Dana M Lord1, Ayse Uzgoren Baran, Valerie W C Soo, Thomas K Wood, Wolfgang Peti, Rebecca Page. 1. Department of Molecular Biology, Cell Biology and Biochemistry, ‡Graduate Program in Molecular Pharmacology and Physiology, and §Department of Molecular Pharmacology, Physiology and Biotechnology & Chemistry, Brown University , Providence, Rhode Island 02903, United States.
Abstract
MqsR-controlled colanic acid and biofilm regulator (McbR, also known as YncC) is the protein product of a highly induced gene in early Escherichia coli biofilm development and has been regarded as an attractive target for blocking biofilm formation. This protein acts as a repressor for genes involved in exopolysaccharide production and an activator for genes involved in stress response. To better understand the role of McbR in governing the switch from exponential growth to the biofilm state, we determined the crystal structure of McbR to 2.1 Å. The structure reveals McbR to be a member of the FadR C-terminal domain (FCD) family of the GntR superfamily of transcriptional regulators (this family was named after the first identified member, GntR, a transcriptional repressor of the gluconate operon of Bacillus subtilis). Previous to this study, only six of the predicted 2800 members of this family had been structurally characterized. Here, we identify the residues that constitute the McbR effector and DNA binding sites. In addition, comparison of McbR with other members of the FCD domain family shows that this family of proteins adopts highly distinct oligomerization interfaces, which has implications for DNA binding and regulation.
MqsR-controlled colanic acid and biofilm regulator (McbR, also known as YncC) is the protein product of a highly induced gene in early Escherichia coli biofilm development and has been regarded as an attractive target for blocking biofilm formation. This protein acts as a repressor for genes involved in exopolysaccharide production and an activator for genes involved in stress response. To better understand the role of McbR in governing the switch from exponential growth to the biofilm state, we determined the crystal structure of McbR to 2.1 Å. The structure reveals McbR to be a member of the FadR C-terminal domain (FCD) family of the GntR superfamily of transcriptional regulators (this family was named after the first identified member, GntR, a transcriptional repressor of the gluconate operon of Bacillus subtilis). Previous to this study, only six of the predicted 2800 members of this family had been structurally characterized. Here, we identify the residues that constitute the McbR effector and DNA binding sites. In addition, comparison of McbR with other members of the FCD domain family shows that this family of proteins adopts highly distinct oligomerization interfaces, which has implications for DNA binding and regulation.
Biofilms
are complex communities
of bacteria that are encased in an extracellular matrix and adhere
to almost any surface. Due to properties of the biofilm, these bacterial
communities are extremely tolerant to antibiotics and are often able
to evade host defenses.[1] Furthermore, it
is estimated that 60–80% of human infections are caused by
biofilms, explaining why much research is focused on elucidating the
genetic basis of biofilm formation and proliferation.[2,3] One regulator of biofilm formation is McbR/YncC (hereafter referred
to as McbR), a transcription factor predicted to belong to the GntR
family of DNA binding proteins. In Escherichia coli, deletion of mcbR results in the overproduction
of colanic acid,[4] a constituent of the
biofilm exopolysaccharide (EPS) matrix composed of glucose, galactose,
fucose, and glucuronic acid in the ratio 1:2:2:1.[5] As a consequence, mcbR deletion results
in a mucoidy phenotype and a reduction in biofilm formation. In E. coli, gene array studies coupled with electrophoretic
mobility shift assays (EMSAs) showed that McbR binds the ybiM promoter, a gene encoding a putative periplasmic protein whose function
is currently unknown.[4] A subsequent study
using DNA footprinting experiments showed that McbR from Salmonella typhimurium and E. coli binds the yciG promoters from both species.[6]The GntR superfamily (Pfam PF00392), to
which McbR belongs, is
one of the largest families of transcriptional regulators, with more
than 8500 members (Figure 1A).[7] Members of this family contain an N-terminal DNA binding
winged helix-turn-helix (wHTH) domain and a C-terminal effector binding/oligomerization
domain. In contrast to the wHTH domain, which is structurally conserved
in the GntR family, the C-terminal domain is highly variable. Detailed
bioinformatics studies have led to the definition of at least 7 families
(AraR, DevA, FCD, HutC, MocR, PlmA, and YtrA), which are classified
by the effector binding domain topology and secondary structure (Figure 1A).[7] The majority of
GntR regulators belong to the FadR C-terminal domain family (FCD,
Pfam PF07729; Figure 1A). The effector molecule
that regulates the activity of GntR transcriptional regulators is
often a product/substrate in the metabolic pathway that the particular
GntR transcription factor controls. However, there are examples where
this is not the case, and difficulties in identifying the endogenous
ligands for this family have limited our understanding of how these
regulators function in vivo.[7] What is known is that effector binding in the C-terminal effector
binding domains alter, via a poorly understood structural mechanism(s),
the conformations and/or relative orientations of the N-terminal wHTH
domains. This, in turn, inhibits DNA binding.[7] This limited understanding is due to the dearth of structural data
available for the GntR superfamily, especially those of the FCD family.
Here, we describe the structure of McbR from E. coli to 2.1 Å resolution. We show that McbR belongs to the FCD family
of transcriptional regulators and identify the residues that mediate
DNA binding. We also identify the residues that constitute its effector
binding site, which are highly conserved in mcbR homologs.
Finally, a comparison of the currently available structures of FCD
transcriptional regulators reveals different oligomerization interfaces
at the wHTH domains,[8−10] suggesting that this family of proteins undergoes
distinct conformational rearrangements upon ligand binding.
