Sublancin 168 is a member of a small group of glycosylated antimicrobial peptides known as glycocins. The solution structure of sublancin 168, a 37-amino-acid peptide produced by Bacillus subtilis 168, has been solved by nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) spectroscopy. Sublancin comprises two α-helices and a well-defined interhelical loop. The two helices span residues 6-16 and 26-35, and the loop region encompasses residues 17-25. The 9-amino-acid loop region contains a β-S-linked glucose moiety attached to Cys22. Hydrophobic interactions as well as hydrogen bonding are responsible for the well-structured loop region. The three-dimensional structure provides an explanation for the previously reported extraordinary high stability of sublancin 168.
Sublancin 168 is a member of a small group of glycosylated antimicrobial peptides known as glycocins. The solution structure of sublancin 168, a 37-amino-acid peptide produced by Bacillus subtilis 168, has been solved by nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) spectroscopy. Sublancin comprises two α-helices and a well-defined interhelical loop. The two helices span residues 6-16 and 26-35, and the loop region encompasses residues 17-25. The 9-amino-acid loop region contains a β-S-linked glucose moiety attached to Cys22. Hydrophobic interactions as well as hydrogen bonding are responsible for the well-structured loop region. The three-dimensional structure provides an explanation for the previously reported extraordinary high stability of sublancin 168.
Glycosylation
is an important post-translational modification in eukaryotic and
bacterial cells. Typically, the carbohydrate group is covalently linked
to a peptide or protein through the hydroxyl group of serine/threonine
residues (O-linked) or through the side chain nitrogen of asparagine
(N-linked).[1] A rare form of glycosylation
involves a carbohydrate covalently linked to the sulfur atom of a
cysteine residue (S-linked). To date, two ribosomally synthesized
S-glycosylated peptides have been characterized.[2,3] Both
peptides have antimicrobial activity, and hence the name glycocins
has been introduced to describe this group.[3] Glycocins belong to the family of ribosomally synthesized and post-translationally
modified peptide natural products (RiPPs).[4] One such glycocin is sublancin 168, a 37-amino-acid peptide produced
by Bacillus subtilis 168 (Figure 1).[2,5]
Figure 1
Glycocin structures. (a) Sublancin 168. (b)
Glycocin F. Helical regions are depicted in blue, and loop regions
in magenta.
Glycocin structures. (a) Sublancin 168. (b)
Glycocin F. Helical regions are depicted in blue, and loop regions
in magenta.Like other RiPPs, sublancin
is biosynthesized as a precursor peptide, SunA. Sublancin’s
biosynthetic gene cluster encodes an S-glycosyltransferase
(SunS), an immunity protein (SunI), a transporter protein that also
removes a leader peptide (SunT), and two thiol-disulfide oxidoreductases
(BdbAB).[2,5−7] SunS, BdbAB, and SunT
convert SunA into sublancin 168. To understand glycocinpeptides in
more depth and obtain insight into their potential mode of action,
it is important to elucidate their three-dimensional structures at
high resolution. Glycocin F (GccF), a 43-amino-acid peptide produced
by Lactobacillus plantarum KW30, is the second currently
known member of the glycocin family (Figure 1).[3] Pascal and co-workers reported the
NMR structure of GccF,[8] which contains
both S- and O-linked N-acetyl glucosamine (Figure 1). The primary
sequences of sublancin 168 and glycocin F display similarities as
well as some key differences. Both peptides contain two disulfides
and a loop region, but the loop in sublancin is substantially longer
than that in glycocin F. Furthermore, the C-terminus of sublancin
is shorter by 13 residues, sublancin contains one glycosylation compared
to two in GccF, and the S-linked sugar is located in the loop region
rather than at the C-terminal residue. Moreover, the primary sequences
of the two peptides are quite different (Figure 1). Because of the unknown role(s) of the glycosylations in glycocins,
we determined the three-dimensional structure of sublancin 168 to
compare it to the structure of GccF.
