|
Originally published In Press as doi:10.1074/jbc.M102778200 on April 27, 2001
J. Biol. Chem., Vol. 276, Issue 29, 27535-27540, July 20, 2001
Crystal Structure of the Dimeric C-terminal
Domain of TonB Reveals a Novel Fold*
Changsoo
Chang §,
Alexandre
Mooser§¶,
Andreas
Plückthun¶ , and
Alexander
Wlodawer
From the Macromolecular Crystallography Laboratory,
NCI, National Institutes of Health, Frederick, Maryland 21702 and the
¶ Biochemisches Institut der Universität Zürich,
Winterthurerstrasse 190, Zürich CH-8057, Switzerland
Received for publication, March 29, 2001, and in revised form, April 26, 2001
 |
ABSTRACT |
The TonB-dependent complex of
Gram-negative bacteria couples the inner membrane proton motive force
to the active transport of iron·siderophore and vitamin
B12 across the outer membrane. The structural basis
of that process has not been described so far in full detail. The
crystal structure of the C-terminal domain of TonB from
Escherichia coli has now been solved by multiwavelength anomalous diffraction and refined at 1.55-Å resolution, providing the
first evidence that this region of TonB (residues 164-239) dimerizes.
Moreover, the structure shows a novel architecture that has no
structural homologs among any known proteins. The dimer of the
C-terminal domain of TonB is cylinder-shaped with a length of 65 Å and
a diameter of 25 Å. Each monomer contains three strands and a
single helix. The two monomers are intertwined with each other, and
all six -strands of the dimer make a large antiparallel -sheet.
We propose a plausible model of binding of TonB to FhuA and FepA, two
TonB-dependent outer-membrane receptors.
 |
INTRODUCTION |
The outer membrane (OM1)
of Gram-negative bacteria constitutes a permeability barrier,
protecting the cell against a variety of toxic agents. The
lipopolysaccharides located in the outer leaflet of the OM confer to
the bacteria a polar and negatively charged surface, restricting the
cellular uptake of toxic organic molecules and detergents such as bile
salts, the detergents in the gut. However, although the OM is an
effective protective barrier against harmful environmental components,
it also represents an additional obstacle for the uptake of nutrients,
which can be circumvented in three ways. While small hydrophilic
nutrients (<600 Da) enter the periplasm by simple diffusion through
porins in a non-selective manner (1), larger molecules are taken up by
pores with an internal binding site for the ligand (such as LamB) in a
stereospecific and selective manner (2) and can subsequently enter the
cytoplasm by a variety of transporters located in the inner membrane
(3). A few nutrients, notably iron and vitamin B12, need to
be taken up into the periplasm against their concentration gradients.
For this purpose, a complex consisting of TonB, ExbB, and ExbD couples
the inner membrane proton motive force (pmf) to the active transport of
iron siderophores and vitamin B12 across the OM through
specialized porins. Recently, crystal structures were solved for two
TonB-dependent receptors, FepA and FhuA (4-6). Like all
other known porins, they are -barrels, but unlike the other porin
structures they have much larger interiors, which are almost completely
obscured by a protein domain sitting inside the barrel (termed the
"cork" or "hatch region"), which is encoded within the
N-terminal segment of either protein.
Iron uptake into bacteria is initiated by the binding of the
iron·siderophore complex to the high affinity OM receptor. The dissociation constant is around 100-200 nM (7, 8). An
electron spin resonance study (9), later rationalized by
three-dimensional structural models (4-6), has shown that this event
triggers conformational changes in the OM receptor. This might allow
TonB to contact specific regions on the receptor. It appears that
"energized" TonB is then able to deliver its energy to the
receptor, resulting in ligand translocation into the periplasm (10,
11). ExbB·ExbD are implicated in the recycling of TonB, from its high
affinity OM receptor association to a high affinity inner membrane
association (12, 13). The structural changes in this whole process have
remained almost completely unclear.
TonB of Escherichia coli is a protein consisting of 239 amino acids. Homologs of TonB have been found in several Gram-negative species (14). The N terminus is in the cytoplasm; the protein is
anchored in the inner membrane by its uncleaved N-terminal signal
sequence (15, 16), and most of the protein extends into the periplasm.
The membrane anchor sequence contains a set of highly conserved
residues located on one face of the -helix (SHLS motif). The
sequence SXXXH (where X is any amino acid) has been defined as the minimal structural requirement for the coupling of
TonB to the electrochemical gradient of the inner membrane (17). The
amino acid sequence of TonB contains a long central region with a high
percentage of proline residues between residues 70 and 102 (17%),
which is thought to confer to TonB the conformational rigidity and
extended shape necessary to span the periplasm, and thereby to allow
the C-terminal domain to contact the receptor embedded in the OM (18).
Mutational studies have defined the last 48 residues as being essential
to make contact with the OM receptor (19).
TonB forms a complex in the inner membrane with ExbB and ExbD (13), two
membrane proteins that could potentially act as proton translocators.
ExbB is homologous to the protein MotA, and ExbD has a similar topology
as MotB, both of which are thought to exploit the proton gradient to
drive the bacterial flagellum. ExbB has been proposed to modulate the
conformation of TonB (20), as well as mediate its recycling (12, 13),
but it has remained an enigma as to what these structural changes might
be. Cross-linking studies have suggested the regions through which TonB
might interact with its partners in the inner membrane: The contact
with ExbB is mediated by the signal anchor (20), whereas the residues responsible for the interaction with ExbD are unknown (21).
