| Literature DB >> 35187078 |
Laura R Blackholly1, Nicola J Harris1, Heather E Findlay1, Paula J Booth1.
Abstract
The majority of alpha helical membrane proteins fold co-translationally during their synthesis on the ribosome. In contrast, most mechanistic folding studies address refolding of full-length proteins from artificially induced denatured states that are far removed from the natural co-translational process. Cell-free translation of membrane proteins is emerging as a useful tool to address folding during translation by a ribosome. We summarise the benefits of this approach and show how it can be successfully extended to a membrane protein with a complex topology. The bacterial leucine transporter, LeuT can be synthesised and inserted into lipid membranes using a variety of in vitro transcription translation systems. Unlike major facilitator superfamily transporters, where changes in lipids can optimise the amount of correctly inserted protein, LeuT insertion yields are much less dependent on the lipid composition. The presence of a bacterial translocon either in native membrane extracts or in reconstituted membranes also has little influence on the yield of LeuT incorporated into the lipid membrane, except at high reconstitution concentrations. LeuT is considered a paradigm for neurotransmitter transporters and possesses a knotted structure that is characteristic of this transporter family. This work provides a method in which to probe the formation of a protein as the polypeptide chain is being synthesised on a ribosome and inserting into lipids. We show that in comparison with the simpler major facilitator transporter structures, LeuT inserts less efficiently into membranes when synthesised cell-free, suggesting that more of the protein aggregates, likely as a result of the challenging formation of the knotted topology in the membrane.Entities:
Keywords: cell-free; cell-free (CF) protein synthesis; co-translational folding; lipids; membrane proteins; membranes; protein folding
Year: 2022 PMID: 35187078 PMCID: PMC8847741 DOI: 10.3389/fmolb.2022.795212
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Mol Biosci ISSN: 2296-889X
FIGURE 1(A) LeuT crystal structure (3GJD) (Quick et al., 2009) in a monomeric conformation. LeuT seen from the side (left), and from above (right) to highlight the complex knotted conformation. (B) Schematic of reagents and components required for IVTT cell-free reactions, such as; template DNA in the form of either PCR product, RNA or dsDNA, ribosomes, rNTPs, tRNA, amino acids. In addition to IVTT components, synthetic membrane mimics like that provided by liposomes are required. Various other alternative synthetic membrane mimics can be supplemented into these reactions such as; liposomes reconstituted with other proteins, inner/inverted membrane vesicles, and nanodiscs. (C) Schematic of the sucrose gradient methodology (Harris, 2017) used to purify IVTT reactions. Upon completion, cell-free reactions are suspended with 60% (w/v) sucrose. 30% (w/v) sucrose and buffer are layered on top to provide gradient, before centrifugation at 200,000 x g. Proteoliposomes and empty liposomes float to the 30% sucrose: buffer interface, and any unreacted IVTT kit components and aggregated, truncated, or non-inserted protein remains at the bottom of the gradient. (D) Cartoon schematic to illustrate how co-translational insertion of LeuT in IVTT systems where the translocon has been reconstituted into liposomes may occur. In vivo, protein knotting like that seen in LeuT is thought to be established and promoted by cellular machinery, including the ribosome(Chwastyk and Cieplak, 2015), providing new folding routes (Dabrowski-Tumanski et al., 2018), modulating hydrophobic reactions (Especial et al., 2019), and stabilising folding intermediates during co-translation (Lim and Jackson, 2015b; Faísca, 2015). Translation may occur via the SecYEG translocon when reconstituted and present, but we have also shown that spontaneous insertion occurs when the translocon is absent.
Lipid compositions and their respective molar ratios investigated for LeuT spontaneous insertion 1–10. In each lipid condition the average mean insertion efficiency is provided, calculated as a percentage of protein in the top fraction of the sucrose gradient after purification. 0% insertion is where proteoliposomes reside solely in the top fraction, and all protein aggregated in the bottom fraction, and 100% insertion where all protein is incorporated into proteoliposomes in the top fraction, and no protein aggregated in the bottom fraction. Average total yields for each condition are presented as the total amount of protein synthesized during IVTT before purification. Protein lost between the total yield and the yield after purification ranges from 0–0.25 µg, equating to an average loss of ≤ 25%. All mean insertion efficiencies are thus calculated from the total protein yield. The total protein yields after purification are presented in Supplementary Table S1. Both the average yield and mean insertion efficiency (%) were calculated from a minimum of three repeats (n ≥ 3), and experimental errors for mean insertion are presented as SEM. The only condition where less than 3 repeats were conducted was in the IMV condition, where n = 2. All experiments were conducted in PURExpress® except the IMV condition where Expressway™ was used.
