![]()
|
|
||||||||
J Biol Chem, Vol. 274, Issue 43, 30501-30509, October 22, 1999
§,
From the Max von Pettenkofer-Institut, Ludwig Maximilians Universität, Pettenkoferstrasse 9a, 80336 München, Germany, the § Max-Planck-Institut für Molekulare Physiologie, Otto-Hahn-Strasse 11, 44227 Dortmund, Germany, and the ¶ Freie Universität Berlin, Institut für Chemie-Biochemie, Thielallee 63, 14195 Berlin, Germany
| |
ABSTRACT |
|---|
|
|
|---|
RhoGTPases are key regulators of eukaryotic cell
physiology. The bacterial enteropathogen Salmonella
typhimurium modulates host cell physiology by translocating
specific toxins into the cytoplasm of host cells that induce responses
such as apoptotic cell death in macrophages, the production of
proinflammatory cytokines, the rearrangement of the host cell actin
cytoskeleton (membrane ruffling), and bacterial entry into host
cells. One of the translocated toxins is SopE, which has been shown to
bind to RhoGTPases of the host cell and to activate RhoGTPase
signaling. SopE is sufficient to induce profuse membrane ruffling in
Cos cells and to facilitate efficient bacterial internalization. We
show here that SopE belongs to a novel class of bacterial toxins that
modulate RhoGTPase function by transient interaction. Surface plasmon
resonance measurements revealed that the kinetics of formation and
dissociation of the SopE·CDC42 complex are in the same order of
magnitude as those described for complex formation of GTPases
of the Ras superfamily with their cognate guanine nucleotide exchange
factors (GEFs). In the presence of excess GDP, dissociation of the
SopE·CDC42 complex was accelerated more than 1000-fold. SopE-mediated
guanine nucleotide exchange was very efficient (e.g.
exchange rates almost 105-fold above the level of the
uncatalyzed reaction; substrate affinity), and the kinetic constants
were similar to those described for guanine nucleotide exchange
mediated by CDC25 or RCC1. Far-UV CD spectroscopy revealed that SopE
has a high content of GTPases of the Rho subfamily act as molecular switches and are key
regulators of cellular functions such as formation of stress fibers and
focal adhesions, motility, cell shape change, membrane ruffling,
cytokinesis, cell aggregation, and cell-to-cell adhesion, as well as
smooth muscle contraction (1). They cycle between a biologically
inactive GDP-bound and an active GTP-bound conformation (2). As
spontaneous guanine nucleotide dissociation and GTP hydrolysis are
fairly slow, activation and inactivation are dependent on the activity
of guanine nucleotide exchange factors
(GEFs)1 and GTPase-activating
proteins (3). GEFs enhance nucleotide exchange rates by binding to and
stabilizing the nucleotide-free GTPase, whereas
GTPase-activating proteins accelerate the intrinsic rate of
GTP hydrolysis through stabilization of the transition state via a
critical arginine residue (4). Mammalian GEFs are divided into several
subfamilies that share sequence or structural similarity. GEFs of one
family are generally specific for a certain subfamily of GTPases (5).
So far, all GEFs known to act on RhoGTPases have a common sequence
motif, the Dbl homology domain. This is the catalytically active part
of the molecule responsible for binding to RhoGTPases and catalysis of
guanine nucleotide exchange (6). Only in the active, GTP-bound state
can the Rho-GTPases interact with their "effectors," which are the
downstream elements of the signal transduction cascades that mediate
the cellular responses.
A large number of bacterial virulence factors exert their toxic effects
by interfering with RhoGTPase signaling of host cells (7). Some inhibit
downstream signaling of RhoGTPases, whereas others mediate their
permanent activation by inhibition of the GTP hydrolyzing activity. So
far, all of these toxins have been found to modulate RhoGTPase function
by introducing covalent chemical modifications. These modifications
include ADP-ribosylation, glucosylation, the transfer of
N-acetylglucosamine groups, and the deamidation of glutamine
residues (7). Modulation of RhoGTPase function by bacterial toxins via
a noncovalent interaction has not yet been demonstrated.
The bacterial enteropathogen Salmonella typhimurium is one
of the leading causes of diarrhea in developed countries. S. typhimurium employs a large array of mechanisms to colonize,
replicate, and survive within hosts (8). The specialized type III
protein secretion system encoded in the Salmonella
pathogenicity island 1 is important during the gut associated stages of
the infection (9, 10). It facilitates the secretion and translocation
of several bacterial toxins (effector proteins) into the cytosol of
host cells (11). The translocated effector proteins induce responses
that range from the induction of apoptosis in macrophages to increased
chloride secretion, the production of IL-8, and the induction of
membrane ruffling, which facilitates bacterial entry into nonphagocytic
host cells (12). The activation of RhoGTPases is thought to be a key
step in the signal transduction cascades triggered by S. typhimurium (12, 13).
SopE is one of the effector proteins translocated into host cells by
the type III protein secretion system of S. typhimurium. In
the host cell cytosol, it activates the RhoGTPases Cdc42, and Rac1 and
induces nuclear responses and membrane ruffling (14, 15). Thereby, SopE
can promote efficient entry of the bacterium into host cells (16, 17).
Purified SopE enhances guanine nucleotide exchange in several
RhoGTPases, such as Cdc42 and Rac1, but not in the more distantly
related GTPase Ras, as shown in in vitro nucleotide exchange
assays (14). However, the exact mechanism by which SopE enhances the
rate of guanine nucleotide exchange in RhoGTPases has not yet been
investigated, and it has remained unclear whether SopE may activate
RhoGTPase signaling by covalently modifying these central regulators of
host cell function.