TonB and its associated proteins ExbB·ExbD thus play the role of an
energy-transducing complex, coupling the electrochemical proton
gradient of the inner membrane to active import processes across the OM
(13, 22). The energy is provided by the proton motive force (10, 23,
24). For the transduction process to occur, the C-terminal domain of
TonB must contact the OM receptor. Based on genetic (25, 26),
cross-linking (19, 27-29), and affinity chromatography (30) studies, a
recognition site has been suggested on the receptor, the TonB box, a
hydrophobic stretch of seven amino acids, which is highly conserved in
all the TonB-dependent OM receptors (31). A recent study
resulted in the proposal that the conformation rather than the sequence
of the TonB box is important for the recognition process between TonB
and the receptor (19). Moreover, it has been hypothesized that other
regions of both interacting partners are also involved (27). Most
strikingly, TonB dependence is maintained if the complete cork domain
is deleted (32, 33), including the TonB box. It follows that the
recognition site cannot be limited to the TonB box.
A number of phages and colicins have exploited the
TonB·ExbB·ExbD system for gaining entry into bacteria (34).
A similar system, TolQRA, has also been described as allowing entry for other phages and colicins (34). The cellular function of the TolQRA
system has remained enigmatic, and its deletion leads to a leaky
phenotype (although no such effect is caused by the deletion of
TonB·ExbB·ExbD). Nevertheless, both systems can partially
complement each other (35). We have recently described the crystal
structure of the C-terminal domain of TolA (36), and we became
interested in finding out whether any structural similarity might exist
between the C-terminal domains of both TonB and TolA.
In this paper, we present the crystal structure of the C-terminal
domain of TonB at 1.55-Å resolution and show that this protein exhibits a novel fold that is without homology to any known structures. Moreover, we provide the first evidence that the C-terminal domain of
TonB forms a tightly intertwined dimer.
 |
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES |
Protein Expression and Purification--
The sequence encoding
residues 155-239 of tonB from E. coli strain
JM83 was polymerase chain reaction-amplified and cloned into the
plasmid pAT37 (based on pQE30 from Qiagen). pAT37 codes for protein D
(gpD) from bacteriophage with an N-terminal His-tag, under control
of the T5 promoter (37). The tonB gene was fused to the C
terminus of gpD, with an enterokinase cleavage site engineered by the
polymerase chain reaction in between the two proteins. Recombinant
bovine enterokinase (purchased from Invitrogen) cleaves after the
sequence Asp-Asp-Asp-Asp-Lys. The recombinant protein was expressed
overnight at 30 °C in E. coli XL1-Blue, after induction with 1 mM
isopropyl- -D-thio-galactopyranoside. Cells were lysed with a French press and, after centrifugation, the gpD-TonB fusion protein remained in the soluble fraction. The undigested fusion was
purified at pH 8.0, using the coupled IMAC-IEX (cation exchange) protocol (38) on a BIOCAD-60 workstation. After dialysis against 50 mM Tris, pH 8.0, 1 mM CaCl2, 0.1%
Tween 20, the cleavage reaction was performed at room temperature for
4 h, using 1 unit per mg of fusion of the recombinant bovine
enterokinase (Invitrogen). The solution was then dialyzed against 50 mM Mes/Hepes/acetate buffer, pH 8.0. Removal of gpD and
enterokinase was again achieved with the coupled IMAC-IEX (cation
exchange) protocol, based on the different pI of TonB, gpD, and enterokinase.
Crystallization and Structure Solution--
The C-terminal
domain of TonB was dialyzed against 20 mM Tris buffer at pH
7.5 and was concentrated to 15 mg/ml. Crystallization was performed by
the hanging-drop vapor diffusion method at 22 °C. Crystal screen I
(Hampton Research) was used for the initial screening. Small,
rod-shaped crystals were found under conditions 6, 19, 27, and 36. The
final refined crystallization conditions were 28-30% polyethylene
glycol 3350, 0.1 M Tris buffer at pH 7.5, 50-100
mM CaCl2. After refinement of the conditions,
crystals were grown to the size of 0.3-0.5 mm. When a crystal was
picked up from a droplet, the diffraction pattern showed split spots or
high mosaicity. To improve their quality, crystals were moved from the
droplet to a well containing mother liquor and stored for more than 1 day. Such treatment both increased the resolution of diffraction and
lowered the mosaicity. TonB crystals were found to belong to the
orthorhombic space group P21212 with the unit cell parameters a = 63.78 Å, b = 86.34 Å, c = 26.56 Å. The asymmetric unit contains two
molecules, and the VM value is 1.89 Å3/Da (solvent content 35%).
The structure of TonB was solved by derivatization with
Br ions (39, 40). To prepare a crystal for this
procedure, it was soaked for 50 s in a solution containing 1.0 M KBr in addition to the crystallization buffer.
Subsequently, the crystal was picked up with a nylon loop (Hampton
Research) and was flash-frozen in a nitrogen stream. All data sets were
collected at 100 K using the ADSC Quantum 4 charge-coupled
device detector on the synchrotron beamline X9B at the National
Synchrotron Light Source, Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, NY.
The bromine fluorescence edge was scanned to determine the energy of
the inflection, peak, and remote points. Three data sets were measured
at 2.0-Å resolution to provide all information necessary for a
multiwavelength anomalous diffraction (MAD) experiment. In addition, a
data set extending to 1.55 Å was obtained for the purpose of structure
refinement. Data were integrated and scaled using the HKL2000 program
suite (41). Data collection statistics are summarized in Table
I.
