates of cp7GFP-ssrA from three technical replicates ± 1 SD. Values were not recorded (NR) for A•P at 7.5 µM.

https://cdn.elifesciences.org/articles/61451/elife-61451-fig3-data4-v1.docx
Figure 3—source data 5

ATPase and cp7GFP-ssrA degradation rates by ClpAP controls.

Values are mean ATP hydrolysis rates (5 mM ATP) or mean degradation rates (20 µM cp7GFP-ssrA) from three technical replicates ± 1 SD.

https://cdn.elifesciences.org/articles/61451/elife-61451-fig3-data5-v1.docx
Figure 3—figure supplement 1
Download asset Open asset
ATPase and degradation activities of uncrosslinked E613CClpA‡ClpP+C and E613CClpA‡ClpPWT (A•P) complexes are comparable to those of wild-type ClpAP.

(A) Hydrolysis of ATP (5 mM) by crosslinked ClpAP (A–P) and uncrosslinked controls consisting of wild-type ClpA (ClpAWT), cysteine-free ClpA (ClpACF), or E613CClpA‡ and either wild-type ClpP (ClpPWT)…

Mechanistic implications of crosslinked complex activity

Models in which ClpA or ClpX must rotate with respect to ClpP to allow substrate translocation (Figure 1B–C) predict that crosslinking ClpA or ClpX to ClpP would abolish protein degradation by stopping rotation and linked sequential movements of ClpA/ClpX subunits through each position in the spiral. Our experimental results do not support these models. Rather, we find that preventing rotation by ‘riveting’ the ClpA ring to the ClpP ring still permits substantial degradation of native and denatured protein substrates in vitro. ClpXP complexes in which one IGF loop is crosslinked to ClpP can also degrade folded and unfolded substrates, albeit at lower rates than uncrosslinked controls (Bell, 2020). The high degree of crosslinking in our ClpAP experiments, where 98% of complexes contain at least four covalent crosslinks between ClpA and ClpP, and ~50% of complexes are predicted to contain six crosslinks (Figure 2—figure supplement 1), would be expected to hinder each ClpA subunit from adopting each position in the spiral by affecting conformational accessibility, especially near the ClpP interface. Moreover, in approximately half of the crosslinked enzymes, it would not be possible to have two empty ClpP clefts. Hence, the proposal that this intermediate is a requisite step in translocation, as proposed for ClpXP (Ripstein et al., 2020), is also inconsistent with our results. Lopez et al., 2020 proposed that ClpA and ClpP might rotate in defined contexts, for example during the degradation of very stable substrates. Although we cannot exclude this possibility, we prefer simpler models in which the basic mechanism of AAA+ protease function does not change in a substrate-specific manner. As we observe reduced rates of degradation of folded substrates when ClpA and ClpP are crosslinked, conformational flexibility between the unfoldase and protease appears to be important for optimal unfolding. However, rotation of the ClpA or ClpX rings with respect to ClpP is clearly not a strict requirement for degradation. We suggest, therefore, that ring-ring rotation models be considered to be both unproven and unlikely in the absence of direct evidence for such rotation.

AAA+ proteases in the FtsH/Yme1/Agf3l2 and Lon families have AAA+ and peptidase modules that are genetically tethered as part of the same polypeptide chain and therefore also must operate without rotation between the unfoldase and protease components (Glynn, 2017). For ClpAP, a non-rotary mechanism could be explained by the sequential hand-over-hand mechanism if the empty ClpP cleft can localize between any pair of ClpA subunits. Alternative mechanisms, such as the reciprocating action of one or two AAA+ subunits, might also explain both the observed pattern of unfoldase-protein interactions seen in cryo-EM structures and the robust degradation activity of genetically or biochemically tethered AAA+ proteases against multiple substrates. Further experiments will be required to discriminate between these models.

