Antibacterial potency of Type VI amidase effector toxins is dependent on substrate topology and cellular context

  1. Atanas Radkov
  2. Anne L Sapiro
  3. Sebastian Flores
  4. Corey Henderson
  5. Hayden Saunders
  6. Rachel Kim
  7. Steven Massa
  8. Samuel Thompson
  9. Chase Mateusiak
  10. Jacob Biboy
  11. Ziyi Zhao
  12. Lea M Starita
  13. William L Hatleberg
  14. Waldemar Vollmer
  15. Alistair B Russell
  16. Jean-Pierre Simorre
  17. Spencer Anthony-Cahill
  18. Peter Brzovic
  19. Beth Hayes
  20. Seemay Chou  Is a corresponding author
  1. University of California, San Francisco, United States
  2. University of Miami, United States
  3. InBios International, United States
  4. Pacific Northwest University of Health Sciences, United States
  5. Stanford University, United States
  6. Washington University in St. Louis, United States
  7. Newcastle University, United Kingdom
  8. University of Washington, United States
  9. Carnegie Mellon University, United States
  10. University of California, San Diego, United States
  11. Université Grenoble Alpes, France
  12. Western Washington University, United States

Abstract

Members of the bacterial T6SS amidase effector (Tae) superfamily of toxins are delivered between competing bacteria to degrade cell wall peptidoglycan. Although Taes share a common substrate, they exhibit distinct antimicrobial potency across different competitor species. To investigate the molecular basis governing these differences, we quantitatively defined the functional determinants of Tae1 from Pseudomonas aeruginosa PAO1 using a combination of nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) and a high-throughput in vivo genetic approach called deep mutational scanning (DMS). As expected, combined analyses confirmed the role of critical residues near the Tae1 catalytic center. Unexpectedly, DMS revealed substantial contributions to enzymatic activity from a much larger, ring-like functional hot spot extending around the entire circumference of the enzyme. Comparative DMS across distinct growth conditions highlighted how functional contribution of different surfaces is highly context-dependent, varying alongside composition of targeted cell walls. These observations suggest that Tae1 engages with the intact cell wall network through a more distributed three-dimensional interaction interface than previously appreciated, providing an explanation for observed differences in antimicrobial potency across divergent Gram-negative competitors. Further binding studies of several Tae1 variants with their cognate immunity protein demonstrate that requirements to maintain protection from Tae activity may be a significant constraint on the mutational landscape of tae1 toxicity in the wild. In total, our work reveals that Tae diversification has likely been shaped by multiple independent pressures to maintain interactions with binding partners that vary across bacterial species and conditions.

Data availability

-Deep mutational scanning dataset has been deposited to NCBI, Sequence Read Archive - identifier: PRJNA803461-X-ray structure crystallography dataset has been deposited to PDB - ID: 7TVH-NMR resonance peak assignments have been directly provided in the manuscript-Custom scripts for DMS analyses have been uploaded at GitHub at https://github.com/AtanasDRadkov/ChouLab_DMS-All other data generated or analyzed in this study are included in the manuscript and supporting files

The following data sets were generated

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Atanas Radkov

    Department of Biochemistry and Biophysics, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  2. Anne L Sapiro

    Department of Biochemistry and Biophysics, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-6612-8272
  3. Sebastian Flores

    University of Miami, Miami, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  4. Corey Henderson

    InBios International, Seattle, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  5. Hayden Saunders

    Department of Biochemistry and Biophysics, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-7582-3031
  6. Rachel Kim

    Pacific Northwest University of Health Sciences, Yakima, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-3793-4264
  7. Steven Massa

    Department of Biology, Stanford University, Stanford, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  8. Samuel Thompson

    Department of Bioengineering, Stanford University, Stanford, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  9. Chase Mateusiak

    Computer Science Department, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-2890-4242
  10. Jacob Biboy

    Centre for Bacterial Cell Biology, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-1286-6851
  11. Ziyi Zhao

    Department of Biochemistry and Biophysics, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  12. Lea M Starita

    Department of Genome Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  13. William L Hatleberg

    Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-0423-7123
  14. Waldemar Vollmer

    Center for Bacterial Cell Biology, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  15. Alistair B Russell

    Division of Biological Sciences, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  16. Jean-Pierre Simorre

    Institut de Biologie Structurale, Université Grenoble Alpes, Grenoble, France
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-7943-1342
  17. Spencer Anthony-Cahill

    Chemistry Department, Western Washington University, Seattle, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  18. Peter Brzovic

