Bacillus thuringiensis secretes the virulence factor phosphatidylinositol-specific phospholipase C (BtPI-PLC), which specifically binds to phosphatidylcholine (PC) and cleaves GPI-anchored proteins off eukaryotic plasma membranes. To elucidate how BtPI-PLC searches for GPI-anchored proteins on the membrane surface, we measured residence times of single fluorescently labeled proteins on PC-rich small unilamellar vesicles (SUVs). BtPI-PLC interactions with the SUV surface are transient with a lifetime of 379 ± 49 ms. These data also suggest that BtPI-PLC does not directly sense curvature, but rather prefers to bind to the numerous lipid packing defects in SUVs. Despite this preference for defects, all-atom molecular dynamics simulations of BtPI-PLC interacting with PC-rich bilayers show that the protein is shallowly anchored with the deepest insertions ∼18 Å above the bilayer center. Membrane partitioning is mediated, on average, by 41 hydrophobic, 8 hydrogen-bonding, and 2 cation-π (between PC choline headgroups and Tyr residues) transient interactions with phospholipids. These results lead to a quantitative model for BtPI-PLC interactions with cell membranes where protein binding is mediated by lipid packing defects, possibly near GPI-anchored proteins, and the protein diffuses on the membrane for ∼100-380 ms, during which time it may cleave ∼10 GPI-anchored proteins before dissociating. This combination of short two-dimensional scoots followed by three-dimensional hops may be an efficient search strategy on two-dimensional surfaces with obstacles.
Bacillus thuringiensis secretes the virulence factor phosphatidylinositol-specific phospholipase C (BtPI-PLC), which specifically binds to phosphatidylcholine (PC) and cleaves GPI-anchored proteins off eukaryotic plasma membranes. To elucidate how BtPI-PLC searches for GPI-anchored proteins on the membrane surface, we measured residence times of single fluorescently labeled proteins on PC-rich small unilamellar vesicles (SUVs). BtPI-PLC interactions with the SUV surface are transient with a lifetime of 379 ± 49 ms. These data also suggest that BtPI-PLC does not directly sense curvature, but rather prefers to bind to the numerous lipid packing defects in SUVs. Despite this preference for defects, all-atom molecular dynamics simulations of BtPI-PLC interacting with PC-rich bilayers show that the protein is shallowly anchored with the deepest insertions ∼18 Å above the bilayer center. Membrane partitioning is mediated, on average, by 41 hydrophobic, 8 hydrogen-bonding, and 2 cation-π (between PCcholine headgroups and Tyr residues) transient interactions with phospholipids. These results lead to a quantitative model for BtPI-PLC interactions with cell membranes where protein binding is mediated by lipid packing defects, possibly near GPI-anchored proteins, and the protein diffuses on the membrane for ∼100-380 ms, during which time it may cleave ∼10 GPI-anchored proteins before dissociating. This combination of short two-dimensional scoots followed by three-dimensional hops may be an efficient search strategy on two-dimensional surfaces with obstacles.
Phosphatidylinositol-specific
phospholipase C enzymes (PI-PLCs) secreted by Gram-positive bacterial
pathogens help down-regulate eukaryotic innate immune responses, thereby
enhancing bacterial virulence.[1,2] For the extracellular
bacterial pathogens Bacillus and Staphylococcus, this effect results from PI-PLC-mediated cleavage of glycosylphosphatidylinositol
(GPI)-anchored proteins off cell surfaces.[3,4] In
the case of Bacillus PI-PLC, recognition of eukaryotic
cell surfaces and enzymatic activity are enhanced by the presence
of even small amounts of the zwitterionic lipidphosphatidylcholine
(PC),[5] which is abundant in the outer leaflet
of eukaryotic cells. Theoretically, specific binding to PC might result
in longer residence times on the cell membrane, a model in which searching
for GPI-anchored substrates would be facilitated by two-dimensional
diffusion (“scooting”) of the protein on the cell surface.While scooting is likely important, membrane dissociation (“hopping”)
is also important for the activity of Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) PI-PLC. For two-component small unilamellar
vesicles (SUVs) containing an anionic lipid and PC, interactions between
lipids and BtPI-PLC are synergistic, with maximal
catalytic activity at low to moderate mole fractions of PC (XPC) and maximal binding occurring at high XPC (low
mole fractions of anionic lipids).[6,7] When XPC > 0.6, BtPI-PLC catalytic activity plummets.
