|
Originally published In Press as doi:10.1074/jbc.M205806200 on October 7, 2002
J. Biol. Chem., Vol. 277, Issue 50, 48199-48204, December 13, 2002
In Vivo Interactions between Gene Products Involved
in the Final Stages of Molybdenum Cofactor Biosynthesis in
Escherichia coli*
Axel
Magalon ,
Chantal
Frixon,
Jeanine
Pommier,
Gérard
Giordano, and
Francis
Blasco
From the Laboratoire de Chimie Bactérienne, Institut Biologie
Structurale et Microbiologie, CNRS, 31 chemin Joseph Aiguier,
13402 Marseille cedex 09, France
Received for publication, June 12, 2002, and in revised form, September 4, 2002
 |
ABSTRACT |
The final stages of bacterial molybdenum cofactor
(Moco) biosynthesis correspond to molybdenum chelation and nucleotide
attachment onto an unique and ubiquitous structure, the molybdopterin.
Using a bacterial two-hybrid approach, here we report on the in
vivo interactions between MogA, MoeA, MobA, and MobB implicated
in several distinct although linked steps in Escherichia
coli. Numerous interactions among these proteins have been
identified. Somewhat surprisingly, MobB, a GTPase with a yet unclear
function, interacts with MogA, MoeA, and MobA. Probing the effects of
various mo. mutations on the interaction map allowed us (i)
to distinguish Moco-sensitive interactants from insensitive ones
involving MobB and (ii) to demonstrate that molybdopterin is a key
molecule triggering or facilitating MogA-MoeA and MoeA-MobA
interactions. These results suggest that, in vivo,
molybdenum cofactor biosynthesis occurs on protein complexes rather
than by the separate action of molybdenum cofactor biosynthetic proteins.
 |
INTRODUCTION |
Molybdenum is an essential trace element for most living systems
including microorganisms, plants, and animals. Molybdenum is found
associated with a diverse range of redox active enzymes that catalyze
basic reactions in the metabolism of nitrogen, carbon, and sulfur (1).
With the exception of nitrogenase, molybdenum is incorporated into
proteins as the molybdenum cofactor
(Moco),1 an ubiquitous basic
structure which contains a mononuclear Mo atom coordinated to an
organic cofactor named molybdopterin (MPT) (2). The biosynthesis of
Moco is an evolutionary conserved pathway that has been extensively
studied in Escherichia coli and several genetic loci grouped
together under the mo. designation (moa,
mob, mod, moe, and mog)
have been implicated in the pleiotrophy of molybdoenzymes (3). Genes
encoding highly homologous proteins implicated in Moco biosynthesis
have been identified in bacteria, archaea, higher plants, and higher
animals including humans. Molybdenum cofactor biosynthesis can be
divided into three stages: (i) conversion of a guanine nucleotide into
the meta-stable precursor Z, (ii) conversion of precursor Z into MPT,
and (iii) chelation of molybdenum by MPT, thus forming Moco. Although
this compound constitutes the active form of the cofactor present in
all eukaryotic and some prokaryotic molybdoenzymes, most bacterial
enzymes require a modification of this basic structure to be
functionally active. This modification involves attachment of a
nucleotide moiety, GMP, AMP, IMP, or CMP, onto the terminal phosphate
group of the MPT side chain (reviewed in Rajagopalan and Johnson
(2)).
Due to its intrinsic instability, the molybdenum cofactor has to remain
bound to proteins during the whole biosynthetic process until its final
delivery to apomolybdoenzymes. The crystal structure of most of the
proteins involved in the biosynthetic pathway of Moco have been
determined recently (4-12). Biochemical studies have indicated that
newly formed MPT remains tightly bound to the MoaD-MoaE complex (MPT
synthase) until its transfer to proteins able to bind it with higher
affinity (13). MogA and MoeA proteins constitute such candidates and
have been shown to bind MPT with distinct affinities (6, 11, 14). MPT
might then be transferred from MPT synthase to MogA by direct protein
interaction, and an activated molybdenum species can be subsequently
inserted into the MogA-bound MPT by the aid of MoeA. The MPT-Mo
cofactor can either be inserted into MPT-free apoenzymes or undergo
subsequent addition of a nucleotide, for example GMP in E. coli by the MobA protein. However, in vitro
reconstitution studies of MPT-enzymes such as sulfite oxidase have
indicated that conversion of MPT to active Moco by molybdate chelation
and its subsequent incorporation can be performed in the absence of
MogA and MoeA (13). Similar studies performed on MGD-enzymes such as
Me2SO reductase from Rhodobacter sphaeroides
have shown that both MobB and a chaperone protein are not absolutely
required for MGD insertion (15). Such observations have led us to
consider alternative approaches to decipher the functions played by the
mo. gene products involved in the Mo incorporation and
nucleotide attachment steps.