Four Br sites were found by both direct and Patterson
methods and were refined using the program SOLVE (42), utilizing three data sets corresponding to the peak, inflection, and remote
wavelengths, in the resolution range 10-2.5 Å. These sites were also
confirmed with the program SHELXD (43). The phases from SOLVE were
modified and extended to 1.55 Å using the program DM (44) in the CCP4 program suite (45), with the solvent content set at 25%. The mean figure of merit of the phase set was 0.608 for the 10-2.5 Å data
after SOLVE, and 0.489 for 20-1.55 Å after DM (0.780 for 20-2.5 Å).
The initial model was built using the automatic model-building option
of the program ARP/wARP (46) with the full-DM phase set as input. The
model was rebuilt with the program O (47) using either electron density
maps based on the combination of the MAD and model phases, or straight
2Fo Fc maps. The combined
phase set was obtained using SIGMAA in the CCP4 program package. After
each cycle of rebuilding, the model was refined using SHELXL (48) at
the resolution range of 20 to 1.55 Å, without applying any
non-crystallographic (NCS) restraints, as the latter prevented proper
convergence. Eight full cycles of remodeling and refinement were
performed, with the refinement of individual anisotropic
B-factors for all atoms initiated in cycle six. In addition
to protein atoms, 219 water molecules and four bromide ions have been
added to the model. The R-value for all reflections between
20 and 1.55 Å is 16.0% (Rfree 23.0%). The
geometrical properties of the model were assessed by the program
PROCHECK (49), and the secondary structure elements were assigned by the program PROMOTIF (50). The figures were prepared with Molscript (51) or Bobscript (52) and rendered with Raster3D (53).
 |
RESULTS |
The crystal structure of the C-terminal domain of TonB has been
determined by multiwavelength anomalous diffraction, and has been
refined using SHELXL at 20-1.55 Å, yielding a model with low
R-factor and excellent stereochemistry. The refinement
statistics and the indicators of model quality are listed in Table
II. The electron density maps (both the
combined map utilizing the phases of the MAD data and of the model, and
the final 2Fo Fc map) are
generally of excellent quality (Fig. 1). However, both maps are poorly defined in the neighborhood of residues 194-201. In this region, B-factors of all atoms are
relatively high, indicating extensive flexibility of the polypeptide
chain. Some disorder is also present at both termini of each molecule. Residues that are not visible in the maps include the first ten N-terminal amino acids of our construct (residues 155-164), as well as
the last one or two residues on the C terminus (residues 238 and 239 of
molecule A, and 239 of molecule B). The electron density of the
remaining parts of the protein is very well defined. The mean
positional error in atomic coordinates as estimated by the Luzzati plot
is 0.16 Å. All non-glycine and non-proline residues of the model lie
either in the most favorable region or in the additionally allowed
region of the Ramachandran plot.

View larger version (90K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 1.
Electron density maps of the central
-sheet region of TonB. a,
stereoview of the MAD-phased electron density map contoured at
1.0 . The map was calculated with phases from the program SOLVE
(42), modified with DM (44). b, stereoview of the final
2Fo Fc map calculated with the
program SHELX (48), contoured at 1.5 .
|
|
The C-terminal domain of TonB is cylinder-shaped with the length of 65 Å, and the diameter of 25 Å, with two protein chains forming a single
compact entity. Each chain is rich in -strands (~50% of the
secondary structure) with much more limited extent (~15%) of
residues found in helical conformation (either -helix or
310 helix). Each monomer contains three -strands (strand
S1, residues 169-182; S2, 188-194; and S3, 221-236) and one
-helix (residues 200-210 in molecule A, and 200-211 of molecule
B). In addition, a short 310 helix includes residues
211-213 of molecule A. All six -strands make a large antiparallel
-sheet. The -strand S3 of each monomer is swapped between the
monomers (Fig. 2). Four -strands, S1
and S3 of both molecules, are located on one side, whereas the two
short -strands S2 and the helices are located on the other side
(Fig. 3).

View larger version (26K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 2.
Schematic diagram of the secondary structure
topology of the C-terminal domain of TonB. Molecule A is colored
in red and molecule B in blue. The
arrows represent strands, and each cylinder
represents a helix. The secondary structure elements are labeled, and
the residues belonging to each of them are described in the text.
|
|

View larger version (31K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 3.
Stereo ribbon diagram of the C-terminal
domain of TonB, showing the intertwined dimer. The color
scheme is the same as in Fig. 2. The atomic coordinates have been
deposited in the Protein Data Bank (accession code 1IHR).
|
|
The two monomers differ slightly from each other. At any refinement
stage, application of non-crystallographic restraints between the two
molecules resulted in significantly worse behavior than if such
restraints were not utilized. The r.m.s. deviation between the C
atoms of the two monomers is 0.42 Å, whereas the r.m.s. deviation
between the side-chain atoms of the two monomers is 1.15 Å. In the
case of the main chain of the protein, the largest differences are
found at the N terminus. As judged by their high temperature factors,
both termini are located in highly flexible regions of the structure.
The difference between C positions of Ala-165, the first visible
residue on the N terminus, exceeds 2 Å (residues preceding Ala-165
were not visible in either molecule). In the case of the side chains,
several residues show significantly different values of the
1 angle. These residues include Leu-170, Arg-171,
Glu-173, Asn-200, Lys-219, and Lys-231. The only hydrophobic amino acid
among them is Leu-170, and different orientation of its side chain
leads to the presence of more hydrophobic contacts in molecule B. The
other residues are all polar or charged, and all are solvent-exposed.