Materials and methods

Key resources table
Reagent type
(species) or
resource		DesignationSource or
reference		IdentifiersAdditional
information
Gene (Escherichia coli)clpAUniProtKB - P0ABH9
Gene (Escherichia coli)clpPUniProtKB - P0A6G7
Strain, strain background (Escherichia coli)T7 ExpressNew England BiolabsC2566IChemically competent cells
Recombinant DNA reagentpT7 ClpP+C (plasmid)This paperFor overexpression of C-terminally His6-tagged ClpP (C91V, C113A) with extra Cys residue for crosslinking. Progenitor: pT7 ClpP-TEV-cHis6(Stinson et al., 2013; Amor et al., 2016)
Recombinant DNA reagentpET23b His7SumoFLAG E613CClpA‡(plasmid)This paperFor overexpression of ClpA with Cys substitution and C47S, C203S, C243S background for crosslinking. Progenitor: pET23b His7Sumo ClpAcfΔC9 (Zuromski et al., 2020)
Recombinant DNA reagentpET23b His7Sumo ClpAcfΔC9 (plasmid)Zuromski et al., 2020For overexpression of cysteine-free ClpA (ClpACF) harbouring C47S, C203S, C243S mutations
Recombinant DNA reagentWT ClpA (plasmid)Seol et al., 1994, Hou et al., 2008WT ClpA (M169T background) for overexpression
Recombinant DNA reagentClpP-His6(plasmid)Kim et al., 2001WT ClpP for overexpression
Recombinant DNA reagentcp7GFP-ssrA (plasmid)Nager et al., 2011Circularly permutated variant of superfolder GFP-ssrA for overexpression
Recombinant DNA reagentV13P titinI27-ssrA (plasmid)Kenniston et al., 2003ssrA-tagged I27 domain variant for overexpression
Recombinant DNA reagentHis6SUMO λ cIN-ssrA (plasmid)This paperssrA-tagged residues 1–93 of λ cI (UniProtKB - P03034) for overexpression
Chemical compound, drugBismaleimidoethaneThermo Fisher ScientificCat # 22323
Chemical compound, drugAdenosine 5ʹ-O-(3-Thiotriphosphate), Tetralithium SaltMillipore SigmaCat# 119120–25 MG
Chemical compound, drug5-IodoacetamidofluoresceinThermo Fisher ScientificCat# I30451
Chemical compound, drugCasein fluorescein isothiocyanate from bovine milk (FITC-casein)Sigma-AldrichCat# C0528-10MG

Proteins

The gene encoding E. coli ClpP+C was generated using PCR mutagenesis, and the corresponding protein was purified by established protocols (Martin et al., 2005) and stored in buffer containing 0.5 mM dithiothreitol (DTT). Wild-type ClpP (ClpPWT) was purified by established protocols (Kim et al., 2001). The plasmid for E613CClpA‡ was generated by PCR mutagenesis of E. coli ClpAΔC9 fused to the 3′-end of His7SumoFLAG cloned into pET23b (Novagen). His7SumoFLAG-E613CClpA‡ was overexpressed in T7Express (New England Biolabs), and initially purified by Ni-NTA chromatography. Following ULP-1 cleavage to remove His7Sumo, E613CClpA‡ was further purified by SP-Sepharose cation-exchange chromatography and stored in 50 mM HEPES-KOH (pH 7.5), 300 mM NaCl, 20 mM MgCl2, 10% glycerol, and 2 mM TCEP. Cysteine-free (ClpACF) and wild-type (ClpAWT) were purified by established protocols (Zuromski et al., 2020; Hou et al., 2008). The cp7GFP-ssrA and V13P titinI27-ssrA proteins were purified as described (Nager et al., 2011; Kenniston et al., 2003). V13P titinI27-ssrA was labeled with 5-iodoacetamidofluorescein (5-IAF) for fluorescent assays as described (Iosefson et al., 2015). The plasmid for λ cIN-ssrA was generated by PCR mutagenesis of a gene encoding amino acids 1–93 the bacteriophage λ cI repressor. This construct was fused to the 3'-end of His6Sumo cloned into pET23b and appended with the C-terminal ssrA degron. His6Sumo-λ cIN-ssrA was purified by Ni-NTA chromatography, ULP-1 cleavage, Ni-NTA chromatography to remove the His6Sumo fragment, Mono-Q anion-exchange chromatography, and Superdex-75 size-exclusion chromatography, and stored in 25 mM HEPES-KOH (pH 7.5), 150 mM NaCl, 10% glycerol, and 1 mM DTT. ClpA and variant concentrations were calculated as hexamer equivalents, and ClpP and variant concentrations were calculated as tetradecamer equivalents.

