![]()
|
|
||||||||
J. Biol. Chem., Vol. 277, Issue 39, 36748-36754, September 27, 2002
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
From the Department of Molecular Biology, Princeton University,
Princeton, New Jersey 08544
Received for publication, May 2, 2002, and in revised form, June 18, 2002
Motor behavior in prokaryotes is regulated by a
phosphorelay network involving a histidine protein kinase, CheA, whose
activity is controlled by a family of Type I membrane receptors. In a
typical Escherichia coli cell, several thousand receptors
are organized together with CheA and an Src homology 3-like
protein, CheW, into complexes that tend to be localized at the cell
poles. We found that these complexes have at least 6 receptors per
CheA. CheW is not required for CheA binding to receptors, but is
essential for kinase activation. The kinase activity per mole of bound
CheA is proportional to the total bound CheW. Similar results were obtained with the E. coli serine receptor, Tsr, and the
Salmonella typhimurium aspartate receptor, Tar. In the case
of Tsr, under conditions optimal for kinase activation, the ratio of
subunits in complexes is ~6 Tsr:4 CheW:1 CheA. Our results indicate
that information from numerous receptors is integrated to control the activity of a relatively small number of kinase molecules.
Cellular responses to hormones, neurotransmitters, and a wide
variety of environmental signals are often mediated by proteins composed of extracellular stimulus-binding domains connected by membrane spanning It has generally been assumed that the chemoreceptor signaling unit is
composed of a receptor dimer linked via two CheW subunits to the
dimeric histidine kinase CheA. There is mounting evidence, however,
that signaling entails much more extensive interactions involving
numerous receptor subunits. Immunoelectron and fluorescence microscopies (9-12) and in vivo fluorescence studies (13)
have shown that the majority of the thousands of receptor monomers in a
typical E. coli cell are localized to one or two patches at
the cell poles.
Another strong line of evidence for the involvement of higher order
interactions in signaling was provided by in vitro studies where highly active membrane-free complexes were obtained by mixing soluble receptor cytoplasmic domain fragments from Tar or Tsr with CheA
and CheW (14-16). Earlier, it had been found that appending sequences
that form parallel coiled-coil dimers to the N termini of tyrosine
kinase signaling domains could lead to kinase activation (17-19).
Similar results were obtained when the cytoplasmic domain of Tar was
linked to a leucine zipper coiled-coil dimerization motif (15, 16). The
complexes formed from these constructs were purified and characterized
(20, 21). The subunit composition was ~28 receptor signaling domains,
6 CheWs, and 4 CheAs.
To bridge the gap between results obtained in vitro with
soluble receptor fragments and results derived from immunoelectron microscopy and fluorescence studies of full-length receptors in intact
cells, we have investigated ternary complexes formed by adding purified
CheA and CheW to Tar and Tsr receptors in E. coli membranes.
Our data shows that, similar to the situation with the soluble
complexes, in the membrane-containing complexes receptor is present in
an excess over the kinase, approximately 6:1. Moreover, the molecular
activity of CheA within these complexes is the same as within the
soluble complexes (22). The finding that fully active signaling
complexes contain numerous receptors for every kinase raises the
intriguing possibility that information is integrated within the
sensory receptor array.
Purification of Proteins and Preparation of Membranes--
The
S. typhimurium proteins CheA (23), CheW (24), CheY (25),
CheR (26), and CheBc, the catalytic domain of the
methylesterase CheB (26), were purified from overproducing strains of
E. coli as described previously.
Wild type Tsr from E. coli encoded on plasmid pHSe/Tsr (27)
was overexpressed in E. coli PS2002, a strain deleted for
CheABRWYZ, Tap, and Tar (28). Inner membranes containing the Tsr
receptor were prepared as described previously (29, 30) (Preparation I). Alternatively (Preparation II), harvested cells were suspended in
10 mM Tris/HCl (pH 7.2), 100 mM NaCl, 10 mM EDTA and broken in a French pressure cell. Cell debris
was removed by centrifugation at 4000 × g for 20 min.
The crude extract was centrifuged at 100,000 × g for
1 h in an SW 28 swinging-bucket rotor (Beckman). Membranes were
suspended in 7.4% sucrose (w/v), 10 mM EDTA, 10 mM Tris/HCl (pH 7.2) and mixed with Opti-Prep
(Invitrogen) in a 22:12 ratio. After 25 h centrifugation at
100,000 × g in an SW 28 rotor, the upper membrane band
was collected from the self-formed gradient, washed with 20 ml of
water, suspended in Buffer A (50 mM Tris/HCl (pH 7.2), 5.0 mM MgCl2, 160 mM KCl, 0.50 mM EDTA, 0.020% NaN3) (29), divided into
aliquots, snap-frozen in liquid nitrogen, and stored at
Wild type Tar from S. typhimurium was overexpressed from
plasmid pME98 (15) in E. coli PS2002. Cells were grown in
tryptone broth with 100 µg/ml ampicillin and 50 µg/ml kanamycin at
30 °C and harvested at OD ~0.8. Membranes with the overexpressed
Tar were isolated following the protocol described above for
Preparation II. Except for the final wash solution and the storage
buffer, all solutions were supplemented with a protease inhibitor mix to give the following final concentrations: 1.0 µg/ml aprotinin, 1.0 µg/ml leupeptin, 1.0 µg/ml pepstatin, 0.10 mM
phenylmethylsulfonyl fluoride, 5.0 mM 1,10-phenanthroline.