The orientations of the C atoms in the residues belonging to the
-sheet (Arg-171, Glu-173, Lys-231) closely coincide. For positively
charged residues (Arg-171 and Lys-231 of both molecules) C atoms
point toward the N terminus of molecule A. The C atoms of the
negatively charged residue Glu-173 point toward the N terminus of
molecule B. Asn-200 is located just after the highly flexible loop and
is itself flexible, judged by its high B-factor. Lys-219 is
located at the end of the molecule and is also flexible.
The interactions between the two protein chains that form a single
compact molecule of the C-terminal domain of TonB are unusually extensive. The dimeric interface area covers 41% of the surface of
each monomer, thus the individual chains are unlikely to be able to
exist independently and the protein becomes stable only as a dimer. The
region of the -sheet shows tight dimeric interactions, whereas the
interactions on the opposite side of the molecule are not as close.
Although the single antiparallel -sheet present in the dimer is
composed of strands originating from different molecules, the hydrogen
bonding pattern is close to ideal. The loop between -strand S2 and
the -helix is very flexible, as indicated by its high
B-factor. The average B-factors of the main-chain atoms in this loop are 71 Å2 and 60 Å2 for
molecules A and B, respectively, as compared with the respective averages for other areas of 20.6 Å2 and 21.7 Å2. Crystal packing in the vicinity of these loops is
rather loose, resulting in the formation of clefts or channels on the
molecular surface. The channels are made by residues 195-200 and
172-176 in both molecules, the former belonging to the loop, and the
latter to the -strand S1.
 |
DISCUSSION |
The binding of a nutrient, such as vitamin B12 or an
iron·siderophore complex, to the external face of an outer membrane
receptor triggers a series of conformational changes: The N-terminally located TonB box, which is hidden within the barrel of the unliganded receptor, is made to project in an extended form into the periplasm and, thus, becomes freely accessible for interaction with the C-terminal domain of TonB (28). Additionally, subtle structural changes
of the receptor observed crystallographically, such as the upward
translation of selected loops of the cork domain (also termed "hatch
region"), may disrupt hydrophobic interactions between the so-called
switch helix (residues 24-29 in FhuA) and the internal wall of the
barrel, and the helix unfolds (6). It thus constitutes a candidate for
signaling the occupancy of the outer binding site by a ligand to the
periplasm. However, the actual "tag" being recognized by TonB could
still be the TonB box, the switch helix mediating its accessibility.
Nevertheless, there must be additional crucial conformational changes
occurring in the barrel itself. Both in FhuA and FepA, the cork domain
has been completely deleted and the TonB dependence of transport was
fully maintained (32, 33). It follows that TonB must interact with the
barrel itself, but this result certainly does not refute an interaction
with the TonB box or other regions in the plug domains in wild-type receptors.
It is not clear whether substrate transport normally involves the
complete dissociation of the plug domain from the barrel. On the one
hand, this does not seem to be necessary, because it is conceivable
that channels of sufficient dimension can be created by much smaller
movements and changes in the cork domain, even though this is a matter
of debate (5, 6). On the other hand, phages can inject their DNA
through this pore (34) and colicins use it for entry (34), and this is
only conceivable with a completely unplugged pore. Furthermore, the
unplugged state is apparently functional (32, 33) and thus able to
exist, and therefore a full opening of the pore is likely at least for
the entry of very large molecules.
The ligand-mediated signal could therefore trigger a conformational
rearrangement first at the loops of the cork domain and the barrel of
the receptor which is then transmitted along the barrel. The binding of
TonB, which appears to be not continuous but to occur in cycles (12),
may then stabilize an intrinsically energetically unfavorable
conformation of the barrel, which allows the passage of the ligand.
Additionally, TonB may bind to the cork domain in wild-type receptor
and help its dislocation, but this is apparently not the decisive
action for mediating ligand transport. The binding of TonB to the
barrel is needed to effect ligand translocation. The "energizing"
of the receptor might then simply consist of the binding of TonB to an
intrinsically unstable form of the barrel, which stabilizes this form,
allowing the passage of the nutrient, and a subsequent release of the
TonB-receptor interaction is needed. We do not know which of these
steps would require energy, and it might conceivably be the
dissociation of TonB. Although this is ultimately a mechanical act,
more sophisticated possibilities exist for a polypeptide machine than
simple rigid movement. The barrel domain would then return to its
ground state, ready to accept the next ligand molecule. An "energized
conformation" of the TonB C-terminal domain would not be required in
our model. We consider the possibility (see below) that this transient
binding of TonB to the receptor barrel involves a rotary motion in the cytoplasmic membrane.
Cross-linking studies have indicated that the region around residue 160 of TonB is crucial for the interaction with the TonB box (27, 29, 54).
In our model, this region is not visible because of its very high
flexibility (see the description of the B-factors in
"Results"). However, it is very likely that other regions of TonB
are involved in the contact with the receptor, and it is clear that
there must be an interaction with the barrel. Based on NMR studies, it
has also been proposed that the C-terminal portion of the proline-rich
segment (Lys-Pro repeats) (amino acids 91-102) of TonB is involved in
a specific interaction with FhuA (55), but the binding constant is very
weak, and this region has been deleted, with TonB still maintaining
activity (56). We postulate that the region around Asn-200 of TonB (N
terminus of the helix) constitutes a binding cleft, which could
accommodate an element of the receptor as the ligand, based on the
relatively high conformational lability of this segment (see
"Results"). Interestingly, the -helix-forming residues (Met-201
through Arg-214) are conserved among several Gram-negative species
(14). However, it is unlikely that the role assigned to this otherwise
correctly predicted amphipathic helix by Larsen et al. (56),
namely, binding to the outer membrane, is correct, because the
hydrophobic side of this helix faces the core of the dimer and thus
cannot participate in any other interactions.