Crosslinking ClpA to ClpP

Request a detailed protocol

E613CClpA‡ (4 μM) and ClpP+C (9.6 μM) were mixed in a total volume of 2.5 mL and desalted into 50 mM HEPES-KOH (pH 7), 300 mM NaCl, 20 mM MgCl2, 10% glycerol, and 5 mM EDTA using a Sephadex G-25 PD-10 column (GE Healthcare). After diluting to a final volume of 5 mL, crosslinking was initiated by addition of 5 mM ATPγS and 200 μM bismaleimidoethane (BMOE; Thermo Fisher) and allowed to proceed at room temperature for 45 min. The reaction was quenched by addition of 50 mM DTT at room temperature for 20 min before purification by Superdex-200 size-exclusion chromatography in 50 mM HEPES-KOH (pH 7.5), 300 mM NaCl, 20 mM MgCl2, 10% glycerol, and 2 mM TCEP. The purified A–P pool was used for all subsequent biochemical assays. Quantification of crosslinking and the concentration of A–P were measured by quantifying Coomassie-stained SDS-PAGE bands relative to E613CClpA‡ standards. The area under the curve (AUC) corresponding to pixel intensities of the crosslinked and uncrosslinked species were quantified by ImageQuant (GE Healthcare) after scanning Coomassie-stained SDS-PAGE using a Typhoon FLA 9500 (GE Healthcare). Crosslinking efficiency was measured in four independent replicates by multiplying the calculated concentration of each species by the volume loaded in each lane, and calculated as:

Efficiency=picomolesA−PCrosslinkedpicomolesA−PCrosslinked+picomolesE613CClpAUncrosslinked‡

Biochemical assays

Request a detailed protocol

We determined the concentration of E613CClpA‡–ClpP+C by a standard-curve comparison to E613CClpA‡ (Figure 2C). We calculated the concentration of the uncrosslinked E613CClpA‡ species by measuring the absorbance at 280 nm (ε = 32890 M−1 cm−1) using a NanoDrop One UV-Vis Spectrophotometer (Thermo-Fisher Scientific), ATP-hydrolysis assays were performed using an NADH-coupled assay (Martin et al., 2005) at 30°C in Buffer HO (25 mM HEPES-KOH, pH 7.5, 300 mM NaCl, 20 mM MgCl2, 10% glycerol, 2 mM TCEP) with 5 mM ATP and 0.25 µM E613CClpA‡ and 0.75 µM ClpPWT for the A•P control; 0.25 µM E613CClpA‡–ClpP+C for the A–P pool; or the combinations of 0.25 µM ClpAWT, ClpACF, or E613CClpA‡ and 0.75 µM ClpPWT or ClpP+C listed in Figure 3—figure supplement 1A. Degradation reactions were performed at 30°C in Buffer HO with 4 mM ATP and an ATP-regeneration system consisting of 50 μg/mL creatine kinase (Millipore-Sigma) and 5 mM creatine phosphate (Millipore-Sigma). Degradation of cp7GFP-ssrA was monitored by loss of substrate fluorescence (excitation 467 nm; emission 511 nm) using a SpectraMax M5 plate reader (Molecular Devices) (Nager et al., 2011). The cp7GFP-ssrA concentration was 20 µM in Figure 3B and Figure 3—figure supplement 1B; concentrations varying from 0.31 to 80 µM in Figure 3D contained 0.25 µM E613CClpA‡ and 0.75 µM ClpPWT for the A•P control or 0.25 µM E613CClpA‡–ClpP+C for the A–P pool. In the cp7GFP-ssrA degradation assays shown in Figure 3—figure supplement 1B, degradation reactions for uncrosslinked controls included the indicated combinations of 0.25 µM ClpAWT, ClpACF, or E613CClpA‡ and 0.75 µM ClpPWT or ClpP+C, in addition to 0.25 µM E613CClpA‡ and 0.75 µM ClpPWT for the A•P control or 0.25 µM E613CClpA‡–ClpP+C for the A–P pool. Degradation of FITC-casein (18 µM, Sigma-Aldrich) containing 0.25 µM E613CClpA‡ and 0.75 µM ClpPWT for the A•P control or 0.25 µM E613CClpA‡–ClpP+C for the A–P pool was monitored by increase in fluorescence (excitation 340 nm; emission 520 nm); to determine the endpoint of complete FITC-casein degradation, 0.5 µL of 5 mg/mL porcine elastase (Sigma-Aldrich) was added to each well and incubated for 30 min. ClpAP degradation reactions with FITC-casein (18 µM) were performed at 30°C in Buffer HO with 4 mM ATP or ATPγS (Millipore Sigma). Degradation of 5-IAFV13P titinI27-ssrA (5 µM) containing 0.2 µM E613CClpA‡ and 0.5 µM ClpPWT for the A•P control or 0.2 µM E613CClpA‡–ClpP+C for the A–P pool was monitored by increase in fluorescence (excitation 494 nm; emission 518 nm). Gel degradation of λ cIN-ssrA (15 µM monomer) containing 0.2 µM E613CClpA‡ and 0.4 µM ClpPWT for the A•P control or 0.2 µM E613CClpA‡–ClpP+C for the A–P pool was performed in triplicate by taking samples of each reaction at specific time points, stopped by addition of SDS-PAGE loading sample and boiling at 100°C before loading on Tris-Glycine-SDS gels. Bands were visualized by staining with colloidal Coomassie G-250 and quantified by ImageQuant (GE Healthcare) after scanning by Typhoon FLA 9500 (GE Healthcare). The fraction of λ cIN-ssrA remaining was calculated by dividing the intensity of this band at a given time point by the density at time zero, after normalization by the creatine kinase density. The biochemical assays were performed with A–P from a single preparation to ensure that crosslinking efficiency was the same throughout all assays. All experiments were performed in at least three independent replicates and values reported were calculated as the mean ±1 SD of independent replicates or the ratio of means ± propagated error of independent replicates. Propagated error for ‘fractional degradation rate (rate of A–P/rate of A•P)’ of A–P mean activity compared to A•P mean activity was computed as:

PropagatederrorofmeanA-PmeanA∙P= meanA-PmeanA∙P(SDA−PmeanA−P)2+(SDA∙PmeanA∙P)2

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 3.

References

    1. Seol JH
    2. Yoo SJ
    3. Kim KI
    4. Kang MS
    5. Ha DB
    6. Chung CH
    (1994)
    The 65-kDa protein derived from the internal translational initiation site of the clpA gene inhibits the ATP-dependent protease ti in Escherichia coli
    The Journal of Biological Chemistry 269:29468–29473.
    1. Thompson MW
    2. Singh SK
    3. Maurizi MR
    (1994)
    Processive degradation of proteins by the ATP-dependent clp protease from Escherichia coli
    The Journal of Biological Chemistry 269:18209–18215.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Sora Kim

    Department of Biology, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, United States
    Contribution
    Conceptualization, Resources, Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, Validation, Investigation, Visualization, Methodology, Writing - original draft, Project administration, Writing - review and editing
    Contributed equally with
    Kristin L Zuromski and Tristan A Bell
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-9856-9574

  2. Kristin L Zuromski

    Department of Chemistry, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, United States
    Contribution
    Conceptualization, Resources, Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, Validation, Investigation, Visualization, Methodology, Writing - original draft, Project administration, Writing - review and editing
    Contributed equally with
    Sora Kim and Tristan A Bell
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-0960-5009

  3. Tristan A Bell

    Department of Biology, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, United States
    Contribution
    Conceptualization, Resources, Formal analysis, Validation, Investigation, Methodology, Writing - original draft, Writing - review and editing
    Contributed equally with
    Sora Kim and Kristin L Zuromski
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-3668-8412

  4. Robert T Sauer

    Department of Biology, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, United States
    Contribution
    Conceptualization, Resources, Formal analysis, Supervision, Funding acquisition, Validation, Methodology, Writing - original draft, Project administration, Writing - review and editing
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-1719-5399

  5. Tania A Baker

    Department of Biology, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, United States
    Contribution
    Conceptualization, Resources, Supervision, Funding acquisition, Validation, Methodology, Writing - original draft, Project administration, Writing - review and editing
    For correspondence
    tabaker@mit.edu
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-0737-3411

Funding

National Institute of General Medical Sciences (GM-101988)

  • Robert T Sauer

National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (AI-016892)

  • Robert T Sauer
  • Tania A Baker

National Institute of General Medical Sciences (5T32GM-007287)

  • Sora Kim
  • Kristin L Zuromski
  • Tristan A Bell

National Science Foundation (GRFP 1745302)

  • Sora Kim
  • Kristin L Zuromski

Howard Hughes Medical Institute

  • Tania A Baker

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

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to X Fei (MIT) for helpful advice on preparation of crosslinked samples and A Torres-Delgado (MIT) and HC Kotamarthi (MIT) for providing materials. We thank JR Kardon, AO Olivares, and KR Schmitz for thoughtful comments on the manuscript. This work was supported by NIH grants GM-101988 (RTS), AI-016892 (RTS, TAB), and the Howard Hughes Medical Institute (TAB). TA Bell and SK were supported by NIH training grant 5T32GM-007287; SK and KLZ were supported by NSF grant GRFP 1745302.

Copyright

© 2020, Kim et al.

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.