This communication reports on the interactions existing in
vivo between individual pairs of mo. gene products
involved in the final stages of molybdenum cofactor biosynthesis in
E. coli. Effects of various mo. mutations on
these interactions have been assessed and allowed the identification of
protein complexes for which formation is dependent upon binding of a
Moco intermediate. A comprehensive model is presented for the protein
interaction network existing during the course of Moco biosynthesis in
E. coli.
 |
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES |
Bacterial Strains, Plasmids, and Growth Media--
The
bacterial strains and plasmids used in this work are described in Table
I. E. coli DH5 was used as
a host for plasmid constructions and maintenance. The other strains
employed in this study are derivatives of E. coli BTH101
(16). Bacterial cultures were grown in L-broth medium under aerobic
conditions. As needed, sodium molybdate or sodium tungstate was added
at 1 mM final concentration. When required, 100 µg
ml 1 of ampicillin, 50 µg ml 1 of
chloramphenicol and 25 µg ml 1 of tetracycline are
employed.
Plasmid Constructions for Two-hybrid Assays--
For the
generation of pT18- and pT25-derived plasmids, mogA,
moeA, mobA, and mobB genes were
individually amplified by PCR using chromosomal DNA of strain MC4100 as
template. mobA and mogA genes were amplified,
KpnI-restricted, and ligated into the KpnI site
of either the pT18 or pT25 plasmids. For subcloning into the pT18
vector, moeA was amplified to generate a PCR product flanked
by SalI and HindIII sites. This fragment was
digested and subcloned into the polylinker of the pT18 vector. For
subcloning into the pT25 vector, moeA was amplified,
BamHI-SacII-restricted, and subcloned into the
polylinker of the pT25 vector. Similarly, for subcloning into the pT18
vector, mobB was amplified and XhoI-restricted, whereas subcloning into the pT25 vector was performed using the PstI-SmaI sites. Clones were sequenced to check
for any mutation that might have been misincorporated during the
amplification, and when necessary, the correct orientation of the
inserts was confirmed by PCR.
Two-hybrid Assays--
Subcloning of PCR fragments into the pT18
vector lead to the formation of chimeric proteins with an 18-kDa
carboxyl-terminal fragment (225-399 amino acids) issued from the
adenylate cyclase. Conversely, subcloning of PCR fragments into the
pT25 vector lead to the formation of chimeric products with a 25-kDa
amino-terminal fragment (1-224 amino acids) issued from the adenylate
cyclase. Indeed, adenylate cyclase protein (CyaA) can be separated into two domains (designated T25 for the amino-terminal domain and T18 for
the carboxyl-terminal domain), which cannot function independently. When fused to interacting proteins, the Cya domains can potentially interact and function, resulting in complementation of adenylate cyclase activity and in production of cyclic AMP. cAMP production can
be indirectly measured by maltose or lactose metabolism in an E. coli cya mutant (BTH101) transformed with pT25- and
pT18-derived plasmids. Maltose metabolism has been scored on
indicator plates (MacConkey media supplemented with 1% maltose and 0.5 mM isopropyl-1-thio- -D-galactopyranoside) by
the appearance of red colonies in 2-4 days at 30 °C. Otherwise, white colonies appeared when reconstitution of the adenylate cyclase was not obtained. The efficiency of complementation could be further quantified by measuring -galactosidase activities in cells grown overnight at 30 °C in LB medium supplemented with 0.5 mM
isopropyl-1-thio- -D-galactopyranoside (17).
Genetic Experiments--
Transduction with P1 phage was
performed as described by Miller (18). Using BTH101 as a recipient
strain, BTH101moa254::Tn10, BTH101modB247::Tn10,
and BTH101mob252::Tn10 were obtained. Mapping of the
mutations was confirmed by phenotype complementation analysis.
Enzyme Assays--
Nitrate reductase activity was assayed by
procedures already described (19). -Galactosidase activity in whole
cells was determined at mid-log phase with chloroform-sodium dodecyl
sulfate-permeabilized cells as described by Miller (17). The
-galactosidase values presented are the average of at least three
independent experiments.
 |
RESULTS |
Protein-protein interactions play a major role in most of
biological processes. It is becoming evident that many proteins act in
large modular structures, also referred to as protein machines or
molecular networks, that are involved in specialized processes like
signal transduction, metabolic cascade, and biosynthetic pathways.
Taking into consideration that proteins act as modular complexes, one
possible approach to uncover their respective function is to identify
their potential protein partner(s). The notion behind this approach is
that identification of a known partner would provide a clue to the
function of the protein within a complex process. One of the most
commonly used genetic systems of today is the two-hybrid system, which
was originally described more than a decade ago by Fields and Song
(20). This system was shown to be a powerful method for the
identification of protein-protein interaction between known protein
partners as well as for the identification of new partners using a
library screening approach.
Interaction between E. coli NarJ and NarG Can Be Detected by a
Bacterial Two-hybrid System--
To characterize protein-protein
interactions, a bacterial two-hybrid system developed by Karimova
et al. (16) and based on functional reconstitution of
adenylate cyclase activity was employed. Complex formation of proteins
of interest was readily ascertained by red color development of
bacterial colonies on MacConkey media supplemented with maltose and by
an elevated -galactosidase activity. As the two measurements gave
corroborating results, only the enzyme activities are presented. A
positive control, pT25-Zip/pT18-Zip, which contains the sequence for a
35-amino acid leucine zipper motif of GCN4 fused to both pT25 and pT18, was tested for interaction (16). Under our assay conditions, pT25-Zip/pT18-Zip exhibited a high level of adenylate cyclase complementation (intense red color on MacConkey-maltose indicator plates in 48 h; 1500 Miller units of -galactosidase activity, see "Experimental Procedures"). Conversely, no complementation was
observed using pT18/pT25 (cells remain white on MacConkey-maltose plates after several days; 50 Miller units of -galactosidase activity corresponding to basal level in BTH101).