In the present study, we have analyzed the catalytic activity of SopE
from S. typhimurium in more detail. Analysis of the kinetic
properties of Rac1 that had been preincubated with SopE revealed that
SopE does not covalently modify RhoGTPases. This was confirmed by
mass spectrometry analysis of Rac1 that had been affinity purified from
a complex with SopE. Analysis of the kinetics of formation and
dissociation of a Cdc42·SopE complex and the kinetic analysis of the
SopE-mediated nucleotide exchange revealed striking parallels to
eukaryotic GEFs. In addition, far-UV CD analysis suggested that the
catalytic domain of SopE has a high content of Preparation of Recombinant Proteins
Preparation of recombinant proteins was performed essentially as
described (14, 25). Briefly, all proteins used in this study were
overexpressed from derivatives of the
isopropyl-1-thio-
-helical structure, a feature also found in
Dbl homology domains, Sec7-like domains, and the Ras-GEF domain of Sos.
Despite the lack of any obvious sequence similarity, our data suggest
that SopE may closely mimic eukaryotic GEFs.
![]()
INTRODUCTION
TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
MATERIALS AND METHODS
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
REFERENCES
-helical structure, a
feature also found in GEFs for ARF, Ras and RhoGTPases (18-24).
Despite the lack of any detectable sequence similarity, our biochemical
and biophysical data demonstrate that SopE modulates RhoGTPase function
by a noncovalent mechanism and suggest that this bacterial virulence
factor may closely mimic GEFs of the host.
![]()
MATERIALS AND METHODS
TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
MATERIALS AND METHODS
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
REFERENCES
-D-galactopyranoside-inducible expression vector pGEX (Amersham Pharmacia Biotech) as GST fusion proteins in Escherichia coli, recovered from bacterial
extracts by binding to glutathione-Sepharose 4B (Amersham Pharmacia
Biotech) and either eluted with 10 mM glutathione
(GST·SopE78-240) or cleaved off the column by digestion
with thrombin protease (Cdc42 proteins, SopE78-240) or
with factor Xa (Rac1). All steps of the purification were performed in
buffers containing 20 mM Tris-HCl, pH 7.5, 5 mM
MgCl2,
100 mM NaCl, 2 mM
dithiothreitol. The quality of the preparations was assayed by
SDS-polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis and staining with Coomassie Blue
(Fig. 1). Protein concentrations were
estimated from Coomassie-stained gels and by the method of Bradford
(26). Activity of the RhoGTPases was determined by
[3H]GDP binding assays (27). Proteins were snap frozen
and stored at
80 °C. Due to the design of the expression vectors,
the proteins carry the following additional amino acids:
GST·SopE78-240 carries the 15 additional amino acids
PGISGGGGGILEFEM between the thrombin cleavage site and Leu-78 of
SopE. SopE78-240 carries 17 additional N-terminal amino
acids: GSPGISGGGGGILEFEM. Rac1 carries 7 additional N-terminal amino
acids (GIDPGAT), and mass spectrometry analysis of proteolytic
fragments of Rac1 revealed that a fraction of the protein was
C-terminally truncated after Lys-186, Arg-187, and Lys-188. Wild type
Cdc42 carries 14 additional N-terminal amino acids (GSRRASVGSKIISA).
Cdc42
C (residues 1-178) carries two additional
N-terminal residues (GS), and the 13 C-terminal amino acids
(PPEPKKSRRCVLL) are absent. The Cdc42G12V carries three
additional N-terminal residues (GSP). Preparation of the mant-GDP
(mGDP)·Cdc42G12V complex was performed as recently described (25).

View larger version (32K):
[in a new window]
Fig. 1.
12% SDS-polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis
analysis of the protein preparations used in this study. Proteins
were stained with Coomassie Blue. Lane 1, 5 µg of Rac1;
lane 2, 5 µg of Cdc42; lane 3, 25 µg of
Cdc42
C; lane 4, 11 µg of
Cdc42G12V; lane 5, 2.5 µg of
SopE78-240; lane 6, 23 µg of
GST·SopE78-240.
Filter Binding Assays
Rac1 and Cdc42 proteins were loaded at 30 °C for 15 min with [3H]GDP in Buffer A (50 mM Tris-HCl, pH 7.6, 50 mM NaCl, 5 mM MgCl2, 5 mM dithiothreitol) supplemented with 10 mM EDTA. Loading was stopped by addition of 10 mM MgCl2 and 3 volumes of cold Buffer A. Exchange reactions were started by adding [3H]GDP-loaded GTPase to Buffer A containing the indicated concentrations of GDP and GST, SopE78-240, or EDTA. Alternatively, exchange reactions were started by adding GDP to Buffer A containing the [3H]GDP-loaded GTPase and either GST, SopE78-240, or EDTA. Aliquots were withdrawn and analyzed in a nitrocellulose filter binding assay as described (27). Filters were washed three times with 50 mM Tris-HCl, pH 7.6, 50 mM NaCl, 5 mM MgCl2, dried, and radioactivity bound to the filters was analyzed by scintillation counting in a Wallac 1450 Micro Beta Trilux apparatus.