In parallel, membranes from the PS2002 host strain not bearing any
overproducing plasmids were prepared as a control.
Protein Quantification--
Protein concentrations in stock
solutions were estimated by UV absorption at 276-280 nm (31).
Extinction coefficients at 276 nm (mM
The concentration of Tsr in membrane preparations was estimated by
amino acid analysis of the protein bands excised from a 10%
SDS-acrylamide gel upon electrophoretic separation of proteins. The
determined amino acid composition of the protein was very similar to
the one predicted from the sequence of the tsr gene, indicating the absence of impurities in the protein band and
completeness of the protein hydrolysis. A known amount of bovine serum
albumin was loaded on the same gel and quantified in parallel to
correct for the efficiency of the procedure. The amino acid analysis
was performed in The Howard Hughes Medical Institute
Biopolymer/W. M. Keck Foundation Biotechnology Resource Laboratory at
Yale University. The estimated value of the concentration of the Tsr
receptor was supported by the data on serine binding to the receptor.
The bound serine/receptor ratio at saturation was 0.44 (32), consistent with previous results showing that the E. coli Tsr and Tar
receptor dimers can only bind one molecule of ligand at a time (33,
34).
Concentration of Tar receptor in the membrane preparation was estimated
from the optical density of the corresponding protein band on a
Coomassie-stained acrylamide gel as described above using the Tsr
protein as a standard.
Formation of Receptor·CheW·CheA Complexes and Determination
of the Subunit Stoichiometry in the Complexes--
To form the
complexes, receptor-containing membranes typically were incubated in 20 µl of Buffer A with various concentrations of CheA and CheW for
4 h at 22 °C. CheA and CheW stock solutions were centrifuged
for 15 min at 4 °C prior to mixing with membranes to sediment any
possible precipitate (no pellet was observed). After the incubation,
2.0-µl aliquots of the mixtures were usually removed for activity
measurements, and the rest of the samples, 18 µl, were centrifuged
for 5.0 min at 12,000 × g at room temperature. The
supernatants were removed, and the pellets were dissolved in SDS-sample
buffer and subjected to 11% SDS-PAGE. Amounts of the proteins in
pellets were estimated by densitometry of the Coomassie-stained gels as
described above. During these manipulations and incubations, there were
no indications of proteolytic cleavage of receptors, CheA, or CheW
either from the disappearance or alteration in mobility of protein
bands or from decreases in kinase activity upon further incubation. The
concentration of receptor in the supernatant after centrifugation was
typically less than 5% of its original concentration in the mixture.
To find out what amounts of CheA and CheW were "trapped" in the
pellets due to incomplete removal of the supernatant, in parallel
experiments ~35 µM
[methoxy-3H]inulin, 148 mCi/g,
Mr 5000 (American Radiolabeled Chemicals), was
added to the mixtures. No depletion of radioactivity in the supernatant
upon centrifugation was detected, indicating that inulin does not
sediment with or bind to the vesicles. The amount of radioactivity in
the pellet was measured in a liquid scintillation counter and the
volume of the solution trapped in the pellet calculated (0.25 ± 0.05 µl). These values were used to compute the amount of the bound protein as a difference between the total amount of a
protein in a pellet as determined by densitometry in a gel and the
amount of the trapped protein.
Accessibility of the cytoplasmic domain of Tsr and Tar for interactions
with exogenously added proteins was estimated by measuring the
availability of glutamates located in this domain for methylation by
the CheR methyltransferase. A suspension of the membrane vesicles in
Buffer A with a final concentration of receptor of ~6
µM was incubated for 3 h at 22 °C with 5.0 µM CheR and 200 µM
S-adenosylmethionine. Upon this treatment, 90% (Preparation
I) or 73% (Preparation II) of Tsr and 80% of Tar in membranes that
contain this receptor were methylated as demonstrated by shifted
mobility in a 10% SDS-PAGE. These results indicate that only the
corresponding fractions of the receptors have their cytoplasmic domain
accessible for complex formation with CheA and CheW. The values used
for calculations of receptor stoichiometry in complexes refer only to
the concentrations of receptors in membranes that were subject to
methylation. This estimation was validated by the observation that in
both Tsr Preparations I and II; the stoichiometry of CheW:Tsr binding
at saturation was 1:1. These results indicate that, depending on
experimental conditions, a variable amount of receptor can be exposed
for complex formation, and this value must be independently determined
for each new membrane preparation.
Kinase Activity Assays--
Relative levels of steady-state
activities of CheA in complexes with receptor and CheW in the presence
of CheY were estimated by generation of 32Pi
from [
Specific steady-state activity of CheA in complexes with Tsr and CheW
was measured in Buffer A in the presence of 50 µM CheY and 2.0 mM ATP using the spectroscopic pyruvate
kinase/lactate dehydrogenase coupled assay as described previously
(35). The rate of the reaction measured in the presence of 4.0 mM serine was subtracted as a background (less than 25% of
total activity). The same background rate of ATP hydrolysis was
determined in the absence of CheY. The concentration of CheA in
complexes was determined by SDS-PAGE as described above. Specific
activities of CheA (s Formation and Characterization of Complexes between Receptors,
CheW, and CheA--
CheA and CheW binding to the E. coli
serine receptor, Tsr, was measured over a range of CheA and CheW
concentrations (Fig. 2). Purified CheA
and CheW were mixed with membranes obtained from an E. coli
strain, PS2002, with a chromosomal deletion extending from
cheA through cheZ (28), and a multicopy plasmid,
pHSe/Tsr, that overproduces Tsr (27). After incubation for sufficient time to achieve maximal complex formation, samples were sedimented and
the membrane pellets dissolved in SDS sample buffer and subjected to
polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis. Coomassie-stained bands corresponding to Tsr, CheA, and CheW were quantified using known amounts of the corresponding proteins as standards. Measurement of the
binding of CheA and CheW to Tsr and Tar using scanning densitometry of
Coomassie-stained PAGE gels has allowed us to quantify all three
components in the complexes simultaneously over a wide range of subunit
concentrations, avoiding potential inaccuracies associated with using
radiolabeled CheW and CheA proteins (29). Kinase activities of the
complexes were measured in parallel. The complexes formed by Tsr, CheW,
and CheA appear to be rather stable. When diluted 20-40-fold into
buffer their activity does not change for at least half an hour (Fig.