For our research, it was critical to establish that interactions
mediated among E. coli constituents could be studied by a bacterial two-hybrid approach and not influenced by endogenous proteins. As an initial test, we assayed the known interaction between
NarJ and NarG proteins that correspond to a specific chaperone type
protein and the catalytic subunit of the membrane-bound nitrate reductase A, respectively. These proteins form a tight complex during
the maturation of the E. coli nitrate reductase A (21). Dissociation of this complex only occurs when the molybdenum cofactor has been inserted into the NarG catalytic subunit. narJ was
cloned into the bait plasmid pT18, and narG into the prey
plasmid pT25. High levels of -galactosidase were observed when both
plasmids were present in the recipient cell, BTH101 (intense red color on MacConkey-maltose indicator plates within 48 h; 1200 Miller units of -galactosidase activity). No activity was observed when either fusion plasmid was used separately or when used with Zip-derived plasmids (cells remain white on MacConkey-maltose plates after several
days; 50 Miller units). When NarH corresponding to the electron
transfer subunit was used with the NarJ fusion protein, no activity was
detected (data not shown) as shown previously by BIACORE analysis (21).
Thus, this approach allows the detection of specific interaction
between NarJ and NarG. Moreover, endogenous NarG issued from the
recipient strain BTH101 cannot mediate interaction between NarJ and
NarH fusion proteins using the two-hybrid system. These results set the
stage for analyses of the interactions existing in vivo
between mo. gene products described below.
Defining the Interactions Existing in Vivo in a Wild-type Strain,
BTH101--
To study the interactions existing in vivo
among proteins involved in the final stages of Moco biosynthesis, the
following genes, moeA, mogA, mobA, and
mobB were subcloned individually in both pT18 and pT25
plasmids. In an initial control, the functionality of each of the
fusion proteins with MoeA, MogA, and MobA were tested by phenotype
complementation analysis. Due to the lack of phenotype of
mobB mutant, functionality of the corresponding fusion
proteins has not been assessed. On the other hand, complete restoration
of the phenotype has been systematically observed by measurement of
nitrate reductase activity (> 95% activity of the wild-type strain)
indicating that all of the tested plasmid constructions produce active
fusion proteins despite the presence of T25 or T18 domains at the amino
terminus or carboxyl terminus, respectively. Further control
experiments were carried out in which each of the mo. fusion
constructs were tested with either pT18-Zip or pT25-Zip. None of the
transformants exhibited adenylate cyclase complementation (cells remain
white on MacConkey-maltose plates after several days; 50 Miller units),
demonstrating recognition specificity displayed by the Mo. fusion
proteins (data not shown).
Fig. 1A displays results
obtained from complementation between the Mo. chimeric proteins. To
discriminate false-positive from true interactions, each of the
interacting pairs have been tested in both directions and have given
similar results on both indicator plates and -galactosidase
measurements. Interestingly, MoeA interacts with both MogA and MobA to
result in significant complementation (Fig. 1A, lanes
1-2), whereas MogA fusion proteins failed to interact with MobA
(Fig. 1A, lane 3). Somewhat surprisingly, MobB
interacts with MoeA, MogA, and MobA to varying extents (Fig.
1A, lanes 4-6). As a representative control,
MoeA does not interact with the Zip domain (Fig. 1A,
lane 7).

View larger version (14K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 1.
Interactions between the mo. gene
products detected by a bacterial two-hybrid approach. A, in
BTH101 strain able to synthesize Moco; B, in
BTH101moa::Tn10 strain impaired in Moco synthesis.
-Galactosidase activities are expressed in Miller units.
|
|
One can take advantage of this two-hybrid system in verifying the
multimerization ability of each of the tested Mo. proteins. Crystal
structures and biochemical experiments have indicated that MoeA exists
as a dimer (10, 11) and MogA as a trimer (6), whereas MobA is monomeric
(4, 5). MobB exists as a dimer according to gel filtration experiments
(22). Transformants with pT25-MobA/pT18-MobA exhibit a basal level of
-galactosidase activities supporting a monomeric state of MobA (Fig.
2, lane 1). In contrast,
cotransformation with either pT25-MobB/pT18-MobB or pT25-MoeA/pT18-MoeA
leads to a very high level of adenylate cyclase complementation (Fig.
2, lanes 2-3) supporting a dimeric state of both MobB and
MoeA. Finally, no adenylate cyclase complementation was observed when
using MogA chimeric proteins (Fig. 2, lane 4).

View larger version (13K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 2.