Protein Sequence Analysis
Rac1 purified by GST·SopE78-240 affinity
chromatography (see "Results") was digested with proteinase Glu-C
(Roche Molecular Biochemicals) in 25 mM
NH4HCO3 at a protease:substrate ratio of 1:40
at 25 °C for 16 h. The resulting peptides were analyzed by mass
spectrometry using a Bruker Reflex mass spectrometer (matrix-assisted laser desorption mass spectrometry with
-cyano-4-hydroxy-cinnamic acid as matrix). Spectra were recorded either directly from the digest
or from HPLC-separated peptides; HPLC separation was performed using a
2.1 × 250 mm 5 µm/300 Å Vydac C18 column (The
Separation Group) on a Waters 600 high pressure liquid chromatograph
(Millipore) using 0.1% (v/v) trifluoroacetic acid in water as aqueous
phase and 0.085% trifluoroacetic acid in acetonitrile as organic
phase. After an initial lag phase of 5 min at 2% organic phase, a
discontinuous gradient of 2-30% organic phase over 70 min
(0.4%/min), followed by 30-90% organic phase over 30 min (2%/min),
was developed. The flow rate was 0.2 ml/min, and UV absorption was
monitored at 215 nm.
Average masses were compared with the masses of proteolytic fragments predicted using the PeptideMass peptide characterization software (28).
For some peptides, the assignment was confirmed by analysis of fragment ions generated by postsource decay (29), using the FASTTM method (Bruker).
The N-terminal sequence (40 residues) was obtained by direct Edman degradation of the affinity-purified protein using a model 473A protein sequencer (Applied Biosystems).
Spectroscopic Techniques
Fluorescence-- All fluorescence measurements were performed at 25 °C in Buffer Y (40 mM HEPES/NaOH, pH 7.4, 100 mM NaCl, 5 mM MgCl2) on a FluoromaxTM spectrofluorometer (Spex Industries). Emission spectra were recorded after excitation at 366 nm (1 nm bandwidth) with a time constant of 1 s and 2 nm bandwidth. The time courses of mGDP release from Cdc42G12V in the presence of 1 mM nonfluorescent GDP were monitored at 435 nm (8 nm bandwidth).
For measurement of the single turnover kinetics of SopE78-240-catalyzed nucleotide release, increasing concentrations of SopE78-240 (final concentration, 0.5-32 µM) were mixed with mGDP·Cdc42G12V (final concentration, 0.1 µM) at 25 °C in 40 mM HEPES/NaOH, pH 7.4, 100 mM NaCl, 5 mM MgCl2 in a stopped flow apparatus (Applied Photophysics) with the monochromators set to 1.5 nm and a cut-off filter of 408 nm. Single exponentials were fitted to all kinetic data using the program Grafit (Erithacus Software).
Surface Plasmon Resonance--
Association and dissociation
reactions involving Cdc42
C and
GST·SopE78-240 were studied by surface plasmon resonance using a BIAcoreTM system (BIAcore AB, Uppsala, Sweden).
Sensor chips were covalently coated with
-GST antibodies according
to the protocol of the manufacturer (30). GST proteins were applied at
a concentration of 0.5 µM in binding Buffer X (10 mM HEPES/NaOH, pH 7.4, 150 mM NaCl, 5 mM MgCl2, 0.005% Igepal CA-630 (Sigma)), and
experiments were performed at 20 °C in the same buffer. The flow
rate was 5 µl/min in all experiments. At the end of the assay, all
noncovalently bound material was removed from the matrix by washing
with 10 mM glycine/HCl, pH 2.0, 0.05% SDS, leaving the
immobilized immunoglobulin at full activity. To eliminate the
contribution of nonspecific binding, equivalent control experiments
using immobilized GST instead of GST·SopE78-240 were
used to calculate specific signal changes. Netto binding and
dissociation curves were obtained by subtracting the GST controls from
the GST·SopE curves to take into account unspecific binding of Cdc42
to GST. Parameters were fitted using a single exponential with the
BIAevaluation software (version 2.1).
Far UV CD Spectroscopy--
The far-UV CD spectrum of 5 µM SopE78-240 was recorded at room
temperature on a Jasco J710 spectropolarimeter in 10 mM
potassium phosphate, pH 7.0, with a sensitivity of 20 mdeg, a time
constant of 1 s, a scan speed of 20 nm/min and a bandwidth of 1 nm
in a 1-mm quartz cuvette. The spectrum was accumulated 10-fold,
corrected for buffer contributions, and converted to mean residue
ellipticities according to Schmid (31). Data were analyzed for
secondary structure content using the manufacturer's Jasco software.
| |
RESULTS |
|---|
|
|
|---|
SopE Does Not Covalently Modify RhoGTPases-- Tissue culture cell experiments, as well as in vitro nucleotide exchange assays, have established that SopE is capable of stimulating guanine nucleotide exchange in a number of RhoGTPases, including Cdc42 and Rac1 (14). However, it has remained unclear whether SopE activates guanine nucleotide exchange by stabilizing the nucleotide free state of RhoGTPases. Alternatively, SopE might activate nucleotide exchange by introducing a so far unknown type of chemical modification that may increase the intrinsic rate of nucleotide exchange of the RhoGTPase. Most of the types of chemical modifications (namely ADP ribosylation, glucosylation, and the transfer of N-acetylglucosamine), which are introduced by other bacterial toxins (7), can be ruled out because SopE-mediated nucleotide exchange activity can be observed in vitro in the absence of cofactors such as UDP-glucose, ATP, or UDP-N-acetylglucosamine. In contrast, mechanisms involving the deamidation of glutamine or asparagine residues or other types of chemical modification of RhoGTPases that do not depend on the presence of special cofactors have not been ruled out. To address this hypothesis, we used a filter binding assay and analyzed the interaction of SopE with Rac1 in more detail. In these and all subsequent experiments, SopE78-240 was used, a 162-amino acid fragment of SopE that makes up the catalytic domain of the protein (14).