Results and Discussion
Structure
Determination
The 1H–15N HSQC
spectrum of sublancin produced 36 amide backbone signals and 10 side
chain nitrogen resonances (Figure 2). All resonances
were assigned (Supplementary Table S1),
and the structure of sublancin 168 was solved with 628 structural
constraints derived from 3D 1H–13C–15N HNCA, 3D 1H–13C–15N CBCA(CO)NH, 2D 1H–15N HSQC,
2D 1H–13C HSQC, 3D 15N HSQC-NOESY,
3D 15N HSQC-TOCSY, 2D 1H–1H TOCSY, 2D 1H–1HNOESY, 3D 15N HNHA, and DQCOSY experiments. Molecular Operating Environment (MOE)
software[9] was used to computationally attach
the carbohydrate moiety to Cys22. The details of the structure can
be found at PDB ID 2MIJ and BMRB ID 19683.
Figure 2
HSQC spectrum of sublancin. The cross peaks correspond
to the backbone amide region of 1H–15N correlations in the HSQC spectrum recorded at 25 °C. Specific
amino acid assignments are indicated. Side chain nitrogen resonances
are located within the boxed region.
HSQC spectrum of sublancin. The cross peaks correspond
to the backbone amide region of 1H–15N correlations in the HSQC spectrum recorded at 25 °C. Specific
amino acid assignments are indicated. Side chain nitrogen resonances
are located within the boxed region.An ensemble of 15 sublancin structures with the lowest NMR
constraint violations and lowest XPLOR energies[10,11] were used for detailed analysis, with the structural statistics
given in Table 1. All experimental NMR constraints
were satisfied in the structures, with all nuclear Overhauser effect
(NOE) violations below 0.5 Å, J-coupling violations
below 1 Hz, and dihedral angle constraints below the 5° violation
limit.
Table 1
Structural Statistics for Sublancin 168
total restraints used
628
total NOE restraints
531
intraresidue
184
sequential (|i – j| = 1)
185
medium (1 < |i – j| ≤ 4)
100
long range (|i – j| > 4)
62
dihedral
ϕ angles
23
φ angles
16
disulfide bridges (Cys7–Cys36,
Cys14–Cys29)
2
hydrogen
bonds
56
rmsd from experimental
distance restraints
bonds (Å)
0.006 ± 0.000
bond angles (deg)
0.655 ± 0.037
improper torsions
(deg)
0.470 ± 0.037
average pairwise rmsd (Å)
backbone atoms in helical regions (6–16)
0.52
backbone atoms in helical regions (26–35)
0.34
all backbone atoms
(residues 1–37)
0.79
all heavy atoms in helical regions (6–16)
0.87
all heavy atoms in helical regions (26–35)
1.21
all heavy atoms (residues 1–37)
1.36
procheck analysis
residues in most favorable
regions (%)
89.3
residues in additional allowed regions (%)
0.0
residues in generously allowed regions (%)
10.7
residues in disallowed regions (%)
0.0
Procheck
analysis of an ensemble of 15 conformers shows Cys22 in a generously
allowed region of the Ramachandran plot (Supplementary
Figure S1). This finding is not uncommon for Cys. Previous
studies have shown that Ser followed by Cys are the residues with
the highest propensity for location in generously allowed and disallowed
regions.[12] Two additional residues, Leu2
and Ala5, are also found in the generously allowed regions (Supplementary Figure S1). The average pairwise
root-mean-square deviation (rmsd) for backbone heavy atoms (C′,
Cα, N) of all residues (1–37) is 0.79 Å, with smaller
values in well-structured regions (Table 1).The restraints that have the greatest weight in a structure calculation
are those of medium- and long-range NOEs.[13] The three-dimensional structure of sublancin was obtained from over
160 medium- and long-range restraints, resulting in well-defined α
helices as well as loop regions. Overall, an average of more than
17 NMR constraints per residue was used for the structural calculation.
Description of the Structure
The ribbon diagram of a representative
structure of sublancin is shown in Figure 3a. As predicted by analysis of the primary sequence and on the basis
of backbone dihedral angles and characteristic NOEs, the solution
structure shows two well-defined α helices encompassing residues
6–16 and 26–35. Superposition of the backbone Cα
atoms of the 15 lowest energy conformers is shown in Figure 3b illustrating the highly ordered structure. Helices
A and B are not parallel but rather offset from one another at an
approximately 25° angle. The two helices are connected by an
extended loop region.