Evaluation of multimerization ability of the
studied Mo. proteins. -Galactosidase activities are expressed
in Miller units.
|
|
Probing the Effect of Moco Absence on the Interactions--
Some
of the visualized interactions might correspond to transient complexes
occurring during Moco biosynthesis. At least, two of the tested
proteins MogA and MoeA being able to bind Moco intermediates with
various affinities (6, 11, 14), one can envision that Moco
intermediates trigger or facilitate some protein interactions. To
assess the effect of complete absence of Moco on the interactions
existing among the four tested proteins, we constructed by P1
transduction a BTH101moa::Tn10 mutant affected at
the first stage of Moco biosynthesis (See "Experimental
Procedures"). Fig. 1B displays results obtained from
adenylate cyclase complementation between the Mo. chimeric proteins in
the Moco-deficient strain. Similar complementation levels were reached
with MobB fusion proteins in the BTH101moa strain in
comparison to the wild-type strain BTH101 (Fig. 1B,
lanes 4-6). Interestingly, transformants expressing either
MobA-MoeA or MogA-MoeA chimeric protein pairs exhibited greatly reduced
levels of -galactosidase activities (Fig. 1B, lanes
1-2) leading to the assumption that Moco binding onto these proteins allows them to interact in a wild-type cell. The crystal structure of the MoeA dimer has not revealed the presence of any cofactor (11). Accordingly, absence of Moco has no effect on the
complementation level observed in cotransformants expressing T25MoeA/T18-MoeA proteins (data not shown).
Probing the Effect of Molybdenum Deficiency on the
Interactions--
To identify the nature of Moco intermediates that
trigger or facilitate protein-protein interactions between MogA-MoeA
and MoeA-MobA, the effect of molybdenum deficiency has been assessed. In a mod mutant affected on the high affinity molybdate
uptake system (see for review Ref. 23), Moco biosynthesis is arrested at an intermediate step resulting in the sole presence of MPT and in
the absence of active Moco for both MPT- and MGD-containing enzymes. The introduction of high levels of molybdate into the growth medium, however, restores molybdoenzyme activities to
mod strains. The interactions have thus been
evaluated in the strain BTH101modB::Tn10
constructed by P1 transduction. No significant differences
were obtained in comparison to the wild-type BTH101 strain (Fig.
3) indicating that the sole presence of
MPT is sufficient to allow MogA-MoeA and MoeA-MobA interactions.

View larger version (20K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 3.
Effect of mod mutation and
tungstate addition on the interaction map. Black bars
represent values obtained from the wild-type strain, BTH101.
Light gray bars represent values obtained from the
mod mutant, BTH101modB::Tn10.
Dark gray bars represent values obtained after tungstate
addition (1 mM) to the growth medium of the mod
mutant. -Galactosidase activity is expressed in Miller units.
|
|
Tungstate is a close analog of molybdate and has been shown to be
incorporated via an unknown mechanism into the Moco
biosynthetic pathway. Growth in the presence of tungstate gives rise to
a biologically inactive tungsten form of the Moco that leads to the
formation of inactive forms of most molybdoenzymes (24-26). However,
such a cofactor can be incorporated into E. coli
trimethylamine-N-oxide reductase (27) and most probably into
periplasmic nitrate reductase (28). The addition of tungstate to the
growth medium for strain BTH101mod gave rise to some
specific differences in comparison to the wild-type strain (Fig. 3).
Among the tested interactions, only MoeA-MogA and MoeA-MobA were
significantly enhanced under these conditions (Fig. 3, lanes
1-2). The most likely explanation is that tungstate leads in some
extent to the formation of a tungsten form of cofactor that is unable
to be incorporated efficiently to mostly resident apomolybdoenzymes
such as membrane-bound nitrate reductases (24). Consequently, one could
envision accumulation of Moco intermediates (MPT and MPT-W) and of
Moco-dependent protein complexes such as MogA-MoeA and
MoeA-MobA.
Probing the Effect of MGD Absence on the
Interactions--
Finally, two-hybrid assays were conducted into a
mob strain (BTH101mob::Tn10)
genetically able to synthesize active Moco (MPT-Mo) for MPT-containing
enzymes but defective in the GMP attachment step (29, 30). In such a
strain, presence of either T18-MobA or T25-MobA fusion proteins leads
to a full restoration of the phenotype revealed by nitrate reductase
activity measurement (data not shown). Hence, interactions involving
MobA have not been tested. No significant differences in the
interaction map were obtained in comparison to the wild-type BTH101
strain (data not shown) indicating that the metal has no effect on the
interactions as the sole presence of either MPT in a mod
strain or MPT-Mo in the mob strain is sufficient to allow
the tested interactions.
 |
DISCUSSION |
Specific protein-protein interactions are central to most
biological processes and probably in molybdenum cofactor biosynthesis as well. A bacterial two-hybrid approach (16) was chosen here, rather
than the yeast system, as it could find numerous applications for
in vivo analysis of newly identified bacterial protein
interactions and become an essential complementary tool to biochemical
studies currently performed on Moco biosynthetic proteins.
The multimerization of MogA, MoeA, MobA, and MobB proteins has been
assayed. Complete agreement has been observed between our results and
published data for dimeric proteins (MoeA and MobB) and for a monomeric
protein (MobA). In contrast, an apparent discrepancy has been observed
for MogA, reported to be a trimer (6), and for which no complementation
was obtained by the two-hybrid assay. The most likely explanation is a
steric hindrance within the T18-MogA/T25-MogA heterodimer in placing in
close proximity the Cya domains. Indeed, the carboxyl terminus of each
subunit within the MogA trimer are located on the same side and at the opposite of the amino-terminal ends avoiding close contact between the
Cya domains. Consequently, the interaction between the MogA chimeric
proteins will not lead necessarily to adenylate cyclase complementation. Importantly, one has to mention that high
complementation levels reached in the case of MobB or MoeA dimers
suggest the formation of extremely stable complexes. Conversely, lower
complementation levels obtained with other interacting pairs most
likely result from transient complexes that might require additional
factors to be stabilized.