1).
CheW binds to the E. coli serine receptor, Tsr, with a 1:1
stoichiometry and an apparent Kd of 10 µM in the absence of CheA (Fig. 2A). This
result is consistent with previous studies indicating that CheW can
bind with 1:1 stoichiometry to Tsr in membranes (29) or to a fragment
of the cytoplasmic domain of Tar (15). CheA appears to compete with
CheW, e.g. 10 µM CheA causes about a 30%
reduction in the level of CheW bound.
CheA binds to Tsr with a significantly higher affinity than
CheW, Kd 1-2 µM (Fig. 2B).
In contrast to CheW, binding of CheA to Tsr is substoichiometric with a
ratio of CheA:Tsr at saturation of only about 1:10. Low concentrations
of CheW increase CheA binding to maximal levels of 1 CheA subunit per
six Tsr subunits without causing a substantial change in binding
affinity. This fits the notion that CheW plays a role in organizing the
receptor array to accommodate more CheA, in line with the observation
that CheW is essential for receptor clustering in vivo
(9).
High concentrations of CheW have previously been shown to inhibit CheA
binding to Tsr (29, 36). This result has been interpreted in terms of
the idea that CheW functions as an adapter to attach CheA to the
receptors, so that at sufficiently high concentrations, CheW monomers
bind independently to both the receptors and CheA, thereby jamming the
process of complex assembly (15, 29). But CheA can bind to receptors in
the absence of CheW, and the affinity of receptors for CheA is not
substantially affected by the presence of up to 20 µM
CheW. Furthermore, the inhibitory effects of high concentrations of
CheW on CheA binding are paralleled by inhibitory effects of high
concentrations of CheA on CheW binding. The reduction in CheW binding
associated with high concentrations of CheA involves the displacement
of two CheW subunits for each CheA subunit. The inhibitory interaction
between CheW and CheA may be due, at least in part, to
competition for overlapping binding sites on the receptor, consistent
with the fact that CheW is homologous to the receptor interaction
domain of CheA (7, 8).
Although CheW is not required for CheA binding to receptors, it is
essential for kinase activation. At concentrations of CheW and CheA
that give the highest total kinase activity, membrane signaling
complexes are saturated at a subunit stoichiometry of ~6 Tsr:4 CheW:1
CheA (Fig. 2A).
The results obtained with the serine receptor, Tsr, were confirmed in
experiments with the Salmonella aspartate receptor, Tar.
Membranes enriched for Tar were prepared from E. coli PS2002 cells that contained a Tar overproducing plasmid. As with Tsr, substantial binding of CheA was observed in the absence of CheW, and
CheW enhanced this value about 2-fold. The maximum values obtained for
the ratio of bound CheA to Tar subunits, were essentially the same as
with Tsr, ~1:6 (Fig. 3). As with the
Tsr receptor, CheW was essential for kinase activation (data not
shown). Although Tar was one of the major proteins in these membrane
preparations, its level of overproduction was much lower than that
obtained with the Tsr overproducing strain. This precluded direct
measurements of membrane-bound CheW on Coomassie-stained polyacrylamide
gels.
Chemotaxis receptors are encoded with several specific glutamate or
glutamine residues in their cytoplasmic domains that are subject to
methyl esterification by a specific
S-adenosylmethionine-dependent methyltransferase,
CheR (37), or demethylation/deamidation by a specific esterase/amidase,
CheB (38). The Tsr and Tar receptors used in these studies were not
modified, because they were expressed in a strain that lacks CheR and
CheB. We have examined the effect of methylation and deamidation on
formation of receptor signaling complexes by generating the complexes
in the presence of CheR plus S-adenosylmethionine or CheB
plus ATP. Neither methylation nor deamidation had any significant
effect (less than 26%) on the stoichiometry of the signaling complexes
(Table I).
Kinase Activity in Receptor Signaling Complexes--
It has
previously been shown that the histidine kinase activity of CheA can be
increased more than 100-fold in the presence of CheW plus receptors
(39). CheW is essential for the membrane receptor-mediated CheA
activation. Similar results were obtained earlier with soluble
fragments of the Tsr cytoplasmic domain (14). Histidine kinase activity
per mole of receptor-bound CheA increases linearly with increasing
amounts of bound CheW, independent of the total amount of CheA bound
(Fig. 4A). Linearity extends
from levels of CheA that are high enough to displace CheW to levels of
CheW that are sufficiently high to begin to displace bound CheA. In the
absence of receptors, micromolar concentrations of CheW have no
apparent affect on CheA activity; but although the total intracellular
concentration of CheW in wild type E. coli cells is in the
micromolar range (29), within receptor signaling complexes the
effective local concentration would be orders of magnitude higher. The
catalytic ATP-binding domain of CheA is homologous to the ATP-binding
domains of the Hsp90/topisomerase II/MutL family of ATPases (7). These
proteins all undergo complex cycles of reversible domain interactions
that are driven by the energy released by ATP hydrolysis (40). ATP
binding results in the closure of a relatively disorganized loop termed
the ATP-binding lid, which produces a surface for the subsequent
binding of other protein domains (41). This leads to phosphotransfer to
water or, in the case of CheA, to a histidine side chain in the
histidine phosphotransfer
(HPt)1 domain, followed by
dissociation of this domain and release of ADP (Fig. 4B).
