Revealing an outward-facing open conformational state in a CLC Cl-/H+ exchange transporter

  1. Chandra M Khantwal
  2. Sherwin J Abraham
  3. Wei Han
  4. Tao Jiang
  5. Tanmay S Chavan
  6. Ricky C Cheng
  7. Shelley M Elvington
  8. Corey W Liu
  9. Irimpan I Mathews
  10. Richard A Stein
  11. Hassane S Mchaourab
  12. Emad Tajkhorshid
  13. Merritt Maduke  Is a corresponding author
  1. Stanford University School of Medicine, United States
  2. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, United States
  3. Stanford University, United States
  4. Vanderbilt University, United States

Abstract

CLC secondary active transporters exchange Cl- for H+. Crystal structures have suggested that the conformational change from occluded to outward-facing states is unusually simple, involving only the rotation of a conserved glutamate (Gluex) upon its protonation. Using 19F NMR, we show that as [H+] is increased to protonate Gluex and enrich the outward-facing state, a residue ~20 Å away from Gluex, near the subunit interface, moves from buried to solvent-exposed. Consistent with functional relevance of this motion, constriction via inter-subunit cross-linking reduces transport. Molecular dynamics simulations indicate that the cross-link dampens extracellular gate-opening motions. In support of this model, mutations that decrease steric contact between Helix N (part of the extracellular gate) and Helix P (at the subunit interface) remove the inhibitory effect of the cross-link. Together, these results demonstrate the formation of a previously uncharacterized 'outward-facing open' state, and highlight the relevance of global structural changes in CLC function.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Chandra M Khantwal

    Department of Molecular and Cellular Physiology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Sherwin J Abraham

    Department of Molecular and Cellular Physiology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Wei Han

    Department of Biochemistry, College of Medicine, Center for Biophysics and Computational Biology, Beckman Institute for Advanced Science and Technology, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Tao Jiang

    Department of Biochemistry, College of Medicine, Center for Biophysics and Computational Biology, Beckman Institute for Advanced Science and Technology, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Tanmay S Chavan

    Department of Molecular and Cellular Physiology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Ricky C Cheng

    Department of Molecular and Cellular Physiology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Shelley M Elvington

    Department of Molecular and Cellular Physiology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Corey W Liu

    Stanford Magnetic Resonance Laboratory, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Irimpan I Mathews

    Stanford Synchrotron Radiation Lightsource, Stanford University, Menlo Park, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  10. Richard A Stein

    Department of Molecular Physiology and Biophysics, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  11. Hassane S Mchaourab

    Department of Molecular Physiology and Biophysics, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  12. Emad Tajkhorshid

    Department of Biochemistry, College of Medicine, Center for Biophysics and Computational Biology, Beckman Institute for Advanced Science and Technology, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  13. Merritt Maduke

    Department of Molecular and Cellular Physiology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, United States
    For correspondence
    maduke@stanford.edu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

Reviewing Editor

  1. Richard Aldrich, The University of Texas at Austin, United States

Version history

  1. Received: August 27, 2015
  2. Accepted: January 14, 2016
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: January 22, 2016 (version 1)
  4. Version of Record published: February 18, 2016 (version 2)

Copyright

© 2016, Khantwal 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

  • 2,387
    Page views
  • 659
    Downloads
  • 33
    Citations

Article citation count generated by polling the highest count across the following sources: Crossref, Scopus, PubMed Central.

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. Chandra M Khantwal
  2. Sherwin J Abraham
  3. Wei Han
  4. Tao Jiang
  5. Tanmay S Chavan
  6. Ricky C Cheng
  7. Shelley M Elvington
  8. Corey W Liu
  9. Irimpan I Mathews
  10. Richard A Stein
  11. Hassane S Mchaourab
  12. Emad Tajkhorshid
  13. Merritt Maduke
(2016)
Revealing an outward-facing open conformational state in a CLC Cl-/H+ exchange transporter
eLife 5:e11189.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.11189

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.11189

Further reading

    1. Structural Biology and Molecular Biophysics
    Sebastian Jojoa-Cruz, Adrienne E Dubin ... Andrew B Ward
    Research Advance

    The dimeric two-pore OSCA/TMEM63 family has recently been identified as mechanically activated ion channels. Previously, based on the unique features of the structure of OSCA1.2, we postulated the potential involvement of several structural elements in sensing membrane tension (Jojoa-Cruz et al., 2018). Interestingly, while OSCA1, 2, and 3 clades are activated by membrane stretch in cell-attached patches (i.e. they are stretch-activated channels), they differ in their ability to transduce membrane deformation induced by a blunt probe (poking). Here, in an effort to understand the domains contributing to mechanical signal transduction, we used cryo-electron microscopy to solve the structure of Arabidopsis thaliana (At) OSCA3.1, which, unlike AtOSCA1.2, only produced stretch- but not poke-activated currents in our initial characterization (Murthy et al., 2018). Mutagenesis and electrophysiological assessment of conserved and divergent putative mechanosensitive features of OSCA1.2 reveal a selective disruption of the macroscopic currents elicited by poking without considerable effects on stretch-activated currents (SAC). Our results support the involvement of the amphipathic helix and lipid-interacting residues in the membrane fenestration in the response to poking. Our findings position these two structural elements as potential sources of functional diversity within the family.

    1. Biochemistry and Chemical Biology
    2. Structural Biology and Molecular Biophysics
    Tien M Phan, Young C Kim ... Jeetain Mittal
    Research Article

    The heterochromatin protein 1 (HP1) family is a crucial component of heterochromatin with diverse functions in gene regulation, cell cycle control, and cell differentiation. In humans, there are three paralogs, HP1α, HP1β, and HP1γ, which exhibit remarkable similarities in their domain architecture and sequence properties. Nevertheless, these paralogs display distinct behaviors in liquid-liquid phase separation (LLPS), a process linked to heterochromatin formation. Here, we employ a coarse-grained simulation framework to uncover the sequence features responsible for the observed differences in LLPS. We highlight the significance of the net charge and charge patterning along the sequence in governing paralog LLPS propensities. We also show that both highly conserved folded and less-conserved disordered domains contribute to the observed differences. Furthermore, we explore the potential co-localization of different HP1 paralogs in multicomponent assemblies and the impact of DNA on this process. Importantly, our study reveals that DNA can significantly reshape the stability of a minimal condensate formed by HP1 paralogs due to competitive interactions of HP1α with HP1β and HP1γ versus DNA. In conclusion, our work highlights the physicochemical nature of interactions that govern the distinct phase-separation behaviors of HP1 paralogs and provides a molecular framework for understanding their role in chromatin organization.