![]() | ![]() |
Formats:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Copyright : © 2005 Wong and Isberg. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Yersinia pseudotuberculosis Spatially Controls Activation and Misregulation of Host Cell Rac1 1 Department of Molecular Biology and Microbiology, Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America 2 Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America Jorge Galan, Editor Yale School of Medicine, United States of America *To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: ralph.isberg/at/tufts.edu Received May 2, 2005; Accepted September 7, 2005. This article has been cited by other articles in PMC.Abstract Yersinia pseudotuberculosis binds host cells and modulates the mammalian Rac1 guanosine triphosphatase (GTPase) at two levels. Activation of Rac1 results from integrin receptor engagement, while misregulation is promoted by translocation of YopE and YopT proteins into target cells. Little is known regarding how these various factors interplay to control Rac1 dynamics. To investigate these competing processes, the localization of Rac1 activation was imaged microscopically using fluorescence resonance energy transfer. In the absence of translocated effectors, bacteria induced activation of the GTPase at the site of bacterial binding. In contrast, the entire cellular pool of Rac1 was inactivated shortly after translocation of YopE RhoGAP. Inactivation required membrane localization of Rac1. The translocated protease YopT had very different effects on Rac1. This protein, which removes the membrane localization site of Rac1, did not inactivate Rac1, but promoted entry of cleaved activated Rac1 molecules into the host cell nucleus, allowing Rac1 to localize with nuclear guanosine nucleotide exchange factors. As was true for YopE, membrane-associated Rac1 was the target for YopT, indicating that the two translocated effectors may compete for the same pool of target protein. Consistent with the observation that YopE inactivation requires membrane localization of Rac1, the presence of YopT in the cell interfered with the action of the YopE RhoGAP. As a result, interaction of target cells with a strain that produces both YopT and YopE resulted in two spatially distinct pools of Rac1: an inactive cytoplasmic pool and an activated nuclear pool. These studies demonstrate that competition between bacterial virulence factors for access to host substrates is controlled by the spatial arrangement of a target protein. In turn, the combined effects of translocated bacterial proteins are to generate pools of a single signaling molecule with distinct localization and activation states in a single cell. Synopsis Many disease-causing bacteria transfer proteins into host cells, interfering with defense against infections. Bacteria often do this by manipulating host proteins that send signals. This study analyzes how one such bacterial pathogen manipulates the host signaling protein Rac1. The proteins YopT and YopE, which are made by several pathogens, including the agent of bubonic plague, had been presumed to inactivate Rac1. The authors show here that this model is too simple, and that pathogens are able to both inactivate and maintain activation of a host protein in a single cell. In this work, the pathogen divides up the Rac1 population into two pools, each with different potentials to send signals. One pool is found in the host cell cytoplasm and is unable to function properly. The other pool of Rac1 is sent into the nucleus, where it still sends an appropriate signal. Therefore, a bacterial pathogen is shown to allow signaling from one site in the host cell, while preventing it from occurring at a different site. Such locale-dependent events within single cells were not previously thought to play a role in microbial pathogenesis. Introduction After ingestion by a host, Yersinia pseudotuberculosis gains a foothold in intestinal lymph nodes by moving across M cells into Peyer's patches [1]. As is true for the closely related Y. enterocolitica, entry into regional lymph nodes in the first few hours after infection requires the bacterial outer membrane protein invasin [2,3], which binds multiple β1 integrin receptors [1,4]. The preferential targeting of enteropathogenic Yersinia into M cells may be a consequence of specificity for these receptors, as no other cell type presents the appropriate integrin receptors on the intestinal lumen [5]. The importance of invasin for causing localized disease and colonizing within the intestine is well established [6], although the protein may be dispensable once bacteria establish infection in deep tissues [7,8]. Invasin-mediated uptake by cultured cells involves internalization of bacteria into membrane-bound compartments [9]. This adhesion event initiates actin rearrangements [4] controlled by the small guanosine triphosphatase (GTPase) Rac1 [10,11]. Rac1 is a member of the Rho GTPase family that controls a number of actin-dependent events, such as cell ruffling, motility, phagocytosis, and synapse formation [10–12]. Polyvalent engagement of integrin receptors by invasin results in activation of Rac1, with immediate loading of GTP into Rac1, although the site within the cell that harbors the activated Rac1 is not known [10]. The details that link integrin engagement to Rac1 activation are also unclear, although it has been argued that during integrin adhesion events, GTP loading produces a signal that releases cytosolic Rac1 from the protein Rho GDP-dissociation inhibitor (RhoGDI) [13]. Similarly unclear are the molecular details of how Rac1 coordinates the cytoskeletal rearrangements necessary for invasin-mediated uptake. Overproduction and localization studies argue that actin dynamics promoted by Arp2/3 and the lipid phosphoinositol-4,5-phosphate, as well as the small GTPase Arf6, are players downstream from Rac1 during uptake [14]. Yersinia species also target Rac1 for inactivation by several translocated effector proteins delivered by a type III secretion system, so the dynamics of Rac1 nucleotide loading must result from interplay between these proteins [15]. Two of these effectors, YopE and YopT, interfere with the function of multiple Rho family members through distinct mechanisms. YopE is a GTPase-activating protein for Rho family members (RhoGAP) [16,17]. The primary consequence of the RhoGAP activity of YopE is to interfere with a wide variety of phagocytic events, including invasin-mediated uptake. Pseudomonas aeruginosa ExoS and Samonella typhimurium SptP RhoGAP proteins have been shown to have similar functions [18,19]. Another translocated effector that inhibits invasin-mediated uptake is YopT, which is a cysteine protease that cleaves upstream of the prenylated cysteine within the CAAX motif at the C terminus of Rho family members Cdc42, Rac1, and RhoA [20]. Although purified YopT protein from Y. pestis does not appear to show specificity for individual Rho family members, YopT proteins from different species of Yersinia may not behave identically. For instance, the Y. enterocolitica protein targets only RhoA after its translocation into macrophages [21]. The substrate specificity of YopT in Y. pseudotuberculosis-infected cells is not known. Also unknown are the consequences of YopT cleavage on the activation state of Rho family members [22]. Enteropathogenic Yersinia species transmit potentially conflicting signals to Rho GTPases that may accommodate specific requirements during establishment of disease. To study these signals, we analyzed the response of Rac1 to adhesion by Y. pseudotuberculosis. We found that intracellular localization of Rac1 controls the ability of the bacterium to manipulate activation of this regulatory molecule. Results Use of Fluorescent Resonance Energy Transfer Measurements to Monitor Rac1 Activation Several strategies based on fluorescence resonance energy transfer (FRET) have been described to visualize Rac1 activation [23–25]. To determine the consequences of Y. pseudotuberculosis infection on Rac1 activation in host cells, we developed a strategy similar to that reported previously [23], in which the loading of GTP into Rac1 was localized to specific sites in the mammalian cell using fluorescence microscopy. Activated (GTP-loaded) Rac1 can be distinguished from the rest of the Rac1 pool in the cell by its ability to bind the effector domain of PAK1 (residues 67–118 from p21-associated kinase, called p21-binding domain [PBD]). In cells transfected with CFP-tagged Rac1, binding by the GTP-loaded form of Rac1 to YFP-tagged PBD was measured by intermolecular fluorescent resonance energy transfer from the CFP moiety to the YFP moiety after 440 nm excitation (Figure 1
To determine if GTP loading was the specific readout of this system, a series of mutant Rac1 and PBD derivatives were transfected into COS1 cells in the absence of incubation with Y. pseudotuberculosis (Table 1). The constitutively active mCFP-Rac1V12 (GTP-bound, Table 1) generated substantial FRET, as predicted for a protein that does not require external activation (Figure 1