Kinetic analysis of CheA activity indicates that activation in receptor
signaling complexes results from enhanced formation of the
phosphotransfer complex between the ATP binding catalytic domain and
the phosphoaccepting HPt domain of CheA (21). CheW could accomplish
this by simply binding to CheA so as to shift the equilibrium toward
the HPt-bound form.
We have estimated the specific activity (turnover number) of CheA in
Tsr·CheW·CheA complexes using the coupled spectrophotometric assay
for reaction rate measurements and densitometry of the
Coomassie-stained gels for determination of CheA concentrations in the
complexes (see "Experimental Procedures"). The complexes were
produced and the specific activity measured at four sets of
concentrations of CheA and CheW that cover the range estimated for the
E. coli cytoplasm (29, 42). The average specific activity of
CheA dimers in membrane receptor complexes was 60 ± 14 s It has generally been assumed that the basic signaling unit in
bacterial chemotaxis is a complex composed of a receptor dimer and a
dimer of CheA held together by two CheW subunits (42, 43). Most of the
evidence supporting this hypothesis has been circumstantial, however.
The only direct experimental basis for the existence of the 2:2:2
receptor·CheW·CheA complex is a set of experiments where binding of
radiolabeled CheA and CheW to Tsr-enriched membranes was monitored by
depletion of radioactivity in the supernatant after pelleting the
membrane vesicles (29). Estimates of the total number of binding sites
for CheA and CheW were computed from an extrapolation of a Scatchard
plot of the binding data. We have directly measured the binding of CheA
and CheW to Tsr and Tar using scanning densitometry of
Coomassie-stained PAGE gels. This technique allowed us to quantify all
three components simultaneously over a wide range of subunit
concentrations without using radiolabeled proteins. Our results argue
strongly against the 2:2:2 dimer signaling model. There are three
fundamental inconsistencies between our results and the previous model:
(i) the stoichiometry of CheA binding to receptors is far below the 1:1
value required for the 2:2:2 model; (ii) CheA can bind to receptors
independently of CheW; and (iii) CheA and CheW compete for binding.
Wild type E. coli has five different chemotaxis receptors:
Tsr, Tar, Trg, Tap, and Aer, each characterized by a variable
N-terminal-sensing domain connected to the conserved coiled-coil
signaling domain. Most of the receptors are clustered within one or two
patches at the cell poles (9-13). It has been estimated that there are at least 2900 serine and 600 aspartate binding sites in membranes isolated from wild type E. coli cells (44). Because of
negative cooperativity, each receptor dimer has only one binding site, so there should be roughly 3500 Tar plus Tsr receptor dimers per cell.
Assuming that each of the three other E. coli chemotaxis receptors, Trg, Tap, and Aer, is present at about a tenth the level of
the serine and aspartate receptors (45), the total number of receptor
dimers per cell is roughly 5,000. Trg, which is homologous to Tsr and
Tar, has been shown to form a two-dimensional crystalline array in
phospholipid membranes, with a square unit cell 8.8 × 8.8 nm that
contains four regular peaks of electron density, most likely
corresponding to four receptor dimers (46). Assuming a similar packing
in receptor clusters and considering dimensions of the ligand-binding
domain dimer known from its crystal structure (47), 5000 receptor
dimers would occupy a 380-nm diameter area. This is roughly the size of
the polar receptor patches that have been detected by immunoelectron
microscopy (9-11). Our results indicate that the maximum level of CheA
binding is one CheA for every six receptors. This makes sense
considering the apparent tight packing of receptors in the membrane and
the relatively large size of CheA (Fig.
5). The crystal structure of a part of the cytoplasmic domain of Tsr indicates that the cytoplasmic regions of
receptors form antiparallel coiled-coil structures. In the crystal, the
antiparallel helices interact to form four-helix bundles that are
organized in trimeric clusters (48). If this is true for the receptors
in membranes and such a trimer constitutes a binding site for one of
the receptor-binding domains in a CheA dimer, this would fit the
observed 6 receptor:1 CheA stoichiometry of the signaling complexes.
Such an arrangement would place two unbound receptor subunits within
the 8-nm gap between receptor-binding domains of CheA, which is
consistent with our finding that, at saturation, every CheA subunit
that binds to receptors precludes the binding of two CheWs.