Figure 3
Three-dimensional solution structure of sublancin 168.
(a) Ribbon diagram of the lowest energy conformer with helices colored
in cyan, the loop regions, N- and C-termini colored pink, cysteine
residues in yellow, and the carbohydrate moiety in orange. (b) Ensemble
of the 15 lowest energy conformers depicting all backbone atoms. (c)
Ball and stick representation of the lowest energy conformer with
the loop region and termini in pink coming together to seal off one
face of the helices. Exposed sulfur atoms are labeled.
Three-dimensional solution structure of sublancin 168.
(a) Ribbon diagram of the lowest energy conformer with helices colored
in cyan, the loop regions, N- and C-termini colored pink, cysteine
residues in yellow, and the carbohydrate moiety in orange. (b) Ensemble
of the 15 lowest energy conformers depicting all backbone atoms. (c)
Ball and stick representation of the lowest energy conformer with
the loop region and termini in pink coming together to seal off one
face of the helices. Exposed sulfur atoms are labeled.This interhelical loop (residues 17–25)
is relatively flexible but has a defined conformation, with the loop
folded on top of both helices giving sublancin a compact conformation.
The loop does not significantly open up in the 15 structures but does
display flexibility as expected with 6 out of 9 residues being glycine
(Figure 3b). Comparison of sublancin’s
interhelical loop to those in the loop conformation database ArchDB
did not provide any hits.[14] A search of
the database for a similar sequence of a loop located between two
helices resulted in 17 examples. Inspection of the structures of these
hits revealed only one example with a similar conformation in which
the loop folded back over the helices (Supplementary
Figure S2).[15]In addition
to the relatively ordered interhelical loop, the N-terminal pentapeptide
of sublancin is also well-defined. The ordered conformation of the
interhelix and N-terminal loops is evidenced by 24% of all long-range
NOEs coming from these regions. The N-terminal amino group is not
entirely solvent-accessible but instead is inserted between the two
helices (Figure 3a).The superposition
of the structures shows that the sugar moiety is the least well-defined
section of the structure (Supplementary Figure
S3), also indicated by the lack of long-range NOE restraints
between the glucose unit and the amino acids of sublancin. We did
observe an NOE restraint between one of the β protons of Cys22
to the H1 proton of the glucose moiety, which supports the β-linkage
of the glucose to the sulfur atom of Cys22 reported previously.[2] No obvious hydrophobic interactions were observed
between the hydrophobic face of the glucose and amino acids of the
peptide.The structure of the C-terminal portion of sublancin
is also well-defined as indicated by the observed medium and long-range
NOE restraints. The very compact structure of sublancin (Figure 3b,c) provides a possible explanation for the extraordinary
high chemical stability of sublancin reported previously.[5]
Hydrogen Bond Interactions
The ensemble
of the 15 lowest energy conformers calculated without hydrogen bond
restraints was analyzed using Chimera software to predict tentative
hydrogen bond interactions between residues in the interhelical loop
and the helices (Supplementary Figure S4). Then, hydrogen bond interactions were experimentally investigated
with a series of deuterium exchange 1H–15N HSQC experiments with a 15N-labeled sublancin sample.
Within the first few minutes, we observed protection from exchange
of 27 backbone amide protons as well as the side chain protons of
Asn31 (Supplementary Table S2). As expected,
most of the hydrogen bond donors belonged to residues involved in
helix formation, but several hydrogen bond interactions were located
in the loop region, including the amidehydrogens of Gly17, Gly18,
and Ile20 (Figure 4a). On the basis of hydrogen
bond distance restrictions, the amide protons from Gly17 and Gly18
interact with the carbonyl oxygen of the side chain of Gln13. In addition,
the amide proton of Ile20hydrogen bonds with the side chain oxygen
atom from Thr19. The well-defined turn is reinforced by additional
hydrogen bonds between the N–H of Ser16, the last residue in
helix A, and the side chain carbonyl of Gln13 (Figure 4a). The other end of the loop is held in place by hydrogen
bonds involving the amide protons of Ala26, Val27, and Ala28, located
in helix B, which interact with the carbonyl oxygen atoms of Gly24
and Gly25 (Figure 4b). These hydrogen bond
interactions located at the beginning and end of the loop offer a
plausible explanation as to why the loop is folded on top of the two
helices, although the flexibility of the loop seen in Figure 3b is also reflected in exchange of most of the protons
involved in hydrogen bond interactions of the loop residues by 14
min (Supplementary Table S2). After 45
h, 8 amide protons were still protected from exchange (Supplementary Table S2). Of these, 5 protons
are located in helix A (Leu10, Trp11, Leu12, Gln13, Cys14) and 3 in
helix B (Tyr32, Phe35, and Cys36).
Figure 4
Hydrogen bond interactions in the interhelical
loop region. Ribbon diagram showing the hydrogen bonds between residues
in the loop and the helices. Hydrogen bond interactions are depicted
in red.
Hydrogen bond interactions in the interhelical
loop region. Ribbon diagram showing the hydrogen bonds between residues
in the loop and the helices. Hydrogen bond interactions are depicted
in red.
Hydrophobic Interactions
The compact and well-defined structure of sublancin is also enforced
in part by hydrophobic interactions. As shown in Figure 5, a hydrophobic core consisting of Leu2, Leu10, Trp11, Ala28,
Tyr32, and Phe35 helps maintain the structure, including a hydrophobic
interaction between Ile20 in the loop and Leu10 in helix A. Use of
the program IsoCleft Finder[16] identified
Gly1, Gln6, Leu10, Ile20, Gly21, Gly23, Val27, Ala28, Asn31, and Phe35
as residues involved in creating a small hydrophobic cleft (Supplementary Figure S5) that may be important
for target binding.
Figure 5
Hydrophobic interactions. Ribbon diagram of sublancin
depicting the hydrophobic residues in (a) sticks or (b) spheres.
Hydrophobic interactions. Ribbon diagram of sublancin
depicting the hydrophobic residues in (a) sticks or (b) spheres.
Glycocin Structural Comparison
The three-dimensional structures of GccF and sublancin were superimposed
to visualize structural similarities and differences of these two
glycocins (Figure 6). The orientation of the
helices match very closely, with both structures displaying the 25°
offset, even though the primary sequences of the amino acids involved
in helix formation are vastly different. As expected on the basis
of the primary sequences, the helices in sublancin are longer. The
location and orientation of the sugar moiety in the interhelix loop
is quite different in GccF and sublancin 168, and the N-and C-terminal
segments are also oriented quite differently (Figure 6).
Figure 6
Superposition of sublancin 168 and glycocin F. Sublancin is depicted
in cyan, and glycocin F in magenta.
Superposition of sublancin 168 and glycocin F. Sublancin is depicted
in cyan, and glycocin F in magenta.The lack of defined contacts between the glucose and the
peptide in the sublancin structure do not provide any evidence for
a role of the sugar in folding of the peptide as is often seen for
glycopeptides,[17−21] although an interaction with the biosynthetic thiol-disulfide oxidoreductases[6] cannot be ruled out. The conformational flexibility
of the sugar does provide a possible explanation for the ease by which
the S-linked glucose in sublancin could be substituted by several
other hexoses in previous work.[2] The previous
observation that the stereochemistry of the hexose in these analogues
was not critical for antimicrobial activity of sublancin 168,[2] combined with the findings that the Cys22Ser
analogue displayed antimicrobial activity[22] and that the glucose in the structure shown here is conformationally
flexible, suggests that the sugar in sublancin 168 may not be installed
for target recognition. These findings are consistent with the previous
suggestion that the sugar in sublancin might fulfill a role in self-protection
in the producing strain.[22]In summary,
we have obtained a high-resolution three-dimensional structure of
sublancin 168. The structure is highly compact with well-defined N-
and C-terminal regions, two nearly antiparallel helices, and a conformationally
highly structured interhelix loop that carries the glucose. Further
studies are required to better understand the mode of action of the
glycocin group of antimicrobial peptides.
