A General Mechanism for the General Stress Response in Bacteria

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

This very interesting manuscript proposes a general mechanism for how activating signaling proteins respond to species-specific signals arising from a variety of stresses. In brief, the authors propose that the activating signal alters the structure by a universal allosteric mechanism.

Strengths:

The unitary mechanism proposed is appealing and testable. They propose that the allosteric module consists of crossed alpha-helical linkers with similar architecture and that their attached regulatory domains connect to phosphatases or other molecules through coiled-coli domains, such that the signal is transduced via rigidifying the alpha helices, permitting downstream enzymatic activity. The authors present genetic and structural prediction data in favor of the model for the system they are studying, and stronger structural data in other systems.

Weaknesses:

The evidence is indirect - targeted mutations, structural predictions, and biochemical data. Therefore, these important generalizable conclusions are not buttressed by impeccable data, which would require doing actual structures in B. subtilis, confirming experiments in other organisms, and possibly co-evolutionary coupling. In the absence of such data, it is not possible to rule out variant models.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

While bacteria have the ability to induce genes in response to specific stresses, they also use the General Stress Response (GSR) to deal with growth conditions that presumably include a larger range of stresses (for instance, stationary phase growth). The activation of GSR-specific sigma factors is frequently at the heart of the induction of a GSR. Given the range of stresses that can lead to GSR induction, the regulatory inputs are frequently complex. In B. subtilis, the stressosome, a multi-protein complex, contains a set of proteins that, upon appropriate stresses, initiate partner switching cascades that free the sigma B sigma factor from an anti-sigma. The focus here is on the mode of activation of RsbU, a serine/threonine phosphatase of the PPM family, leading to sigB activation. RbsT, a component of the degradosome interacts with RsbU upon stress, activating the phosphatase activity. Once active, RsbU dephosphorylates its target (RsbV, an anti-antisigma), which in turn binds the anti-sigma. The conclusion is that flexible linker domains upstream of the phosphatase domain are the target for activation, via binding of proteins to the N-terminal domain, resulting in a crossed-linker dimeric structure. The authors then use the information on RsbU to suggest that parallel approaches are used to activate PPM phosphatases for the GSR response in other bacteria. (Biology vs. Mechanism, evolution?)

Strengths and Weaknesses:

Many of these have to do with clarifying what was done and why. This includes the presentation and content of the figures.

One issue relates to the background and context. A bit more information on the stresses that release RsbT would be useful here. The authors might also consider a figure showing the major conclusions and parallels for SpoIIE activation and possibly other partner switches that are discussed, introducing the switch change more clearly to set the stage for the work here (and the generalization). There are a lot of players to keep track of.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

The authors present a study building on their previous work on activation of the general stress response phosphatase, RsbU, from Bacillus subtilis. Using computed structural models of the RsbU dimer the authors map previously identified activating mutations onto the structure and suggest further protein variants to test the role of the predicted linker helix and the interaction with RsbT on the activation of the phosphatase activity.

Using in vivo and in vitro activity assays, the authors demonstrate that linker variants can constitutively activate RsbU and increase the affinity of the protein for RsbT, thus showing a link between the structure of the linker region and RsbT binding.

Small angle X-ray scattering experiments on RsbU variants alone, and in complex with RsbT show structural changes consistent with a decreased flexibility of the RsbU protein, which is hypothesised to indicate a disorder-order transition in the linker when RsbT binds. This interpretation of the data is consistent with the biochemical data presented by the authors.

Further computed structure models are presented for other protein phosphates from different bacterial species and the authors propose a model for phosphatase activation by partner binding. They compare this to the activation mechanisms proposed for histidine kinase two-component systems and GGDEF proteins and suggest the individual domains could be swapped to give a toolkit of modular parts for bacterial signalling.

Strengths:

The key mutagenesis data is presented with two lines of evidence to demonstrate RsbU activation - in vivo sigma-b activation assays utilising a beta-galactosidase reporter and in vitro activity assays against the RsbV protein, which is the downstream target of RsbU. These data support the hypothesis for RsbT binding to the RsbU linker region as well as the dimerisation domain to activate the RsbU activity.