In contrast, the binding affinity continues to increase, reaching
a maximum at XPC ≈ 0.9. This loss of enzymatic activity
concomitant with decreases in the mole fraction of an interfacial
substrate is often ascribed to surface dilution inhibition, where
the 2-D substrate concentration falls below the enzyme’s 2-D Km.[8] However, at high
XPC, BtPI-PLC mutants with lower membrane
affinities recover much of the activity lost by the wild-type enzyme.[7] These results support a kinetic model where reductions
in wild-type activity at XPC > 0.6 result from tight
membrane
binding that limits enzyme dissociation from the membrane and/or slows
down scooting, rather than from dilution of the substrate. These effects
make it difficult for the enzyme to find the next substrate molecule
once those in the immediate vicinity have been cleaved.While
these results suggest that maximal BtPI-PLC
activity is associated with apparent Kd values for membranes ranging from ∼50 μM to 1 mM, it
is unclear how these affinities correlate with the kinetic search
mechanism(s) that BtPI-PLC uses to efficiently find
substrates on the surface of cells. Assuming that tight binding at
high XPC represents the maximum residence times, i.e.,
the longest scoots, that BtPI-PLC is likely to display
on cell membranes, we have monitored interactions of single fluorescently
labeled BtPI-PLC with fluorescently labeled PC-rich
surface-tethered SUVs[9,10] using two-color total internal
reflection fluorescence (TIRF) microscopy in order to determine the
distribution of residence times and to quantitatively model how BtPI-PLC efficiently searches for substrates on cell surfaces.
In these experiments, SUVs containing 0.8 and 0.2 mole fraction of
1-palmitoyl-2-oleoylphosphatidylcholine (POPC) and dioleoylphosphatidylglycerol
(DOPG), respectively, 2–3% of the lipophilic fluorophore DiD,
and 1% biotinylated dipalmitoylphosphatidylethanolamine
(biotin-PE) were prepared by sonication. Immobilization on the surface
of coverslips coated with polyethylene glycol (PEG) 5000 and 1% biotin-PEG
5000 was achieved by addition of the protein neutravidin which tightly
binds to both biotin-PE in the SUVs and biotin-PEG on the surface[9,10] (Figure 1; see Supporting
Information (SI), Figures S1–S3, and work by Friedman
and co-workers[11] for details). SUV locations
were determined from the DiD fluorescence evident in the red channel
and mapped onto the blue channel, and trajectories of Alexa Fluor
488 (AF488)-labeled BtPI-PLC[6] landings on SUVs were recorded (Figure 1).
Due to the limited number of photons detected from single fluorescently
labeled proteins with very short residence times, the minimum accessible
time resolution is 30 ms. Thus, the small number of events in the
first bin of the residence time histogram (Figure 1C) likely arises from undercounting, i.e., missed events,
at short times. The results shown below are the same whether or not
we include the short events in the data analysis.
Figure 1
BtPI-PLC
residence times on PC-rich SUVs. (A)
A dual-view image showing the vesicle (>630 nm) channel (left)
and
the protein (<630 nm) channel (right). Yellow squares identify
vesicle locations mapped onto the protein channel. (B) Protein fluorescence
intensity (arbitrary units, a.u.) vs time for a single SUV. Spikes
correspond to single protein landings, and the inset shows the length
of a typical landing. (C) The residence time histogram for 5085 landings
on 1168 individual SUVs (bars). Inset: koff was determined from the raw residence time data using eq 1, and this fit (line) is superimposed on the probability
density.
BtPI-PLC
residence times on PC-rich SUVs. (A)
A dual-view image showing the vesicle (>630 nm) channel (left)
and
the protein (<630 nm) channel (right). Yellow squares identify
vesicle locations mapped onto the protein channel. (B) Protein fluorescence
intensity (arbitrary units, a.u.) vs time for a single SUV. Spikes
correspond to single protein landings, and the inset shows the length
of a typical landing. (C) The residence time histogram for 5085 landings
on 1168 individual SUVs (bars). Inset: koff was determined from the raw residence time data using eq 1, and this fit (line) is superimposed on the probability
density.The distribution of landing times
(Figure 1C) revealed a mean residence time
of 303 ± 30 ms and a median
of 210 ms, determined from 5085 PI-PLC landings on 1168 individual
SUVs (Figures 1 and 2). This result is in good agreement with the average 250 ms residence
time previously estimated from ensemble Trp fluorescence experiments
for Bacillus cereus PI-PLC (97% identical to BtPI-PLC)[12] and similar to the
250 ms residence time observed for human phospholipase C γ2
with clusters of GPI-anchored proteins in cells.[13] The residence time distribution is well described by a
single-exponential decay (Figure 1C, SI and Figure S4):[14]where Presidence(t) is the probability
density, tmin = 0.03 s and tmax = 4.5
s are the minimum and maximum experimentally observed residence times
used to account for the limited time resolution of the experiment,
and koff = 3.49 ± 0.053 s–1 is the dissociation rate constant from maximum likelihood fits to
the residence times (SI and Figures 1C and S4). Correcting for slight decreases in the
residence time due to photobleaching (SI and Figure S4) leads to koff = 2.64
± 0.34 s–1 or a lifetime of 379 ± 49 ms
on SUVs. At 22 °C the apparent dissociation constant, Kd, of BtPI–PLC from
XPC = 0.8 SUVs is 3.5 ± 0.7 μM,[15] leading to a calculated association rate constant, kon, of 0.75 ± 0.18 μM–1 s–1. This association rate, for the ensemble,
is not diffusion limited, likely due to side-chain and phospholipid
rearrangements required for membrane binding.
Figure 2
Residence times do not
depend on vesicle size. (A) The vesicle
fluorescence intensity histogram recapitulates the vesicle size distribution
measured by (B) DLS. (C) Residence time versus vesicle intensity.
(D) Mean residence time (±standard error of the mean) versus
vesicle intensity.
Residence times do not
depend on vesicle size. (A) The vesicle
fluorescence intensity histogram recapitulates the vesicle size distribution
measured by (B) DLS. (C) Residence time versus vesicle intensity.
(D) Mean residence time (±standard error of the mean) versus
vesicle intensity.BtPI-PLC
preferentially binds to highly curved
vesicles[6] and to membranes with lower lipid
packing densities.[16] Because highly curved
vesicles also have lower lipid packing densities, these two results
suggest that BtPI-PLC recognizes defects in lipid
packing rather than directly sensing curvature. To test this hypothesis,
we adapted methods developed by Stamou and co-workers which take advantage
of the fact that larger vesicles contain more dye molecules and thus
have higher fluorescence intensities and display more photobleaching
steps.[17] This intensity dependence allows
us to size the SUVs on the basis of fluorescence intensity, to correlate
the vesicle intensity distribution with the vesicle size distribution
from dynamic light scattering (DLS), and to then determine if protein
residence times depend on vesicle size (intensity) (Figure 2).The SUV size distribution is quite heterogeneous,
with diameters
ranging from 20 to 100 nm (Figure 2A,B). While
this size range is rather small, in fluorescence correlation spectroscopy
(FCS) experiments, designed to measure apparent Kd values for BtPI-PLC binding to POPC/DOPG
SUVs, the diffusion times of unlabeled or labeled SUVs determined
from protein binding data are significantly shorter than diffusion
times of DiD-labeled SUVs in the absence of protein. These FCS results
suggest that, even within this size range, BtPI-PLC
may preferentially bind to faster diffusing, smaller vesicles. However,
as shown in Figure 2, the residence time distributions
are independent of vesicle size for these 20–100 nm diameter
vesicles. The distribution of residence time versus vesicle intensity
is similar to that predicted on the basis of random, unbiased interactions
between proteins with the given residence time distribution and vesicles
with the given size and intensity distribution (see Figure S5). This suggests that the higher affinity of BtPI-PLC for highly curved vesicles arises from a preference
for binding to lipid packing defects[17] that
occur with higher probability in smaller, curved vesicles with higher
surface tension.[18] This conclusion is supported
both by BtPI-PLC’s higher affinity for lipid
aggregates with lower packing densities[16] and by estimates of the surface area covered by the BtPI-PLC binding interface. Molecular dynamics (MD) simulations of BtPI-PLC–membrane interactions (see SI) suggest that the surface area of the binding interface
is 500–600 Å2, corresponding to 0.5% or less
of the total surface area for a 20 nm diameter SUV. In other words,
to a small protein such as BtPI-PLC, even SUVs are
likely to look flat.Increasing the number of lipid packing defects increases BtPI-PLC affinity for SUVs. Binding curves for 0.5 POPC/0.5
DOPG (△), 0.56 POPC/0.44 DOPG (○), and 0.5 POPC/0.4
DOPG/0.1 DOG (■) SUVs. The tabulated mean apparent Kd values were obtained from two independent
FCS experiments. The lipid structures are shown on the right.Recently, the size and distribution
of lipid packing defects in
model membranes have been investigated using MD simulations.[19−21] These studies show that both the probability of encountering a defect
and the defect size constant, determined by fitting the lipid packing
defect size distribution to an exponential distribution, increase
as the membrane becomes more convex. For pure POPC SUVs, the defect
size constant is ∼16 Å2, compared to ∼12
Å2 for large unilamellar vesicles (LUVs) and 10 Å2 for flat bilayers.[21] Both BtPI-PLC and helical peptides that act as amphipathic lipid
packing sensors appear to be very sensitive to this increase in packing
defect number and size. For pure POPC, this sensitivity is reflected
in Kd values for SUVs which are at least
1 order of magnitude lower than Kd values
for binding to membrane topologies such as LUVs with ∼12 Å2 defect size constants.[6,21]Similarly, the
defect size constant significantly increases when
conical, smaller headgroups are substituted for 10–15% of larger
headgroups while keeping the acyl chain saturation constant.[20,21] Thus, substitution of the conical lipiddioleoylglycerol (DOG)
for DOPG should increase the number of large lipid packing defects
without significantly altering either the defect size distribution
or the membrane curvature. This substitution allows us to further
delineate the roles of membrane curvature and lipid packing defects
in BtPI-PLC membrane binding simply by measuring
equilibrium membrane affinities. We chose to use vesicles with an
XPC near 0.5, because Kd values
for these vesicles are more than an order of magnitude larger than
for 0.8 XPC vesicles,[6] making
it easier to observe changes in binding affinity. Both the PC specificity
of BtPI-PLC vesicle binding and the effects of defects
introduced by DOG need to be taken into account (Figure 3). BtPI-PLC binds to 0.5 POPC/0.5 DOPG and
0.56 POPC/0.44 DOPG SUVs with similar affinities (Figure 3). For SUVs containing a PC:PG molar ratio of 1.25,
DOG incorporation does not significantly alter the SUV size distribution
(Figure S6), and BtPI-PLC
binds 2–3 times more tightly to these SUVs (Figure 3). This result shows that simply increasing the
number of packing defects, particularly larger defects, increases
binding affinity. Physiologically, this preference for binding to
defects may increase the likelihood that BtPI-PLC
binds near its cellular substrate, GPI-anchored proteins.[22]
Figure 3
Increasing the number of lipid packing defects increases BtPI-PLC affinity for SUVs. Binding curves for 0.5 POPC/0.5
DOPG (△), 0.56 POPC/0.44 DOPG (○), and 0.5 POPC/0.4
DOPG/0.1 DOG (■) SUVs. The tabulated mean apparent Kd values were obtained from two independent
FCS experiments. The lipid structures are shown on the right.
On the molecular level, what accounts
for the short residence times
of BtPI-PLC on SUVs? All-atom, explicit solvent 500
ns MD simulations of BtPI-PLC binding to flat membranes
composed of 0.8 XPC and 0.2 XPG (see SI text for details) suggest that on average
the protein–membrane interactions consist of 41 hydrophobic
interactions, 8 hydrogen-bonding interactions, and 2 cation−π
interactions (between PCcholine headgroups and Tyr residues) (Figures S7 and S8). These individual interactions
are dynamic, with lipids exchanging on a time scale of 100–200
ns (Figures S8 and S9). The protein–membrane
interactions also tend to be close to the membrane surface, with residues
from BtPI-PLC helix B inserting the deepest (Figures 4 and S10).
Figure 4
Interactions
between individual BtPI-PLC residues
and individual phospholipids are transient, and BtPI-PLC binds close to the membrane surface. (A) Occupancies for hydrophobic
interactions between helix B residues and membrane lipids (black and
blue for MD replicas one and two, respectively). (B) BtPI-PLC interactions with the membrane from the MD simulations. Electron
density profiles for the membrane, waters, and BtPI-PLC are black, blue, and red, respectively. The center of the
membrane is at zero Å. Inset: A BtPI-PLC snapshot
from the simulations. Residues that interact with the membrane are
blue, purple, and red, indicating hydrophobic, hydrogen-bonding, and
cation−π interactions, respectively. The AF488 fluorophore
is attached to N168C (green).
Interactions
between individual BtPI-PLC residues
and individual phospholipids are transient, and BtPI-PLC binds close to the membrane surface. (A) Occupancies for hydrophobic
interactions between helix B residues and membrane lipids (black and
blue for MD replicas one and two, respectively). (B) BtPI-PLC interactions with the membrane from the MD simulations. Electron
density profiles for the membrane, waters, and BtPI-PLC are black, blue, and red, respectively. The center of the
membrane is at zero Å. Inset: A BtPI-PLC snapshot
from the simulations. Residues that interact with the membrane are
blue, purple, and red, indicating hydrophobic, hydrogen-bonding, and
cation−π interactions, respectively. The AF488 fluorophore
is attached to N168C (green).Perhaps because of the shallow anchoring of the aromatic
amino
acids, even small changes, e.g., by mutating a single Tyr involved
in a cation−π interaction,[15] can increase the apparent Kd by an order
of magnitude. The MD and experimental results thus suggest that residence
times of hundreds of ms are associated with a large number of transient
residue–lipid interactions near the surface of the membrane,
even when some of these interactions contribute on the order of 2
kcal/mol to the binding energy.[15]All of these data provide the basis for a quantitative model of
how BtPI-PLC searches for substrates on cell surfaces
(Figure S11). The basic parameters for
this model are (i) the τ = 379 ± 49 ms BtPI-PLC lifetime on SUVs; (ii) the 325 μmol substrate min–1 (mg–1 enzyme) specific activity
of BtPI-PLC toward PI in XPC = 0.5 SUVs,[15] resulting in 5.3 ms per substrate turnover;
(iii) the distribution of substrate GPI-anchored proteins on the cell
surface (for GPI-anchored proteins on monocytes, nearest-neighbor
distances are ∼250 nm[23]); and (iv)
diffusion coefficients, D, of peripheral membrane
proteins on lipid bilayers based on single-particle tracking experiments
performed by Knight et al.[24] for multimers
and monomers of the humanGRP1 PH domain ranging from 1 to 3 μm2/s.BtPI-PLC combines 3-D (hopping)
and 2-D (scooting)
search strategies to find substrates. BtPI-PLC likely
binds at defects on the cell membrane that may, or may not, be associated
with GPI-anchored proteins. Within τ = 379 ms a single BtPI-PLC on the surface of a cell can diffuse (scoot) an
average distance, r = (4Dτ)1/2, of ∼1.2–2.1 μm. During this scooting
time, the protein likely encounters 5–9 clusters of GPI-anchored
proteins, containing one or two proteins, before dissociating. This
model may actually overestimate scooting times for BtPI-PLC. To better define the residence time distribution, we used
tight binding conditions for the single molecule TIRF experiments.
However, BtPI-PLC activity is substantially higher
when it binds less tightly to membranes, and mutations that reduce
the affinity at high XPC increase the activity.[7] Even for our experimental conditions, most of
the BtPI-PLC molecules have residence times of <300
ms (Figure 1C). Our model may therefore provide
an upper limit for BtPI-PLC 2-D diffusion on cell
surfaces.The proposed BtPI-PLC search mechanism
is dependent
on short (hundreds of ms) excursions on the membrane, mediated by
tens of dynamic interactions between the protein and phospholipids.
What are the advantages of this search mechanism, and might it be
used by other enzymes that target membranes? While a quantitative
answer requires future mathematical modeling, this search mechanism
is consistent with models of the cell membrane, such as those proposed
by Kusumi and co-workers,[25] where membrane
proteins tethered to the cytoskeleton partition the outer plasma membrane
into dynamic domains that are ∼40–300 nm in diameter.
In such a case, short (hundreds of ms) scoots would easily allow BtPI-PLC to explore individual domains, while frequent membrane
dissociation would provide a way to get over obstacles between domains.
Authors: Ivan Tattoli; Matthew T Sorbara; Chloe Yang; Sharon A Tooze; Dana J Philpott; Stephen E Girardin Journal: EMBO J Date: 2013-10-25 Impact factor: 11.598
Authors: Akihiro Kusumi; Taka A Tsunoyama; Kohichiro M Hirosawa; Rinshi S Kasai; Takahiro K Fujiwara Journal: Nat Chem Biol Date: 2014-07 Impact factor: 15.040
Authors: Lydie Vamparys; Romain Gautier; Stefano Vanni; W F Drew Bennett; D Peter Tieleman; Bruno Antonny; Catherine Etchebest; Patrick F J Fuchs Journal: Biophys J Date: 2013-02-05 Impact factor: 4.033
Authors: Cédric Grauffel; Boqian Yang; Tao He; Mary F Roberts; Anne Gershenson; Nathalie Reuter Journal: J Am Chem Soc Date: 2013-04-08 Impact factor: 15.419
Authors: Tao He; Anne Gershenson; Stephen J Eyles; Yan-Jiun Lee; Wenshe R Liu; Jiangyun Wang; Jianmin Gao; Mary F Roberts Journal: J Biol Chem Date: 2015-06-19 Impact factor: 5.157
Authors: Javier L Baylon; Josh V Vermaas; Melanie P Muller; Mark J Arcario; Taras V Pogorelov; Emad Tajkhorshid Journal: Biochim Biophys Acta Date: 2016-03-02