| Literature DB >> 36071804 |
Ji Sung Koo1, Sung-Min Kang2, Won-Min Jung1, Do-Hee Kim3,4, Bong-Jin Lee1.
Abstract
Type II toxin-antitoxin (TA) systems encode two proteins: a toxin that inhibits cell growth and an antitoxin that neutralizes the toxin by direct inter-molecular protein-protein inter-actions. The bacterial HipBA TA system is implicated in persister formation. The Haemophilus influenzae HipBA TA system consists of a HipB antitoxin and a HipA toxin, the latter of which is split into two fragments, and here we investigate this novel three-com-ponent regulatory HipBA system. Structural and functional analysis revealed that HipAN corresponds to the N-ter-minal part of HipA from other bacteria and toxic HipAC is inactivated by HipAN, not HipB. This study will be helpful in understanding the detailed regulatory mechanism of the HipBAN+C system, as well as why it is constructed as a three-com-ponent system. © Ji Sung Koo et al. 2022.Entities:
Keywords: Haemophilus influenzae; HipBA; X-ray crystallography; persister formation; toxin–antitoxin system
Year: 2022 PMID: 36071804 PMCID: PMC9438503 DOI: 10.1107/S205225252200687X
Source DB: PubMed Journal: IUCrJ ISSN: 2052-2525 Impact factor: 5.588
Primers designed for cloning the genes encoding HipAN, HipAC and HipB
| Proteins (vector) | Primer sequence (5′→3′) | |
|---|---|---|
| HipAN (pET28a) | Forward | GGAATTC CATATG ATG CGC GAT TTA GTC CG |
| Reverse | CCG CTCGAG TTA TTG TTT TTC TTC CTG AAT TTG C | |
| HipB (pET21a) | Forward | GGAATTC CATATG ATG GAC AAT CTT AGT GCA C |
| Reverse | CCG CTCGAG TTA AAT CGC GCA TAG TGA AAC | |
| HipAN (pETDuet) | Forward | GGAATTC CATATG ATG CGC GAT TTA GTC |
| Reverse | CCG CTCGAG TTA TTG TTT TTC TTC CTG AAT TTG | |
| HipAC (pETDuet) | Forward | CGC GGATCC G ATG AAT TTT TGT CGT ATT TTA |
| Reverse | CCC AAGCTT TTA TAG TTC AGG TTC ATT TAA TAG | |
| HipAC (pET28a) | Forward | CGC GGATCC G ATG AAT TTT TGT CGT ATT TTA TTA AAG CCA |
| Reverse | CCC AAGCTT TTA TAG TTC AGG TTC ATT TAA TAG GTT AAG CA |
Statistics for data collection and model refinement
Values in parentheses refer to the highest-resolution shell.
| HipAN (PDB code: | |
|---|---|
| Data collection | |
| X-ray wavelength (Å) | 0.9795 |
| Space group |
|
| Unit-cell length ( | 66.25, 66.25, 103.62 |
| Unit-cell angle (α, β, γ, °) | 90.00, 90.00, 90.00 |
| Resolution range (Å) | 50.00–2.70 (2.75–2.70) |
| Total/unique reflections | 94,246/6,880 (345) |
| Completeness (%) | 99.9 (100.0) |
| CC1/2
| 0.998 (0.973) |
|
| 27.9 (3.2) |
|
| 0.096 (0.766) |
| Model refinement | |
|
| 0.242/0.274 |
| No./average | |
| Protein atoms | 882/41.43 |
| Water oxygen atoms | 30/45.88 |
| R.m.s. deviation from ideal geometry | |
| Bond lengths (Å)/bond angles (°) | 0.011/1.473 |
| Ramachandran plot (%) | |
| Most favorable | 99.42 |
| Allowed | 0.58 |
| Disallowed | 0.00 |
CC1/2 is described in Karplus & Diederichs (2012 ▸).
R merge = , where I(h) is the intensity of reflection h, is the sum over all reflections and is the sum over i measurements of reflection h.
R = , where R free is calculated for a randomly chosen 5% of reflections that were not used for structure refinement and R work is calculated for the remaining reflections.
Figure 1The overall structure of the H. influenzae HipAN and hipBA genome maps. (a) 180° rotated views of H. influenzae HipAN. α-Helices, β-strands and loops are coloured red, yellow and green, respectively. (b) Schematic diagram showing a comparison of the hipBA operons of H. influenzae, E. coli and S. oneidensis.
Figure 2Comparative structural analysis of HipBA systems. (a) Structure-guided sequence alignment of H. influenzae HipAN with the N-terminal parts of other HipAs. The secondary structural organization of H. influenzae HipAN is displayed on the alignment. Conserved residues are highlighted in red and yellow. (b) Structural comparison of H. influenzae HipAN and HipBA systems from other organisms. Residues showing high conservation are marked in the overlay. HipBA binding interfaces of E. coli and S. oneidensis are identified in circles and enlarged in squares. (c) Structural comparison of HipB antitoxins from E. coli O127:H6 (PDB code: 7ab3) and S. oneidensis (PDB code: 4pu3) using E. coli HipB antitoxin bound to the DNA (PDB code: 5k98) structure as model.
Figure 3Complex formation of HipB, HipAN and HipAC. (a) Purification of tertiary mixtures using size exclusion chromatography. Elution locations of standard proteins with known mass are shown with vertical arrows. The two major peaks of the protein mixture are emphasized with star symbols. (b) SDS–PAGE analysis of size exclusion chromatography fractions. Star symbols indicate the lanes to which the starred peaks belong. (c) SDS–PAGE analysis of chemical crosslinking of H. influenzae HipB using DMA and DMS crosslinkers. Experimental conditions are indicated above and the corresponding multimer form is labelled on the right side of the gel.
Figure 4Three-component regulatory mechanism of the H. influenzae HipBA system. (a) Cell-growth analysis showing the effects of expression of different proteins. Each curve represents the growth of cells with a different combination of proteins, as presented within the graph. The data show the average values obtained by triplicate assays; the standard deviations are indicated by error bars. (b) Schematic overview of the presumptive regulatory mechanism according to the interactions between the components of the H. influenzae HipBA system.