This organization of the signaling complexes with several interlinked
chemotaxis receptors sharing the same kinase would be advantageous for
processing the diverse and sometimes contradictory sensory information
feeding into the system. For example, when receptors simultaneously
bind an attractant and a repellent, the inhibiting and activating
signals can be integrated during the signal transduction process that
leads to kinase regulation rather than at a step beyond the kinase
(49). Unlike other histidine kinase signaling systems, in the
chemotaxis system the kinase part and the transmembrane sensing part
are separate polypeptides. The lateral interactions within the
chemotaxis receptor array might also explain the phenomena that the
so-called minor receptors, Trg (receptor for ribose and glucose) and
Tap (receptor for dipeptides), which are present at less than 10% of
the abundant Tar and Tsr can produce full scale chemotactic responses,
but only when the major receptors are present (50, 51). Experimental
data indicating the possibility of inter-receptor communications has
been published recently (52, 53). In the future it would be interesting
to investigate whether heterodimers of the ligand-binding domains are
formed in membranes, which could allow bacteria to respond to a broader
range of chemoeffectors, similar to the situation with the eukaryotic
ErbB receptors binding epidermal growth factors where
heterodimerization and clustering diversifies their ligand specificity
(54).
Results from studies of receptor signaling assemblies indicate that
they are very large structures composed of thousands of signal
transduction components. In addition to CheW and CheA, in E. coli these complexes contain five different receptors, each subject to several glutamyl modifications. The complexity of this structure is staggering, it is no wonder that every individual bacterium has its own characteristic pattern of behavior (55). The
primary function of the receptor signaling complexes is almost certainly much more concerned with processing information to make appropriate decisions, rather than merely sensing attractant and repellent stimuli (56). The bacterial receptor signaling apparatus with
receptors, CheW, CheA, and the methylation adaptation system is highly
conserved in virtually all motile prokaryotes including both Archaea
and Eubacteria (6, 57). This suggests that over the past few billion
years this set of interacting proteins has evolved an almost ideal
mechanism to gather sensory information and use it to formulate the
second to second decisions that are required to control motility.
We thank F. W. Dahlquist for a gift of
pHSe5/Tsr. We acknowledge the Howard Hughes Medical Institute
Biopolymer/W. M. Keck Foundation Biotechnology Resource Laboratory at
Yale University for the quantitative amino acid analysis of Tsr. We
thank B. Bassler, E. Cox, D. DeRosier, N. Francis, A. Newton, T. Shaikh, T. Silhavy, P. Thomason, and P. Wolanin for critical reading of
the manuscript and stimulating discussions.
*
This work was supported by a National Institutes of Health
Grant (to J. B. S.).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.
§
To whom correspondence should be addressed: Dept. of Molecular
Biology, Princeton University, Lewis Thomas Labs, Washington Rd.,
Princeton, NJ 08544. Tel.: 609-258-6111; Fax: 609-258-6175; E-mail:
jstock@princeton.edu.
Published, JBC Papers in Press, July 15, 2002, DOI 10.1074/jbc.M204317200
The abbreviation used is:
HPt, histidine
phosphotransfer.
Organization of the Receptor-Kinase Signaling Array That
Regulates Escherichia coli Chemotaxis*
, and
![]()
ABSTRACT
TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
REFERENCES
![]()
INTRODUCTION
TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
REFERENCES
-helices to intracellular signaling domains. These
so called Type I receptors include the protein tyrosine kinase
receptors that mediate responses to insulin, growth factors, and
cytokines in vertebrate cells (1), as well as the protein histidine
kinase receptors in microorganisms and plants (2). Type I receptors are
generally thought to function as dimers (3). Stimulatory ligands bind
to sites that bridge the dimer interface to cause conformational
changes leading to altered interactions between protein kinase domains
within the cytoplasm. Over the past several years the serine and
aspartate receptors, Tsr and Tar, which mediate chemotaxis responses to
serine and aspartate in Escherichia coli and
Salmonella typhimurium, have emerged as useful models for
understanding general principles of Type I receptor function (2, 4-6).
Tsr and Tar are homologous 60-kDa proteins with dimeric
extracytoplasmic ligand-binding domains connected by transmembrane
sequences to conserved cytoplasmic coiled-coil domains that bind the
dimeric histidine protein kinase, CheA (7), and an Src homolgy
3-like protein, CheW (8). CheA phosphorylates one of its own histidine
residues, and the phosphoryl group is then rapidly transferred to an
aspartate residue in the single domain response regulator CheY.
Phosphorylated CheY binds to the flagellar motor switch, where it
promotes a change in the direction a bacterium is swimming. Serine and
aspartate cause changes in receptor conformation that inhibit CheA.
This decreases the level of phospho-CheY so that bacteria tend to
continue swimming toward these attractants.
![]()
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
REFERENCES
80 °C. The
Tsr receptor comprised approximately 34% of total membrane protein, as
estimated from the relative intensities of the receptor and total
protein bands on a Coomassie-stained gel using scanning densitometry
(see below).
1
cm
1) of 16.0 for CheA, 5.95 for CheW, 32.4 for CheR, and
6.97 (at 280 nm) for CheY were calculated from the protein sequences.
Concentrations of individual proteins in mixtures were estimated from
Coomassie-stained SDS-polyacrylamide gels where a range of known
amounts of the corresponding pure proteins were loaded as standards.
The gels were scanned with a ScanMaker4 scanner (Microtek), and the
images were quantified using NIH Image 1.61 software. Unless stated
otherwise, all concentrations are expressed in terms of the indicated
monomeric species.
-32P]ATP. Complexes were prepared as described
above and for the activity measurements diluted 1:20 in Buffer A
containing 25 µM (final) CheY and 2.0 mM
(final) [
-32P]ATP, 50 Ci/mol (PerkinElmer Life
Sciences, 6000 Ci/mmol). Reactions were stopped after 20-min
incubation at room temperature by addition of an equal volume of 100 mM EDTA, and 1.0-µl aliquots were loaded on a
polyethyleneimine-cellulose plastic sheet (Merck) and developed in 125 mM KH2PO4 (Fig.