To detect putative SopE-mediated covalent modifications via their
effect on the intrinsic nucleotide exchange rates of Rac1, we started
out by analyzing the effect of SopE on the rates of [3H]GDP release from [3H]GDP-loaded Rac1 in
more detail. As long as no additional unlabeled nucleotide was added to
the assay, the presence of 1 µM SopE78-240 had no effect on the binding of [3H]GDP to Rac1 (Fig.
2a). However, when
[3H]GDP-loaded Rac1 was incubated with 1 µM
SopE78-240 in the presence of a large excess of unlabeled
GDP, release of [3H]GDP from Rac1 was completed within
less than 10 s. Therefore, if SopE were mediating nucleotide
release by introducing a chemical modification, 10 s would be
sufficient for complete modification of Rac1 and for nucleotide release
from the "modified" Rac1. In other words, the presence of a
putative modification should be detectable by virtue of a greatly
increased rate of intrinsic nucleotide exchange of Rac1.
|
In the first approach to detect putative chemical modifications, we
have measured the rate of [3H]GDP release from
[3H]GDP-loaded Rac1 (0.2 µM) in the
presence of low concentrations of SopE78-240 (0.04 µM). Under these conditions, nucleotide exchange was
completed to about 90% within 14 min (Fig. 2b,
, control
experiment). Therefore, under these conditions 14 min must be
sufficient to allow SopE to interact with (and possibly modify) about
90% of the [3H]GDP-loaded Rac1 in the assay. No
[3H]GDP release was observed during the first 14 min when
GDP was omitted (Fig. 2b,
). If modification of Rac1
would have taken place during this time, intrinsic guanine nucleotide
exchange rates of Rac1 should be strongly increased and nucleotide
exchange should be completed to 90% in less than 10 s after
addition of excess unlabeled GDP. However, when unlabeled GDP (final
concentration, 1 mM) was added at min 14, nucleotide
exchange was initiated and proceeded with the same slow kinetics
(kobs = 0.24 ± 0.03 min
1;
Fig. 2b,
) as observed in the control experiment
(kobs = 0.28 ± 0.04 min
1;
Fig. 2b,
). This indicates that SopE-mediated guanine
nucleotide exchange is not due to covalent modification of Rac1.
In a second approach to detect putative chemical modifications we have
analyzed the properties of Rac1 that had been affinity purified on a
GST·SopE78-240 column. For purification of Rac1, we have
taken advantage of the high affinity binding of SopE to Rac1 in the
absence of guanine nucleotides. In the presence of excess guanine
nucleotide binding is much weaker (14) (see below), a property also
reported for small GTPase·GEF complexes (32, 33).
GST·SopE78-240 was immobilized on a
glutathione-Sepharose 4B column, Rac1 was loaded onto this column in a
buffer containing no free guanine nucleotide, and bound Rac1 was eluted
with the same buffer supplemented with 1 mM GDP (Fig.
3a). Unbound GDP was removed
by dialysis, and the intrinsic rate of [3H]GDP release of
the affinity purified Rac1 (Rac1GDP-el.) was analyzed in a
filter binding assay (Fig. 3b). For this purpose Rac1GDP-el. was loaded with [3H]GDP and
subsequently assayed in the presence (Fig. 3b,
) or absence (
) of 1 mM unlabeled GDP. In both cases,
virtually no [3H]GDP release was observed during the
entire assay. The 20% reduction in the amount of radioactivity bound
to Rac1GDP-el. that was observed upon addition of 1 mM unlabeled GDP was also observed with the "original"
Rac1 (Fig. 2a,
) and might be attributable to some [3H]GDP binding nonspecifically to
Rac1GDP-el. or to proteins misfolded during the loading
procedure that can be easily displaced by unlabeled GDP. In the
presence of 1 mM unlabeled GDP and 1 µM
SopE78-240, however, all [3H]GDP was
displaced in less than 10 s, demonstrating that the Rac1GDP-el. preparation was still active and that it was
capable of interacting with SopE for a second time (Fig.
3b).
|
We also analyzed Rac1GDP-el. for the presence of possible chemical modifications that may have been introduced by SopE. Rac1GDP-el. was digested with protease Glu-C, a highly specific protease that cleaves proteins at glutamate residues. Therefore, deamidation of any of the glutamine residues in Rac1GDP-el. should yield an additional Glu-C cleavage site. The proteolytic fragments of the Glu-C digest were purified by HPLC and analyzed by mass spectrometry. Within the limits of experimental error (± 1 Da), each of the proteolytic fragments detected had the same mass as predicted for unmodified Rac1 (data not shown). No proteolytic fragments attributable to additional glutamate residues were detected.
In conclusion, these results establish that SopE belongs to a novel class of bacterial toxins interfering with RhoGTPase function of host cells. In contrast to all other known bacterial toxins addressing these central regulators of host cell function, SopE does not introduce covalent chemical modifications. Instead, SopE enhances nucleotide exchange rates of RhoGTPases by transient interaction.
Kinetic and Thermodynamic Analysis of SopE-mediated Guanine Nucleotide Exchange-- SopE does not share any sequence similarity with the active dbl domain or any other parts of eukaryotic GEFs. Therefore it was of interest to study the SopE-mediated nucleotide exchange reaction in more detail.
G12V- and C-terminal Deletion Mutants of Cdc42 Are Efficient Substrates for SopE-- Several functionally important residues are highly conserved among small GTP-binding proteins. Ras and Cdc42 mutants carrying a valine instead of the universally conserved glycine 12 are constitutively active in tissue culture experiments (34-36). This is presumably due to strongly reduced rates of GTP hydrolysis in the absence or presence of GTPase-activating protein, as inferred from biochemical analyses of Ras and Cdc42 (4, 37, 38).2 X-ray analyses of GDP-bound Ras and Cdc42 have shown that the structure of the G12V mutant is virtually identical to that of the wild type protein (39, 40), and rates of GDP dissociation are only marginally affected (37).
The C terminus of all RhoGTPases carries the highly conserved CaaX motif. As shown for Ras (41), this domain is thought to provide a site for prenylation that is necessary for anchoring the protein to a particular membrane compartment. Presumably, the CaaX motif does not play a significant role in guanine nucleotide binding and GTPase function.
We have analyzed whether a Cdc42G12V mutant or the
GTP-binding domain (a truncated version of Cdc42 lacking the C-terminal 13 amino acids, Cdc42
C) are efficient substrates for
SopE78-240. Both mutant proteins, as well as wild type
Cdc42, were purified as GST fusion proteins from E. coli.
The Cdc42 proteins were loaded with [3H]GDP (see under
"Materials and Methods"), and the rates of guanine nucleotide
release in the presence of 1 mM GDP were determined in a
filter binding assay using 1 µM SopE78-240,
10 mM EDTA, or 1 µM GST (Fig.
4). Similar to the results obtained with
Rac1 (Fig. 2a), [3H]GDP release from each of
the Cdc42 variants was completed within 10 s in the presence of 1 µM SopE78-240 (t1/2
10 s; Fig. 4,
). EDTA-mediated [3H]GDP
release was somewhat slower (t1/2 = 15 ± 5 s; Fig. 4,
), whereas little [3H]GDP release
was observed in the GST control experiments (Fig. 4,
). This
demonstrates that both Cdc42G12V and Cdc42
C
are efficient substrates for SopE and implies that neither the highly conserved Gly12 nor the C-terminal amino acids are directly involved in
the interaction with this bacterial virulence factor.
|
Association/Dissociation of the GST·SopE78-240
Complex with Cdc42
C--
The kinetics of formation and
dissociation of the SopE·Cdc42 complex were analyzed using surface
plasmon resonance. This technique allows one to study binding kinetics
in real time by measuring the change in mass on the surface of a sensor
chip. First, GST·SopE78-240 (or GST as a control) was
bound to a sensor chip coated with an
-GST antibody. Then, the
kinetics of binding of nucleotide free Cdc42
C were
measured. Cdc42
C bound to GST·SopE78-240, whereas no specific binding was observed in the control experiments using GST alone. The observed rates for formation of the
GST·SopE78-240 complex with Cdc42
C were
dependent on the concentration of Cdc42
C applied (Fig.
5). Assuming a simple one-step
bimolecular association reaction, a linear fit to the observed
association constants yields the association rate constant for the
formation of the GST·SopE78-240·Cdc42
C
complex as kass = 6 ± 1 × 105 M
1 s
1 (Fig.
5c).
|
After formation of the complex, the dissociation of the
GST·SopE78-240·Cdc42
C complex was
followed (Fig. 5a). Because the dissociation was very slow
(Fig. 6, a and b),
it was impossible to determine the exact value of the dissociation rate
constant in these experiments, and the apparent
koff of 1.4 ± 0.1×10
4
s
1 (Fig. 6b) should only be viewed as a rough
estimate. Nevertheless, the data indicate that the equilibrium
dissociation constant as defined by KD=
koff/kass for the
GST·SopE78-240·Cdc42
C complex is in the
low nanomolar range. In contrast, in the presence of 1 mM
GDP, the dissociation of the
GST·SopE78-240·Cdc42
C complex was
accelerated more than 1000-fold to koff(GDP)=
0.6 ± 0.05 s
1 (Fig. 6c). This effect
is well known for eukaryotic GEFs (see, e.g. Ref. 42).
|
Equilibrium Fluorescence Titration-- Cdc42G12V complexed with mGDP, a fluorescent GDP derivative, has been employed to analyze SopE-mediated nucleotide exchange in more detail. mGDP is frequently used in kinetic and equilibrium studies because the fluorescence of the mant moiety can change dramatically upon binding to GTPases. It has been shown that the fluorescence intensity of mGDP bound to Cdc42 is about 4-fold stronger than that of unbound mGDP (25, 43). Generally, the presence of the fluorophore has only little impact on the kinetics of spontaneous nucleotide exchange, GEF-mediated nucleotide exchange, or GTPase function (42-45).
As a control, the fluorescence of SopE (0.63 µM) in the
range between 380 and 500 nm was probed after excitation at 366 nm and
found to be insignificant (Fig. 7,
curve f). The fluorescence spectrum of the
Cdc42G12V·mGDP complex (0.1 µM) has a
maximum at 435 nm, and fluorescence is gradually decreased and
shifted to longer wavelengths upon addition of increasing
concentrations of SopE78-240 (0.63, 1.3, and 1.9 µM). At 1.9 µM SopE78-240 the
fluorescence intensity at 435 nm was reduced more than 2-fold and
approached saturation. A further decrease in fluorescence intensity
down to the magnitude of free mGDP (data not shown) was observed upon
addition of 1 mM nonfluorescent GDP (Fig. 7). This
indicates the possible existence of a ternary
GST·SopE78-240·Cdc42G12V·mGDP complex.
In addition, changes in the mGDP fluorescence can be used as a
sensitive probe to analyze the kinetics of SopE-mediated nucleotide
exchange.
|
Multiple Turnover Kinetics of
SopE78-240-mediated Nucleotide Exchange--
The
Michaelis-Menten parameters kcat and
Km of the SopE-mediated nucleotide exchange were
analyzed using the decrease in mant fluorescence upon the
SopE-catalyzed dissociation of the Cdc42G12V·mGDP
complex. For this, the dissociation rate constants (Fig.
