Properties of the phage-shock-protein (Psp) regulatory complex that govern signal transduction and induction of the Psp response in Escherichia coli

32Citations
Citations of this article
67Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

The phage-shock-protein (Psp) response maintains the proton-motive force (pmf) under extracytoplasmic stress conditions that impair the inner membrane (IM) in bacterial cells. In Escherichia coli transcription of the pspABCDE and pspG genes requires activation of σ54-RNA polymerase by the enhancer-binding protein PspF. A regulatory network comprising PspF-A-C-B-ArcB controls psp expression. One key regulatory point is the negative control of PspF imposed by its binding to PspA. It has been proposed that under stress conditions, the IM-bound sensors PspB and PspC receive and transduce the signal(s) to PspA via protein-protein interactions, resulting in the release of the PspA-PspF inhibitory complex and the consequent induction of psp. In this work we demonstrate that PspB self-associates and interacts with PspC via putative IM regions. We present evidence suggesting that PspC has two topologies and that conserved residue G48 and the putative leucine zipper motif are determinants required for PspA interaction and signal transduction upon stress. We also establish that PspC directly interacts with the effector PspG, and show that PspG self-associates. These results are discussed in the context of formation and function of the Psp regulatory complex. © 2010 SGM.

Figures

  • Table 1. Interactions between the Psp proteins in vivo
  • Fig. 1. Topologies of Psp proteins. (a) Schematic representation of PspA, PspB, PspC and PspG topologies according to Elderkin et al. (2005), Jones et al. (2003), Kleerebezem et al. (1996) and Engl et al. (2009), respectively. Per, periplasm; IM, inner membrane; Cyt, cytoplasm; N, N-terminus of the protein; C, C-terminus of the protein. (b) Representation of the predicted conserved domain organization of PspC: the cytoplasmic extrusion domain (Cyt, residues 1–39), the transmembrane portion (TM, residues 40–64), the periplasmic extrusion domain (Per, residues 65–119) and the conserved PspC domain (residues 1–68, light grey). The putative leucine zipper motif (LeuZ; residues 77–98) is as indicated. The numbering refers to E. coli PspC.
  • Fig. 3. PspG–GFP forms higher oligomers in vivo. The number of molecules in fluorescent PspG–GFP complexes was estimated using ImageJ software. The intensity of a single pixel in a fluorescent PspG–GFP (pGJ7) cluster expressed in E. coli MG1655 DpspG cells (MVA40) was measured and compared to GFP fluorescence in E. coli MG1655 cell lysates harbouring pDSW209 (GFP alone). (a) The mean fluorescence intensity of 50 PspG–GFP complexes within living cells was on average at least three times higher than that of GFP spots, suggesting that PspG can form at least a dimer/trimer in vivo. (b) The frequency distribution among the 50 complexes analysed illustrates that PspG–GFP self-assembles into a single major distinct oligomeric class.
  • Fig. 2. Co-purification of PspA, PspB and PspG with PspC6His. PspC6His co-expressed with PspB (pRD047His) was purified using metal-affinity chromatography (see Methods). As a control non-tagged PspC co-expressed with PspB (pRD047) was also purified. Peak fractions from both purifications (corresponding to fractions 2–4), were visualized using Western blotting and (a) antiPspC, (b) anti-PspB, (c) anti-PspA or (d) anti-PspG antibodies as indicated. In (a) the positions of monomeric PspC (PspC; arrow) and an additional slower-migrating anti-PspC-reactive (double asterisk) species are as indicated. PspB (b), PspA (and nonspecific band, asterisk) (c) and PspG (d) co-purified with PspC6His fractions (2–4) but not with PspC (non-tagged). (e) PspC6His coexpressed with PspB was also purified from a DpspA strain and the peak fractions were visualized using Western blotting and antiPspG antibodies. The positions of molecular mass marker proteins (kDa) are indicated.
  • Fig. 4. Oligomerization state of PspC. Western blots (using antiPspC) illustrating PspC expression from the chromosome in either WT (MG1655) or DpspA (MG1655DpspA) cells (in the absence or presence of pIV). The positions of species that specifically cross-react with anti-PspC are highlighted as monomeric PspC (13.5 kDa; arrow) and a putative dimer (double asterisk). The positions of the marker proteins (kDa) are indicated. Below: the relative expression levels of monomeric PspC (labelled as PspC monomer) and the putative PspC dimer (double asterisk) were quantified within each strain tested, and the results expressed as a percentage of the induced corresponding protein band (+pIV; lanes 2 and 4, 100 %). ‘Proteins’ refers to the loading control. Importantly, these results demonstrate that in the absence of PspA (lanes 3 and 4), the relative expression levels of monomeric PspC are clearly highly elevated compared to WT in the presence of pIV, whereas the putative dimer expression level remains relatively unchanged, suggesting that this band corresponds to an unspecific anti-PspC cross-reacting species.