Multiple pairwise interactions have been identified including some
unexpected ones such as those involving MobB as summarized in Fig.
4. Indeed, MobB, a GTPase protein with a
yet unclear function (22), interacts with each of the tested Mo.
proteins. Although no role was observed for MobB in the in
vitro activation of Me2SO reductase (15), it enhanced
the activation of nitrate reductase, another MGD-containing enzyme
(31). Such observations stimulated our interest in the role played by
MobB and led us to reconsider its possible role in Moco biosynthesis.
Examination of the mechanisms of metallocenter assembly has revealed
the strictly conserved involvement of a protein with a
nucleotide-binding motif (UreG, HypB, CooC) (32-34). Interestingly,
UreG has been shown to interact with several proteins required for the
maturation of urease, a nickel enzyme (32, 35, 36). By analogy,
MobB would interact with several Mo. proteins to facilitate Moco
insertion. Experiments are in progress to see whether the loss of
GTPase activity of MobB would affect its ability to interact.

View larger version (13K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 4.
Schematic representation of the interaction
network between MogA, MoeA, MobA, and MobB. A, in BTH101
strain able to synthesize Moco, B, in
BTH101moa::Tn10 strain impaired in Moco synthesis.
The arrow indicates the interaction. The asterisk
indicates proteins able to dimerize.
|
|
MogA and MoeA form a tight complex in vivo. It has been
shown that prokaryotic moeA and mogA gene
sequences are systematically fused into a single open reading frame in
eukarya-like plants, fungi, Drosophila, or higher
eukarya-like humans (37-40). It is therefore highly probable that
these two bacterial proteins, which are involved in a common
biosynthetic step of the Moco, interact with each other. However,
in vitro mixing of purified MoeA and MogA proteins under
different conditions did not form detectable complexes, leading to the
assumption that either these proteins do not interact or that a factor
was missing under these conditions (10). Hence, the effect of
mo. mutations interrupting the Moco biosynthetic pathway at
different levels has been probed on the interaction map. Such
experiments performed in the BTH101moa::Tn10 strain allowed to identify and distinguish, for the first time, two
classes of interactants, i.e. those that require the
presence of Moco from those that do not. Whereas interactions involving MobB are not sensitive to the absence of Moco, MogA-MoeA and MoeA-MobA interactions are strongly affected supporting the view that Moco intermediates facilitate complex formation and/or stabilization. Molybdenum deficiency obtained in a mod mutant as well as a
mob mutation impairing MGD synthesis has no effect
indicating that MPT is a key molecule triggering or facilitating some
specific protein-protein interactions. Interestingly, tungstate
addition to the growth medium of a mod strain brings about
an activation of complementation for both MogA-MoeA and MoeA-MobA
interacting pairs of some 2-fold over that found in its absence.
Accumulation of these Moco-dependent protein complexes is
most certainly a consequence of the accumulation of Moco intermediates
(MPT and MPT-W) under these conditions (41).
Overall, such observations are in full agreement with current knowledge
on the function of MogA, MoeA, and MobA. Chelation of molybdenum by MPT
requires the concerted action of MogA and MoeA (42, 43). Our data
provide the evidence that a MogA-MoeA complex can only occur in
presence of MPT. In eukarya, such a complex is naturally occurring
via the existence of a MogA-MoeA fusion protein (37, 39,
40). The resulting MPT-Mo-loaded MogA-MoeA complex might constitute the
Moco donor to MPT-free apoenzymes in prokaryotes. Finally, in bacteria
a nucleotide has to be attached to MPT with the help of MobA resulting
in the MGD cofactor, the active cofactor for most prokaryotic
molybdoenzymes. One can make the assumption that the preceding
MogA-MoeA complex delivers MPT-Mo to MobA via the formation
of a transient complex composed at least of MoeA and MobA. Here again,
according to our results such a complex would exist only in presence of
Moco. Although the final steps of bacterial Moco biosynthesis have not
been clearly defined, the processes of Mo insertion and of dinucleotide
attachment seem to be strongly linked and our data provide a further
argument to this assumption. Finally, a minimal complex composed of
MoeA and MobA might be involved in MGD transfer to the apoenzymes. Such
a complex delineation is reminiscent of the Moco carrier linking Moco
biosynthesis to its subsequent incorporation into various
apomolybdoenzymes. In E. coli, Moco has been shown to be
protected by tight binding to a 40-kDa Moco carrier protein (41). A
similar situation has been encountered in Chlamydomonas reinhardtii with a 50-kDa carrier protein (44, 45). However, little is known concerning the identity of this carrier molecule. The
fact that mutations affecting the activity of molybdoenzymes in
E. coli mapped only in loci involved in Mo transport
(mod) or Moco biosynthesis (moa, mob,
moe, and mog) indicates that mo. gene
products could ensure Moco protection until its delivery to the
apoenzymes. Results reported here already suggest that Moco
biosynthesis occurs on protein complexes rather than by the separate
action of different Mo. proteins. A complex of Moco biosynthetic proteins also functioning as the Moco carrier could thus ensure Moco
protection. To validate this model, a number of questions have to be
answered. The most relevant one is verifying whether one or several
mo. gene products involved in the final stages of Moco
biosynthesis such as MoeA and MobA readily interact with apomolybdoenzymes. The bacterial two-hybrid approach described here
constitutes an essential tool to address such a fundamental question.