Figure 1
McbR classification
and structure. (A) Flowchart illustrating the
classification of McbR within the GntR superfamily. (B) McbR monomer
with all secondary structural elements annotated. The N-terminal winged
helix-turn-helix (wHTH) domain is shown in light blue, and the C-terminal
FCD domain is shown in teal; the wing loop of the wHTH domain is labeled.
McbR residues 10–220 were observed in the electron density
maps for subunit A.
McbR classification
and structure. (A) Flowchart illustrating the
classification of McbR within the GntR superfamily. (B) McbR monomer
with all secondary structural elements annotated. The N-terminal winged
helix-turn-helix (wHTH) domain is shown in light blue, and the C-terminal
FCD domain is shown in teal; the wing loop of the wHTH domain is labeled.
McbR residues 10–220 were observed in the electron density
maps for subunit A.
Materials and Methods
Protein
Expression and Purification
Two constructs
of wild-type McbR (McbR1–221 (full-length), residues
1–221; McbR10–221, residues 10–221)
were subcloned into the pRP1B bacterial expression vector, which contains
an N-terminal His6-tag and Tobacco Etch Virus (TEV) cleavage
site;[11] both constructs were sequenced
prior to subsequent experiments. pRP1B-McbR1–221 variants (single-mutant variants: Arg34Ala, Lys38Ala, Thr49Ala,
Arg52Ala, Gln70Ala; double-mutant variant: Glu93Ser/Arg139Phe; triple-mutant
variant: Arg89Ala/Glu93Ala/Arg139Ala) were generated using the QuikChange
Mutagenesis Kit (Agilent Technologies) using the manufacturer’s
protocols; all constructs were verified by sequencing.WT McbR
and McbR variants were expressed in E. coli BL21-Gold (DE3) cells (Agilent). Cells were grown at 37 °C
(250 rpm) to an OD600 of ∼0.9, at which point the
cells were transferred to 4 °C for 1 h. The cells were induced
with 0.5 mM IPTG and grown overnight at 18 °C (250 rpm). The
cells were then harvested by centrifugation at 6000g. Selenomethionine (SeMet)-labeled McbR10–221 was
produced using identical protocols, with the exception that the cells
were grown in minimal medium supplemented with vitamins, metals, and
amino acids (with selenomethionine substituted for methionine).[12]For purification, cell pellets of either
WT McbR or McbR variants
were resuspended in lysis buffer (50 mM Tris, pH 8.0, 500 mM NaCl,
0.1% Triton X-100, 5 mM imidazole, complete tabs-EDTA free [Roche])
and lysed by high-pressure homogenization (C3 Emulsiflex; Avestin).
Following centrifugation (45 000g, 45 min,
4 °C), the supernatant was applied to a HisTrap HP column (GE
Healthcare), and McbR was eluted using a 5–500 mM imidazole
gradient. McbR was then incubated overnight with TEV protease (50
mM Tris, pH 8.0, 500 mM NaCl, 4 °C). The following day, McbR
was further purified using Ni-NTA (Qiagen) to isolate the cleaved
protein from the TEV protease (itself His6-tagged) and
the cleaved His6-tag. After concentration, McbR was purified
in a final step using size-exclusion chromatography (SEC; Superdex
200 26/60; 20 mM Tris, pH 7.8, 100 mM NaCl, 0.5 mM TCEP). To determine
the oligomerization state of McbR, the elution volume was compared
to that of MW weight standards (Bio-Rad).
Crystallization, Data Collection,
and Processing
SeMetMcbR10–221 was concentrated to 8–10 mg/mL,
incubated for 1 h with glycerol (10% (v/v), final concentration),
and used immediately for crystallization trials. Microcrystals of
SeMetMcbR10–221 were obtained in 2 M sodium malonate
pH 7.0 (sitting drop vapor diffusion; 25 °C) and used as seed
solution to produce crystals in the same conditions suitable for data
collection. The crystals were cryoprotected in mother liquor containing
20% (v/v) MPD and immediately frozen in liquid nitrogen. Data for
McbR10–221 were collected at the National Synchrotron
Light Source, beamline X25, using a Pilatus 6 M detector (Dectris).
Anomalous data was collected from a single crystal and phased using
single anomalous dispersion (SAD), collecting data at 0.93 Å.
Data were processed and scaled using HKL2000.[13] The asymmetric unit contains two protein molecules. The anomalous
data was phased using HKL2MAP[14] (ShelxC/D/E);[15−17] 14 of the 16 expected selenium sites were identified. Approximately
90% of the structure was built automatically using ARP/wARP.[18] Model building and refinement of SeMetMcbR
was carried out using a high-resolution data set (2.1 Å) collected
at 0.9793 Å. Iterative model building and refinement were performed
using COOT[19] and Phenix.[20] The final model was refined with Phenix using TLS. Molprobity
was used for model validation.[21] Analysis
of the dimerization interface was performed using the Protein Interaction
Calculator,[22] with solvent-accessible surface
areas calculated using Naccess.[23] Cavity
volumes were calculated using POCOSA.[24] Data collection and structure refinement statistics are reported
in Table 1.
Table 1
Crystallographic
Data Collection and
Refinement Statistics
Crystal Data
space group
P63
no. McbR/ASU
2
a, c (Å)
a = 107.6, c = 72.7
Highest resolution shell data are
shown in parentheses.
5%
of the reflections used for Rfree.
Rmerge = ∑∑|I(hkl) – ⟨I(hkl)⟩|/∑∑I(hkl) where I(hkl) is
the ith observation of a symmetry equivalent reflection hkl. Reported values for the 0.93 Å data set are for
unmerged Friedel pairs.