    Department of Biochemistry, University of Washington, Seattle, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  19. Beth Hayes

    Department of Biochemistry and Biophysics, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-6633-751X
  20. Seemay Chou

    Department of Biochemistry and Biophysics, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, United States
    For correspondence
    seemay.chou@ucsf.edu
    Competing interests
    Seemay Chou, currently the President and CEO of Arcadia Science, a for-profit research company focused on non-model organisms. While work presented in this manuscript is not related and will not be continued at Arcadia, I thought it would be prudent to declare this position which may be perceived by some as a competing interest..
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-7271-303X

Funding

IR-RMN-THC FR3050 CNRS

  • Jean-Pierre Simorre

Chan Zuckerberg Biohub

  • Seemay Chou

Sanghvi-Agarwal Innovation Award

  • Seemay Chou

Life Sciences Research Foundation

  • Anne L Sapiro

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

Copyright

© 2022, Radkov 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

  • 949
    views
  • 246
    downloads
  • 9
    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. Atanas Radkov
  2. Anne L Sapiro
  3. Sebastian Flores
  4. Corey Henderson
  5. Hayden Saunders
  6. Rachel Kim
  7. Steven Massa
  8. Samuel Thompson
  9. Chase Mateusiak
  10. Jacob Biboy
  11. Ziyi Zhao
  12. Lea M Starita
  13. William L Hatleberg
  14. Waldemar Vollmer
  15. Alistair B Russell
  16. Jean-Pierre Simorre
  17. Spencer Anthony-Cahill
  18. Peter Brzovic
  19. Beth Hayes
  20. Seemay Chou
(2022)
Antibacterial potency of Type VI amidase effector toxins is dependent on substrate topology and cellular context
eLife 11:e79796.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.79796

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.79796

Further reading

    1. Biochemistry and Chemical Biology
    2. Microbiology and Infectious Disease
    Mai Nguyen, Elda Bauda ... Cecile Morlot
    Research Article

    Teichoic acids (TA) are linear phospho-saccharidic polymers and important constituents of the cell envelope of Gram-positive bacteria, either bound to the peptidoglycan as wall teichoic acids (WTA) or to the membrane as lipoteichoic acids (LTA). The composition of TA varies greatly but the presence of both WTA and LTA is highly conserved, hinting at an underlying fundamental function that is distinct from their specific roles in diverse organisms. We report the observation of a periplasmic space in Streptococcus pneumoniae by cryo-electron microscopy of vitreous sections. The thickness and appearance of this region change upon deletion of genes involved in the attachment of TA, supporting their role in the maintenance of a periplasmic space in Gram-positive bacteria as a possible universal function. Consequences of these mutations were further examined by super-resolved microscopy, following metabolic labeling and fluorophore coupling by click chemistry. This novel labeling method also enabled in-gel analysis of cell fractions. With this approach, we were able to titrate the actual amount of TA per cell and to determine the ratio of WTA to LTA. In addition, we followed the change of TA length during growth phases, and discovered that a mutant devoid of LTA accumulates the membrane-bound polymerized TA precursor.

    1. Biochemistry and Chemical Biology
    2. Computational and Systems Biology
    Shinichi Kawaguchi, Xin Xu ... Toshie Kai
    Research Article

    Protein–protein interactions are fundamental to understanding the molecular functions and regulation of proteins. Despite the availability of extensive databases, many interactions remain uncharacterized due to the labor-intensive nature of experimental validation. In this study, we utilized the AlphaFold2 program to predict interactions among proteins localized in the nuage, a germline-specific non-membrane organelle essential for piRNA biogenesis in Drosophila. We screened 20 nuage proteins for 1:1 interactions and predicted dimer structures. Among these, five represented novel interaction candidates. Three pairs, including Spn-E_Squ, were verified by co-immunoprecipitation. Disruption of the salt bridges at the Spn-E_Squ interface confirmed their functional importance, underscoring the predictive model’s accuracy. We extended our analysis to include interactions between three representative nuage components—Vas, Squ, and Tej—and approximately 430 oogenesis-related proteins. Co-immunoprecipitation verified interactions for three pairs: Mei-W68_Squ, CSN3_Squ, and Pka-C1_Tej. Furthermore, we screened the majority of Drosophila proteins (~12,000) for potential interaction with the Piwi protein, a central player in the piRNA pathway, identifying 164 pairs as potential binding partners. This in silico approach not only efficiently identifies potential interaction partners but also significantly bridges the gap by facilitating the integration of bioinformatics and experimental biology.