Based upon the conserved fusion event occurring between eukaryotic MogA
and MoeA and on the observed interaction between E. coli
counterparts in the presence of Moco, one can conclude that it becomes
important to facilitate substrate-product flow by the existence of a
Moco-biosynthetic multienzyme complex. Formation of such complexes
would ensure both the fast and protected transfer of oxygen-sensitive
intermediates within the reaction sequence from MPT to active Moco and
its subsequent delivery to resident apomolybdoenzymes. The channeling
of substrates is a well known mechanistic process for the direct
delivery of a reaction intermediate from the active site of one enzyme
to the active site of a second enzyme without prior dissociation into
the bulk solvent (see for review Refs. 46, 47). There are continuing
reports on the existence of complexes of sequential metabolic enzymes
(48-51). These systems share common features such as the existence of
multiple and separate active sites connected or not via a
molecular tunnel and coordination of the individual reactions through
allosteric coupling of one active site with another. Interestingly,
whereas MPT binding studies on the MogA-like G domain of Cnx1 revealed single independent high affinity binding sites on each monomer in the
trimer, MoeA-like E domain binds MPT with a lower affinity and in a
cooperative manner (14, 40). Solving the three-dimensional structure of
eukaryotic MogA-MoeA fusion protein would most certainly provide
information concerning the occurrence or not of a substrate-channeling mechanism by locating each of the active sites.
In summary, this report describes the first evidence for in
vivo protein-protein interactions among the mo. gene
products involved in the final stages of Moco biosynthesis in E. coli. In addition, the present work extends previous knowledge on
the function of MogA, MoeA, MobA, and MobB by providing evidence that they display specific pairwise interactions and that some of these interactions require the binding of Moco intermediates to these proteins. Each interacting pair reflects a potential mechanism by which
Moco intermediates interact with various proteins in the actual
cellular environment, and as such, must be studied to achieve an
unified mechanism that explains the numerous interactions existing
between these mo. gene products. The results of the present study suggest that an additional level of complexity may be found in
the mechanism of Moco biosynthesis and incorporation into the apoenzymes.
 |
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS |
We greatly appreciate Drs. D. Ladant (Pasteur
Institute, Paris, France) and L. Selig (Hybrigenics S. A., Paris,
France) for providing the bacterial two-hybrid system and for their
help and advice. We thank Dr. K. T. Shanmugan for generous gift of strains.
 |
FOOTNOTES |
*
This work was supported by a grant from the Fondation pour
la Recherche Médicale (to A. M.) and by the CNRS.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. Tel.: 33-4-91164148;
Fax: 33-4-91718914; E-mail: magalon@ibsm.cnrs-mrs.fr.
Published, JBC Papers in Press, October 7, 2002, DOI 10.1074/jbc.M205806200
 |
ABBREVIATIONS |
The abbreviations used are:
Moco, molybdenum
cofactor;
MPT, molybdopterin;
MGD, molybdopterin guanine
dinucleotide.
 |
REFERENCES |
| 1.
|
Hille, R.
(1996)
Chem. Rev.
96,
2757-2816[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 2.
|
Rajagopalan, K. V.,
and Johnson, J. L.
(1992)
J. Biol. Chem.
267,
10199-10202[Free Full Text]
|
| 3.
|
Rajagopalan, K. V.
(1996)
in
Escherichia coli and Salmonella typhimurium
(Neidhardt, F. C., ed)
, pp. 674-679, ASM Press, Washington DC
|
| 4.
|
Lake, M. W.,
Temple, C. A.,
Rajagopalan, K. V.,
and Schindelin, H.
(2000)
J. Biol. Chem.
275,
40211-40217[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 5.
|
Stevenson, C. E.,
Sargent, F.,
Buchanan, G.,
Palmer, T.,
and Lawson, D. M.
(2000)
Structure Fold Des.
8,
1115-1125[Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 6.
|
Liu, M. T.,
Wuebbens, M. M.,
Rajagopalan, K. V.,
and Schindelin, H.
(2000)
J. Biol. Chem.
275,
1814-1822[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 7.
|
Schwarz, G.,
Schrader, N.,
Mendel, R. R.,
Hecht, H. J.,
and Schindelin, H.
(2001)
J. Mol. Biol.
312,
405-418[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 8.
|
Rudolph, M. J.,
Wuebbens, M. M.,
Rajagopalan, K. V.,
and Schindelin, H.
(2001)
Nat. Struct. Biol.
8,
42-46[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 9.
|
Wuebbens, M. M.,
Liu, M. T.,
Rajagopalan, K.,
and Schindelin, H.
(2000)
Structure Fold Des.
8,
709-718[Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 10.
|
Schrag, J. D.,
Huang, W.,
Sivaraman, J.,
Smith, C.,
Plamondon, J.,
Larocque, R.,
Matte, A.,
and Cygler, M.