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| DOPC |
|
|
|
|
|
| DOPC:DOPG |
|
|
|
|
|
| DOPC:DOPE |
|
|
|
|
|
| DOPE:DOPG |
|
|
|
|
|
| DOPC:DOPE:DOPG |
|
|
|
|
|
| DPhPC |
|
|
|
|
|
| DPhPG:DPhPC |
|
|
|
|
|
| DPhPG:DPhPC |
|
|
|
|
|
| DPhPG:DPhPC |
|
|
|
|
| IMV |
|
|
|
Lipid compositions and their respective molar ratios investigated for LeuT spontaneous insertion in PURExpress® 1–6. Mean insertion efficiencies (%) and average total yields with each condition are shown for each lipid condition tested. The total protein yields after purification are presented in Supplementary Table S3. The average protein yield after sucrose gradient purification is consistent with the total yields immediately after IVTT reaction, so protein is not lost during purification steps. The average total yield and mean insertion efficiencies (%) were calculated from three repeats (n = 3) except condition 6 where n = 5. Experimental errors for mean insertion are presented as SEM.
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
| 99.5:0.5 |
|
|
|
|
|
| 95:5 |
|
|
|
|
|
| 24:51.5:24:0.5 |
|
|
|
|
|
| 50.5:49:0.5 |
|
|
|
|
|
| 53:41.5:5.5 |
|
|
|
|
|
| 72:27.5:0.5 |
|
|
|
FIGURE 2LeuT expressed in PURExpress® IVTT systems in the presence of liposomes comprising various lipid compositions as presented in Table 1 and Table 2. Spontaneously inserted protein was quantified using LSC counting of Methionine, L-[35S] incorporated into LeuT. Insertion efficiency is represented as a percentage of protein in the top fraction over the total yield of protein synthesized. Highlighted here are the results of lipid optimization on LeuT spontaneous insertion efficiencies, comparing various lipid species derived from DO, DPh and Cardiolipin liposome compositions. Errors presented are SEM calculated from ≥3 repeats.
The individual lipid compositions used for conditions where SecYEG was either present or absent 1–4. SecYEG was reconstituted at a ratio of 1 in 50 (w/w) protein: lipid in conditions where present. Average total yields refer to the total amount of protein synthesized during IVTT, and average yield purified refers to the amount of protein recovered after sucrose gradient purification. We can consider the protein lost between synthesis and purification to be aggregated or non-inserted. The mean insertion efficiencies (%) are presented for each condition with SecYEG absent or present. Errors presented are SEM calculated from a minimum of 3 repeats, any experimental results disregarded can be found in Supplementary Table S5 and S6. All experiments were conducted in Expressway™.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
| 72:27.5:0.5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 72:27.5:0.5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 72:22.5:5.5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 72:22.5:5.5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 72:27.5:0.5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 72:27.5:0.5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 72:22.5:5.5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 72:22.5:5.5 |
|
|
|
|
|
Investigations were conducted in lipid conditions comprising 72:27.5:0.5 and 72:22.5:5.5 mol ratios of DOPE:DOPG:CL18:1, with each protein: lipid ratio of SecYEG. The mean insertion efficiencies (%) are presented for each lipid condition where SecYEG is present at each concentration. Errors presented are SEM calculated from a minimum of 2 repeats. The total protein yields after purification are presented in Supplementary Table S4. All experiments were conducted in Expressway™.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 |
| 72:27.5:0.5 |
|
|
|
|
| 1 |
| 72:27.5:0.5 |
|
|
|
|
| 1 |
| 72:27.5:0.5 |
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
| 72:22.5:5.5 |
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
| 72:22.5:5.5 |
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
| 72:22.5:5.5 |
|
|
|
|
FIGURE 3LeuT expression in EXPRESSway™ IVTT systems with SecYEG reconstituted liposomes, as presented in Table 3 and Table 4. CL18:1 was added into DOPE:DOPC lipid mixes at either 0.5 or 5.5% concentrations. In empty conditions, SecYEG was absent. In SecYEG conditions, SecYEG was reconstituted at a 1 in 25, 1 in 50, or 1 in 100 (w/w) protein: lipid concentration. Errors presented are SEM calculated from ≥2 repeats for 1 in 25 and 1 in 100 SecYEG conditions, and from ≥5 repeats for all other conditions.