Abstract

Staphylococcus aureus (SA) leukocidin LukED belongs to a family of bicomponent pore forming toxins that play important roles in SA immune evasion and nutrient acquisition. LukED targets specific G protein-coupled chemokine receptors to lyse human erythrocytes (red blood cells) and leukocytes (white blood cells). The first recognition step of receptors is critical for specific cell targeting and lysis. The structural and molecular bases for this mechanism are not well understood but could constitute essential information to guide antibiotic development. Here, we characterized the interaction of LukE with chemokine receptors ACKR1, CCR2 and CCR5 using a combination of structural, pharmacological and computational approaches. First, crystal structures of LukE in complex with a small molecule mimicking sulfotyrosine side chain (p-cresyl sulfate) and with peptides containing sulfotyrosines issued from receptor sequences revealed the location of receptor sulfotyrosine binding sites in the toxins. Then, by combining previous and novel experimental data with protein docking, classical and accelerated weight histogram (AWH) molecular dynamics we propose models of the ACKR1-LukE and CCR5-LukE complexes. This work provides novel insights into chemokine receptor recognition by leukotoxins and suggests that the conserved sulfotyrosine binding pocket could be a target of choice for future drug development.

Data availability

Diffraction data have been deposited in PDB under the accession codes 7P8T, 7P8S, 7P8U, 7P8X and 7P93. Source Data files containing the computational models of the ACKR1-LukE and CCR5-LukE complexes in Figures 6 and 7 have been provided as pdb files. Figure 2 - Source Data 1 contain the numerical data used to generate the figure.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Paul Lambey

    Institut de Génomique Fonctionnelle, CNRS, INSERM, Université de Montpellier, Montpellier, France
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Omolade Otun

    Institut de Génomique Fonctionnelle, CNRS, INSERM, Université de Montpellier, Montpellier, France
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Xiaojing Cong

    Institut de Génomique Fonctionnelle, CNRS, INSERM, Université de Montpellier, Montpellier, France
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. François Hoh

    Centre de Biochimie Structurale, CNRS UMR 5048-INSERM 1054- University of Montpellier, Montpellier, France
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Luc Brunel

    Centre de Biochimie Structurale, CNRS UMR 5048-INSERM 1054- University of Montpellier, Montpellier, France
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Pascal Verdié

    Centre de Biochimie Structurale, CNRS UMR 5048-INSERM 1054- University of Montpellier, Montpellier, France
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-5807-0293
  7. Claire M Grison

    Institut de Génomique Fonctionnelle, CNRS, INSERM, Université de Montpellier, Montpellier, France
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Fanny Peysson

    Institut de Génomique Fonctionnelle, CNRS, INSERM, Université de Montpellier, Montpellier, France
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Sylvain Jeannot

    Institut de Génomique Fonctionnelle, CNRS, INSERM, Université de Montpellier, Montpellier, France
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  10. Thierry Durroux

    Institut de Génomique Fonctionnelle, CNRS, INSERM, Université de Montpellier, Montpellier, France
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  11. Cherine Betara

    Institut de Génomique Fonctionnelle, CNRS, INSERM, Université de Montpellier, Montpellier, France
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  12. Sébastien Granier

    Institut de Génomique Fonctionnelle, CNRS, INSERM, Université de Montpellier, Montpellier, France
    For correspondence
    sebastien.granier@igf.cnrs.fr
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  13. Cédric Leyrat

    Institut de Génomique Fonctionnelle, CNRS, INSERM, Université de Montpellier, Montpellier, France
    For correspondence
    cedric.leyrat@igf.cnrs.fr
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-0189-0562

Funding

Agence Nationale de la Recherche (ANR-17-CE15-0002-01)

  • Cédric Leyrat

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

Reviewing Editor

  1. Aaron Frank, University of Michigan, United States

Version history

  1. Received: July 27, 2021
  2. Preprint posted: August 6, 2021 (view preprint)
  3. Accepted: March 19, 2022
  4. Accepted Manuscript published: March 21, 2022 (version 1)
  5. Accepted Manuscript updated: March 22, 2022 (version 2)
  6. Accepted Manuscript updated: March 23, 2022 (version 3)
  7. Version of Record published: April 12, 2022 (version 4)