8a) in the presence of 1 mM GDP and 25 nM SopE78-240 were
determined. The observed rates of mGDP release increased with
increasing Cdc42G12V·mGDP concentrations and reached a
plateau at about 10 µM (Fig. 8b). Fitting a
hyperbola to the concentration dependence of the observed rates yielded
the kinetic constants for multiple turnover catalysis:
kcat = 0.95 ± 0.06 s
1 and
Km = 4.5 ± 0.9 µM. This
corresponds to a catalytic efficiency of
kcat/Km = 2.1 × 105 M
1 s
1, which is
not unusual for catalytic reactions involving large conformational
changes.
|
Single Turnover Kinetics of SopE78-240-mediated
Nucleotide Exchange--
The rates of single turnover reactions are
determined by the rate-limiting step during substrate binding and/or
catalysis. In the presence of a large excess of enzyme, all subsequent
steps of the catalytic cycle have no effect on the observed
kinetics. A stopped flow apparatus was used to analyze the dissociation of the Cdc42G12V·mGDP complex under single turnover
conditions catalyzed by SopE78-240.
Cdc42G12V·mGDP (final concentration, 100 nM)
was rapidly mixed with GDP (final concentration, 1 mM) and
a large excess of SopE78-240 (final concentrations, 0.5, 1, 2.9, 4, 5.9, 11.7 and 32 µM), and the rates of mGDP
release were determined via the decrease in mant fluorescence (Fig.
9a). The observed rate
constants were plotted as function of the SopE78-240 concentration (Fig. 9b). As 32 µM
SopE78-240 was insufficient to reach saturation, it was
impossible to determine the maximal acceleration rate for the single
turnover guanine nucleotide release. However, it is clear that the
single turnover rate constant kreact is at least
2.5 s
1, which is almost 105-fold faster than
the intrinsic rate of mGDP dissociation from Cdc42G12V
(koff intrinsic = 3 × 10
5
s
1).3
|
Analysis of the Secondary Structure of SopE78-240 by
CD Spectroscopy--
To gain insight into the structural composition
of SopE, the far-UV CD spectrum of its catalytic domain
(SopE78-240) (Fig. 10) was
recorded. The spectrum shows minima at 222 and 208 nm and a strong
maximum near 195 nm, which are typical for a predominantly
-helical
protein. This observation is compounded by decomposition analysis of
the spectrum (46), which suggests that SopE78-240 is
highly organized and has a high
-helical content (57.4%), whereas
unstructured regions (21.9%) and especially
-folded sheets (8%) or
-turns (12.6%) are far less prominent.
|
| |
DISCUSSION |
|---|
|
|
|---|
So far, all bacterial toxins known to interfere with host cell signaling by modulating the activity of RhoGTPases were found to be modifying enzymes. They modulate host cell signaling by deamidation of certain glutamine residues of RhoGTPases or by covalently attaching ADP-ribose, glucose, or N-acetylglucosamine groups to these key regulators (7). The data presented here demonstrate that SopE modulates RhoGTPase signaling by a different mechanism. In contrast to the other kown bacterial toxins specific for RhoGTPases, SopE is not a modifying enzyme. This has been shown by kinetic analysis of Rac1 preparations pretreated with SopE as well as by kinetic and protein sequence analysis of Rac1 that had been specifically eluted from the complex with SopE. Therefore, SopE belongs to a new category of bacterial virulence factors modulating RhoGTPase function via noncovalent interactions. This is reminiscent of GEFs, which regulate RhoGTPase activity in eucaryotic cells.
To explore the similarity between SopE and eukaryotic GEFs in more
detail, we have analyzed the kinetic parameters of the SopE-mediated
guanine nucleotide exchange. Neither the G12V amino acid exchange, nor
deletion of the C-terminal 13 amino acids of Cdc42 had any effect on
SopE-mediated nucleotide exchange. Formation and dissociation of the
SopE·Cdc42 complex was analyzed by surface plasmon resonance using
immobilized GST·SopE78-240 and Cdc42
C. In
the absence of guanine nucleotide the association rate constant kass was 6 ± 1 × 105
M
1 s
1, and the dissociation of
the GST·SopE78-240·Cdc42
C complex was
very slow (apparent koff
1.4 ± 0.1 × 10
4 s
1). In the presence of
free GDP, the rate of dissociation of the GST·SopE78-240·Cdc42
C complex increased
more than 1000-fold (koff (GDP) = 0.6 ± 0.05 s
1). Binding of Cdc42 to GST·SopE in the presence
of free GDP could not be analyzed by surface plasmon resonance,
presumably because the formation of a trimeric complex of Cdc42, GDP,
and SopE was not favored under the conditions tested (20 °C, 1 µM GDP-loaded Cdc42
C, 20 µM
GDP; data not shown). Interestingly, the kinetic constants determined
for SopE78-240 were very similar to those described for
the interaction of another small GTPase (Ras) with its cognate GEF
Cdc25 (42) (kass = 3 × 105
M
1 s
1;
koff = 1 × 10
3
s
1 as well as a much weakened binding in the presence of
GDP: KD(nucleotide free) = 3.3 nM; KD(GDP) = 0.6 mM).