Highest resolution shell data are
shown in parentheses.5%
of the reflections used for Rfree.Rmerge = ∑∑|I(hkl) – ⟨I(hkl)⟩|/∑∑I(hkl) where I(hkl) is
the ith observation of a symmetry equivalent reflection hkl. Reported values for the 0.93 Å data set are for
unmerged Friedel pairs.
Electrophoretic
Mobility Shift Assay
The E. coli yciG promoter (PyciGECO) was used for DNA binding studies. Following
synthesis of the individual oligonucleotides (IDT Technologies; each
oligonucleotide includes a 3′ biotin label; Table 2), the complementary oligonucleotides were combined,
heated at 95 °C, and then cooled at 1 °C/min to a final
temperature of 25 °C. For EMSA experiments, 1 pmol of protein
was added to the biotin-labeled DNA (PyciGECO, 100 fmol). All reactions were carried out in binding buffer (10
mM Tris, pH 7.5, 50 mM KCl, 1 mM DTT) in the presence of a poly(dI–dC)
DNA probe (50 ng/μL) to prevent nonspecific binding. For the
unlabeled competitor EMSA control, a 200-fold excess of unlabeled
PyciGECO DNA was added. All binding reactions
were incubated at room temperature for 20 min. Samples were then loaded
onto a 6% DNA retardation gel (Invitrogen) and subjected to electrophoresis
at 4 °C for 75 min at 100 V in 0.5-fold TBE buffer (45 mM Tris,
pH 8.3, 45 mM Boric acid, 1 mM EDTA). The DNA was transferred to a
nylon membrane at 390 mA for 30 min, followed by UV cross-linking
at 302 nm by placing the membrane face-down on a UV illuminator for
15 min. Chemiluminescence was performed using the LightShift Chemiluminescent
EMSA Kit (Pierce), and the samples were detected using a CCD imager
(Typhoon 9410 Imager).
Table 2
PCR Primers Used
To Generate PyciGECO for EMSA Experimentsa
primer name
sequence (5′–3′)
PyciGECO-Fb
AATTGTTAATATATCCAGAATGTTCCTCAAAATATATTTTCCCTCTAT
PyciGECO-Rb
ATAGAGGGAAAATATATTTTGAGGAACATTCTGGATATATTAACAATT
F indicates forward primer, and
R indicates reverse primer.
Primer contains a 3′ biotin
label.
F indicates forward primer, and
R indicates reverse primer.Primer contains a 3′ biotin
label.
Mucoidy Assay
WT mcbR and two mutated mcbR variants
(mcbR-E93S-R139F and mcbR-R89A-E93A-R139A)
were subcloned from pRP1B-mcbR, pRP1B-mcbR-E93S-R139F, and pRP1B-mcbR-R89A-E93A-R139A into
the KpnI and SacI sites of pBS(Kan)[25] using
primers in Table 3 so that their expression
is under control of a lac promoter (instead of a
T7 promoter in the former plasmids). The resulting plasmids are pBS(Kan)-mcbR, pBS(Kan)-mcbR-E93S-R139F, and pBS(Kan)-mcbR-R89A-E93A-R139A. After verifying these plasmids by
DNA sequencing, they were introduced into E. coli MG1655 ΔmcbR ΔKm[4] via electroporation, and the transformed clones
were plated on LB agar supplemented with 50 μg/mL kanamycin
and 0.2% (w/v) glucose. At least three independent colonies were streaked
on LB agar supplemented with 50 μg/mL kanamycin and 1 mM IPTG
to test the mucoidy of each strain. Cells were incubated at 37 °C
for 12 h.
Table 3
Primers Used To Subclone mcbR Variants into pBS(Kan) Plasmidsa
primer name
sequence (5′–3′)
mcbR-F
TTTGTTTGGTACCAAGAAGGAGATATACCATGGGCTCTG
mcbR-R
GCCGCAAGAGCTCATTAACGATTGTATTGCTGG
F indicates forward primer and
R indicates reverse primer.
F indicates forward primer and
R indicates reverse primer.
Results and Discussion
McbR Is a Member of the VanR Subfamily of
GntR Transcriptional
Regulators
Two constructs of McbR were screened for their
ability to form diffraction-quality crystals: McbR1–221 and McbR10–221. The latter is missing the first
9 amino acids, which were predicted to be disordered (PSIPRED,[26] IUPRED[27,28]). Only McbR10–221 formed crystals suitable for structure determination and is referred
to hereafter as McbR. The crystal structure of McbR was determined
by single-wavelength anomalous dispersion (SAD) using SeMet-labeled
protein, and the atomic model was refined to 2.1 Å resolution
(Table 1 and Figures 1B and 2A). Two molecules of McbR are present
in the asymmetric unit and are related by a nearly perfect 2-fold
axis (179.8°; superposition using the C-terminal FCD domain;
Figure 2A). This is consistent with the observation
that McbR is predominantly a dimer in solution (Figure 2B). McbR, like other members of the GntR family, consists
of an N-terminal wHTH domain (residues 10–76; residues 38–46
in the second subunit were not modeled due to a lack of clear electron
density) and a C-terminal all α-helical effector binding domain
(residues 77–219; Figure 1B). The wHTH
domain is composed of three α-helices (α1−α3)
and three β-strands (β1−β3), which form a
small β-sheet that is a defining characteristic of the wHTH
fold. The C-terminal domain is composed of six α-helices (α4−α9).