  • Fig. 5. psp expression in the presence of overexpressed PspBC. (a) Induction of chromosomal W(pspA–lacZ) in a DpspC strain (MVA13) by overexpression of PspB (pAJM1), PspC (pAJM2) or PspBC (pAJM3) (using 0.02 % Ara). (b) Overexpression of PspC decreases pmf while co-expression with PspB counteracts this effect. Dy was determined in a DpspF strain (MG1655DpspF) overexpressing PspB, PspC or PspBC. (c) Overexpression of PspBC directly induces psp. PspBC (pAJM3) or PspBLeuZmC (pGJ49; PspBLeuZm does not transduce the psp-inducing signal) were co-expressed in either DpspBC (MVA45) or DpspBCDarcB (MVA83; DarcB diminishes psp induction) cells (using 0.02 % Ara). PspBC were co-expressed in a DpspBC strain (since the arcB mutation reduces induction by pIV; using 0.02 % Ara) in the presence of pIV. Vector, pBAD18-cm. As a control, psp expression was determined in the absence of PspA (DpspA, MVA27; to prevent negative regulation).
  • Fig. 6. psp expression by the PspC fragments. (a) Full-length PspC is required for signal transduction upon pIV-dependent pspinducing stress. Induction of the chromosomal W(pspA–lacZ) fusion in a DpspC strain (MVA13) expressing a low level of PspC (1–119, pAJM2) or PspC fragments (1–68, pAJM7; 40–68, pAJM5; 40–119, pAJM8) (using 0.001 % Ara) in the absence or presence of pIV (pGJ4) (see Methods). (b) The TM-periplasmic region of PspC (PspC40–119) is sufficient for PspB-independent induction of psp. Induction of the chromosomal W(pspA–lacZ) fusion in a DpspC strain (MVA13) overexpressing PspC (1–119, pAJM2) or PspC fragments on its own (as in a) or with PspB [PspBC (pAJM3) or PspBC fragments (1–68, pAJM12; 40–68, pAJM10; 40–119, pAJM13)] (using 0.02 % Ara) (see Methods). (c) Overexpression of PspC1–68 decreases pmf while coexpression with PspB counteracts this effect in a DpspF strain (MG1655DpspF).
  • Fig. 7. PspC determinants involved in signal transduction and induction of psp. (a) The PspC LeuZ and residue G48 are required for pIV-induced psp expression. Induction of the chromosomal W(pspA–lacZ) fusion in a DpspC strain (MVA13) expressing low-level PspBC (pAJM3) or PspBC mutants (PspC mutants: G48A, pGJ54; G74A, pGJ55; LeuZm, pGJ57) (using 0.001 % Ara) in the absence or presence of pIV (pGJ4) (see Methods). As a control, pIV-dependent induction of psp in WT cells (MVA4) is presented. (b) High-level co-expression of PspBCG48A, PspBCLeuZm, PspBCLeuZm40{119 (pGJ60) and PspBCLeuZm69{119 (pGJ61) mutants failed to directly induce psp expression. Induction of the chromosomal W(pspA–lacZ) fusion in a DpspC strain (MVA13) by overexpression of PspBC or PspBC mutants (using 0.02 % Ara). (c) The PspC periplasmic region may exist in two topologies: schematic illustrating the potential topologies of PspC (A, B or C) and PspC40–119 (the periplasmic region containing the LeuZ; D).

References Powered by Scopus

Multiple sequence alignment with hierarchical clustering

4616Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Pfam: clans, web tools and services.

1937Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

The HMMTOP transmembrane topology prediction server

1646Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Cited by Powered by Scopus

Structure and assembly of filamentous bacteriophages

100Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

The Phage Shock Protein Response

88Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Membrane stored curvature elastic stress modulates recruitment of maintenance proteins pspa and vipp1

63Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Jovanovic, G., Engl, C., Mayhew, A. J., Burrows, P. C., & Buck, M. (2010). Properties of the phage-shock-protein (Psp) regulatory complex that govern signal transduction and induction of the Psp response in Escherichia coli. Microbiology, 156(10), 2920–2932. https://doi.org/10.1099/mic.0.040055-0

Readers over time

‘11‘12‘13‘14‘15‘16‘17‘18‘19‘20‘21‘22‘23‘24‘25036912

Readers' Seniority

Tooltip

PhD / Post grad / Masters / Doc 25

64%

Researcher 9

23%

Professor / Associate Prof. 3

8%

Lecturer / Post doc 2

5%

Readers' Discipline

Tooltip

Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Bi... 20

45%

Agricultural and Biological Sciences 18

41%

Immunology and Microbiology 4

9%

Engineering 2

5%

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free
0