The kinetics of SopE-mediated nucleotide exchange were analyzed using the mant fluorescence of mGDP as spectroscopic readout. Under conditions of excess mGDP·Cdc42G12V and 1 mM free GDP, the Michaelis-Menten constant was determined to be Km = 4.5 ± 0.9 µM. Interestingly, this corresponds closely to the dissociation constant KD(GDP)= 10 µM for binding of the exchange factor RCC1 to its cognate GTPase Ran (47), but it is 2 orders of magnitude lower than the KD(GDP) for CDC25 binding to Ras. It has been suggested that this difference in affinity may be related to the distinct cellular function of both systems: the high affinity of RCC1 for Ran may allow nucleotide exchange to proceed efficiently in solution, whereas in the case of CDC25/Ras, both proteins have to be tethered to a membrane for the exchange reaction to occur (42). Interestingly, at early times of infection, SopE has been found diffusely localized in the cytoplasm of the host cell within the region of the Salmonella-induced membrane ruffle.4 Therefore, the comparatively high substrate affinity (Km = 4.5 ± 0.9 µM) may ensure that all Cdc42 and Rac1, membrane bound as well as cytosolic fractions, in this region of the cell will become activated.
The rate constant for SopE-mediated mGDP release under conditions of
excess Cdc42G12V·mGDP was determined to
kcat = 0.95 ± 0.06 s
1, which
is almost 105-fold faster than the uncatalyzed rate of
intrinsic guanine nucleotide exchange. This translates into a catalytic
efficiency of kcat/Km = 2.1 ×105 M
1 s
1, which
is far slower than the rate predicted for a diffusion controlled
reaction. However, this is a typical value for catalytic reactions
involving large conformational changes.
Single turnover experiments using up to 32 µM
SopE78-240 confirmed that binding of the guanine
nucleotide-Cdc42G12V complex and catalysis of guanine
nucleotide dissociation were very fast. At 32 µM
SopE78-240, the rate of nucleotide exchange was
kobs = 2.5 s
1. However, as
saturation had not yet been reached, it remains unclear whether the
single turnover rate constant may be even higher. The 2.5-fold
difference between the single turnover rate kobs = 2.5 and kcat = 0.95 ± 0.06 s
1 may be due to inaccuracies in the determination of the
"active concentration" of the SopE78-240 preparation
used. Overestimation of the actual protein concentration or the
presence of a substantial fraction of catalytically inert
SopE78-240 in the preparation would result in the
underestimation of the rate constant kcat in the
Michaelis-Menten experiments. The presence of such an inert fraction is
suggested by our surface plasmon resonance analysis of
Cdc42
C binding to GST·SopE78-240.
Alternatively, the differences between kobs = 2.5 and kcat = 0.95 ± 0.06 s
1 might be attributable to a step after release of the
nucleotide (e.g. a conformational change) that might be
rate-limiting under the conditions of multiple turnover. This part of
the catalytic cycle would not be relevant under single turnover
conditions, resulting in higher rates of catalysis
(kobs). In conclusion, our data demonstrate that
SopE is an efficient guanine nucleotide exchange factor. Despite the
lack of any detectable sequence homology, the kinetic constants for
SopE-mediated nucleotide exchange show some striking similarities to
those determined for eukaryotic GEFs.
The far-UV CD spectrum of the catalytic domain SopE78-240
is indicative of a high
-helical content of about 58%. This is in
good agreement with secondary structure predictions for the
-helical
content of this polypeptide (ProtScale tool on the ExPASy molecular
biology World Wide Web server of the Swiss Institute of Bioinformatics)
(algorithms of Chou and Fasman (48), 50%
-helical content; Deleage
and Roux (49), 57%
-helical content; and Levitt (50), 60%
-helical content). The N-terminal 17 amino acids of
SopE78-240 have a very low probability for forming an
-helix. Considering that these residues were artificially added
during the construction of the expression vector, this suggests that
the actual helical content of the catalytic domain of SopE may be well
above 60%. Interestingly, the structures of several GEF domains
belonging to the Dbl family, which have been determined recently, have
revealed that this catalytic domain is composed almost entirely of
-helices (20, 22, 23) and the RasGEF domain of Sos and GEFs for ARF
also have a highly helical structure (18, 19, 21, 24). It is intriguing
to speculate whether the catalytic domain of SopE may display
structural similarity with any eukaryotic GEF. In addition, the lack of
detectable sequence similarity between SopE and GEFs of the Dbl family
or any other GEF for small GTP-binding proteins suggests that
additional GEFs belonging to neither of the classical GEF families may
have gone unnoticed.
| |
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS |
|---|
We are grateful to Peter Franke (Institut für Biochemie, Freie Universität Berlin) for help with the mass spectrometric analyses and to Jürgen Heesemann for scientific advice and generous support.
| |
FOOTNOTES |
|---|
* This work was supported by grants from the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft and the Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (to W.-D. H.) and by the Fonds der Chemischen Industrie (to C. W.).The costs of publication of this article were defrayed in part by the payment of page charges. The article must therefore be hereby marked "advertisement" in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1734 solely to indicate this fact.
These authors contributed equally to the experimental work.
To whom correspondence should be addressed. Tel.:
89-5160-5263; Fax: 89-5160-5223; E-mail:
hardt@m3401.mpk.med.uni-muenchen.de.
2 M. G. Rudolph, unpublished data.
3 M. G. Rudolph, unpublished data.
4 W.-D. Hardt and J. E. Galán, unpublished data.
| |
ABBREVIATIONS |
|---|
The abbreviations used are: GEF, guanine nucleotide exchange factor; GST, glutathione S-transferase; HPLC, high pressure liquid chromatography; mant, O-(N-methylanthraniloyl); mGDP, mant-GDP.
| |
REFERENCES |
|---|
|
|
|---|
| 1. |
Hall, A.