Weaknesses:

Small angle scattering curves are difficult to unambiguously interpret, but the authors present reasonable interpretations that fit with the biochemical data presented. These interpretations should be considered as good models for future testing with other methods - hydrogen/deuterium exchange mass spectrometry, would be a good additional method to use, as exchange rates in the linker region would be affected significantly by the disorder/order transition on RsbT binding.

The interpretation of the computed structure models should be toned down with the addition of a few caveats related to the bias in the models returned by AlphaFold2. For the full-length models of RsbU and other phosphatase proteins, the relationship of the domains to each other is likely to be the least reliable part of the models - this is apparent from the PAE plots shown in Supplementary Figure 8. Furthermore, the authors should show models coloured by pLDDT scores in an additional supplementary figure to help the reader interpret the confidence level of the predicted structures.

Author response:

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

This very interesting manuscript proposes a general mechanism for how activating signaling proteins respond to species-specific signals arising from a variety of stresses. In brief, the authors propose that the activating signal alters the structure by a universal allosteric mechanism.

Strengths:

The unitary mechanism proposed is appealing and testable. They propose that the allosteric module consists of crossed alpha-helical linkers with similar architecture and that their attached regulatory domains connect to phosphatases or other molecules through coiled-coli domains, such that the signal is transduced via rigidifying the alpha helices, permitting downstream enzymatic activity. The authors present genetic and structural prediction data in favor of the model for the system they are studying, and stronger structural data in other systems.

Weaknesses:

The evidence is indirect - targeted mutations, structural predictions, and biochemical data. Therefore, these important generalizable conclusions are not buttressed by impeccable data, which would require doing actual structures in B. subtilis, confirming experiments in other organisms, and possibly co-evolutionary coupling. In the absence of such data, it is not possible to rule out variant models.

We thank the reviewer for their feedback. A challenge of studying flexible proteins is that it is often not possible to directly obtain high resolution structural data. For the case of B. subtilis RsbU, the independent experimental approaches we applied (including two unbiased genetic screens, targeted mutagenesis, SAXS, enzymology, and structure prediction, which includes evolutionary coupling) converged upon a model for activation, which we feel is well supported. Frustratingly, our attempts at determining high resolution experimental structures have been unsuccessful, which we think is due to the flexibility of the proteins revealed by our SAXS experiments. For example, we collected X-ray diffraction data from crystals of a fragment of B. subtilis RsbU containing the N-terminal domain and linker in which the linker was almost entirely disordered in the maps. We agree that doing experiments in other organisms would be valuable next steps to test the hypothesis that this coiled-coil based transduction mechanism is conserved across species, and will modify the text to differentiate this more speculative section of the manuscript. Based on this critique (and the critiques of the other reviewers), we plan to do energetic analysis of the predicted coiled coils from the enzymes we analyzed from other species and to incorporate this into the manuscript. Finally, in the manuscript, we have highlighted that this mechanism is not the only mechanism for activation of other proteins with effector domains connected to linkers, but rather one of many mechanisms (Fig 5G). The reviewer additionally made helpful suggestions about the text in detailed comments that we will incorporate as appropriate.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:
While bacteria have the ability to induce genes in response to specific stresses, they also use the General Stress Response (GSR) to deal with growth conditions that presumably include a larger range of stresses (for instance, stationary phase growth). The activation of GSR-specific sigma factors is frequently at the heart of the induction of a GSR. Given the range of stresses that can lead to GSR induction, the regulatory inputs are frequently complex. In B. subtilis, the stressosome, a multi-protein complex, contains a set of proteins that, upon appropriate stresses, initiate partner switching cascades that free the sigma B sigma factor from an anti-sigma. The focus here is on the mode of activation of RsbU, a serine/threonine phosphatase of the PPM family, leading to sigB activation. RbsT, a component of the degradosome interacts with RsbU upon stress, activating the phosphatase activity. Once active, RsbU dephosphorylates its target (RsbV, an anti-antisigma), which in turn binds the anti-sigma. The conclusion is that flexible linker domains upstream of the phosphatase domain are the target for activation, via binding of proteins to the N-terminal domain, resulting in a crossed-linker dimeric structure. The authors then use the information on RsbU to suggest that parallel approaches are used to activate PPM phosphatases for the GSR response in other bacteria. (Biology vs. Mechanism, evolution?)