Methods
Materials
All chemicals were purchased from Fisher Scientific or Aldrich
unless noted otherwise.
Sample Preparation
Wild type sublancin
was isolated and purified from Bacillus subtilis 168
as described previously[5] and analyzed by
mass spectrometry. Uniformly 15N-labeled sublancin and 13C/15N-labeled sublancin were produced by culturing B. subtilis 168 in M9 minimal media enriched with 15NH4Cl as the sole nitrogen source and with 15NH4Cl and [13C]-glucose (Cambridge Isotope
Laboratories) as the sole nitrogen and carbon source, respectively.
The peptides were purified by reversed phase chromatography and their
identity assessed by MALDI-TOF MS (Supplementary
Figures S7–S10). NMR samples contained 2.0 mM peptide
in 90% H2O/10% D2O or 100% D2O.
NMR Spectroscopy
All NMR experiments were performed at 25
°C on Varian INOVA 500, 600, and 750 MHz spectrometers equipped
with a 5 mm triple resonance (1H–13C–15N) triaxial gradient probe and pulse-shaping capabilities.
The VNMRJ 2.1B software with the BioPack suite of pulse sequences
was used. The spectra were processed with NMRPipe software[23] and analyzed by Sparky[24] and VNMRJ (Agilent Technology).
Peptide Chemical Shift
Assignments
Backbone resonance assignments (15N, 13Ca, and 13Cb) were obtained from 3D 1H–13C–15N HNCA spectra
recorded with a spectral width of 14 ppm (2048 points), 36 ppm (32
points), and 36 ppm (32 points) in 1H, 13C,
and 15N dimensions, respectively; 3D 1H–13C–15N CBCA(CO)NH spectra were recorded
with a spectral width of 14 ppm (2048 points), 96 ppm (32 points),
and 36 ppm (32 points) for 1H, 13C, and 15N dimensions, respectively; and 1H–15N HSQC spectra were recorded with a spectral width of 14
ppm (2048 points) and 36 ppm (256 points) in the 1H and 15N dimensions. The proton signals from the amino acid side
chains were assigned by analysis of 3D 15N HSQC-NOESY (150
ms NOESY mixing time) and 3D 15N HSQC-TOCSY (80 ms TOCSY
mixing time) spectra and two-dimensional 1H–1H TOCSY (80 ms mixing time) and 1H–1HNOESY spectra (200 ms mixing time).The dihedral angle
restraints were obtained based on 3JHN-Hα coupling constants measured in an HNHA
experiment using 15N-labeled sublancin and were obtained
from the Torsion Angle Likelihood Obtained from Shift and Sequence
similarity (TALOS)[23,25] program based on backbone chemical
shifts.
Hydrogen Bond Identification by Deuterium Exchange
A sample lyophilized from 90% H2O/10% D2O was
dissolved in 100% D2O. A series of 1H–15N HSQC spectra with a 7 min duration each were collected.
Hydrogen bonding donors were identified within the first 7 min with
27 backbone and 1 side chain NH observed, with 3 signals belonging
to residues located in the loop region (Gly17, Gly18, and Ile20).
After the first 30 min, 15 signals were still present; by 60 min,
12 signals were present; and by 45 h, 8 signals could still be observed
(see Supporting Information).
Sugar Chemical
Shift Assignments
Sugar assignments were obtained by analysis
of TOCSY (80 ms mixing time), 1H–13C
HSQC, and DQCOSY spectra for identification of neighboring protons.