The secondary structure elements and topology of the C-terminal domain
places McbR in the FadR C-terminal domain (FCD) family of GntR transcriptional
regulators (Figure 1A).
Figure 2
Dimerization interface
of McbR. (A) McbR dimer, with one monomer
colored in shades of blue and the second colored in shades of green.
The N-terminal wHTH domains are colored in light blue and light green,
and the C-terminal FCD domains are colored in teal and dark green.
The residues between β1/α3 of monomer B are disordered
and represented as a dotted line. The pseudo 2-fold axis is indicated
by an arrow. (B) Size-exclusion chromatogram of McbR with elution
volumes of MW standards indicated (Bio-Rad; calculated molecular weight
of the McbR monomer is ∼24.5 kDa). (C) Hydrophobic interactions
that stabilize the FCD domain dimerization interface; the pseudo 2-fold
axis is indicated by a black circle. (D) Polar/salt bridge interactions
(shown as black dashed lines) that stabilize the FCD domain dimerization
interface. (E) Interactions at the wHTH domain interface (polar/salt
bridge interactions shown as black dashed lines); Leu56 is labeled
in italics to highlight it. Whereas L56A (light blue) is
buried in the interface, Leu56B (bright green) is not and
is instead at the interface periphery.
Dimerization interface
of McbR. (A) McbR dimer, with one monomer
colored in shades of blue and the second colored in shades of green.
The N-terminal wHTH domains are colored in light blue and light green,
and the C-terminal FCD domains are colored in teal and dark green.
The residues between β1/α3 of monomer B are disordered
and represented as a dotted line. The pseudo 2-fold axis is indicated
by an arrow. (B) Size-exclusion chromatogram of McbR with elution
volumes of MW standards indicated (Bio-Rad; calculated molecular weight
of the McbR monomer is ∼24.5 kDa). (C) Hydrophobic interactions
that stabilize the FCD domain dimerization interface; the pseudo 2-fold
axis is indicated by a black circle. (D) Polar/salt bridge interactions
(shown as black dashed lines) that stabilize the FCD domain dimerization
interface. (E) Interactions at the wHTH domain interface (polar/salt
bridge interactions shown as black dashed lines); Leu56 is labeled
in italics to highlight it. Whereas L56A (light blue) is
buried in the interface, Leu56B (bright green) is not and
is instead at the interface periphery.
McbR Dimerization Interface Is Extensive and Includes Both the
N- and C-Terminal Domains
The FCD family has ∼2800
members from more than 400 distinct species from archaea to eukaryota.[10] A structural homology search using Dali identified
only 6 other structures that have a high degree of similarity to McbR
(Z-score > 7 using only the FCD domain; Table 4 and Figure 3). These represent
the only other members of the FCD family with known structures. The
dimerization interface mediated by the C-terminal FCD domain is topologically
conserved within the FCD family and is composed of the first helix
in the FCD domain (α4 in McbR) and the N-terminal half of the
kinked fourth helix (α7 in McbR). In McbR, the FCD dimerization
interface buries 1655 Å2 of solvent-accessible surface
area, which is 70% of the buried surface area (BSA) for the entire
McbR dimer. The hydrophobic core of the FCD dimerization interface
is formed by residues Ile85, Ile88, Leu92, Met148, Ile150, Leu151,
Met154, and Leu158 from both monomers, each of which is completely
occluded from solvent (Figure 2C). It is further
stabilized by polar and salt bridge interactions, especially a bidentate
hydrogen bond between Gln157A and Gln157B and
a bidentate salt bridge between Arg161A and Glu153B (A or B subscript indicates that the residue is from subunit
A or B, respectively; Figure 2D).
Table 4
FCD Family
Members and Their Structural
Similarity to McbRa
FCD only
full-length
name
PDB
R
Z
rmsd (Å)
R
Z
rmsd (Å)
Id (%)
subfamily
metal binding
FCD ligandsb
McbR
4P9F
VanR
no
UNK
PS5454
3C7J
1
18.2
1.9
3
18.3
1.9
23
VanR
yes
Ni
CGL2915
2DI3
2
15.5
2.6
5
15.5
4.0
20
FadR
yes
Zn
RO03477
2HS5
3
15.4
2.6
2
19.7
3.1
19
VanR
no
Act
Reut_B4629
3IHU
4
15.4
2.5
1
20.3
2.6
16
VanR
no
TM0439
3FMS
5
14.8
2.4
4
16.6
3.1
22
VanR
yes
Act, Ni
FadR
1H9G
6
12.8
2.6
6
12.6
6.2
14
FadR
no
CoA-Myr
R, Z-score rank. Z, DALI Z-score.
rmsd, root-mean-square deviation reported
by DALI. Id, % sequence identity determined using FFAS.
Ligands/metals bound at the ligand
binding pocket; UNK, unknown; Act, acetate ion.
Figure 3
Quaternary
structures of FCD family. FCD family members whose structures
have been determined are shown, with one monomer depicted in teal
and one in gold. Metals bound to the FCD domains are depicted as light
blue spheres. Ligands/molecules bound in the FCD ligand binding pockets
are shown as magenta spheres or sticks. The dimerization helices (α4
and α7 in McbR) are colored green and orange. The corresponding
quaternary structures are depicted as cartoons, with the N-terminal
domains shown as triangles and the C-terminal domains as spheres.
