Crystal structures of bacterial small multidrug resistance transporter EmrE in complex with structurally diverse substrates

  1. Ali A Kermani
  2. Olive E Burata
  3. B Ben Koff
  4. Akiko Koide
  5. Shohei Koide
  6. Randy B Stockbridge  Is a corresponding author
  1. University of Michigan, United States
  2. New York University Langone Medical Center, United States

Abstract

Proteins from the bacterial small multidrug resistance (SMR) family are proton-coupled exporters of diverse antiseptics and antimicrobials, including polyaromatic cations and quaternary ammonium compounds. The transport mechanism of the Escherichia coli transporter, EmrE, has been studied extensively, but a lack of high-resolution structural information has impeded a structural description of its molecular mechanism. Here we apply a novel approach, multipurpose crystallization chaperones, to solve several structures of EmrE, including a 2.9 Å structure at low pH without substrate. We report five additional structures in complex with structurally diverse transported substrates, including quaternary phosphonium, quaternary ammonium, and planar polyaromatic compounds. These structures show that binding site tryptophan and glutamate residues adopt different rotamers to conform to disparate structures without requiring major rearrangements of the backbone structure. Structural and functional comparison to Gdx-Clo, an SMR protein that transports a much narrower spectrum of substrates, suggests that in EmrE, a relatively sparse hydrogen bond network among binding site residues permits increased sidechain flexibility.

Data availability

Atomic coordinates for the crystal structures have been deposited in the Protein Data Bank under accession numbers 7MH6 (EmrE3/L10), 7MGX (EmrE3/L10/methyl viologen), 7SVX (EmrE3/L10/harmane), 7SSU (EmrE3/L10/MeTPP+), 7SV9 (EmrE3/L10/TPP+), 7T00 (EmrE3/L10/benzyltrimethylammonium) and 7SZT (Gdx-Clo/L10). All other data generated or analyzed during this study are included in the manuscript and supporting file; Source Data files have been provided for Figures 1 and 5.

The following data sets were generated

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Ali A Kermani

    Department of Molecular, Cellular and Developmental Biology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  2. Olive E Burata

    Department of Molecular, Cellular and Developmental Biology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-8450-8930
  3. B Ben Koff

    Department of Molecular, Cellular and Developmental Biology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-3276-143X
  4. Akiko Koide

    Laura and Isaac Perlmutter Cancer Center, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York, United States
    Competing interests
    Akiko Koide, is listed as inventor for patents (US9512199 B2 and related patents and applications) covering aspects of the monobody technology filed by the University of Chicago and Novartis..
  5. Shohei Koide

    Laura and Isaac Perlmutter Cancer Center, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York, United States
    Competing interests
    Shohei Koide, is listed as inventor for patents (US9512199 B2 and related patents and applications) covering aspects of the monobody technology filed by the University of Chicago and Novartis. Is a scientific advisory board member and holds equity in and receives consulting fees from Black Diamond Therapeutics; receives research funding from Puretech Health and Argenx BVBA..
  6. Randy B Stockbridge

    Department of Molecular, Cellular and Developmental Biology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, United States
    For correspondence
    stockbr@umich.edu
    Competing interests
    Randy B Stockbridge, Reviewing editor, eLife.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-8848-3032

Funding

National Institutes of Health (CA194864)

  • Shohei Koide

National Science Foundation (CAREER 1845012)

  • Randy B Stockbridge

The funders had no role in study design, data collection and interpretation, or the decision to submit the work for publication.

Copyright

© 2022, Kermani et al.

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License permitting unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.

Metrics

  • 2,510
    views
  • 428
    downloads
  • 20
    citations

Views, downloads and citations are aggregated across all versions of this paper published by eLife.

Download links

A two-part list of links to download the article, or parts of the article, in various formats.

Downloads (link to download the article as PDF)

Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)

Cite this article (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)

  1. Ali A Kermani
  2. Olive E Burata
  3. B Ben Koff
  4. Akiko Koide
  5. Shohei Koide
  6. Randy B Stockbridge
(2022)
Crystal structures of bacterial small multidrug resistance transporter EmrE in complex with structurally diverse substrates
eLife 11:e76766.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.76766

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.76766

Further reading

    1. Biochemistry and Chemical Biology
    2. Structural Biology and Molecular Biophysics
    Yamato Niitani, Kohei Matsuzaki ... Michio Tomishige
    Research Article

    The two identical motor domains (heads) of dimeric kinesin-1 move in a hand-over-hand process along a microtubule, coordinating their ATPase cycles such that each ATP hydrolysis is tightly coupled to a step and enabling the motor to take many steps without dissociating. The neck linker, a structural element that connects the two heads, has been shown to be essential for head–head coordination; however, which kinetic step(s) in the chemomechanical cycle is ‘gated’ by the neck linker remains unresolved. Here, we employed pre-steady-state kinetics and single-molecule assays to investigate how the neck-linker conformation affects kinesin’s motility cycle. We show that the backward-pointing configuration of the neck linker in the front kinesin head confers higher affinity for microtubule, but does not change ATP binding and dissociation rates. In contrast, the forward-pointing configuration of the neck linker in the rear kinesin head decreases the ATP dissociation rate but has little effect on microtubule dissociation. In combination, these conformation-specific effects of the neck linker favor ATP hydrolysis and dissociation of the rear head prior to microtubule detachment of the front head, thereby providing a kinetic explanation for the coordinated walking mechanism of dimeric kinesin.

    1. Structural Biology and Molecular Biophysics
    Christopher T Schafer, Raymond F Pauszek III ... David P Millar
    Research Article

    The canonical chemokine receptor CXCR4 and atypical receptor ACKR3 both respond to CXCL12 but induce different effector responses to regulate cell migration. While CXCR4 couples to G proteins and directly promotes cell migration, ACKR3 is G-protein-independent and scavenges CXCL12 to regulate extracellular chemokine levels and maintain CXCR4 responsiveness, thereby indirectly influencing migration. The receptors also have distinct activation requirements. CXCR4 only responds to wild-type CXCL12 and is sensitive to mutation of the chemokine. By contrast, ACKR3 recruits GPCR kinases (GRKs) and β-arrestins and promiscuously responds to CXCL12, CXCL12 variants, other peptides and proteins, and is relatively insensitive to mutation. To investigate the role of conformational dynamics in the distinct pharmacological behaviors of CXCR4 and ACKR3, we employed single-molecule FRET to track discrete conformational states of the receptors in real-time. The data revealed that apo-CXCR4 preferentially populates a high-FRET inactive state, while apo-ACKR3 shows little conformational preference and high transition probabilities among multiple inactive, intermediate and active conformations, consistent with its propensity for activation. Multiple active-like ACKR3 conformations are populated in response to agonists, compared to the single CXCR4 active-state. This and the markedly different conformational landscapes of the receptors suggest that activation of ACKR3 may be achieved by a broader distribution of conformational states than CXCR4. Much of the conformational heterogeneity of ACKR3 is linked to a single residue that differs between ACKR3 and CXCR4. The dynamic properties of ACKR3 may underly its inability to form productive interactions with G proteins that would drive canonical GPCR signaling.