Structure Calculations
The three-dimensional structure of
the peptide was calculated on the basis of both distance and angle
restraints by using the simulated annealing protocol in the NIH version
of X-PLOR[10,11] 3.1, and the quality of the NMR structures
was evaluated using the program PROCHECK.[26−28] Distance restraints
were derived from NOE peak heights in the 15N HSQC NOESY
with a 150 ms mixing time and from two- dimensional NOESY spectra
with a 200 ms mixing time collected on unlabeled material. The distance
restraints were grouped by classifying the NOE cross-peak heights
into ranges of 2.5, 3.5, 5.0, and 6.0 Å (strong, medium, weak,
and very weak, respectively). The peptide backbone restraints extracted
from JNHα and TALOS were used as
dihedral phi and psi angle restraints. A list of the number of NMR
distances and angle restraints used for structural calculations is
given in Table 1. In total 150 structures were
calculated. An ensemble of 15 structures with the lowest total energy
was chosen for structural analysis.
Authors: Mark M Chen; Alice I Bartlett; Paul S Nerenberg; Claire T Friel; Christian P R Hackenberger; Collin M Stultz; Sheena E Radford; Barbara Imperiali Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2010-12-09 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Hariprasad Venugopal; Patrick J B Edwards; Martin Schwalbe; Jolyon K Claridge; David S Libich; Judith Stepper; Trevor Loo; Mark L Patchett; Gillian E Norris; Steven M Pascal Journal: Biochemistry Date: 2011-03-21 Impact factor: 3.162
Authors: Sarah R Hanson; Elizabeth K Culyba; Tsui-Ling Hsu; Chi-Huey Wong; Jeffery W Kelly; Evan T Powers Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2009-02-09 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Jaume Bonet; Joan Planas-Iglesias; Javier Garcia-Garcia; Manuel A Marín-López; Narcis Fernandez-Fuentes; Baldo Oliva Journal: Nucleic Acids Res Date: 2013-11-21 Impact factor: 16.971
Authors: C V Garcia De Gonzalo; E L Denham; R A T Mars; J Stülke; W A van der Donk; J M van Dijl Journal: Antimicrob Agents Chemother Date: 2015-08-17 Impact factor: 5.191
Authors: Subhanip Biswas; Chantal V Garcia De Gonzalo; Lindsay M Repka; Wilfred A van der Donk Journal: ACS Chem Biol Date: 2017-11-10 Impact factor: 5.100
Authors: Daisuke Fujinami; Chantal V Garcia de Gonzalo; Subhanip Biswas; Yue Hao; Huan Wang; Neha Garg; Tiit Lukk; Satish K Nair; Wilfred A van der Donk Journal: Cell Chem Biol Date: 2021-07-21 Impact factor: 8.116
Authors: Chenghua Shao; Zukang Feng; John D Westbrook; Ezra Peisach; John Berrisford; Yasuyo Ikegawa; Genji Kurisu; Sameer Velankar; Stephen K Burley; Jasmine Y Young Journal: Glycobiology Date: 2021-09-20 Impact factor: 4.313
Authors: Manuel Montalbán-López; Thomas A Scott; Sangeetha Ramesh; Imran R Rahman; Auke J van Heel; Jakob H Viel; Vahe Bandarian; Elke Dittmann; Olga Genilloud; Yuki Goto; María José Grande Burgos; Colin Hill; Seokhee Kim; Jesko Koehnke; John A Latham; A James Link; Beatriz Martínez; Satish K Nair; Yvain Nicolet; Sylvie Rebuffat; Hans-Georg Sahl; Dipti Sareen; Eric W Schmidt; Lutz Schmitt; Konstantin Severinov; Roderich D Süssmuth; Andrew W Truman; Huan Wang; Jing-Ke Weng; Gilles P van Wezel; Qi Zhang; Jin Zhong; Jörn Piel; Douglas A Mitchell; Oscar P Kuipers; Wilfred A van der Donk Journal: Nat Prod Rep Date: 2020-09-16 Impact factor: 15.111