(A) Head-to-head dimerization in which both the wHTH domains and the
FCD domains contribute to the dimerization interface. (B) Dimerization
in which the wHTH domains do not interact with either one another
or the FCD domains. (C) Head-to-head dimerization in which only the
FCD domains contribute to the dimerization. (D) Domain swapping dimerization
in which the wHTH domain of one monomer reaches across the FCD domain
interface to interact with the FCD domain of the second monomer. (E)
Same as panel D except that the wHTH domains are inverted with respect
to one another.
Quaternary
structures of FCD family. FCD family members whose structures
have been determined are shown, with one monomer depicted in teal
and one in gold. Metals bound to the FCD domains are depicted as light
blue spheres. Ligands/molecules bound in the FCD ligand binding pockets
are shown as magenta spheres or sticks. The dimerization helices (α4
and α7 in McbR) are colored green and orange. The corresponding
quaternary structures are depicted as cartoons, with the N-terminal
domains shown as triangles and the C-terminal domains as spheres.
(A) Head-to-head dimerization in which both the wHTH domains and the
FCD domains contribute to the dimerization interface. (B) Dimerization
in which the wHTH domains do not interact with either one another
or the FCD domains. (C) Head-to-head dimerization in which only the
FCD domains contribute to the dimerization. (D) Domain swapping dimerization
in which the wHTH domain of one monomer reaches across the FCD domain
interface to interact with the FCD domain of the second monomer. (E)
Same as panel D except that the wHTH domains are inverted with respect
to one another.R, Z-score rank. Z, DALI Z-score.
rmsd, root-mean-square deviation reported
by DALI. Id, % sequence identity determined using FFAS.Ligands/metals bound at the ligand
binding pocket; UNK, unknown; Act, acetate ion.In McbR, the wHTH domains also interact,
extending the dimerization
interface beyond that typically observed in the FCD subfamily of GntR
regulators. The wHTH interface buries 740 Å2 of BSA,
for a total of 2395 Å2 buried between the two McbR
monomers. Although the FCD domains are related by a near perfect 2-fold
axis centered on Gln157A/B, the wHTH are not. Instead,
they are related by a rotation of ∼172°. Thus, whereas
Leu56A is buried in the wHTH interface, the corresponding
residue (Leu56B) is located at the interface periphery
(Figure 2E). The wHTH dimerization is composed
largely of polar interactions (i.e., a hydrogen bond between Ser60A/B and Arg57A/B) and a few hydrophobic interactions
(Leu14B and Leu56A); however, unlike the residues
at the FCD interface, none of the wHTH interface residues become extensively
buried upon complex formation (Figure 2E).
Finally, Asn62A (wHTH domain) hydrogen bonds with Glu153B (FCD domain); this is the only noncovalent interaction connecting
the two different domains from the distinct subunits in the dimer.Comparison of McbR with the other members of the FCD subfamily
reveals that while the FCD dimerization interface is conserved within
the family, the relative orientation of the wHTH and FCD domains is
not. This gives rise to distinct differences in the orientations of
the wHTH domains and, in some cases, distinct quaternary structures
(Figure 3). This is why the FCD family member
identified to be most similar to McbR using the DALI structural homology
search database changes depending on whether the search is performed
with the McbRFCD domain alone (PS5454, PDB ID: 3C7J) or full-length
McbR (Reut_B4629, PDB ID: 3IHU; Table 4). As expected, the
FCD proteins identified as most different from full-length McbR are
FadR and CGL2915. These are also both members of the FadR subfamily,
but they have an additional helix between the wHTH and the FCD ligand
binding domains (Figure 4). The presence of
this helix leads to domain swapped quaternary structures, in which
the wHTH domain of subunit A crosses the dimerization interface to
make contacts with the FCD domain of subunit B. This domain swapping
is not observed in the VanR subclass of FCD regulators, and instead,
in these proteins, the wHTH and FCD domains of the same subunit are
more intimately associated.
Figure 4
Ligand binding cavity of McbR and comparison
to structural homologues.
(A) Multiple sequence alignment showing high conservation at the N-terminal
domain (α1−β3) and the C-terminal domain (α4−α9)
in McbR in comparison to the FCD family. Identical amino acids are
highlighted in black, and similar amino acids are highlighted in gray.
McbRe represents E. coli McbR, and McbRs represents S. typhimurium McbR. Alpha helices are depicted as cylinders above the sequence
alignment, and the beta-strands, as arrows. Asterisks mark the residues
in FadR that make base-specific contacts with DNA. Residues that define
the McbR ligand binding site are highlighted in yellow. Residues important
for metal binding in the FCD family are highlighted in orange. (B)
Structural superposition of the three conserved histidines in metal
binding FCD family members and the corresponding residues in McbR
(teal). Pseudomonas syringae PS5454
(PDB ID: 3C7J) is shown in green, Thermotoga maritima TM0439 (PDB ID: 3FMS) is shown in orange, and Corynebacterium glutamicum CGL2915 (PDB ID: 2DI3) is shown in maroon. Each respective metal is shown as a sphere
in the same color. (C) (Left) Cartoon depiction of McbR with the ligand
binding cavities represented as purple surfaces. (Right) Enlarged
image of the binding cavity highlighting the three conserved residues
in McbR that appear to be important for ligand binding (colored as
in the left panel). (D) Electron density for the ligand binding cavity
in chain A of McbR. Positive density is shown as green chicken wire.
Residues coordinating the unidentified entity (see text) are shown
as teal sticks. Sigma level for the 2Fo – Fc map is 1.0. Sigma level
for the Fo – Fc map is 3.0.
Ligand binding cavity of McbR and comparison
to structural homologues.