To give further support to the hypothesis that FRET was due to binding of Rac1-GTP to PBD, photobleaching was performed (Figure 1 GTP-Loaded Rac1 Is Recruited to Nascent Phagosomes Rac1 is activated after engagement of integrin receptors by Y. pseudotuberculosis [10]. This could occur as either global activation of the entire Rac1 pool or localized changes in Rac1 conformation at regions proximal to the nascent phagosome. To distinguish between these possibilities, FRET analysis was performed after 20 min incubation of Y. pseudotuberculosis with COS1 cells. The Y. pseudotuberculosis strain used for these infections lacked the Yersinia virulence plasmid and was grown under conditions in which the invasin protein was the only adhesin expressed, so that all effects observed were a consequence of invasin engagement of receptors. When fixed samples were stained to identify partially internalized bacteria (Figure 2
Selective Inactivation of Membrane-Targeted Rac1 by YopE The ability to localize activated Rac1 to specific sites within target cells facilitated spatial analysis of the targeting of Rac1 by Yersinia translocated effectors, allowing investigation of the consequences of YopE RhoGAP activity (Figure 3
The Y. pseudotuberculosis YopT Removes Multiple Rho Family Members from Nascent Phagosomes We next wished to analyze the interplay between YopE and another translocated effector that targets Rac1 in vitro. Both YopE and YopT inhibit uptake of enteropathogenic Yersinia species (unpublished data) [17], although it is not clear that YopT targets Rac1 in intact cells. It has been previously reported that the Y. enterocolitica YopT cysteine protease selectively releases RhoA from the plasma membrane of target cells, inhibiting bacterial uptake [21]. This conflicts with analysis of Y. pseudotuberculosis indicating that cells having inactivated RhoA support invasin-dependent internalization, so presumably Y. pseudotuberculosis YopT must target another Rho family member [17]. To investigate the possibility that Y. pseudotuberculosis YopT also targeted Rac1 and Cdc42, we examined localization of Rho family members about the nascent phagosome (Figure 4
Rac1 has a strong nuclear localization signal in the polybasic domain located immediately upstream of the CAAX prenylation motif [22]. YopT-promoted cleavage should release the prenylation motif and liberate a truncated Rho family member that contains the intact nuclear localization [20]. After 30 min of YopT translocation from adherent Y. pseudotuberculosis, there was intense nuclear accumulation of Rac1 (69% of cells showed nuclear localization, n = 36; Figure 4 As observed for YopE, membrane-associated Rac1 was the target of YopT. Bacterial translocation of YopT failed to result in nuclear accumulation of the cytoplasmically localized Rac16Q (unpublished data). Furthermore, if Rac1 were localized in a cytoplasmic pool as a result of overproduction of RhoGDI, then YopT-promoted nuclear accumulation of Rac1 was blocked (Figure 4 YopT Cleavage Does Not Block Rac1 Activation Based on the biochemical properties of the Yersinia effectors, YopE disrupts function by preventing Rac1 activation, whereas YopT simply mislocalizes Rac1. It is possible, however, that the altered localization of Rac1 that results from YopT proteolysis also interferes with GTP loading. For this reason, we examined whether Rac1 mislocalization results in its inactivation, using the Y. pseudotuberculosis strain that expresses YopT as the only known translocated effector that alters Rac1 function. After 30 min of incubation with YP17/pYopT, transfected cells exhibited intense nuclear accumulation of mCFP-Rac1, indicating that most of the Rac1 was cleaved (Figure 5
The Combined Action of YopE and YopT Generate Two Different Pools of Rac1 The above results indicate that the nonprenylated form of Rac1 is a poor substrate for YopE. Therefore, the removal of prenylation by YopT should protect a pool of Rac1 from inactivation by YopE, and that pool should move into the nucleus. To test this prediction, a strain expressing both YopE and YopT was used to challenge COS1 cells, and levels of Rac1 activation were compared to the parental strain lacking YopT (Figure 6
To directly study the effects of simultaneous deposition of YopT and YopE on Rac1 dynamics without changing translocation rates, two alternate strategies were pursued. First, strains expressing only YopT (“T,” Figure 7
Despite the fact that cytoplasmically-localized Rac1 was inactivated in cells simultaneously exposed to YopT and YopE, YopT still exerted effects on these cells. Nucleus-localized Rac1 could be detected for any experimental procedure that introduced YopT into cells, even if a YopT-expressing strain was added 30 min after the addition of the YopE expressing strain (“E → T,” Figure 7 As the YopT-cleaved Rac1 may be protected from YopE and come in contact with Rac1-specific guanosine exchange factor (RacGEF) proteins in the nucleus [22,30], the activation of Rac1 was measured in the nucleus, normalizing FRET to the concentrations of both Rac1 and PBD in this compartment [33]. This normalization strategy clearly detected activation in this compartment, and it was dependent on both GTP loading of Rac1 (N17, Figure 8
Discussion Enteropathogenic Yersinia sends contradictory signals that control the activation status of Rho GTPases. The most significant result from these studies is that the locale of Rac1 within the host cell was shown to be an important determinant of how the microorganism manipulates GTP loading. Engagement of integrin receptors by the Y. pseudotuberculosis invasin protein results in activation of Rac1, but activation was localized around phagosomal cups that harbored Y. pseudotuberculosis strains lacking antagonizing Yop proteins (see Figure 2 All standard criteria, including the use of Rac1 dominant inhibitory mutants and effector binding-defective derivatives, indicate that our FRET system faithfully monitored the localization of Rac1 activation within the cell and gave activation readouts similar to previously described analysis (see Figure 1 A signal that induces the release of Rac1 from RhoGDI is the first step in activation after integrin engagement, followed by GTP loading by guanine nucleotide exchange factors and translocation of Rac1 to the membrane [13]. During invasin-promoted uptake, these events could occur sequentially, or be coupled to each other in a concerted process involving a RacGEF. Dock180 is a RacGEF that is a likely candidate for involvement in this process, as it has been implicated in both integrin-dependent activation events and in phagocytosis [36,37]. This protein is recruited to complexes resulting from tyrosine phosphorylation cascades that occur subsequent to integrin engagement [38]. In fact, high efficiency invasin-promoted uptake requires tyrosine phosphorylation, but there is considerable bacterial uptake even in the presence of tyrosine kinase inhibitors [39]. Therefore, we favor a model in which there are multiple pathways leading to Rac1 activation after bacterial binding, some of which may involve tyrosine kinase cascades. It has been argued that misregulation of the host cell cytoskeleton by the Yersinia translocated effectors is a two-step process that involves Rac1 inactivation followed by removal of the protein from the membrane after integrin engagement. RhoGDI removes Rac1-GDP from the membrane, preventing reactivation and coupling of Rac1 with downstream effectors [35]. This extraction process may be required for bacterial RhoGAP proteins (such as YopE) to mediate wholesale cytoskeletal changes, because cell rounding induced by the RhoGAP homolog ExoS from P. aeruginosa is dependent on the presence of RhoGDI [40]. It is possible that most Yersinia strains bypass the necessity for using such a host factor to extract YopE-inactivated Rac1, because YopT cleavage results in removal of Rac1 from the membrane, giving the potential for the two virulence factors to work in concert (discussed below). The reason that removal from the membrane is important is not clear, but Rac1-GDP present in the membrane may be transiently reactivated, reversing the effects of the RhoGAP. Rac1 released from the plasma membrane by YopT resulted in an active pool of the GTPase within the nucleus (see Figures 4 Although competition between YopT and YopE can be observed in this work, it is possible that the two proteins have a collaborative relationship that is more difficult to measure. YopT could collaborate with YopE by releasing Rac1-GDP from the membrane after YopE action but prior to that of RhoGDI, causing accumulation of inactive Rac1 in the nucleus. This should bypass any need for RhoGDI to support the function of YopE as previously reported [40]. The activation state of Rac1 in the nucleus could then be controlled by GEFs in this compartment. As a final note, the translocation of Rac1 into the nucleus that results from YopT cleavage may be a strategy to cause misregulation of the host cell transcription program. As the nuclear Rac1 population includes active protein, it is able to bind downstream effectors. Furthermore, it is known that several GEFs, such as SmgGDS and Dock180, can be similarly localized in this compartment, maintaining Rac1 in the active conformation to bind nuclear factors [22,30]. One such factor that interacts with Rac1-GTP is STAT3 (signal transducer and activator of transcription 3) [42]. This transcription factor controls interleukin-10-dependent suppression of macrophage activation, so YopT-induced translocation of activated Rac1 into the nucleus may prevent macrophage activation, even in the absence of an external interleukin-10 signal [43]. The ability to measure the activation levels of Rho family members in response to bacterial binding to host cells, and determine the effects of misregulation on inflammatory responses, should facilitate future studies on the potentially competitive roles of Yersinia translocated effector proteins. Materials and Methods Cell culture, DNA constructs, and transfections. COS1 cells were cultured and transfected as previously described [10]. Plasmids pmECFP-N1 and pmEYFP-N1 containing the L211K mutations in CFP and YFP, which prevent dimerization and reduce the probability of false-positive FRET, were generated by QuikChange site-directed mutagenesis (Stratagene, La Jolla, California, United States) using pECFP-C1 and pEYFP-C1 (Clontech, Palo Alto, California, United States) as templates [26]. T7 epitope-tagged pCGT-Rac1, pCGT-Rac1V12, and pCGT-Rac1N17 were described [14]. The human Rac1 cDNAs were isolated from these plasmids and inserted directly downstream from the 3′ end of CFP located in pmECFP to create pmCFP-Rac1(WT), pmCFP-Rac1V12, and pmCFP-Rac1N17 (see Table 1 for summary of derivatives). The Rac1 Y40C, R66A, or C189S mutations were introduced into pmCFP-Rac1(WT) or pmCFP-Rac1V12 by site-directed mutagenesis using the QuikChange protocol. The pmYFP-PBD and pmYFP-PBD(LL) plasmids were generated by PCR amplifying the region encompassing residues 67–118 of human PAK1 cDNA from pCMV6M-Pak1 and pCMV6M-Pak1(LL) (H83L, H86L), kindly by provided by J. Chernoff (Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States), and then fusing the product to the 3′ end of YFP of pmEYFP. All plasmids were verified by DNA sequencing. The mammalian expression vectors that express N-terminal myc-tagged RhoA and myc-tagged Cdc42 were provided by K. Wong (University of California at San Francisco, San Francisco, California, United States) and Rac16Q by U. Knaus (Scripps, San Diego, California, United States). The bacterial expression vector pYopE was described previously [14]. pYopT, which encodes Y. pseudotuberculosis serogroup I YopT under the strong YopH promoter, was a kind gift from J. Bliska (The State University of New York, Stony Brook, New York, United States). Y. pseudotuberculosis pYPIII(P−) is a serogroup III strain cured of the virulence plasmid and that lacks the YadA protein. Y. pseudotuberculosis strain YP17 (YPIII[pYV +] yopT − yopE::kan yopH::cam), lacks three translocated effectors but has an intact type III secretion system. Y. pseudotuberculosis strain YP15 (YPIII[pYV +] yopT − yopH::cam) is a yopE + derivative of YP17. The strain IP32935, a kind gift from E. Garcia (Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Berkeley, California, United States), is a serogroup I clinical isolate that has recently been sequenced and encodes both YopT and YopE on its virulence plasmid [32].Y. pseudotuberculosis infection of mammalian cells and immunofluorescence staining of bacteria. Growth conditions of YPIII(P−) were used such that invasin was the only protein expressed that promoted attachment to host cells. Bacteria were grown on LB-agar plates, supplemented with 100 μg/ml ampicillin when necessary, at 26 °C for 2 d. The day before infection, a single colony was grown with aeration at 26 °C overnight in LB broth containing 100 μg/ml ampicillin as necessary, and then subcultured in broth with aeration until A600 = 0.7. For YP15 and YP17 strains, subcultures of the overnight cultures were performed in broth supplemented with 2.5 mM CaCl2 and grown at 26 °C until A600 = 0.2. At this point, the cultures were then shifted to 37 °C and aerated for 1 h. A multiplicity of infection (MOI) = 50:1 was used for YPIII(P−) incubations, and an MOI of 25:1 was used for YP17 derivatives. For YP17/pYopE, 0.1 mM isopropyl-β-D-thiogalactopyranoside was supplemented during infection to induce YopE expression. COS1 cells incubated with bacteria were processed for immunofluorescence staining using anti-Y. pseudotuberculosis as described [10], revealing extracellular bacteria with anti-rabbit IgG-Texas Red (Molecular Probes, Eugene, Oregon, United States) and total bacteria with goat anti-rabbit IgG-Cascade Blue (Molecular Probes) after fixation with 3% paraformaldehyde. To detect localization of Rac1, Cdc42, or Arf6-HA, cells were stained using mouse monoclonal antibodies directed against Rac1, Cdc42 (BD Transduction Laboratories, San Diego, California, United States), or the HA tag (Santa Cruz Biotechnology, Santa Cruz, California, United States) followed by probing with goat anti-mouse IgG-Alexa Fluor 488 (Molecular Probes). To analyze partially engulfed organisms, bacteria were identified in which only a portion of the rod showed staining with anti-Y. pseudotuberculosis in the absence of permeabilization [14]. To determine the extent of Rac1 accumulation in the nucleus, images were captured from single cells, and the mean intensity values of the nucleus as well as that of the cytoplasm were determined. The Rac1 nuclear localization index was then defined as the ratio of the two intensity values (mean nuclear intensity divided by mean cytoplasmic intensity) from eight to ten cells. FRET image analysis to determine levels of Rac1 activation. To determine levels of Rac1 activation within COS1 cells, monolayers grown on 12-mm untreated round glass coverslips (Fisher Scientific, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States) were washed three times in PBS, fixed in PBS containing 3% paraformaldehyde, and then immunostained, if appropriate. The coverslips were then mounted on glass slides in the presence of antifade reagent (BioRad, Hercules, California, United States). Individual cells were analyzed using a Plan Apo 100×/1.4 objective fitted on a Nikon Eclipse TE300 inverted microscope (Nikon, Tokyo, Japan) with a 100-W Hg light source, using neutral density filter-4 (25% transmittance). Images were captured using a Hamamatsu Orca II camera (Hamamatsu Photonics, Hamamatsu City, Japan), with scripts controlled by IPLab v 3.5 software (Scanalytics, Rockville, Maryland, United States) capturing, in order, the YFP, CFP, and FRET channels at a bin setting of 2 × 2 with 200 msec exposure time. Filter sets (Chroma, Rockingham, Vermont, United States) consisted of: YFP excitation/emission set with HQ500/20× (exciter), Q515LP (beamsplitter), and HQ535/30m (emitter) filters; CFP excitation/emission set, with D436/10×, 455DCLP, and D480/40m filters; and a FRET set, with D436/10×, 455DCLP, and HQ535/30m filters. Photobleaching of YFP was performed using the D535/50 excitation filter and a Q515LP beamsplitter (Chroma). The ROI chosen to determine FRET was dependent on whether or not transfectants were incubated with bacteria. For all experiments in which transfectants were incubated in the absence of bacteria, two random fields (each about 10% of the area of a whole cell) located within cytoplasmic regions were chosen. Nucleus-localized protein was avoided, unless stated otherwise. To determine the amount of FRET surrounding nascent phagosomes, the ROI chosen was around partially internalized bacteria [14]. In cases in which the amount of normalized FRET in the area proximal to the phagosomes was compared to elsewhere in the cytoplasm of the same cell, a single ROI of the COS1 cytoplasm, which was near the nascent phagosome and encompassed a similar-sized area to that of the nascent phagosome, was chosen as the normalized FRET control. To quantitate sensitized FRET, correction coefficients were derived to account for bleedthrough of CFP emission and cross-excitation of YFP during FRET measurements. The background level of fluorescence on the coverslip was determined, and then cells that were singly transfected with either mCFP-Rac1 or mYFP-PBD were analyzed. The correction coefficient for a particular fluor was determined by capturing images from the singly transfected cells. The mean intensities (I) from two randomly-chosen cytoplasmic regions of interests from single cells were determined, and the fraction of emission observed with the FRET filter relative to the appropriate excitation/emission filter set (IFRET filter/Ifluor filter) was calculated. The coefficient of CFP bleedthrough emission into the FRET emission filter (IFRET filter/ICFP filter) was approximately 0.39, and the coefficient of YFP cross-excitation by the FRET excitation filter (IFRET filter/IYFP filter) was 0.22. For a sample, sensitized FRET was typically calculated as Isensitized FRET = IFRET − (0.39 × ICFP) − (0.22 × IYFP) [33]. In certain cases, normalized FRET was determined, which was the ratio of FRET relative to the concentration of mCFP-Rac1 at individual sites within the cell. Images of normalized Rac1 activation were obtained by first constructing sensitized FRET images and masking them, so that all of the non-cell pixels had zero FRET intensity. Then the resulting images were divided by those obtained using the CFP filter. To account for the dramatic differences in the relative concentration of PBD and Rac1 in the nucleus after YopT treatment, we normalized FRET signal from nucleus to both proteins by calculating nuclear FRET as Isensitized FRET/(ICFP × IYFP)1/2 as described previously [33]. Photobleaching was determined after grabbing the images required for FRET determinations. The sample was the exposed for 3 min to a 100-W Hg lamp using a 535 nm excitation filter but no neutral density filter. An image was then grabbed using the CFP filter set. Images obtained before and after photobleaching were background subtracted, and the CFP fluorescence in two ROIs from each image were obtained to calculate the percentage increase in CFP emission. Detergent fractionation of COS1 cells infected with Y. pseudotuberculosis for Yop translocation. Freshly diluted Y. pseudotuberculosis was grown in LB broth with antibiotic if necessary, as above, at 26 °C for 2 h, transferred to 37 °C, and grown for a further 2 h. The bacteria were then incubated at MOI = 50 for 0.5 or 1 h with COS1 cells (0.5 × 106) grown in 10-cm2 dishes. After one wash with PBS, infected cells were incubated for 20 min at 4 °C with 400 μl of lysis buffer (150 mM NaCl, 0.1% NP-40, and 10 mM NaH2PO4) containing 200 μM AEBSF, 10 μg/ml leupeptin, and 10 μg/ml pepstatin. Lysed cells were collected and centrifuged for 10 min at 13,000 rpm at 4 °C, and 133 μl of the supernatant was taken and precipitated with 1:4 methanol-chloroform. The precipitated detergent-soluble proteins and the detergent-insoluble pellets were resuspended and boiled in SDS-PAGE sample buffer containing 5% SDS. Half of the soluble and pellet samples were analyzed by SDS-PAGE and immunoblotted using an antibody against YopE, provided by J. Mecsas (Tufts University, Massachusetts, United States). Acknowledgments We would like to thank Drs. Molly Bergman, Vicki Auerbuch, and Marion Dorer for review of the text; Drs. Jim Bliska, Jonathan Chernoff, Ulla Knaus, and Kit Wong for supplying plasmids; Drs. Jim Bliska and Emilio Garcia for supplying Yersinia strains; and Dr. Joan Mecsas for providing antibody. This work was supported by Howard Hughes Medical Institute, by award R37AI23538 from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, and Program Project Award grant P30DK34928 from the National Institute of Diabetes and Kidney Diseases. RRI is an Investigator of HHMI. Abbreviations
Footnotes Competing interests. The authors have declared that no competing interests exist. Author contributions. KWW and RRI conceived and designed the experiments. KWW performed the experiments. KWW and RRI analyzed the data. RRI contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools. KWW and RRI wrote the paper. Citation: Wong KW, Isberg RR (2005) Yersinia pseudotuberculosis spatially controls activation and misregulation of host cell Rac1. PLoS Pathog 1(2): e16. References
|
PubMed related articles
Your browsing activity is empty. Activity recording is turned off. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
J Cell Sci. 2001 Jan; 114(Pt 1):21-28.
[J Cell Sci. 2001]Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1993 Jul 15; 90(14):6473-7.
[Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1993]Infect Immun. 1997 Aug; 65(8):3412-21.
[Infect Immun. 1997]Cell. 1990 Mar 9; 60(5):861-71.
[Cell. 1990]Infect Immun. 1998 Mar; 66(3):1237-43.
[Infect Immun. 1998]Microbes Infect. 2000 Jun; 2(7):793-801.
[Microbes Infect. 2000]Cell. 1990 Mar 9; 60(5):861-71.
[Cell. 1990]Mol Microbiol. 2001 Nov; 42(3):689-703.
[Mol Microbiol. 2001]FEBS Lett. 2001 Nov 30; 509(1):59-65.
[FEBS Lett. 2001]Nature. 2002 Dec 12; 420(6916):629-35.
[Nature. 2002]Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol. 2002 Oct; 3(10):742-52.
[Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol. 2002]Mol Microbiol. 2000 May; 36(3):737-48.
[Mol Microbiol. 2000]Mol Microbiol. 2000 Aug; 37(3):515-27.
[Mol Microbiol. 2000]Infect Immun. 2003 Sep; 71(9):5296-305.
[Infect Immun. 2003]Nature. 1999 Sep 16; 401(6750):293-7.
[Nature. 1999]Mol Biol Cell. 2004 Aug; 15(8):3509-19.
[Mol Biol Cell. 2004]Mol Cell Biol. 2002 Sep; 22(18):6582-91.
[Mol Cell Biol. 2002]Science. 2002 May 3; 296(5569):913-6.
[Science. 2002]Methods Enzymol. 2000; 327():472-500.
[Methods Enzymol. 2000]Mol Microbiol. 2001 Nov; 42(3):689-703.
[Mol Microbiol. 2001]Mol Microbiol. 2000 May; 36(3):737-48.
[Mol Microbiol. 2000]Mol Microbiol. 2000 Aug; 37(3):515-27.
[Mol Microbiol. 2000]Biochem J. 2001 Oct 15; 359(Pt 2):285-94.
[Biochem J. 2001]Mol Microbiol. 2000 Aug; 37(3):515-27.
[Mol Microbiol. 2000]J Biol Chem. 2003 Aug 29; 278(35):33217-23.
[J Biol Chem. 2003]J Exp Med. 2003 Aug 18; 198(4):603-14.
[J Exp Med. 2003]Exp Cell Res. 1995 Nov; 221(1):153-9.
[Exp Cell Res. 1995]J Biol Chem. 2003 Apr 4; 278(14):12495-506.
[J Biol Chem. 2003]Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2003 Feb 4; 100(3):904-9.
[Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2003]J Biol Chem. 2003 Apr 4; 278(14):12495-506.
[J Biol Chem. 2003]Arch Biochem Biophys. 2004 Sep 1; 429(1):23-9.
[Arch Biochem Biophys. 2004]Mol Microbiol. 1998 May; 28(3):593-601.
[Mol Microbiol. 1998]Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2004 Sep 21; 101(38):13826-31.
[Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2004]J Biol Chem. 2003 Apr 4; 278(14):12495-506.
[J Biol Chem. 2003]Arch Biochem Biophys. 2004 Sep 1; 429(1):23-9.
[Arch Biochem Biophys. 2004]Biophys J. 2001 Oct; 81(4):2395-402.
[Biophys J. 2001]Mol Microbiol. 2001 Nov; 42(3):689-703.
[Mol Microbiol. 2001]J Biol Chem. 2004 Jan 23; 279(4):2747-53.
[J Biol Chem. 2004]J Cell Biol. 2001 Jan 8; 152(1):111-26.
[J Cell Biol. 2001]Mol Biol Cell. 2004 Aug; 15(8):3509-19.
[Mol Biol Cell. 2004]Nat Cell Biol. 2002 Mar; 4(3):232-9.
[Nat Cell Biol. 2002]Nat Cell Biol. 2002 Mar; 4(3):232-9.
[Nat Cell Biol. 2002]Nat Cell Biol. 2002 Aug; 4(8):574-82.
[Nat Cell Biol. 2002]Nature. 2003 Jul 24; 424(6947):461-4.
[Nature. 2003]J Cell Biol. 2003 Mar 3; 160(5):753-67.
[J Cell Biol. 2003]Infect Immun. 1992 Jun; 60(6):2211-7.
[Infect Immun. 1992]J Cell Biol. 2001 Jan 8; 152(1):111-26.
[J Cell Biol. 2001]J Biol Chem. 2004 Oct 8; 279(41):42936-44.
[J Biol Chem. 2004]J Biol Chem. 2003 Apr 4; 278(14):12495-506.
[J Biol Chem. 2003]Infect Immun. 2004 Sep; 72(9):5227-34.
[Infect Immun. 2004]J Biol Chem. 2004 Oct 8; 279(41):42936-44.
[J Biol Chem. 2004]J Biol Chem. 2003 Apr 4; 278(14):12495-506.
[J Biol Chem. 2003]Arch Biochem Biophys. 2004 Sep 1; 429(1):23-9.
[Arch Biochem Biophys. 2004]Science. 2000 Oct 6; 290(5489):144-7.
[Science. 2000]J Immunol. 2003 Dec 1; 171(11):6198-205.
[J Immunol. 2003]Mol Microbiol. 2001 Nov; 42(3):689-703.
[Mol Microbiol. 2001]Science. 2002 May 3; 296(5569):913-6.
[Science. 2002]J Exp Med. 2003 Aug 18; 198(4):603-14.
[J Exp Med. 2003]Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2004 Sep 21; 101(38):13826-31.
[Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2004]Mol Microbiol. 2001 Nov; 42(3):689-703.
[Mol Microbiol. 2001]J Exp Med. 2003 Aug 18; 198(4):603-14.
[J Exp Med. 2003]J Exp Med. 2003 Aug 18; 198(4):603-14.
[J Exp Med. 2003]Biophys J. 2001 Oct; 81(4):2395-402.
[Biophys J. 2001]