Efficient interaction between two GTPases allows the chloroplast SRP pathway to bypass the requirement for an SRP RNA - PubMed (original) (raw)
Efficient interaction between two GTPases allows the chloroplast SRP pathway to bypass the requirement for an SRP RNA
Peera Jaru-Ampornpan et al. Mol Biol Cell. 2007 Jul.
Abstract
Cotranslational protein targeting to membranes is regulated by two GTPases in the signal recognition particle (SRP) and the SRP receptor; association between the two GTPases is slow and is accelerated 400-fold by the SRP RNA. Intriguingly, the otherwise universally conserved SRP RNA is missing in a novel chloroplast SRP pathway. We found that even in the absence of an SRP RNA, the chloroplast SRP and receptor GTPases can interact efficiently with one another; the kinetics of interaction between the chloroplast GTPases is 400-fold faster than their bacterial homologues, and matches the rate at which the bacterial SRP and receptor interact with the help of SRP RNA. Biochemical analyses further suggest that the chloroplast SRP receptor is pre-organized in a conformation that allows optimal interaction with its binding partner, so that conformational changes during complex formation are minimized. Our results highlight intriguing differences between the classical and chloroplast SRP and SRP receptor GTPases, and help explain how the chloroplast SRP pathway can mediate efficient targeting of proteins to the thylakoid membrane in the absence of the SRP RNA, which plays an indispensable role in all the other SRP pathways.
Figures
Figure 1.
GTPase cycles of cpSRP54 (blue) and cpFtsY (green). The triangular cycles on the top left and right depict the basal GTPase cycles of cpSRP54 and cpFtsY, respectively. Binding of GTP to cpSRP54 (or cpFtsY) is characterized by the association rate constant _k_1 (or _k_1′), dissociation rate constant _k_−1 (or _k_−1′), and equilibrium dissociation constant _K_1 (or _K_1′). GTP hydrolyzes from cpSRP54 and cpFtsY with rate constants of _k_2 and _k_2′, respectively. Binding of GDP to cpSRP54 (or cpFtsY) is characterized by the association rate constant _k_3 (or _k_3′), dissociation rate constant _k_−3 (or _k_−3′), and equilibrium dissociation constant _K_3 (or _K_3′). Complex formation between cpSRP54 and cpFtsY is characterized by the association rate constant _k_4 and dissociation rate constant _k_−4. The two bound GTPs are hydrolyzed from the GTP·cpSRP54•cpFtsY·GTP complex, represented collectively by the rate constant _k_5. The GDP·cpSRP54•cpFtsY·GDP complex then dissociates with a rate constant _k_6.
Figure 2.
Basal GTPase reactions of cpSRP54 (A) and cpFtsY (B). The data were fit to Eq. 1 in Materials and Methods and gave a _k_max of 0.017 min−1 and _K_1/2 of 2.8 μM for cpSRP54, and a _k_max of 0.0045 min−1 and _K_1/2 of 2.1 μM for cpFtsY.
Figure 3.
Interaction of nucleotides with cpSRP54 and cpFtsY. (A and B) Fluorescence emission spectra of mant-GTP (A) or mant-GDP (B) in the absence of protein (○) and in the presence of 5 μM cpSRP54 (•) or cpFtsY(♦). (C and D) Titration of the fluorescence changes of mant-GTP (C) and mant-GDP (D) in the presence of cpSRP54 (■) or cpFtsY (•). The data were fit to Eq. 5 in Materials and Methods, and the _K_d values are summarized in Table 2. (E and F) Dissociation of mant-GTP (E) and mant-GDP (F) from cpFtsY. The data were fit to single exponential rate equations and gave dissociation rate constants of 5.4 and 8.1 s−1 for mant-GTP and mant-GDP, respectively.
Figure 4.
Interaction of cpSRP54 and cpFtsY is much more efficient than that of their E. coli homologues. Rates of the stimulated GTPase reaction were determined for 100 nM cpSRP54 and cpFtsY (•) or for 100 nM E. coli Ffh and E. coli FtsY with (▾) and without (▴) 4.5S SRP RNA. The data were fit to Eq. 2 in Materials and Methods and gave a _k_cat value of 50 min−1 and a _K_m value of 0.97 μM for the chloroplast GTPases, and _k_cat values of 49 and 4.8 min−1 and _K_m values of 0.76 and 18 μM for the E. coli GTPases with and without the SRP RNA, respectively.
Figure 5.
cpFtsY preferentially binds and hydrolyzes its cognate nucleotide. (A and B) Basal GTPase (A) and XTPase (B) reactions of wild-type cpFtsY (•) and mutant cpFtsY(D283N) (■). The data were fit to Eq. 1 and gave a _k_max value of 0.0045 min−1 and a _K_1/2 value of 2.1 μM for GTP hydrolysis by wild-type cpFtsY, and a _k_max value of 0.0022 min−1 and a _K_1/2 value of 2.2 μM for XTP hydrolysis by mutant cpFtsY(D283N). (C) GppNHp binds more strongly to wild-type cpFtsY (•) than to mutant cpFtsY(D283N) (■). (D) XppNHp binds more strongly to mutant cpFtsY(D283N) (■) than to wild-type cpFtsY (•). The _K_i values are reported in Table 2. (E and F) Titration of the change in fluorescence of mant-GTP (•) and mant-XTP (■) upon binding to wild-type cpFtsY (E) and mutant cpFtsY(D283N) (F). The data were fit to Eq. 5, and the _K_d values are summarized in Table 2.
Figure 6.
Nucleotide hydrolyses from the cpSRP54•cpFtsY(D283N) complex are asymmetric. (A) Stimulation of the GTPase reaction of cpSRP54 by cpFtsY(D283N), determined as described in Materials and Methods using 0.2 μM cpSRP54 and 20 μM XTP. The data were fit to Eq. 1 and gave a maximal rate constant of 0.037 min−1. (B) Stimulation of the XTPase reaction of cpFtsY(D283N) by cpSRP54, determined as described in Materials and Methods using 0.2 μM cpFtsY(D283N) and 20 μM GTP. The data were fit to Eq. 1 and gave a maximal rate constant of 0.30 min−1. (C) Time courses for GTP and XTP hydrolyses from the GTP·cpSRP54•cpFtsY(D283N)·XTP complex, determined as described in Materials and Methods. The data were fit to single exponential rate equations and gave rate constants of 0.86 and 3.7 min−1 for the GTPase (•) and XTPase (■) reactions, respectively.
Figure 7.
cpFtsY(D283N) prefers GTP over XTP when it forms a complex with cpSRP54. (A) GTP hydrolysis rates when 100–500 nM cpSRP54 interacts with wild-type cpFtsY (•), cpFtsY(D283N) bound to GTP (♦) and cpFtsY(D283N) bound to XTP (■). The following nucleotide concentrations were used: 100 μM GTP for reaction with wild-type cpFtsY, 200 μM GTP for reaction with cpFtsY(D283N) bound to GTP, and 20 μM GTP and 50 μM XTP for reaction with cpFtsY(D283N) bound to XTP. The data were fit to Eq. 2, which gave _k_cat values of 50 (•) and 39 min−1 (♦). (B) XTP inhibits the ability of GTP-bound cpFtsY(D283N) to stimulate GTP hydrolysis by cpSRP54. Reactions were carried out in the presence of 500 nM cpSRP54, 2 μM cpFtsY(D283N) and 200 μM GTP, as described in Materials and Methods. The data were fit to Eq. 3 and gave an apparent inhibition constant of 9.0 μM.
Figure 8.
Model for the interactions of cpSRP54 with the side chain of cpFtsY Asp283 or with GTP. (A–C) Proposed interactions between the side chain of residue 283 with a hydrogen bond donor from cpSRP54 (-AH) for the wild-type cpSRP54•cpFtsY complex (A) and the cpSRP54•cpFtsY(D283N) complex with XTP (B) or GTP (C) bound to cpFtsY(D283N). (D) The GTP bound to cpFtsY interacts with a hydrogen bond acceptor (-B:) from cpSRP54.
Similar articles
- Concerted complex assembly and GTPase activation in the chloroplast signal recognition particle.
Nguyen TX, Chandrasekar S, Neher S, Walter P, Shan SO. Nguyen TX, et al. Biochemistry. 2011 Aug 23;50(33):7208-17. doi: 10.1021/bi200742a. Epub 2011 Aug 2. Biochemistry. 2011. PMID: 21780778 Free PMC article. - A distinct mechanism to achieve efficient signal recognition particle (SRP)-SRP receptor interaction by the chloroplast srp pathway.
Jaru-Ampornpan P, Nguyen TX, Shan SO. Jaru-Ampornpan P, et al. Mol Biol Cell. 2009 Sep;20(17):3965-73. doi: 10.1091/mbc.e08-10-0989. Epub 2009 Jul 8. Mol Biol Cell. 2009. PMID: 19587121 Free PMC article. - Co-evolution of Two GTPases Enables Efficient Protein Targeting in an RNA-less Chloroplast Signal Recognition Particle Pathway.
Chandrasekar S, Sweredoski MJ, Sohn CH, Hess S, Shan SO. Chandrasekar S, et al. J Biol Chem. 2017 Jan 6;292(1):386-396. doi: 10.1074/jbc.M116.752931. Epub 2016 Nov 28. J Biol Chem. 2017. PMID: 27895118 Free PMC article. - Component interactions, regulation and mechanisms of chloroplast signal recognition particle-dependent protein transport.
Richter CV, Bals T, Schünemann D. Richter CV, et al. Eur J Cell Biol. 2010 Dec;89(12):965-73. doi: 10.1016/j.ejcb.2010.06.020. Epub 2010 Aug 14. Eur J Cell Biol. 2010. PMID: 20709425 Review. - A tale of two GTPases in cotranslational protein targeting.
Saraogi I, Akopian D, Shan SO. Saraogi I, et al. Protein Sci. 2011 Nov;20(11):1790-5. doi: 10.1002/pro.729. Epub 2011 Sep 27. Protein Sci. 2011. PMID: 21898651 Free PMC article. Review.
Cited by
- The role of chloroplast SRP54 domains and its C-terminal tail region in post- and co-translational protein transport in vivo.
Bischoff A, Ortelt J, Dünschede B, Zegarra V, Bedrunka P, Bange G, Schünemann D. Bischoff A, et al. J Exp Bot. 2024 Sep 27;75(18):5734-5749. doi: 10.1093/jxb/erae293. J Exp Bot. 2024. PMID: 38989593 Free PMC article. - An ankyrin repeat chaperone targets toxic oligomers during amyloidogenesis.
Gupta A, Lu C, Wang F, Chou TF, Shan SO. Gupta A, et al. Protein Sci. 2023 Aug;32(8):e4728. doi: 10.1002/pro.4728. Protein Sci. 2023. PMID: 37433015 Free PMC article. - Loss of CpFTSY Reduces Photosynthetic Performance and Affects Insertion of PsaC of PSI in Diatoms.
Nymark M, Finazzi G, Volpe C, Serif M, Fonseca DM, Sharma A, Sanchez N, Sharma AK, Ashcroft F, Kissen R, Winge P, Bones AM. Nymark M, et al. Plant Cell Physiol. 2023 Jun 14;64(6):583-603. doi: 10.1093/pcp/pcad014. Plant Cell Physiol. 2023. PMID: 36852859 Free PMC article. - Post-translational regulation of metabolic checkpoints in plant tetrapyrrole biosynthesis.
Wang P, Ji S, Grimm B. Wang P, et al. J Exp Bot. 2022 Aug 11;73(14):4624-4636. doi: 10.1093/jxb/erac203. J Exp Bot. 2022. PMID: 35536687 Free PMC article. Review. - How to Kinetically Dissect an RNA Machine.
Das R, Russell R. Das R, et al. Biochemistry. 2021 Nov 23;60(46):3485-3490. doi: 10.1021/acs.biochem.1c00392. Epub 2021 Sep 7. Biochemistry. 2021. PMID: 34492193 Free PMC article.
References
- Bishop A., et al. Unnatural Ligands for engineered proteins: new tools for chemical genetics. Annu. Rev. Biophys. Biomol. Struct. 2000;29:577–606. - PubMed
- Connolly T., Rapiejko P. J., Gilmore R. Requirement of GTP hydrolysis for dissociation of the signal recognition particle from its receptor. Science. 1991;252:1171–1173. - PubMed
- Egea P. F., Shan S., Napetschnig J., Savage D. F., Walter P., Stroud R. M. Substrate twinning activates the signal recognition particle and its receptor. Nature. 2004;427:215–221. - PubMed
Publication types
MeSH terms
Substances
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Molecular Biology Databases