(A) Multiple sequence alignment showing high conservation at the N-terminal
domain (α1−β3) and the C-terminal domain (α4−α9)
in McbR in comparison to the FCD family. Identical amino acids are
highlighted in black, and similar amino acids are highlighted in gray.
McbRe represents E. coliMcbR, and McbRs represents S. typhimuriumMcbR. Alpha helices are depicted as cylinders above the sequence
alignment, and the beta-strands, as arrows. Asterisks mark the residues
in FadR that make base-specific contacts with DNA. Residues that define
the McbR ligand binding site are highlighted in yellow. Residues important
for metal binding in the FCD family are highlighted in orange. (B)
Structural superposition of the three conserved histidines in metal
binding FCD family members and the corresponding residues in McbR
(teal). Pseudomonas syringae PS5454
(PDB ID: 3C7J) is shown in green, Thermotoga maritima TM0439 (PDB ID: 3FMS) is shown in orange, and Corynebacterium glutamicum CGL2915 (PDB ID: 2DI3) is shown in maroon. Each respective metal is shown as a sphere
in the same color. (C) (Left) Cartoon depiction of McbR with the ligand
binding cavities represented as purple surfaces. (Right) Enlarged
image of the binding cavity highlighting the three conserved residues
in McbR that appear to be important for ligand binding (colored as
in the left panel). (D) Electron density for the ligand binding cavity
in chain A of McbR. Positive density is shown as green chicken wire.
Residues coordinating the unidentified entity (see text) are shown
as teal sticks. Sigma level for the 2Fo – Fc map is 1.0. Sigma level
for the Fo – Fc map is 3.0.
The Structure of McbR Is Predominantly in a Ligand-Bound Conformation
The C-terminal FCD domains are composed of either 6 (VanR subclass)
or 7 (FadR subclass) α-helices that form an antiparallel helical
bundle. McbR, which has 6 helices, is a member of the VanR subclass
(Figure 1A). The FCD domains have a large cavity
in the center of this helical bundle, which is the location of the
ligand binding site. The structure of this cavity is identical between
both FCD domains in McbR, as the FCD domains superimpose with a root-mean-squared
deviation (rsmd) of only 0.24 Å (Figure 6B). Although the helical topology is conserved among FCD domains,
the sequence conservation among FCD family members, especially the
residues that line the ligand binding cavities, is very low, likely
reflecting their distinct ligand specificities (Figure 4A).
Figure 6
N-Terminal
domain of McbR. (A) The pocket of α1 into the
FCD domain. Helices α6 and α7 are colored teal (cartoon),
and helix α1 is shown in light blue (sticks). (B) Superposition
of McbR chain A (light blue/deep teal) and McbR chain B (light green/dark
green). Whereas the C-terminal domains superimpose well (deep teal/dark
green), the N-terminal domains (light blue/light green) do not.
Recently, it was shown that the majority of FCD
family members use three conserved histidines to bind a metal ion
in the ligand binding cavity, suggesting that these regulators bind
ligands that interact directly with the bound metal (Figure 4A,B).[10] In McbR, these
histidines are not conserved and are instead replaced by Arg139, Tyr185,
and Ile207 (Figure 4B). Thus, McbR is one of
the few FCD family members that does not bind a metal. Because of
this, the ligand pocket in McbR is large, with a volume of ∼200
Å3, nearly double that of the metal-binding FCD domains
(Figure 4C). Although the endogenous ligand
for McbR is still unknown, clear unambiguous density for a bound entity
was observed in the FCD ligand binding cavities of both monomers of
McbR (Figure 4D). None of the protein and crystallization
buffer components, or derivatives thereof, fit the density. This is
likely because the density is rather undefined, potentially because
it is not fully occupied, a phenomenon commonly observed without externally
supplied ligands and/or cofactors. Alternatively, the density could
correspond to the biologically relevant ligand, as McbR is an E. coli protein and was expressed in E. coli. However, potential ligands, such as glucuronic
acid, a component of colanic acid whose metabolism has been shown
to be regulated by McbR, did not fit the density.[4] Finally, automated ligand fitting routines, such as the
LigandFit program implemented in Phenix, also failed to identify a
ligand that satisfactorily fit the density.[29,30] Because the density did not enable the identity of the ligand to
be confidently determined, it has not been modeled.However,
the presence of the density did reveal the identity of
the residues that likely define the McbR ligand binding site. Namely,
the bound entity is strongly coordinated by two arginine residues,
Arg89 and Arg139, which themselves are organized via a shared salt
bridge with Glu93 (Figures 4C,D). Two neighboring
asparagine residues, Asn135 and Asn211, also contribute to binding.
To investigate whether these residues are important for McbR function,
we generated two variants of McbR by mutating the residues that define
the entity binding site. Because mutating residues in the interior
of a protein can also lead to protein unfolding, we generated two
distinct mutants: a double mutant in which Glu93 and Arg139 were substituted
with Ser and Phe, respectively, the structurally homologous residues
in FadR (the residue structurally homologous to McbRArg89 is also
an Arg in FadR) and a triple mutant in which all three residues were
mutated to alanines (Arg89Ala, Glu93Ala, and Arg139Ala). CD polarimetry
demonstrated that both McbR variants are folded, and EMSAs showed
they are functional (Figure S1). The mutants
were somewhat less thermostable (ΔTm of −8.6 and −18.6 °C compared to WT for the double
and triple mutant, respectively), but this was expected, as the mutations
are in the interior of the protein; indeed, this is exactly why two
mutants, one in which the residues were mutated to those present in
FadR (the double mutant) and one in which the residues were simply
mutated alanine (the triple mutant), were tested. McbR deletion from E. coli results in EPS overproduction and elicits
a mucoidy phenotype.[4] This mucoidy phenotype
is substantially reduced upon producing McbR ectopically (Figure 5). However, cells producing McbR with triple mutations
(Arg89Ala, Glu93Ala, and Arg139Ala) are mucoid (Figure 5). This observation demonstrates the importance of Arg89,
Glu93, and Arg139 in binding the unknown ligand and, more importantly,
the physiological relevance of the unknown ligand in affecting EPS
production. Both Arg89 and Arg139 are required for ligand binding,
as cells producing McbR with only two mutations (Glu93Ser and Arg139Phe)
also remain less mucoid than cells with empty plasmid or cells producing
McbR with three mutations (Arg89Ala, Glu93Ala, and Arg139Ala) (Figure 5).
Figure 5
Mucoidy level of E. coli MG1655
ΔmcbR ΔKm producing
different McbR variants. Each strain was grown on LB agar supplemented
with 50 μg/mL kanamycin and 1 mM IPTG at 37 °C for 12 h.
WT/empty, E. coli MG1655/pBS(Kan);
ΔmcbR/empty, E. coli MG1655 ΔmcbR ΔKm/pBS(Kan);
ΔmcbR/mcbR, E. coli MG1655 ΔmcbR ΔKm/pBS(Kan)-mcbR; ΔmcbR/E93S-R139F, E. coli MG1655 ΔmcbR ΔKm/pBS(Kan)-mcbR-E93S-R139F; ΔmcbR/R89A-E93A-R139A, E. coli MG1655 ΔmcbR ΔKm/pBS(Kan)-mcbR-R89A-E93A-R139A.
Mucoidy level of E. coli MG1655
ΔmcbR ΔKm producing
different McbR variants. Each strain was grown on LB agar supplemented
with 50 μg/mL kanamycin and 1 mM IPTG at 37 °C for 12 h.
WT/empty, E. coli MG1655/pBS(Kan);
ΔmcbR/empty, E. coli MG1655 ΔmcbR ΔKm/pBS(Kan);
ΔmcbR/mcbR, E. coli MG1655 ΔmcbR ΔKm/pBS(Kan)-mcbR; ΔmcbR/E93S-R139F, E. coli MG1655 ΔmcbR ΔKm/pBS(Kan)-mcbR-E93S-R139F; ΔmcbR/R89A-E93A-R139A, E. coli MG1655 ΔmcbR ΔKm/pBS(Kan)-mcbR-R89A-E93A-R139A.
The Conformation of McbR Crystallized Is Likely Incompatible
with DNA Binding
The wHTH domain is defined by helix α2,
a connecting turn, and helix α3 (HTH) and a small loop in the
antiparallel β-sheet (the wing). The wHTH domain is slightly
more conserved than the FCD domain (5% identity, 13% similar) when
comparing the 7 structurally characterized FCD family members, with
McbR residues Leu20, Leu24, Leu29, Gly32, Leu35, Leu40, Leu44, Met46,
Val51, Arg52, Glu53, Leu55, Leu58, and Leu64 being highly similar
(Figure 4A). The conserved hydrophobic residues
function to stabilize the wHTH domain fold, whereas the two charged
residues are located at the wHTH dimerization interface (Figure 2E).In McbR, the C-terminal portion of wHTH
helix α1 contributes to the top of the FCD binding cavity, with
Ile26 (helix α1) ∼12 Å away from the FCD domain
ligand coordinating arginines (Arg89 and Arg139; Figure 6A). Thus, this wHTH–FCD
interface provides a conduit by which effector binding in the FCD
domain can be structurally communicated to wHTH DNA binding domain.[8] The conformation and orientation of the McbRwHTH domains appear to be incompatible with DNA binding. First, residues
37–48, which comprise helix α2, are disordered in subunit
B (Figure 2A). Residues from helix α2
often contribute to DNA recognition, as has been observed for the
FCD transcription factor FadR.[9] Second,
the two domains in McbR differ not only in their relative orientations
to the FCD domain but also in conformation, with an rmsd of 1.2 Å
(Figure 6B). This is due to a change in the
orientation of the wing between strands β2 and β3.N-Terminal
domain of McbR. (A) The pocket of α1 into the
FCD domain. Helices α6 and α7 are colored teal (cartoon),
and helix α1 is shown in light blue (sticks). (B) Superposition
of McbR chain A (light blue/deep teal) and McbR chain B (light green/dark
green). Whereas the C-terminal domains superimpose well (deep teal/dark
green), the N-terminal domains (light blue/light green) do not.
Implications for McbR Function
Currently, E. coli FadR is the only
member of the GntR family
whose DNA-bound structure has been determined,[8,9] revealing
that FadR binds the short palindromic consensus sequence 5′-TGGNNNNNCCA-3′.
Previously, the E. coliMcbR protein
was shown to bind upstream of the promoter (PyciGECO).[6] Subsequent DNaseI footprinting identified two
distinct DNA sequences within PyciGECO protected by McbR binding. To confirm that McbR binds this operator,
we performed EMSA experiments using WT McbR and PyciGECO DNA. As shown in Figure 7,
McbR binds and shifts PyciGECO DNA.