(2001)
J. Mol. Biol.
310,
419-431[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 11.
|
Xiang, S.,
Nichols, J.,
Rajagopalan, K. V.,
and Schindelin, H.
(2001)
Structure
9,
299-310[Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 12.
|
Lake, M. W.,
Wuebbens, M. M.,
Rajagopalan, K. V.,
and Schindelin, H.
(2001)
Nature
414,
325-329[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 13.
|
Leimkuhler, S.,
and Rajagopalan, K. V.
(2001)
J. Biol. Chem.
276,
1837-1844[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 14.
|
Schwarz, G.,
Boxer, D. H.,
and Mendel, R. R.
(1997)
J. Biol. Chem.
272,
26811-26814[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 15.
|
Temple, C. A.,
and Rajagopalan, K. V.
(2000)
J. Biol. Chem.
275,
40202-40210[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 16.
|
Karimova, G.,
Ullmann, A.,
and Ladant, D.
(2000)
Methods Enzymol.
328,
59-73[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 17.
|
Miller, J. H.
(1992)
Molecular Cloning: A Laboratory Manual
, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, Cold Spring Harbor, NY
|
| 18.
|
Miller, J. H.
(1972)
Molecular Cloning: A Laboratory Manual
, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, Cold Spring Harbor, NY
|
| 19.
|
Lester, R. L.,
and DeMoss, J. A.
(1971)
J. Bacteriol.
105,
1006-1014[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 20.
|
Fields, S.,
and Song, O.
(1989)
Nature
340,
245-246[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 21.
|
Blasco, F.,
Dos Santos, J. P.,
Magalon, A.,
Frixon, C.,
Guigliarelli, B.,
Santini, C. L.,
and Giordano, G.
(1998)
Mol. Microbiol.
28,
435-447[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 22.
|
Eaves, D. J.,
Palmer, T.,
and Boxer, D. H.
(1997)
Eur. J. Biochem.
246,
690-697[Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 23.
|
Grunden, A. M.,
and Shanmugam, K. T.
(1997)
Arch. Microbiol.
168,
345-354[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 24.
|
Rothery, R. A.,
Magalon, A.,
Giordano, G.,
Guigliarelli, B.,
Blasco, F.,
and Weiner, J. H.
(1998)
J. Biol. Chem.
273,
7462-7469[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 25.
|
Rothery, R. A.,
Grant, J. L.,
Johnson, J. L.,
Rajagopalan, K. V.,
and Weiner, J. H.
(1995)
J. Bacteriol.
177,
2057-2063[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 26.
|
Hanzelmann, P.,
and Meyer, O.
(1998)
Eur. J. Biochem.
255,
755-765[Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 27.
|
Buc, J.,
Santini, C. L.,
Giordani, R.,
Czjzek, M., Wu, L. F.,
and Giordano, G.
(1999)
Mol. Microbiol.
32,
159-168[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 28.
|
Potter, L. C.,
Millington, P. D.,
Thomas, G. H.,
Rothery, R. A.,
Giordano, G.,
and Cole, J. A.
(2000)
FEMS Microbiol. Lett.
185,
51-57[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 29.
|
Johnson, J. L.,
Indermaur, L. W.,
and Rajagopalan, K. V.
(1991)
J. Biol. Chem.
266,
12140-12145[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 30.
|
Palmer, T.,
Vasishta, A.,
Whitty, P. W.,
and Boxer, D. H.
(1994)
Eur. J. Biochem.
222,
687-692[Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 31.
|
Palmer, T.,
Santini, C. L.,
Iobbi-Nivol, C.,
Eaves, D. J.,
Boxer, D. H.,
and Giordano, G.
(1996)
Mol. Microbiol.
20,
875-884[Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 32.
|
Moncrief, M. B.,
and Hausinger, R. P.
(1997)
J. Bacteriol.
179,
4081-4086[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 33.
|
Maier, T.,
Lottspeich, F.,
and Böck, A.
(1995)
Eur. J. Biochem.
230,
133-138[Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 34.
|
Jeon, W. B.,
Cheng, J.,
and Ludden, P. W.
(2001)
J. Biol. Chem.
276,
38602-38609[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 35.
|
Soriano, A.,
Colpas, G. J.,
and Hausinger, R. P.
(2000)
Biochemistry
39,
12435-12440[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 36.
|
Soriano, A.,
and Hausinger, R. P.
(1999)
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A.
96,
11140-11144[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 37.
|
Stallmeyer, B.,
Nerlich, A.,
Schiemann, J.,
Brinkmann, H.,
and Mendel, R. R.
(1995)
Plant J.
8,
751-762[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 38.
|
Millar, L. J.,
Heck, I. S.,
Sloan, J.,
Kana'n, G. J.,
Kinghorn, J. R.,
and Unkles, S. E.
(2001)
Mol. Genet. Genomics
266,
445-453[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 39.
|
Kamdar, K. P.,
Shelton, M. E.,
and Finnerty, V.
(1994)
Genetics
137,
791-801[Abstract]
|
| 40.
|
Stallmeyer, B.,
Schwarz, G.,
Schulze, J.,
Nerlich, A.,
Reiss, J.,
Kirsch, J.,
and Mendel, R. R.
(1999)
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A.
96,
1333-1338[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 41.
|
Amy, N. K.,
and Rajagopalan, K. V.