(1998)
Science
279,
509-514 |
| 2. | Bourne, H. R., Sanders, D. A., and McCormick, F. (1991) Nature 349, 117-127[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 3. | Boguski, M. S., and McCormick, F. (1993) Nature 366, 643-654[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 4. | Ahmadian, M. R., Stege, P., Scheffzek, K., and Wittinghofer, A. (1997) Nat. Struct. Biol. 4, 686-689[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 5. | Sprang, S. R., and Coleman, D. E. (1998) Cell 95, 155-158[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 6. | Cerione, R. A., and Zheng, Y. (1996) Curr. Opin. Cell Biol. 8, 216-222[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 7. | Aktories, K. (1997) Trends Microbiol. 5, 282-288[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 8. | Groisman, E. A., and Ochman, H. (1997) Trends Microbiol. 5, 343-349[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 9. |
Galán, J. E.,
and Curtiss, R., III
(1989)
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A.
86,
6383-6387 |
| 10. |
Watson, P. R.,
Galyov, E. E.,
Paulin, S. M.,
Jones, P. W.,
and Wallis, T. S.
(1998)
Infect. Immun.
66,
1432-1438 |
| 11. |
Hueck, C. J.
(1998)
Microbiol. Mol. Biol. Rev.
62,
379-433 |
| 12. | Galán, J. E. (1999) Curr. Opin. Microbiol. 2, 46-50[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 13. |
Chen, L. M.,
Hobbie, S.,
and Galán, J. E.
(1996)
Science
274,
2115-2118 |
| 14. | Hardt, W. D., Chen, L. M., Schuebel, K. E., Bustelo, X. R., and Galán, J. E. (1998) Cell 93, 815-826[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 15. |
Chen, L. M.,
Bagrodia, S.,
Cerione, R. A.,
and Galán, J. E.
(1999)
J. Exp. Med.
189,
1479-1488 |
| 16. | Wood, M. W., Rosqvist, R., Mullan, P. B., Edwards, M. H., and Galyov, E. E. (1996) Mol. Microbiol. 22, 327-338[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 17. |
Hardt, W. D.,
Urlaub, H.,
and Galán, J. E.
(1998)
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A.
95,
2574-2579 |
| 18. | Cherfils, J., Menetrey, J., Mathieu, M., Le Bras, G., Robineau, S., Beraud-Dufour, S., Antonny, B., and Chardin, P. (1998) Nature 392, 101-105[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 19. | Mossessova, E., Gulbis, J. M., and Goldberg, J. (1998) Cell 92, 415-423[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 20. | Soisson, S. M., Nimnual, A. S., Uy, M., Bar-Sagi, D., and Kuriyan, J. (1998) Cell 95, 259-268[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 21. |
Betz, S. F.,
Schnuchel, A.,
Wang, H.,
Olejniczak, E. T.,
Meadows, R. P.,
Lipsky, B. P.,
Harris, E. A. S.,
Staunton, D. E.,
and Fesik, S. W.
(1998)
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A.
95,
7909-7914 |
| 22. | Aghazadeh, B., Zhu, K., Kubiseski, T. J., Liu, G. A., Pawson, T., Zheng, Y., and Rosen, M. K. (1998) Nat. Struct. Biol. 5, 1098-1107[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 23. | Liu, X., Wang, H., Eberstadt, M., Schnuchel, A., Olejniczak, E. T., Meadows, R. P., Schkeryantz, J. M., Janowick, D. A., Harlan, J. E., Harris, E. A., Staunton, D. E., and Fesik, S. W. (1998) Cell 95, 269-277[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 24. | Boriack-Sjodin, P. A., Margarit, S. M., Bar-Sagi, D., and Kuriyan, J. (1998) Nature 394, 337-343[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 25. |
Rudolph, M. G.,
Bayer, P.,
Abo, A.,
Kuhlmann, J.,
Vetter, I. R.,
and Wittinghofer, A.
(1998)
J. Biol. Chem.
273,
18067-18076 |
| 26. | Bradford, M. M. (1976) Anal. Biochem. 72, 248-254[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 27. | Self, A. J., and Hall, A (1995) Methods Enzymol. 256, 3-10[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 28. | Wilkins, M. R., Lindskog, I., Gasteiger, E., Bairoch, A., Sanchez, J.-C., Hochstrasser, D. F., and Appel, R. D. (1997) Electrophoresis 18, 403-408[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 29. | Chaurand, P., Luetzenkirchen, F., and Spengler, B. (1999) J. Am. Soc. Mass Spectrom. 10, 91-103[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 30. | O'Shannessy, D. J., Brigham-Burke, M., and Peck, K. (1992) Anal. Biochem. 205, 132-136[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 31. | Schmid, F. X. (1989) in Protein Structure: A Practical Approach (Creighton, T. E., ed) , pp. 251-285, IRL Press, Oxford |
| 32. | Miki, T. (1995) Methods Enzymol. 256, 90-98[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 33. | Hart, M., and Powers, S. (1995) Methods Enzymol. 255, 129-135[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 34. | Seeburg, P. H., Colby, W. W., Capon, D. J., Goeddel, D. V., and Levinson, A. D. (1984) Nature 312, 71-75[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 35. | Nobes, C. D., and Hall, A. (1995) Cell 81, 53-62[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 36. | Qiu, R. G., Abo, A., McCormick, F., and Symons, M. (1997) Mol. Cell. Biol. 17, 3449-3458[Abstract] |
| 37. |
John, J.,
Frech, M.,
and Wittinghofer, A.
(1988)
J. Biol. Chem.
263,
11792-11799 |
| 38. |
Lancaster, C. A.,
Taylor-Harris, P. M.,
Self, A. J.,
Brill, S.,
van Erp, H. E.,
and Hall, A.
(1994)
J. Biol. Chem.
269,
1137-1142 |
| 39. | Krengel, U., Schlichting, L., Scherer, A., Schumann, R., Frech, M. |