Figure 7
McbR:PyciGECO EMSA experiments. (A)
Superposition of the N-terminal domain of McbR (teal) and E. coli FadR (beige, PDB ID: 1HW2) bound to DNA. Residues
making base-specific contacts in FadR and the structurally overlapping
residues in McbR are shown as sticks and labeled. (B) EMSA experiments
using biotin-labeled PyciGECO and WT McbR
(the migration of the DNA alone is shown in the left lane). (C) EMSA
experiments using biotin-labeled PyciGECO and either WT McbR or the McbR variants as indicated; the migration
of the DNA alone is shown in the left lane. All binding reactions
in panels B and C contain the nonspecific poly(dI–dC) probe.
McbR:PyciGECO EMSA experiments. (A)
Superposition of the N-terminal domain of McbR (teal) and E. coli FadR (beige, PDB ID: 1HW2) bound to DNA. Residues
making base-specific contacts in FadR and the structurally overlapping
residues in McbR are shown as sticks and labeled. (B) EMSA experiments
using biotin-labeled PyciGECO and WT McbR
(the migration of the DNA alone is shown in the left lane). (C) EMSA
experiments using biotin-labeled PyciGECO and either WT McbR or the McbR variants as indicated; the migration
of the DNA alone is shown in the left lane. All binding reactions
in panels B and C contain the nonspecific poly(dI–dC) probe.In the FadR–DNA complex,
Arg35 (helix α2), Arg45 (helix
α3), Thr46 (helix α3), and His65 (β2−β3
wing) mediate base-specific contacts with the bound DNA. The corresponding
residues in McbR are Lys38, Ile48, Thr49, respectively, with no residue
corresponding to His65 (Figure 7A). This suggests
that McbR likely interacts with DNA via helix α2 (Lys38) and
helix α3 (Thr49). Superposition of the FadR–DNA complex
and McbR shows Gln70 as the only residue with a polar side chain in
close proximity with the DNA in the β2−β3 wing.
Additional basic residues in close proximity to the DNA include Arg34
and Arg52 (Figure 7A). We tested the role of
these residues in DNA binding using EMSA experiments performed with
the PyciGECO promoter DNA and McbR mutants
(we used CD to show that the variants are folded; Figure S1; the Tm’s of
the variants are within 3.7 °C of that of WT, which has a Tm of 63.2 °C). The EMSA experiments show
that residues Arg34, Lys38, Thr49, and Arg52 are important for DNA
binding, as mutating these residues to alanine result in a loss of
DNA binding compared to that of WT McbR (Figure 7B). Furthermore, Arg34, Lys38, and Thr49 have the most debilitating
effects, suggesting that β1, α2, and α3 play key
roles in DNA binding.So, how is DNA binding regulated? As stated
earlier, the GntR transcription
factors are typically regulated by ligands that are metabolic substrates/products/cofactors
of the genes that they regulate. In many cases, these genes are often
located next to or near the GntR gene itself.[7] McbR was previously shown to bind the promoter of yciGFE and ybiM.[4,6] While the molecular
functions of the protein products of these genes are currently unknown, ybiM has been shown to effect colanic acid production in
a McbR-dependent manner, suggesting that colanic acid, or one of its
constituents, may be the biologically relevant ligand for McbR.[4] Currently, our results suggest that this is not
the case, as none of the components of colanic acid satisfactorily
fit the ligand density in the McbR cavity. An examination of the genes
near mcbR in the E. coli chromosome shows that they are involved in a variety of biological
processes (Table 5); our data again shows that
McbR is unlikely to be regulated by these metabolites (methionine,
curcumin/dihydrocurcumin, iron, asparagine, and glutathione), as they
also did not satisfactorily fit the density. However, sequence similarities
between the E. coli and SalmonellaMcbR do suggest that they likely bind
similar, if not identical, ligands. Namely, although the FCD domains
of McbR from both organisms are less conserved than their corresponding
wHTH domains (FCD domain sequence conservation: 46% identity, 74%
similarity), the ligand binding residues are nearly perfectly conserved,
including Arg89, Glu93, and Arg139 (Figure 4A); the only differences in the ligand binding pocket are distal
from the Arg-Glu-Arg pocket: Ile214 and Leu215 (Thr214 and Thr215
in Salmonella). Because these residues
change from hydrophobic (E. coli) to
polar (Salmonella), the distal portion
of the ligand may be slightly different between the organisms. Once
the biologically relevant ligand(s) of McbR have been confidently
identified, this ligand, or a derivative thereof, may be able to function
as a novel therapeutic to target biofilms.
Table 5
DNA Sequences
Surrounding the mcbR (yncC) Gene
in Escherichia
coli (MG1655)
Authors: Daniel W A Buchan; Federico Minneci; Tim C O Nugent; Kevin Bryson; David T Jones Journal: Nucleic Acids Res Date: 2013-06-08 Impact factor: 16.971
Authors: Allison N Dammann; Anna B Chamby; Andrew J Catomeris; Kyle M Davidson; Hervé Tettelin; Jan-Peter van Pijkeren; Kathyayini P Gopalakrishna; Mary F Keith; Jordan L Elder; Adam J Ratner; Thomas A Hooven Journal: PLoS Pathog Date: 2021-03-08 Impact factor: 6.823
Authors: Víctor S Blancato; Fernando A Pagliai; Christian Magni; Claudio F Gonzalez; Graciela L Lorca Journal: Front Microbiol Date: 2016-02-09 Impact factor: 5.640
Authors: Jorge Pinheiro; Johnny Lisboa; Rita Pombinho; Filipe Carvalho; Alexis Carreaux; Cláudia Brito; Anna Pöntinen; Hannu Korkeala; Nuno M S Dos Santos; João H Morais-Cabral; Sandra Sousa; Didier Cabanes Journal: Nucleic Acids Res Date: 2018-10-12 Impact factor: 16.971