(1979)
J. Bacteriol.
140,
114-124[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 42.
|
Mendel, R. R.,
and Schwarz, G.
(2002)
Met. Ions Biol. Syst.
39,
317-368[Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 43.
|
Nichols, J.,
and Rajagopalan, K. V.
(2002)
J. Biol. Chem.
277,
24995-25000[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 44.
|
Witte, C. P.,
Igeno, M. I.,
Mendel, R.,
Schwarz, G.,
and Fernandez, E.
(1998)
FEBS Lett.
431,
205-209[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 45.
|
Aguilar, M.,
Kalakoutskii, K.,
Cardenas, J.,
and Fernandez, E.
(1992)
FEBS Lett.
307,
162-163[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 46.
|
Miles, E. W.,
Rhee, S.,
and Davies, D. R.
(1999)
J. Biol. Chem.
274,
12193-12196[Free Full Text]
|
| 47.
|
Huang, X.,
Holden, H. M.,
and Raushel, F. M.
(2001)
Annu. Rev. Biochem.
70,
149-180[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 48.
|
Pan, P.,
Woehl, E.,
and Dunn, M. F.
(1997)
Trends Biochem. Sci.
22,
22-27[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 49.
|
Holden, H. M.,
Thoden, J. B.,
and Raushel, F. M.
(1998)
Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol.
8,
679-685[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 50.
|
Zalkin, H.,
and Smith, J. L.
(1998)
Adv. Enzymol. Relat. Areas Mol. Biol.
72,
87-144[Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 51.
|
Larsen, T. M.,
Boehlein, S. K.,
Schuster, S. M.,
Richards, N. G.,
Thoden, J. B.,
Holden, H. M.,
and Rayment, I.
(1999)
Biochemistry
38,
16146-16157[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:

|
 |

|
 |
 
M. Neumann, W. Stocklein, and S. Leimkuhler
Transfer of the Molybdenum Cofactor Synthesized by Rhodobacter capsulatus MoeA to XdhC and MobA
J. Biol. Chem.,
September 28, 2007;
282(39):
28493 - 28500.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
P. Lanciano, A. Vergnes, S. Grimaldi, B. Guigliarelli, and A. Magalon
Biogenesis of a Respiratory Complex Is Orchestrated by a Single Accessory Protein
J. Biol. Chem.,
June 15, 2007;
282(24):
17468 - 17474.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
A. Llamas, T. Otte, G. Multhaup, R. R. Mendel, and G. Schwarz
The Mechanism of Nucleotide-assisted Molybdenum Insertion into Molybdopterin: A NOVEL ROUTE TOWARD METAL COFACTOR ASSEMBLY
J. Biol. Chem.,
July 7, 2006;
281(27):
18343 - 18350.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
A. Vergnes, J. Pommier, R. Toci, F. Blasco, G. Giordano, and A. Magalon
NarJ Chaperone Binds on Two Distinct Sites of the Aponitrate Reductase of Escherichia coli to Coordinate Molybdenum Cofactor Insertion and Assembly
J. Biol. Chem.,
January 27, 2006;
281(4):
2170 - 2176.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
O. Zafra, F. Cava, F. Blasco, A. Magalon, and J. Berenguer
Membrane-Associated Maturation of the Heterotetrameric Nitrate Reductase of Thermus thermophilus
J. Bacteriol.,
June 15, 2005;
187(12):
3990 - 3996.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
A. Vergnes, K. Gouffi-Belhabich, F. Blasco, G. Giordano, and A. Magalon
Involvement of the Molybdenum Cofactor Biosynthetic Machinery in the Maturation of the Escherichia coli Nitrate Reductase A
J. Biol. Chem.,
October 1, 2004;
279(40):
41398 - 41403.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
R. Sanishvili, S. Beasley, T. Skarina, D. Glesne, A. Joachimiak, A. Edwards, and A. Savchenko
The Crystal Structure of Escherichia coli MoaB Suggests a Probable Role in Molybdenum Cofactor Synthesis
J. Biol. Chem.,
October 1, 2004;
279(40):
42139 - 42146.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
J. A. Malek, J. M. Wierzbowski, W. Tao, S. A. Bosak, D. J. Saranga, L. Doucette-Stamm, D. R. Smith, P. J. McEwan, and K. J. McKernan
Protein interaction mapping on a functional shotgun sequence of Rickettsia sibirica
Nucleic Acids Res.,
February 10, 2004;
32(3):
1059 - 1064.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
A. Guse, C. E. M. Stevenson, J. Kuper, G. Buchanan, G. Schwarz, G. Giordano, A. Magalon, R. R. Mendel, D. M. Lawson, and T. Palmer
Biochemical and Structural Analysis of the Molybdenum Cofactor Biosynthesis Protein MobA
J. Biol. Chem.,
July 3, 2003;
278(28):
25302 - 25307.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
K. McLuskey, J. A. Harrison, A. W. Schuttelkopf, D. H. Boxer, and W. N. Hunter
Insight into the Role of Escherichia coli MobB in Molybdenum Cofactor Biosynthesis Based on the High Resolution Crystal Structure
J. Biol. Chem.,
June 20, 2003;
278(26):
23706 - 23713.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|
Copyright © 2002 by the American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology.
|
Advertisement
Advertisement
|