Once the substrate reaches the periplasmic side of the receptor
(e.g. FepA), it is taken up by the periplasmic-binding
protein FepB. The subsequent steps of import are not well known.
Substrate-containing FepB might then bind to the ABC transporter
FepC2DG, resulting in transport across the inner membrane,
using energy derived from ATP hydrolysis (3). FhuA uses an analogous
system with FhuD as a periplasmic-binding protein and FhuBC anchored in
the inner membrane (57, 58).
In the present work, we provide the first evidence that the C-terminal
domain of TonB forms a dimer. However, this dimerization that involves
almost half of the surface of this protein domain does not correlate
with the recent model, showing a homotrimeric ExbB·ExbD complex
interacting with a TonB monomer, which in turn contacts the OM receptor
(21). Furthermore, the antiparallel orientation of each monomer as well
as the cylindrical shape do not correspond to any topological
representation of TonB described so far in the literature. Recently, a
soluble form of TonB was expressed, which lacks the N-terminal anchor
helix but contains the full proline-rich region (59). The authors
interpreted equilibrium sedimentation and gel filtration data as
indicating mostly monomers, even though the measured molecular weight
was somewhat higher than expected.
The tightly intertwined dimeric structure of TonB seen in the crystal
now leads to two possible, albeit speculative models (Fig.
4). In one case (Fig. 4a),
both TonB proteins interact with the same ExbB·ExbD complex. It is
attractive to hypothesize that the proton gradient might cause a
torsional motion, as is found in several molecular machines such as the
flagellum or ATP synthases, because of some homology in ExbB to MotA
and a similar topology of ExbD to MotB. Two proline-rich regions would
provide a stiffer structure than only one, which could thus directly
transduce this force to the TonB C-terminal domain and mediate its
transient interaction with the receptor barrel and/or the cork domain.
Alternatively (Fig. 4b), each TonB monomer might be linked
to a different ExbB·ExbD complex, yet a torsion of both might still
be mechanically transduced to the outer membrane. Postle and co-workers
(56) also deleted most of the proline-rich region, yet TonB was still
functional. Nevertheless, a torsional mechanism could still be
operational in these short-necked constructs. In our model, TonB only
needs to bind, and dissociate again, but in a cyclic manner we cannot distinguish which is the energy-requiring step. Undoubtedly, further work is necessary to test the validity of either model, and
particularly the arrangement in the inner membrane needs to be
clarified.

View larger version (23K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 4.
Hypothetical models of the interaction of
dimeric TonB with (a) a single complex of trimeric
ExbB·ExbD or (b) two complexes of ExbB·ExbD.
For details, see text.
|
|
One of the goals of this project was to determine if any structural
homology exists between the C-terminal domains of TonB and TolA (36). A
direct comparison of these domains proves that their structure is
completely different. Moreover, a comparison of the structure of TonB
with all known protein folds (60) detected no structural relationship
between the C-terminal domain of TonB and any other structure
represented in the Protein Data Bank. This was true regardless of
whether a monomer or a dimer of TonB was utilized as a search model. In
this respect, the structure described here represents a totally new
fold that has never been observed so far.
In conclusion, the most surprising finding of our structure is that the
C-terminal domain of TonB forms a rigid and tightly intertwined dimer.
It is conceivable that this is essential for transducing a mechanical
force from the inner to the outer membrane, and it would be much harder
to imagine this to occur with a monomeric molecule. Even though
polyproline stretches have extended conformations, they are still
flexible and are typical hinge regions, as exemplified in IgG
molecules. It would thus be difficult to visualize how mechanical
energy can be transduced with a flexible tether of a monomeric
molecule. Our dimeric structure provides now a framework for further
probing of the mechanism of the TonB-dependent import.
 |
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS |
We thank Dr. Z. Dauter for his assistance in
data collection on beamline X9B at the National Synchrotron Light
Source, Brookhaven National Laboratory, and Dr. P. Forrer for providing
the gpD fusion system for use in the expression of TonB.
 |
FOOTNOTES |
*
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.
§
Both authors contributed equally to this work.
To whom correspondence should be addressed: Biochemisches
Institut der Universität Zürich, Winterthurerstrasse 190, CH-8057 Zürich, Switzerland. Tel.: 41-1-635-5570; Fax:
41-1-635-5712; E-mail: plueckthun@biocfebs.unizh.ch.
Published, JBC Papers in Press, April 27, 2001, DOI 10.1074/jbc.M102778200
 |
ABBREVIATIONS |
The abbreviations used are:
OM, outer membrane;
pmf, proton motive force;
Mes, 4-morpholinoethanesulfonic acid;
r.m.s., root mean square;
IEX, ion exchange chromatography;
IMAC, immobilized
metal ion affinity chromatography;
MAD, multiwavelength anomalous
diffraction.
 |
REFERENCES |
| 1.
|
Schirmer, T.
(1998)
J. Struct. Biol.
121,
101-109
|
| 2.
|
Ehrmann, M.,
Ehrle, R.,
Hofmann, E.,
Boos, W.,
and Schlosser, A.
(1998)
Mol. Microbiol.
29,
685-694
|
| 3.
|
Buchanan, S. K.
(2001)
Trends Biochem. Sci.
26,
3-6
|
| 4.
|
Buchanan, S. K.,
Smith, B. S.,
Venkatramani, L.,
Xia, D.,
Esser, L.,
Palnitkar, M.,
Chakraborty, R.,
van der Helm, D.,
and Deisenhofer, J.
(1999)
Nat. Struct. Biol.
6,
56-63
|
| 5.
|
Ferguson, A. D.,
Hofmann, E.,
Coulton, J. W.,
Diederichs, K.,
and Welte, W.
(1998)
Science
282,
2215-2220
|
| 6.
|
Locher, K. P.,
Rees, B.,
Koebnik, R.,
Mitschler, A.,
Moulinier, L.,
Rosenbusch, J. P.,
and Moras, D.
(1998)
Cell
95,
771-778
|
| 7.
|
Newton, S. M.,
Allen, J. S.,
Cao, Z.,
Qi, Z.,
Jiang, X.,
Sprencel, C.,
Igo, J. D.,
Foster, S. B.,
Payne, M. A.,
and Klebba, P. E.
(1997)
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A.
94,
4560-4565
|
| 8.
|
Nikaido, H.,
and Saier, M. H., Jr.
(1992)
Science
258,
936-942
|
| 9.
|
Jiang, X.,
Payne, M. A.,
Cao, Z.,
Foster, S. B.,
Feix, J. B.,
Newton, S. M.,
and Klebba, P. E.
(1997)
Science
276,
1261-1264
|
| 10.
|
Reynolds, P. R.,
Mottur, G. P.,
and Bradbeer, C.
(1980)
J. Biol. Chem.
255,
4313-4319
|
| 11.
|
Wooldridge, K. G.,
Morrissey, J. A.,
and Williams, P. H.
(1992)
J. Gen. Microbiol.
138,
597-603
|
| 12.
|
Larsen, R. A.,
Thomas, M. G.,
and Postle, K.
(1999)
Mol. Microbiol.
31,
1809-1824
|
| 13.
|
Letain, T. E.,
and Postle, K.
(1997)
Mol. Microbiol.
24,
271-283
|
| 14.
|
Larsen, R. A.,
Myers, P. S.,
Skare, J. T.,
Seachord, C. L.,
Darveau, R. P.,
and Postle, K.
(1996)
J. Bacteriol.
178,
1363-1373
|
| 15.
|
Postle, K.,
and Skare, J. T.
(1988)
J. Biol. Chem.
263,
11000-11007
|
| 16.
|
Karlsson, M.,
Hannavy, K.,
and Higgins, C. F.
(1993)
Mol. Microbiol.
8,
379-388
|
| 17.
|
Larsen, R. A.,
and Postle, K.
(2001)
J. Biol. Chem.
276,
8111-8117
|
| 18.
|
Skare, J. T.,
Ahmer, B. M.,
Seachord, C. L.,
Darveau, R. P.,
and Postle, K.
(1993)
J. Biol. Chem.
268,
16302-16308
|
| 19.
|
Larsen, R. A.,
Foster-Hartnett, D.,
McIntosh, M. A.,
and Postle, K.
(1997)
J. Bacteriol.
179,
3213-3221
|
| 20.
|
Larsen, R. A.,
Thomas, M. G.,
Wood, G. E.,
and Postle, K.
(1994)
Mol. Microbiol.
13,
627-640
|
| 21.
|
Higgs, P. I.,
Myers, P. S.,
and Postle, K.
(1998)
J. Bacteriol.
180,
6031-6038
|
| 22.
|
Braun, V.
(1995)
FEMS Microbiol. Rev.
16,
295-307
|
| 23.
|
Hancock, R. W.,
and Braun, V.
(1976)
J. Bacteriol.
125,
409-415
|
| 24.
|
Bradbeer, C.
(1993)
J. Bacteriol.
175,
3146-3150
|
| 25.
|
Schramm, E.,
Mende, J.,
Braun, V.,
and Kamp, R. M.
(1987)
J. Bacteriol.
169,
3350-3357
|
| 26.
|
Gudmundsdottir, A.,
Bell, P. E.,
Lundrigan, M. D.,
Bradbeer, C.,
and Kadner, R. J.
(1989)
J. Bacteriol.
171,
6526-6533
|
| 27.
|
Cadieux, N.,
and Kadner, R. J.
(1999)
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A.
96,
10673-10678
|
| 28.
|
Merianos, H. J.,
Cadieux, N.,
Lin, C. H.,
Kadner, R. J.,
and Cafiso, D. S.
(2000)
Nat. Struct. Biol.
7,
205-209
|
| 29.
|
Cadieux, N.,
Bradbeer, C.,
and Kadner, R. J.
(2000)
J. Bacteriol.
182,
5954-5961
|
| 30.
|
Moeck, G. S.,
Coulton, J. W.,
and Postle, K.
(1997)
J. Biol. Chem.
272,
28391-28397
|
| 31.
|
Postle, K.
(1993)
J. Bioenerg. Biomembr.
25,
591-601
|
| 32.
|
Braun, M.,
Killmann, H.,
and Braun, V.
(1999)
Mol. Microbiol.
33,
1037-1049
|
| 33.
|
Scott, D. C.,
Cao, Z.,
Qi, Z.,
Bauler, M.,
Igo, J. D.,
Newton, S. M.,
and Klebba, P. E.
(2001)
J. Biol. Chem.
276,
13025-13033
|
| 34.
|
Lazdunski, C. J.,
Bouveret, E.,
Rigal, A.,
Journet, L.,
Lloubes, R.,
and Benedetti, H.
(1998)
J. Bacteriol.
180,
4993-5002
|
| 35.
|
Eick-Helmerich, K.,
and Braun, V.