Metrics

  • 1,193
    views
  • 173
    downloads
  • 10
    citations

Views, downloads and citations are aggregated across all versions of this paper published by eLife.

Download links

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.61451

Categories and tags

Research organism

Further reading

    1. Biochemistry and Chemical Biology

    Stabilization of GTSE1 by cyclin D1–CDK4/6-mediated phosphorylation promotes cell proliferation with implications for cancer prognosis

    Nelson García-Vázquez, Tania J González-Robles ... Michele Pagano
    Research Article

    In healthy cells, cyclin D1 is expressed during the G1 phase of the cell cycle, where it activates CDK4 and CDK6. Its dysregulation is a well-established oncogenic driver in numerous human cancers. The cancer-related function of cyclin D1 has been primarily studied by focusing on the phosphorylation of the retinoblastoma (RB) gene product. Here, using an integrative approach combining bioinformatic analyses and biochemical experiments, we show that GTSE1 (G-Two and S phases expressed protein 1), a protein positively regulating cell cycle progression, is a previously unrecognized substrate of cyclin D1–CDK4/6 in tumor cells overexpressing cyclin D1 during G1 and subsequent phases. The phosphorylation of GTSE1 mediated by cyclin D1–CDK4/6 inhibits GTSE1 degradation, leading to high levels of GTSE1 across all cell cycle phases. Functionally, the phosphorylation of GTSE1 promotes cellular proliferation and is associated with poor prognosis within a pan-cancer cohort. Our findings provide insights into cyclin D1’s role in cell cycle control and oncogenesis beyond RB phosphorylation.

    1. Biochemistry and Chemical Biology
    2. Microbiology and Infectious Disease

    Teichoic acids in the periplasm and cell envelope of Streptococcus pneumoniae

    Mai Nguyen, Elda Bauda ... Cecile Morlot
    Research Article

    Teichoic acids (TA) are linear phospho-saccharidic polymers and important constituents of the cell envelope of Gram-positive bacteria, either bound to the peptidoglycan as wall teichoic acids (WTA) or to the membrane as lipoteichoic acids (LTA). The composition of TA varies greatly but the presence of both WTA and LTA is highly conserved, hinting at an underlying fundamental function that is distinct from their specific roles in diverse organisms. We report the observation of a periplasmic space in Streptococcus pneumoniae by cryo-electron microscopy of vitreous sections. The thickness and appearance of this region change upon deletion of genes involved in the attachment of TA, supporting their role in the maintenance of a periplasmic space in Gram-positive bacteria as a possible universal function. Consequences of these mutations were further examined by super-resolved microscopy, following metabolic labeling and fluorophore coupling by click chemistry. This novel labeling method also enabled in-gel analysis of cell fractions. With this approach, we were able to titrate the actual amount of TA per cell and to determine the ratio of WTA to LTA. In addition, we followed the change of TA length during growth phases, and discovered that a mutant devoid of LTA accumulates the membrane-bound polymerized TA precursor.

    1. Biochemistry and Chemical Biology
    2. Computational and Systems Biology

    In silico screening by AlphaFold2 program revealed the potential binding partners of nuage-localizing proteins and piRNA-related proteins

    Shinichi Kawaguchi, Xin Xu ... Toshie Kai
    Research Article

    Protein–protein interactions are fundamental to understanding the molecular functions and regulation of proteins. Despite the availability of extensive databases, many interactions remain uncharacterized due to the labor-intensive nature of experimental validation. In this study, we utilized the AlphaFold2 program to predict interactions among proteins localized in the nuage, a germline-specific non-membrane organelle essential for piRNA biogenesis in Drosophila. We screened 20 nuage proteins for 1:1 interactions and predicted dimer structures. Among these, five represented novel interaction candidates. Three pairs, including Spn-E_Squ, were verified by co-immunoprecipitation. Disruption of the salt bridges at the Spn-E_Squ interface confirmed their functional importance, underscoring the predictive model’s accuracy. We extended our analysis to include interactions between three representative nuage components—Vas, Squ, and Tej—and approximately 430 oogenesis-related proteins. Co-immunoprecipitation verified interactions for three pairs: Mei-W68_Squ, CSN3_Squ, and Pka-C1_Tej. Furthermore, we screened the majority of Drosophila proteins (~12,000) for potential interaction with the Piwi protein, a central player in the piRNA pathway, identifying 164 pairs as potential binding partners. This in silico approach not only efficiently identifies potential interaction partners but also significantly bridges the gap by facilitating the integration of bioinformatics and experimental biology.