Copyright

© 2022, Lambey 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

  • 1,087
    views
  • 201
    downloads
  • 6
    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. Paul Lambey
  2. Omolade Otun
  3. Xiaojing Cong
  4. François Hoh
  5. Luc Brunel
  6. Pascal Verdié
  7. Claire M Grison
  8. Fanny Peysson
  9. Sylvain Jeannot
  10. Thierry Durroux
  11. Cherine Betara
  12. Sébastien Granier
  13. Cédric Leyrat
(2022)
Structural insights into recognition of chemokine receptors by Staphylococcus aureus leukotoxins
eLife 11:e72555.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.72555

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.72555

Further reading

    1. Medicine
    2. Microbiology and Infectious Disease
    Yi-Shin Chang, Kai Huang ... David L Perkins
    Research Article

    Background:

    End-stage renal disease (ESRD) patients experience immune compromise characterized by complex alterations of both innate and adaptive immunity, and results in higher susceptibility to infection and lower response to vaccination. This immune compromise, coupled with greater risk of exposure to infectious disease at hemodialysis (HD) centers, underscores the need for examination of the immune response to the COVID-19 mRNA-based vaccines.

    Methods:

    The immune response to the COVID-19 BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine was assessed in 20 HD patients and cohort-matched controls. RNA sequencing of peripheral blood mononuclear cells was performed longitudinally before and after each vaccination dose for a total of six time points per subject. Anti-spike antibody levels were quantified prior to the first vaccination dose (V1D0) and 7 d after the second dose (V2D7) using anti-spike IgG titers and antibody neutralization assays. Anti-spike IgG titers were additionally quantified 6 mo after initial vaccination. Clinical history and lab values in HD patients were obtained to identify predictors of vaccination response.

    Results:

    Transcriptomic analyses demonstrated differing time courses of immune responses, with prolonged myeloid cell activity in HD at 1 wk after the first vaccination dose. HD also demonstrated decreased metabolic activity and decreased antigen presentation compared to controls after the second vaccination dose. Anti-spike IgG titers and neutralizing function were substantially elevated in both controls and HD at V2D7, with a small but significant reduction in titers in HD groups (p<0.05). Anti-spike IgG remained elevated above baseline at 6 mo in both subject groups. Anti-spike IgG titers at V2D7 were highly predictive of 6-month titer levels. Transcriptomic biomarkers after the second vaccination dose and clinical biomarkers including ferritin levels were found to be predictive of antibody development.

    Conclusions:

    Overall, we demonstrate differing time courses of immune responses to the BTN162b2 mRNA COVID-19 vaccination in maintenance HD subjects comparable to healthy controls and identify transcriptomic and clinical predictors of anti-spike IgG titers in HD. Analyzing vaccination as an in vivo perturbation, our results warrant further characterization of the immune dysregulation of ESRD.

    Funding:

    F30HD102093, F30HL151182, T32HL144909, R01HL138628. This research has been funded by the University of Illinois at Chicago Center for Clinical and Translational Science (CCTS) award UL1TR002003.

    1. Microbiology and Infectious Disease
    Michael D Sacco, Lauren R Hammond ... Yu Chen
    Research Article

    In the Firmicutes phylum, GpsB is a membrane associated protein that coordinates peptidoglycan synthesis with cell growth and division. Although GpsB has been studied in several bacteria, the structure, function, and interactome of Staphylococcus aureus GpsB is largely uncharacterized. To address this knowledge gap, we solved the crystal structure of the N-terminal domain of S. aureus GpsB, which adopts an atypical, asymmetric dimer, and demonstrates major conformational flexibility that can be mapped to a hinge region formed by a three-residue insertion exclusive to Staphylococci. When this three-residue insertion is excised, its thermal stability increases, and the mutant no longer produces a previously reported lethal phenotype when overexpressed in Bacillus subtilis. In S. aureus, we show that these hinge mutants are less functional and speculate that the conformational flexibility imparted by the hinge region may serve as a dynamic switch to finetune the function of the GpsB complex and/or to promote interaction with its various partners. Furthermore, we provide the first biochemical, biophysical, and crystallographic evidence that the N-terminal domain of GpsB binds not only PBP4, but also FtsZ, through a conserved recognition motif located on their C-termini, thus coupling peptidoglycan synthesis to cell division. Taken together, the unique structure of S. aureus GpsB and its direct interaction with FtsZ/PBP4 provide deeper insight into the central role of GpsB in S. aureus cell division.