Strengths and Weaknesses:
Many of these have to do with clarifying what was done and why. This includes the presentation and content of the figures.
One issue relates to the background and context. A bit more information on the stresses that release RsbT would be useful here. The authors might also consider a figure showing the major conclusions and parallels for SpoIIE activation and possibly other partner switches that are discussed, introducing the switch change more clearly to set the stage for the work here (and the generalization). There are a lot of players to keep track of.

We plan to carefully review the manuscript to improve the clarity of presentation and background. In particular, we thank the reviewer for pointing out the missing information about the release of RsbT from the stressosome. We will incorporate this information into the introduction and provide an additional figure. The reviewer additionally provided detailed helpful comments that we will incorporate in the text and figures.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:
The authors present a study building on their previous work on activation of the general stress response phosphatase, RsbU, from Bacillus subtilis. Using computed structural models of the RsbU dimer the authors map previously identified activating mutations onto the structure and suggest further protein variants to test the role of the predicted linker helix and the interaction with RsbT on the activation of the phosphatase activity.
Using in vivo and in vitro activity assays, the authors demonstrate that linker variants can constitutively activate RsbU and increase the affinity of the protein for RsbT, thus showing a link between the structure of the linker region and RsbT binding.
Small angle X-ray scattering experiments on RsbU variants alone, and in complex with RsbT show structural changes consistent with a decreased flexibility of the RsbU protein, which is hypothesised to indicate a disorder-order transition in the linker when RsbT binds. This interpretation of the data is consistent with the biochemical data presented by the authors.
Further computed structure models are presented for other protein phosphates from different bacterial species and the authors propose a model for phosphatase activation by partner binding. They compare this to the activation mechanisms proposed for histidine kinase two-component systems and GGDEF proteins and suggest the individual domains could be swapped to give a toolkit of modular parts for bacterial signalling.

Strengths:
The key mutagenesis data is presented with two lines of evidence to demonstrate RsbU activation - in vivo sigma-b activation assays utilising a beta-galactosidase reporter and in vitro activity assays against the RsbV protein, which is the downstream target of RsbU. These data support the hypothesis for RsbT binding to the RsbU linker region as well as the dimerisation domain to activate the RsbU activity.

Weaknesses:
Small angle scattering curves are difficult to unambiguously interpret, but the authors present reasonable interpretations that fit with the biochemical data presented. These interpretations should be considered as good models for future testing with other methods - hydrogen/deuterium exchange mass spectrometry, would be a good additional method to use, as exchange rates in the linker region would be affected significantly by the disorder/order transition on RsbT binding.

We agree with the reviewer that the SAXS data has inherent ambiguity due to the nature of the measurement. However, SAXS is one of the best techniques to directly assess conformational flexibility. Our scattering data for RsbU have multiple signatures of flexibility supporting a high confidence conclusion. While the scattering data support a reduction in flexibility for the RsbT/RsbU complex, we agree that a high resolution structure would be valuable. However the combination of the scattering data with our biochemical and genetic data supports the validity of the AlphaFold predicted model. We thank the reviewer for the suggestion of future hydrogen/deuterium exchange experiments that would be complementary, but which we feel are beyond the scope of this work.

The interpretation of the computed structure models should be toned down with the addition of a few caveats related to the bias in the models returned by AlphaFold2. For the full-length models of RsbU and other phosphatase proteins, the relationship of the domains to each other is likely to be the least reliable part of the models - this is apparent from the PAE plots shown in Supplementary Figure 8. Furthermore, the authors should show models coloured by pLDDT scores in an additional supplementary figure to help the reader interpret the confidence level of the predicted structures.

We thank the reviewer for suggestions on how to clarify the discussion of AlphaFold models. We will decrease the emphasis on the computed models in the text and will add figures with the models colored by the pLDDT scores to aid in the interpretation.