Structures of RecBCD in complex with phage-encoded inhibitor proteins reveal distinctive strategies for evasion of a bacterial immunity hub

  1. Martin Wilkinson
  2. Oliver J Wilkinson
  3. Connie Feyerherm
  4. Emma E Fletcher
  5. Dale B Wigley  Is a corresponding author
  6. Mark Simon Dillingham  Is a corresponding author
  1. Imperial College London, United Kingdom
  2. University of Bristol, United Kingdom

Abstract

Following infection of bacterial cells, bacteriophage modulate double-stranded DNA break repair pathways to protect themselves from host immunity systems and prioritise their own recombinases. Here we present biochemical and structural analysis of two phage proteins, gp5.9 and Abc2, which target the DNA break resection complex RecBCD. These exemplify two contrasting mechanisms for control of DNA break repair in which the RecBCD complex is either inhibited or co-opted for the benefit of the invading phage. Gp5.9 completely inhibits RecBCD by preventing it from binding to DNA. The RecBCD-gp5.9 structure shows that gp5.9 acts by substrate mimicry, binding predominantly to the RecB arm domain and competing sterically for the DNA binding site. Gp5.9 adopts a parallel coiled-coil architecture that is unprecedented for a natural DNA mimic protein. In contrast, binding of Abc2 does not substantially affect the biochemical activities of isolated RecBCD. The RecBCD-Abc2 structure shows that Abc2 binds to the Chi-recognition domains of the RecC subunit in a position that might enable it to mediate the loading of phage recombinases onto its single-stranded DNA products.

Data availability

Source data files have been provided for gel-based analyses (Figure 1 - Source data 1).All new cryoEM data/models generated in this work have been deposited at the EMDB and PDB (see Table 1 for accession codes).Validation reports have been provided for structural models with submission.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Martin Wilkinson

    Department of Infectious Disease, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-5490-613X
  2. Oliver J Wilkinson

    School of Biochemistry, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-4107-6434
  3. Connie Feyerherm

    School of Biochemistry, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Emma E Fletcher

    School of Biochemistry, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Dale B Wigley

    Department of Infectious Disease, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom
    For correspondence
    d.wigley@imperial.ac.uk
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-0786-6726
  6. Mark Simon Dillingham

    School of Biochemistry, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom
    For correspondence
    mark.dillingham@bristol.ac.uk
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-4612-7141

Funding

Wellcome Trust (100401/Z/12/Z)

  • Mark Simon Dillingham

Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BB/S007261/1)

  • Mark Simon Dillingham

Cancer Research UK (C6913/A2160)

  • Dale B Wigley

Wellcome Trust (209327/Z/17/Z)

  • Dale B Wigley

Medical Research Council (MR/N009258/1)

  • Dale B Wigley

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

Copyright

© 2022, Wilkinson 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

  • 1,923
    views
  • 295
    downloads
  • 10
    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. Martin Wilkinson
  2. Oliver J Wilkinson
  3. Connie Feyerherm
  4. Emma E Fletcher
  5. Dale B Wigley
  6. Mark Simon Dillingham
(2022)
Structures of RecBCD in complex with phage-encoded inhibitor proteins reveal distinctive strategies for evasion of a bacterial immunity hub
eLife 11:e83409.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.83409

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.83409

Further reading

    1. Biochemistry and Chemical Biology
    2. Structural Biology and Molecular Biophysics
    Marina Dajka, Tobias Rath ... Benesh Joseph
    Research Article

    Lipopolysaccharides (LPS) confer resistance against harsh conditions, including antibiotics, in Gram-negative bacteria. The lipopolysaccharide transport (Lpt) complex, consisting of seven proteins (A-G), exports LPS across the cellular envelope. LptB2FG forms an ATP-binding cassette transporter that transfers LPS to LptC. How LptB2FG couples ATP binding and hydrolysis with LPS transport to LptC remains unclear. We observed the conformational heterogeneity of LptB2FG and LptB2FGC in micelles and/or proteoliposomes using pulsed dipolar electron spin resonance spectroscopy. Additionally, we monitored LPS binding and release using laser-induced liquid bead ion desorption mass spectrometry. The β-jellyroll domain of LptF stably interacts with the LptG and LptC β-jellyrolls in both the apo and vanadate-trapped states. ATP binding at the cytoplasmic side is allosterically coupled to the selective opening of the periplasmic LptF β-jellyroll domain. In LptB2FG, ATP binding closes the nucleotide binding domains, causing a collapse of the first lateral gate as observed in structures. However, the second lateral gate, which forms the putative entry site for LPS, exhibits a heterogeneous conformation. LptC binding limits the flexibility of this gate to two conformations, likely representing the helix of LptC as either released from or inserted into the transmembrane domains. Our results reveal the regulation of the LPS entry gate through the dynamic behavior of the LptC transmembrane helix, while its β-jellyroll domain is anchored in the periplasm. This, combined with long-range ATP-dependent allosteric gating of the LptF β-jellyroll domain, may ensure efficient and unidirectional transport of LPS across the periplasm.

    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.