1). The relative radioactivity of the
32Pi spots (Rf ~0.55)
was quantified using PhosphorImager (Molecular Dynamics). Generation of
32Pi under these conditions was constant for up
to 30 min, indicating the relatively high stability of the
receptor-kinase complexes.

View larger version (59K):
[in a new window]
Fig. 1.
Measurement of the steady-state activity of
CheA by generation of 32Pi. Generation of
32Pi was determined by quantitative analysis of
the phosphorimaged TLC plates where aliquots removed at various times
from the reaction mixtures containing Tsr·CheW·CheA (
),
Tsr·CheW (
), or Tsr·CheA (
) complexes, CheY, and
[
-32P]ATP were loaded (see "Experimental
Procedures"). In the experiment shown here, the complexes were formed
in incubation mixtures containing 6.4 µM Tsr (Preparation
II, see "Experimental Procedures"), 20 µM CheW, and
10 µM CheA. Due to the rapid hydrolysis of phospho-CheY,
the CheA·CheY mixture essentially constitutes an ATPase: CheA + CheY + ATP
CheA-p + CheY +ADP
CheA + CheY-p + ADP
CheA + CheY + ADP + PI, and the rate of the
reaction can be measured by generation of Pi. When CheY is
provided in sufficient concentrations, the rate of CheA
autophosphorylation is limiting (experimentally, the rate of the
reaction varies linearly with the concentration of the ternary
complex).
1) were calculated as a ratio of the
rates of ATP hydrolysis (µM s
1) and
concentration of the membrane-bound CheA dimers (µM).
![]()
RESULTS
TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
REFERENCES

View larger version (41K):
[in a new window]
Fig. 2.
Composition and activity of Tsr·CheW·CheA
complexes. Complexes were formed, isolated, and analyzed by
scanning densitometry of polyacrylamide gels (examples in the top
row) to determine the amounts of bound CheW and CheA. Kinase
activity (expressed in arbitrary units, a.u.) was measured
by generation of 32Pi (see "Experimental
Procedures"). The CheWbound/Tsr and
CheAbound/Tsr ratios were calculated as described under
"Experimental Procedures." Complexes were formed by incubating
mixtures containing 6.4 µM Tsr plus the indicated
concentrations of CheW and 0, 1.0, or 10 µM CheA
(A) and the indicated concentrations of CheA and 0, 5.0, or
20 µM CheW (B). Essentially the same results
were obtained with two different Tsr membrane preparations
(Preparations I and II, see "Experimental Procedures"). The
SDS-PAGE gels pictured in this figure were obtained using Preparation
I, and the quantitative data shown in the figure were obtained by
scanning gels from experiments where Preparation II was used.

View larger version (38K):
[in a new window]
Fig. 3.
Binding of CheA to Tar. The indicated
concentrations of CheA were incubated in the presence of 5.0 µM CheW with membranes enriched for Tar, in the absence
of CheW with membranes enriched for Tar, or in the absence of CheW with
control membranes lacking Tar. Amounts of membrane-associated CheA are
given in terms of relative optical density of bands on polyacrylamide
gels as determined by scanning densitometry.
Effects of Tsr glutamyl modification status on CheA and CheW
binding to Tsr

View larger version (15K):
[in a new window]
Fig. 4.
Specific activity of CheA in
Tsr·CheW·CheA complexes is proportional to the total level of bound
CheW. A, specific activity of CheA and concentration of
CheW associated with receptor signaling complexes were determined as
described in the legend to Fig. 2A using Preparation II of
Tsr membranes. Complexes were formed in the presence of 1.0 µM (squares) or 10 µM
(diamonds) CheA and the indicated concentrations of CheW.
B, model for CheA catalytic cycle. The catalytic domain of
CheA, Cat, binds ATP. This causes the ATP-binding lid to close,
creating a binding surface for the HPt domain from a second subunit of
CheA. CheW binding facilitates tight binding of HPt to accelerate the
phosphotransfer reaction. The resulting phosphorylated HPt domain then
dissociates from the catalytic domain and readily transfers its
phosphoryl group to the response regulator, CheY. Finally, the
ATP-binding lid is released, and ADP dissociates to complete the
cycle.
1 (Table II). This is
570 ± 150 times higher than the specific activity of pure CheA
dimers measured under the same conditions (0.106 ± 0.008 s
1).
Specific activity and activation of CheA
![]()
DISCUSSION
TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
REFERENCES

View larger version (117K):
[in a new window]
Fig. 5.
Model of the receptor/CheW/CheA array.
Atomic coordinates for the sensing domain of Tar (47), part of
the cytoplasmic domain of Tsr (48), CheW (8), and the domains of CheA
(7, 58, 59) were used to generate proportional space-filling models of
the proteins.
![]()
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
![]()
FOOTNOTES
Supported by a fellowship from the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft.
![]()
ABBREVIATIONS
![]()
REFERENCES
TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
REFERENCES
1.
Heldin, C. H.
(1996)
Cancer Surv.
27,
7-24[Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
2.
Wolanin, P. M.,
and Stock, J. B.
(2002)
in
Histidine Kinases in Signal Transduction
(Inouye, M.
, and Dutta, R., eds)
, pp. 73-122, Academic Press, New York
3.
Schlessinger, J.
(2000)
Cell
103,
211-225[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
4.