(1989)
J. Bacteriol.
171,
5117-5126
|
| 36.
|
Lubkowski, J.,
Hennecke, F.,
Plückthun, A.,
and Wlodawer, A.
(1999)
Structure
7,
711-722
|
| 37.
|
Forrer, P.,
and Jaussi, R.
(1998)
Gene
224,
45-52
|
| 38.
|
Plückthun, A.,
Krebber, A.,
Krebber, C.,
Horn, U.,
Knüpfer, U.,
Wenderoth, R.,
Nieba, L.,
Proba, K.,
and Riesenberg, D.
(1996)
in
Antibody Engineering: A Practical Approach
(McCafferty, J.
, and Hoogenboom, H. R., eds)
, pp. 203-252, IRL Press, Oxford
|
| 39.
|
Dauter, Z.,
Dauter, M.,
and Rajashankar, K. R.
(2000)
Acta Crystallogr. Sect. D Biol. Crystallogr.
56,
232-237
|
| 40.
|
Dauter, Z.,
Li, M.,
and Wlodawer, A.
(2001)
Acta Crystallogr. Sect. D Biol. Crystallogr.
57,
239-249
|
| 41.
|
Otwinowski, Z.,
and Minor, W.
(1997)
Methods Enzymol.
276,
307-326
|
| 42.
|
Terwilliger, T. C.,
and Berendzen, J.
(1996)
Acta Crystallogr. Sect. D Biol. Crystallogr.
52,
749-757
|
| 43.
|
Sheldrick, G. M.
(1997)
Methods Enzymol.
276,
628-641
|
| 44.
|
Cowtan, K.,
and Main, P.
(1998)
Acta Crystallogr. Sect. D Biol. Crystallogr.
54,
487-493
|
| 45.
|
Collaborative Computational Project Number 4.
(1994)
Acta Crystallogr. Sect. D Biol. Crystallogr.
50,
760-763
|
| 46.
|
Perrakis, A.,
Morris, R.,
and Lamzin, V. S.
(1999)
Nat. Struct. Biol.
6,
458-463
|
| 47.
|
Jones, T. A.,
and Kieldgaard, M.
(1997)
Methods Enzymol.
277,
173-208
|
| 48.
|
Sheldrick, G. M.,
and Schneider, T. R.
(1997)
Methods Enzymol.
277,
319-343
|
| 49.
|
Laskowski, R. A.,
MacArthur, M. W.,
Moss, D. S.,
and Thornton, J. M.
(1993)
J. Appl. Crystallogr.
26,
283-291
|
| 50.
|
Hutchinson, E. G.,
and Thornton, J. M.
(1996)
Protein Sci.
5,
212-220
|
| 51.
|
Kraulis, P. J.
(1991)
J. Appl. Crystallogr.
24,
946-950
|
| 52.
|
Esnouf, R. M.
(1999)
Acta Crystallogr. Sect. D Biol. Crystallogr.
55,
938-940
|
| 53.
|
Meritt, E. A.,
and Murphy, M. E. P.
(1994)
Acta Crystallogr. Sect. D Biol. Crystallogr.
50,
869-873
|
| 54.
|
Kadner, R. J.
(1990)
Mol. Microbiol.
4,
2027-2033
|
| 55.
|
Brewer, S.,
Tolley, M.,
Trayer, I. P.,
Barr, G. C.,
Dorman, C. J.,
Hannavy, K.,
Higgins, C. F.,
Evans, J. S.,
Levine, B. A.,
and Wormald, M. R.
(1990)
J. Mol. Biol.
216,
883-895
|
| 56.
|
Larsen, R. A.,
Wood, G. E.,
and Postle, K.
(1993)
Mol. Microbiol
10,
943-953
|
| 57.
|
Braun, V.,
Hantke, K.,
and Köster, W.
(1998)
in
Metal Ions in Biological Systems: Iron Transport and Storage in Microorganisms, Plants and Animals
(Sigel, A.
, and Sigel, H., eds)
, pp. 67-145, Marcel Dekker, New York
|
| 58.
|
Groeger, W.,
and Koster, W.
(1998)
Microbiology
144,
2759-2769
|
| 59.
|
Moeck, G. S.,
and Letellier, L.
(2001)
J. Bacteriol.
183,
2755-2764
|
| 60.
|
Holm, L.,
and Sander, C.
(1993)
J. Mol. Biol.
233,
123-138
|
Copyright © 2001 by The American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Inc.

CiteULike Complore Connotea Del.icio.us Digg Reddit Technorati What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:

|
 |

|
 |
 
W. A. Kaserer, X. Jiang, Q. Xiao, D. C. Scott, M. Bauler, D. Copeland, S. M. C. Newton, and P. E. Klebba
Insight from TonB Hybrid Proteins into the Mechanism of Iron Transport through the Outer Membrane
J. Bacteriol.,
June 1, 2008;
190(11):
4001 - 4016.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
R. A. Larsen, G. E. Deckert, K. A. Kastead, S. Devanathan, K. L. Keller, and K. Postle
His20 Provides the Sole Functionally Significant Side Chain in the Essential TonB Transmembrane Domain
J. Bacteriol.,
April 1, 2007;
189(7):
2825 - 2833.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
E. Cascales, S. K. Buchanan, D. Duche, C. Kleanthous, R. Lloubes, K. Postle, M. Riley, S. Slatin, and D. Cavard
Colicin Biology
Microbiol. Mol. Biol. Rev.,
March 1, 2007;
71(1):
158 - 229.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
D. M. Carter, I. R. Miousse, J.-N. Gagnon, E. Martinez, A. Clements, J. Lee, M. A. Hancock, H. Gagnon, P. D. Pawelek, and J. W. Coulton
Interactions between TonB from Escherichia coli and the Periplasmic Protein FhuD
J. Biol. Chem.,
November 17, 2006;
281(46):
35413 - 35424.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
H. Adams, G. Zeder-Lutz, I. Schalk, F. Pattus, and H. Celia
Interaction of TonB with the Outer Membrane Receptor FpvA of Pseudomonas aeruginosa.
