| Literature DB >> 31968631 |
Luca Dellafiora1, Virginia Filipello2, Chiara Dall'Asta1, Guido Finazzi2, Gianni Galaverna1, Marina Nadia Losio2.
Abstract
Listeria monocytogenes is a widespread foodborne pathogen of high concern and internalin A is an important virulence factor that mediates cell invasion upon the interaction with the host protein E-cadherin. Nonsense mutations of internalin A are known to reduce virulence. Although missense mutations are largely overlooked, they need to be investigated in respect to their effects in cell invasion processes. This work presented a computational workflow to early characterize internalin A missense mutations. The method reliably estimated the effects of a set of engineered missense mutations in terms of their effects on internalin A-E-cadherin interaction. Then, the effects of mutations of an internalin A variant from a L. monocytogenes isolate were calculated. Mutations showed impairing effects on complex stability providing a mechanistic explanation of the low cells invasion capacity previously observed. Overall, our results provided a rational approach to explain the effects of internalin A missense mutations. Moreover, our findings highlighted that the strength of interaction may not directly relate to the cell invasion capacity reflecting the non-exclusive role of internalin A in determining the virulence of L. monocytogenes. The workflow could be extended to other virulence factors providing a promising platform to support a better molecular understanding of L. monocytogenes epidemiology.Entities:
Keywords: E-cadherin; Listeria monocytogenes; cell invasion; in silico modeling; internalin A
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2020 PMID: 31968631 PMCID: PMC7020427 DOI: 10.3390/toxins12010060
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Toxins (Basel) ISSN: 2072-6651 Impact factor: 4.546
Computational scores of wt and mutated InlA-Ecad interface interactions.
| InlA Variant | Experimental Evidence a | HINT Score b | % Variation c |
|---|---|---|---|
| Wild type ( | --- | 4464 | --- |
| Phe367Ala | ↓ | 4387 | −2% |
| Tyr343Ala | ↓ | 4321 | −3% |
| Tyr369Ser | ↑ | 4596 | +3% |
| Ser192Asn-Tyr369Ser | ↑ | 4650 | +4% |
Note: a promoting or impairing effects on InlA-Ecad complex formation of InlA mutations in comparison to the wt are indicated by ↑ and ↓, respectively, according to [9] and [18]; b HINT scores inversely correlate to the free energy of binding (i.e., the higher the score, the stronger the interaction), and therefore, scores higher or lower than the wt complex may indicate more or less favored interaction, respectively; c the percentage variation in comparison to the wt is reported.
Figure 1Graphical representation of InlA-Ecad complex and pharmacophorical analysis of the space surrounding mutations. Both InlA (yellow) and Ecad (light blue) are represented in cartoon, while the red spheres indicate the localization of mutations considered in this study. Amino acids relevant for interface interactions are represented in sticks (those belonging to the wt InlA-Ecad complex are white colored). The regions energetically and sterically suitable to receive hydrophobic or hydrophilic groups are represented in white or blue mesh, respectively, while yellow dotted lines indicate hydrogen bonds.
Figure 2Hydrogen bonds analysis. (A) Comparison between wt InlA-Ecad complex and mutated variants impairing InlA-Ecad interaction. (B) Comparison between wt InlA-Ecad complex and mutated variants promoting InlA-Ecad interaction.
Figure 3Schematic representation of the workflow used.
Figure 4Results of InlA13 variant. Both InlA (yellow) and Ecad (light blue) are represented in cartoon, while amino acids side chains relevant for interface interactions are represented in sticks. (A) Graphical representation of InlA13 variant. (B) Close-up of Ser192Phe substitution at the InlA-Ecad interface. The region energetically and sterically suitable to receive hydrophobic groups is represented in white mesh and black box. (C) Comparative hydrogen bond analysis of InlA13-Ecad and wt InlA-Ecad complexes.