Falke, J. J.,
and Kim, S. H.
(2000)
Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol.
10,
462-469[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
5.
Falke, J. J.,
and Hazelbauer, G. L.
(2001)
Trends Biochem. Sci.
26,
257-265[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
6.
Zhulin, I. B.
(2001)
Adv. Microb. Physiol.
45,
157-198[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
7.
Bilwes, A. M.,
Alex, L. A.,
Crane, B. R.,
and Simon, M. I.
(1999)
Cell
96,
131-141[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
8.
Griswold, I. J.,
Zhou, H.,
Matison, M.,
Swanson, R. V.,
McIntosh, L. P.,
Simon, M. I.,
and Dahlquist, F. W.
(2002)
Nat. Struct. Biol.
9,
121-125[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
9.
Maddock, J. R.,
and Shapiro, L.
(1993)
Science
259,
1717-1723 10.
Lybarger, S. R.,
and Maddock, J. R.
(1999)
J. Bacteriol.
181,
5527-5529 11.
Lybarger, S. R.,
and Maddock, J. R.
(2000)
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A.
97,
8057-8062 12.
Gestwicki, J. E.,
Lamanna, A. C.,
Harshey, R. M.,
McCarter, L. L.,
Kiessling, L. L.,
and Adler, J.
(2000)
J. Bacteriol.
182,
6499-6502 13.
Sourjik, V.,
and Berg, H. C.
(2000)
Mol. Microbiol.
37,
740-751[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
14.
Ames, P.,
and Parkinson, J. S.
(1994)
J. Bacteriol.
176,
6340-6348 15.
Surette, M. G.,
and Stock, J. B.
(1996)
J. Biol. Chem.
271,
17966-17973 16.
Cochran, A. G.,
and Kim, P. S.
(1996)
Science
271,
1113-1116[Abstract]
17.
Wu, Z.,
Eaton, S. F.,
Laue, T. M.,
Johnson, K. W.,
Sana, T. R.,
and Ciardelli, T. L.
(1994)
Protein Eng.
7,
1137-1144 18.
Muir, T. W.,
Williams, M. J.,
Ginsberg, M. H.,
and Kent, S. B.
(1994)
Biochemistry
33,
7701-7708[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
19.
Chang, H. C.,
Bao, Z.,
Yao, Y.,
Tse, A. G.,
Goyarts, E. C.,
Madsen, M.,
Kawasaki, E.,
Brauer, P. P.,
Sacchettini, J. C.,
Nathenson, S. G.,
and Reinherz, E. L.
(1994)
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A.
91,
11408-11412 20.
Liu, Y.,
Levit, M.,
Lurz, R.,
Surette, M.,
and Stock, J.
(1997)
EMBO J.
16,
7231-7240[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
21.
Levit, M. N.,
Liu, Y.,
and Stock, J. B.
(1999)
Biochemistry
38,
6651-6658[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
22.
Francis, N. R.,
Levit, M. N.,
Shaikh, T. R.,
Melanson, L. A.,
Stock, J. B.,
and DeRosier, D. J.
(2002)
J. Biol. Chem.
277,
36755-36759 23.
Stock, A.,
Chen, T.,
Welsh, D.,
and Stock, J.
(1988)
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A.
85,
1403-1407 24.
Stock, A.,
Mottonen, J.,
Chen, T.,
and Stock, J.
(1987)
J. Biol. Chem.
262,
535-537 25.
Stock, A.,
Koshland, D. E., Jr.,
and Stock, J.
(1985)
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A.
82,
7989-7993 26.
West, A. H.,
Djordjevic, S.,
Martinez-Hackert, E.,
and Stock, A. M.
(1995)
Proteins
21,
345-350[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
27.
Muchmore, D. C.,
McIntosh, L. P.,
Russell, C. B.,
Anderson, D. E.,
and Dahlquist, F. W.
(1989)
Methods Enzymol.
177,
44-73[Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
28.
Alon, U.,
Camarena, L.,
Surette, M. G.,
Aguera Zzy Arcas, B.,
Liu, Y.,
Leibler, S.,
and Stock, J. B.
(1998)
EMBO J.
17,
4238-4248[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
29.
Gegner, J. A.,
Graham, D. R.,
Roth, A. F.,
and Dahlquist, F. W.
(1992)
Cell
70,
975-982[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
30.
Osborn, M. J.,
and Munson, R.
(1974)
Methods Enzymol.
31,
642-653[Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
31.
Gill, S. C.,
and von Hippel, P. H.
(1989)
Anal. Biochem.
182,
319-326[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
32.
Levit, M. N.,
and Stock, J. B.
(2002)
J. Biol. Chem.
277,
36760-36765 33.
Lin, L. N., Li, J.,
Brandts, J. F.,
and Weis, R. M.
(1994)
Biochemistry
33,
6564-6570[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
34.
Biemann, H. P.,
and Koshland, D. E., Jr.
(1994)
Biochemistry
33,
629-634[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
35.
Surette, M. G.,
Levit, M.,
Liu, Y.,
Lukat, G.,
Ninfa, E. G.,
Ninfa, A.,
and Stock, J. B.
(1996)
J. Biol. Chem.
271,
939-945 36.
Ninfa, E. G.,
Stock, A.,
Mowbray, S.,
and Stock, J.
(1991)
J. Biol. Chem.
266,
9764-9770 37.
Djordjevic, S.,
and Stock, A. M.
(1998)
Nat. Struct. Biol.
5,
446-450[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
38.
