Structure of dual-BON domain protein DolP identifies phospholipid binding as a new mechanism for protein localization

Abstract

The Gram-negative outer membrane envelops the bacterium and functions as a permeability barrier against antibiotics, detergents and environmental stresses. Some virulence factors serve to maintain the integrity of the outer membrane, including DolP (formerly YraP) a protein of unresolved structure and function. Here we reveal DolP is a lipoprotein functionally conserved among Gram-negative bacteria and that loss of DolP increases membrane fluidity. We present the NMR solution structure for Escherichia coli DolP, which is composed of two BON domains that form an interconnected opposing pair. The C-terminal BON domain binds anionic phospholipids through an extensive membrane:protein interface. This interaction is essential for DolP function and is required for sub-cellular localization of the protein to the cell division site, providing evidence of subcellular localization of these phospholipids within the outer membrane. The structure of DolP provides a new target for developing therapies that disrupt the integrity of the bacterial cell envelope.

Data availability

Structural data have been deposited in PDB under the accession code 7A2D and the BMRB 19760.All data generated or analysed during this study are included in the manuscript and supporting files. We have supplied original images for Figures 1, 4, S1, S5, S9, and S10 in Additional Data File 1. We have also supplied raw data for Figure S10 in Additional Data File 2.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Jack Alfred Bryant

    Institute of Microbiology and Infection, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-7912-2144
  2. Faye C Morris

    Institute of Microbiology and Infection, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-9021-0452
  3. Timothy J Knowles

    School of Biosciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Riyaz Maderbocus

    Institute of Microbiology and Infection, Institute for Cancer and Genomic Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Eva Heinz

    Infection & Immunity Program, Biomedicine Discovery Institute and Department of Microbiology,, Monash University, Clayton, Australia
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-4413-3756
  6. Gabriela Boelter

    Institute of Microbiology and Infection, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Dema Alodaini

    Institute of Microbiology and Infection, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Adam Colyer

    Institute of Microbiology and Infection, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Peter J Wotherspoon

    Institute of Microbiology and Infection, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  10. Kara A Staunton

    Institute of Microbiology and Infection, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  11. Mark Jeeves

    Institute for Cancer and Genomic Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  12. Douglas F Browning

    Institute of Microbiology and Infection, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  13. Yanina R Sevastsyanovich

    Institute of Microbiology and Infection, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  14. Timothy J Wells

    Institute of Microbiology and Infection, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  15. Amanda E Rossiter

    Institute of Microbiology and Infection, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  16. Vassiliy N Bavro

    Institute of Microbiology and Infection, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  17. Pooja Sridhar

    School of Biosciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  18. Douglas G Ward

    Institute of Cancer and Genomic Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  19. Zhi-Soon Chong

    Department of Chemistry, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  20. Emily C A Goodall

    IMB, IMB, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-4846-6566
  21. Christopher Icke

    Institute of Microbiology and Infection, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-7815-8591
  22. Alvin Teo

    School of Life Sciences, University of Warwick, Coventry, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  23. Shu-Sin Chng

    Department of Chemistry, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-5466-7183
  24. David I Roper

    School of Life Sciences, University of Warwick, Coventry, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  25. Trevor Lithgow

    Department of Microbiology, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  26. Adam F Cunningham

    Institute of Microbiology and Infection, Institute of Inflammation and Immunotherapy, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  27. Manuel Banzhaf

    Institute of Microbiology and Infection, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  28. Michael Overduin

    Department of Biochemistry, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada
    For correspondence
    overduin@ualberta.ca
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  29. Ian R Henderson

    Institute for Molecular Bioscience, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia
    For correspondence
    i.henderson@imb.uq.edu.au
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-9954-4977

Funding

Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BB/M00810X/1)

  • Michael Overduin
  • Ian R Henderson

Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BB/L00335X/1)

  • Michael Overduin
  • Ian R Henderson

Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BB/P009840/1)

  • Timothy J Knowles

Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (RCP-12-002C)

  • Michael Overduin

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

Copyright

© 2020, Bryant 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

  • 2,704
    views
  • 404
    downloads
  • 28
    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. Jack Alfred Bryant
  2. Faye C Morris
  3. Timothy J Knowles
  4. Riyaz Maderbocus
  5. Eva Heinz
  6. Gabriela Boelter
  7. Dema Alodaini
  8. Adam Colyer
  9. Peter J Wotherspoon
  10. Kara A Staunton
  11. Mark Jeeves
  12. Douglas F Browning
  13. Yanina R Sevastsyanovich
  14. Timothy J Wells
  15. Amanda E Rossiter
  16. Vassiliy N Bavro
  17. Pooja Sridhar
  18. Douglas G Ward
  19. Zhi-Soon Chong
  20. Emily C A Goodall
  21. Christopher Icke
  22. Alvin Teo
  23. Shu-Sin Chng
  24. David I Roper
  25. Trevor Lithgow
  26. Adam F Cunningham
  27. Manuel Banzhaf
  28. Michael Overduin
  29. Ian R Henderson
(2020)
Structure of dual-BON domain protein DolP identifies phospholipid binding as a new mechanism for protein localization
eLife 9:e62614.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.62614

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.62614

Further reading

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