J. Bacteriol.,
August 1, 2006;
188(16):
5752 - 5761.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
P. D. Pawelek, N. Croteau, C. Ng-Thow-Hing, C. M. Khursigara, N. Moiseeva, M. Allaire, and J. W. Coulton
Structure of TonB in complex with FhuA, E. coli outer membrane receptor.
Science,
June 2, 2006;
312(5778):
1399 - 1402.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
L. Terradot, R. Bayliss, C. Oomen, G. A. Leonard, C. Baron, and G. Waksman
Structures of two core subunits of the bacterial type IV secretion system, VirB8 from Brucella suis and ComB10 from Helicobacter pylori
PNAS,
March 22, 2005;
102(12):
4596 - 4601.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
J. Kodding, F. Killig, P. Polzer, S. P. Howard, K. Diederichs, and W. Welte
Crystal Structure of a 92-Residue C-terminal Fragment of TonB from Escherichia coli Reveals Significant Conformational Changes Compared to Structures of Smaller TonB Fragments
J. Biol. Chem.,
January 28, 2005;
280(4):
3022 - 3028.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
V. Braun and C. Herrmann
Point Mutations in Transmembrane Helices 2 and 3 of ExbB and TolQ Affect Their Activities in Escherichia coli K-12
J. Bacteriol.,
July 1, 2004;
186(13):
4402 - 4406.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
K. H. Rohde and D. W. Dyer
Analysis of Haptoglobin and Hemoglobin-Haptoglobin Interactions with the Neisseria meningitidis TonB-Dependent Receptor HpuAB by Flow Cytometry
Infect. Immun.,
May 1, 2004;
72(5):
2494 - 2506.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
J. Koedding, P. Howard, L. Kaufmann, P. Polzer, A. Lustig, and W. Welte
Dimerization of TonB Is Not Essential for Its Binding to the Outer Membrane Siderophore Receptor FhuA of Escherichia coli
J. Biol. Chem.,
March 12, 2004;
279(11):
9978 - 9986.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
C. M. Khursigara, G. De Crescenzo, P. D. Pawelek, and J. W. Coulton
Enhanced Binding of TonB to a Ligand-loaded Outer Membrane Receptor: ROLE OF THE OLIGOMERIC STATE OF TonB IN FORMATION OF A FUNCTIONAL FhuA{middle dot}TonB COMPLEX
J. Biol. Chem.,
February 27, 2004;
279(9):
7405 - 7412.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
A. J. Beddek, B. J. Sheehan, J. T. Bosse, A. N. Rycroft, J. S. Kroll, and P. R. Langford
Two TonB Systems in Actinobacillus pleuropneumoniae: Their Roles in Iron Acquisition and Virulence
Infect. Immun.,
February 1, 2004;
72(2):
701 - 708.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
A. Sauter, S. P. Howard, and V. Braun
In Vivo Evidence for TonB Dimerization
J. Bacteriol.,
October 1, 2003;
185(19):
5747 - 5754.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
A. R. Mey and S. M. Payne
Analysis of Residues Determining Specificity of Vibrio cholerae TonB1 for Its Receptors
J. Bacteriol.,
February 15, 2003;
185(4):
1195 - 1207.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
C. D. Kenney and C. N. Cornelissen
Demonstration and Characterization of a Specific Interaction between Gonococcal Transferrin Binding Protein A and TonB
J. Bacteriol.,
November 15, 2002;
184(22):
6138 - 6145.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
H. Killmann, C. Herrmann, A. Torun, G. Jung, and V. Braun
TonB of Escherichia coli activates FhuA through interaction with the {beta}-barrel
Microbiology,
November 1, 2002;
148(11):
3497 - 3509.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
K. G. Held and K. Postle
ExbB and ExbD Do Not Function Independently in TonB-Dependent Energy Transduction
J. Bacteriol.,
September 15, 2002;
184(18):
5170 - 5173.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
Q. Zhao and K. Poole
Differential Effects of Mutations in tonB1 on Intrinsic Multidrug Resistance and Iron Acquisition in Pseudomonas aeruginosa
J. Bacteriol.,
April 1, 2002;
184(7):
2045 - 2049.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
Q. Zhao and K. Poole
Mutational Analysis of the TonB1 Energy Coupler of Pseudomonas aeruginosa
J. Bacteriol.,
March 15, 2002;
184(6):
1503 - 1513.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
P. I. Higgs, T. E. Letain, K. K. Merriam, N. S. Burke, H. Park, C. Kang, and K. Postle
TonB Interacts with Nonreceptor Proteins in the Outer Membrane of Escherichia coli
J. Bacteriol.,
March 15, 2002;
184(6):
1640 - 1648.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
S. P. Howard, C. Herrmann, C. W. Stratilo, and V. Braun
In Vivo Synthesis of the Periplasmic Domain of TonB Inhibits Transport through the FecA and FhuA Iron Siderophore Transporters of Escherichia coli
J. Bacteriol.,
October 15, 2001;
183(20):
5885 - 5895.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|
Copyright © 2001 by the American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology.
|
Advertisement
Advertisement
|