Djordjevic, S.,
Goudreau, P. N., Xu, Q.,
Stock, A. M.,
and West, A. H.
(1998)
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A.
95,
1381-1386 39.
Borkovich, K. A.,
Kaplan, N.,
Hess, J. F.,
and Simon, M. I.
(1989)
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A.
86,
1208-1212 40.
Stock, J.
(1999)
Curr. Biol.
9,
R364-R367[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
41.
Bilwes, A. M.,
Quezada, C. M.,
Croal, L. R.,
Crane, B. R.,
and Simon, M. I.
(2001)
Nat. Struct. Biol.
8,
353-360[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
42.
Falke, J. J.,
Bass, R. B.,
Butler, S. L.,
Chervitz, S. A.,
and Danielson, M. A.
(1997)
Annu. Rev. Cell Dev. Biol.
13,
457-512[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
43.
Stock, J. B.,
and Surette, M.
(1996)
in
Escherichia coli and Salmonella typhimurium: Cellular and Molecular Biology
(Neidhardt, F. C., ed), 2nd Ed., Vol. 1
, pp. 1103-1129, American Society for Microbiology, Washington, D. C.
44.
Clarke, S.,
and Koshland, D. E., Jr.
(1979)
J. Biol. Chem.
254,
9695-9702 45.
Hazelbauer, G. L.,
Engstrom, P.,
and Harayama, S.
(1981)
J. Bacteriol.
145,
43-49 46.
Barnakov, A. N.,
Downing, K. H.,
and Hazelbauer, G. L.
(1994)
J. Struct. Biol.
112,
117-124[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
47.
Yeh, J. I.,
Biemann, H. P.,
Prive, G. G.,
Pandit, J.,
Koshland, D. E., Jr.,
and Kim, S. H.
(1996)
J. Mol. Biol.
262,
186-201[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
48.
Kim, K. K.,
Yokota, H.,
and Kim, S. H.
(1999)
Nature
400,
787-792[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
49.
Grebe, T. W.,
and Stock, J.
(1998)
Curr. Biol.
8,
R154-R157[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
50.
Feng, X.,
Baumgartner, J. W.,
and Hazelbauer, G. L.
(1997)
J. Bacteriol.
179,
6714-6720 51.
Weerasuriya, S.,
Schneider, B. M.,
and Manson, M. D.
(1998)
J. Bacteriol.
180,
914-920 52.
Gestwicki, J. E.,
and Kiessling, L. L.
(2002)
Nature
415,
81-84[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
53.
Ames, P.,
Studdert, C. A.,
Reiser, R. H.,
and Parkinson, J. S.
(2002)
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A.
99,
7060-7065 54.
Riese, D. J., II,
and Stern, D. F.
(1998)
Bioessays
20,
41-48[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
55.
Spudich, J. L.,
and Koshland, D. E., Jr.
(1976)
Nature
262,
467-471[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
56.
Stock, J.,
and Levit, M.
(2000)
Curr. Biol.
10,
R11-R14[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
57.
Grebe, T. W.,
and Stock, J. B.
(1999)
Adv. Microb. Physiol.
41,
139-227[Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
58.
Mourey, L., Da Re, S.,
Pédelacq, J.-D.,
Tolstykh, T.,
Faurie, C.,
Guillet, V.,
Stock, J. B.,
and Samama, J.-P.
(2001)
J. Biol. Chem.
276,
81074-81082
59.
Welch, M.,
Chinardet, N.,
Mourey, L.,
Birck, C.,
and Samama, J. P.
(1998)
Nat. Struct. Biol.
5,
25-29[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
Copyright © 2002 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:
![]() |
E. Bantinaki, R. Kassen, C. G. Knight, Z. Robinson, A. J. Spiers, and P. B. Rainey Adaptive Divergence in Experimental Populations of Pseudomonas fluorescens. III. Mutational Origins of Wrinkly Spreader Diversity Genetics, May 1, 2007; 176(1): 441 - 453. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
P. Zhang, C. M. Khursigara, L. M. Hartnell, and S. Subramaniam Direct visualization of Escherichia coli chemotaxis receptor arrays using cryo-electron microscopy PNAS, March 6, 2007; 104(10): 3777 - 3781. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
I. L. Budyak, V. Pipich, O. S. Mironova, R. Schlesinger, G. Zaccai, and J. Klein-Seetharaman Shape and oligomerization state of the cytoplasmic domain of the phototaxis transducer II from Natronobacterium pharaonis PNAS, October 17, 2006; 103(42): 15428 - 15433. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
A. E. Asinas and R. M. Weis Competitive and Cooperative Interactions in Receptor Signaling Complexes J. Biol. Chem., October 13, 2006; 281(41): 30512 - 30523. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
P. M. Wolanin, M. D. Baker, N. R. Francis, D. R. Thomas, D. J. DeRosier, and J. B. Stock Self-assembly of receptor/signaling complexes in bacterial chemotaxis PNAS, September 26, 2006; 103(39): 14313 - 14318. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
J. Zhao and J. S. Parkinson Cysteine-Scanning Analysis of the Chemoreceptor-Coupling Domain of the Escherichia coli Chemotaxis Signaling Kinase CheA. J. Bacteriol., June 1, 2006; 188(12): 4321 - 4330. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
M.-A. Jimenez-Pearson, I. Delany, V. Scarlato, and D. Beier Phosphate flow in the chemotactic response system of Helicobacter pylori Microbiology, October 1, 2005; 151(10): 3299 - 3311. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |