![]() | ![]() |
Formats:
|
||||||||||||||||
Copyright © 2007, American Society of Plant Biologists European Molecular Biology Laboratory, Grenoble 38042, France (A.A.M.); and Nestlé Research and Development, Tours 37097, France (J.G.M.) *Corresponding author; e-mail andrewmc/at/embl.fr; fax 33–476207199. Received December 15, 2006; Accepted April 5, 2007. This article has been cited by other articles in PMC.Abstract Caffeine (1,3,7-trimethylxanthine) is a secondary metabolite produced by certain plant species and an important component of coffee (Coffea arabica and Coffea canephora) and tea (Camellia sinensis). Here we describe the structures of two S-adenosyl-l-methionine-dependent N-methyltransferases that mediate caffeine biosynthesis in C. canephora ‘robusta’, xanthosine (XR) methyltransferase (XMT), and 1,7-dimethylxanthine methyltransferase (DXMT). Both were cocrystallized with the demethylated cofactor, S-adenosyl-l-cysteine, and substrate, either xanthosine or theobromine. Our structures reveal several elements that appear critical for substrate selectivity. Serine-316 in XMT appears central to the recognition of XR. Likewise, a change from glutamine-161 in XMT to histidine-160 in DXMT is likely to have catalytic consequences. A phenylalanine-266 to isoleucine-266 change in DXMT is also likely to be crucial for the discrimination between mono and dimethyl transferases in coffee. These key residues are probably functionally important and will guide future studies with implications for the biosynthesis of caffeine and its derivatives in plants. Caffeine is a plant alkaloid known to have sensory and stimulatory effects when consumed in beverages such as coffee (Coffea arabica and Coffea canephora) and tea (Camellia sinensis). The pharmacological actions are thought to be mediated via blockade of the adenosine A1 and A2A receptors (Cauli and Morelli, 2005). The exact biological role of caffeine and related purine alkaloids of plants is still unclear, although there are now two main hypotheses. It has been proposed that caffeine protects young leaves and fruit from predators (chemical defense theory [Frischknecht, 1985; Hollingsworth et al., 2002]) and that the caffeine released by the seed coat prevents germination of other seeds (allelopathic or autotoxic theory [Friedman and Waller, 1983]). In agreement with these proposals, it is known that caffeine is accumulated in both the seeds and young leaves of coffee plants (Ashihara and Suzuki, 2004). Strong supporting evidence for the chemical defense theory has recently been obtained by Uefuji et al. (2005), who demonstrated that leaves of transgenic tobacco (Nicotiana tabacum) plants engineered to produce caffeine were less susceptible to insect feeding versus control leaves that did not contain caffeine. The first N-methyltransferase from the caffeine biosynthesis pathway to be biochemically characterized was cloned from young tea leaves and designated tea caffeine synthase1 (TCS1; Kato et al., 2000). Subsequently, an orthologous recombinant N-methyltransferase was cloned from the leaf cDNA of coffee and biochemically characterized as 7-methylxanthine (7mX) methyltransferase1 (MXMT1; Ogawa et al., 2001). A further group of homologous recombinant N-methyltransferases were then cloned from leaf and endosperm cDNA of coffee, biochemically characterized, and designated coffee 7-methylxanthosine synthase1 (XRS1; Mizuno et al., 2003a), coffee caffeine synthase1 (CCS1; Mizuno et al., 2003b), and coffee theobromine (Tb) synthase (CTS1 and CTS2; Mizuno et al., 2003b). Three S-adenosyl-l-methionine (SAM)-dependent N-methyltransferases were also cloned from immature fruit cDNA of coffee and biochemically characterized (Uefuji et al., 2003). These have been designated xanthosine (XR) methyltransferase (XMT), MXMT2 or Tb synthase, and 3,7-dimethylxanthine methyltransferase (DXMT or caffeine synthase). More recently, a Tb synthase (PCS1) from Camellia plants was characterized (Yoneyama et al., 2006). Thus, after many years of biochemical study, the core pathway has largely been clarified and occurs via three SAM-dependent N-methylation steps and a Rib removal step (Fig. 1
The N-methyltransferases from the caffeine biosynthetic pathway have high protein sequence homology (>80% identity), but exhibit remarkable substrate selectivity (Kato and Mizuno, 2004). They also belong to the wider motif B′ methyltransferases specific to plants (Kato and Mizuno, 2004). This important family includes enzymes involved in the biosynthesis of small and volatile methyl esters that are proposed to act as interplant signaling molecules in plant defense (Zubieta et al., 2003). Only one member of this family, salicylic acid O-methyltransferase (SAMT), has been structurally characterized so far (Zubieta et al., 2003). In an effort to understand the subtle substrate selectivity within the family of N-methyltransferases from the caffeine biosynthetic pathway, as well as between members of the larger motif B′-containing family of methyltransferase proteins, we decided to undertake structural and biochemical characterization of XMT and DXMT from Coffea canephora ‘robusta’. Here we describe the structures of XMT and DXMT complexed with S-adenosyl-l-Cys (SAH), the demethylated product, and their respective substrates, either XR or Tb. These structures are compared to the SAMT structure complexed with salicylic acid and SAH (Zubieta et al., 2003). The structural results presented here offer several insights into the substrate specificity from this family of SAM-dependent methyltransferases. RESULTS Enzymatic Activity XMT and DXMT were expressed in Escherichia coli and highly purified for both biochemical and structural studies. Biochemical analysis of the highly purified XMT used for crystallization shows that this preparation catalyzes the addition of a methyl group to the N7 of XR and generates 7mX instead of 7mXR (Fig. 2A
Structure Determination and Refinement DXMT could be solved by molecular replacement using SAMT as a starting model. However, the subsequent refinement was problematic and the structure was eventually solved by the single anomalous diffraction method with selenomethionine (SeMet)-incorporated DXMT. The final model comprises 348 of a possible 384 residues, one SAH, two Tb molecules in different orientations, and 146 water molecules. The disordered residues comprise the N- and C-terminal residues (two and five residues, respectively) and some surface loops (residues 12–15, 82–91, 169–174, and 303–311). The DXMT dimer observed in solution (McCarthy et al., 2007) is preserved in the crystal lattice, where each monomer is related by a crystallographic 2-fold axis along B. XMT was solved by molecular replacement using a model derived from the DXMT structure with flexible loops or insertions deleted. The final model comprises four XMT molecules in the asymmetric unit and 499 water molecules. Each of the XMT molecules contained 344 of a possible 372 residues, one SAH, and one XR. The 13 N-terminal residues have very weak electron density, but were excluded, and there was no discernible density for two surface loops (residues 85–89 and 303–306) or the five C-terminal residues of each molecule. The four molecules in the asymmetric unit form two dimer pairs. All the crystallographic information is summarized in Table I. The R and Rfree values for both DXMT and XMT are larger than those for comparable structures found in the Protein Data Bank and this is mainly due to the generous cutoff criteria used for determination of the high-resolution limit.
Overall Structure The XMT and DXMT structures are nearly identical and can be superimposed with a root-mean-square derivation (rmsd) of 1.0 Å for 331 Cα atoms from a possible 356. XMT and DXMT consist of two domains, the core SAM-dependent methyltransferase domain (residues 23–162, 190–227, 266–295, and 367–379 for DXMT) and an α-helical cap domain (residues 1–22, 163–189, 228–265, and 296–366 for DXMT; Figs. 3A
The biochemically characterized members of this family exist as dimers in solution (Zubieta et al., 2003). The dimerization interface involves residues from α4 and β3 (Fig. 3A SAH/SAM-Binding Site SAH is bound in a similar position and conformation in XMT, DXMT, and SAMT to other SAM-dependent methyltransferases (Fig. 3A The direct hydrogen-bonding interactions between the amino tail of SAH and the backbone carboxyl residues of Gly-60 from motif A (Fig. 4 Substrate-Binding Site XMT was cocrystallized in the presence of XR and it is well defined in the structure (Supplemental Fig. S1). DXMT was cocrystallized in the presence of Tb and exists in two conformations (Supplemental Fig. S1), one mimicking 7mX binding. The substrate-binding site of XMT and DXMT is located in a similar position to that found in SAMT (Fig. 5, A–D
XR makes a total of nine hydrogen bonds to the XMT protein, six with the purine ring and three with the Rib moiety (Fig. 5C In SAMT, the carboxylate moiety of salicylic acid is precisely positioned via hydrogen-bonding interactions with the sequence-conserved Trp-151 (Fig. 5D The largest structural difference between all the methyltransferases occurs in the loop between β5 and α6. This loop contributes to an important hydrogen-bonding interaction in DXMT substrate binding, where the O6 carboxylate group of 7mX-like Tb forms a direct hydrogen bond with the Ser-237 hydroxyl group (Fig. 5A In XMT, the O2 carboxylate group of XR forms a hydrogen bond with the hydroxyl groups of both Tyr-321 and Tyr-356 (Fig. 5C These hydrogen-bonding interactions are supplemented by hydrophobic interactions between the protein and the hydrophobic faces of the purine ring. XR is involved in hydrophobic interaction with Met-9, Tyr-18, Tyr-24, Tyr-158, Ile-227, Val-320, Tyr-321, and Tyr-356 in XMT. Val-320 caps one face of the purine ring, whereas Ile-227 and Tyr-158 abut the opposite face, with the purine ring perpendicular to the phenyl ring of Tyr-158 in a π-stacking interaction (Fig. 5C DISCUSSION The work presented here details the structural analysis of two very closely related enzymes involved in caffeine biosynthesis in coffee. These proteins are part of the general motif B′ family of methyltransferases, which transfer the activated methyl group of SAM to different plant secondary metabolites. Biochemical studies on the purified proteins (Fig. 2 N Terminus The N-terminal part of the protein is flexible, facilitating the entry of the substrates and cofactor into the active site and the exit of the reaction products. XMT has an extra Gln residue between Asn-25 and Leu-26 (as numbered in DXMT; Fig. 4 Substrate Discrimination between XMT and DXMT Two elements important for substrate discrimination between XMT and DXMT can be identified. The first involves Ser-316 in XMT, which forms a hydrogen bond with the O5′ hydroxyl group from the Rib moiety of XR (Fig. 5C Another difference between the XMT and DXMT substrate-binding sites occurs at position Tyr-321 in XMT, which forms a hydrogen bond with the O2 carboxyl group of XR (Fig. 5C Substrate Specificity between MXMTs and DXMTs Coffee plants contain both MXMTs (or CTS1/2) and DXMTs (Kato and Mizuno, 2004). It is still unclear why both enzymes are required because the DXMTs can readily catalyze both methyl transfers (Fig. 2 Dual Activity for XMT A highly purified preparation of XMT was not active on 7mX or Tb as anticipated. Surprisingly, the only clearly detectable product from the methylation of XR was 7mX (Fig. 2A Catalytic Residues Involved in N-Methyltransferase Activity It is very clear that DXMT can methylate both 7mX and Tb (Fig. 2B CONCLUSION The structures of XMT and DXMT presented here identify a number of key residues involved in substrate recognition and catalysis and will aid in the annotation of the many uncharacterized N-methyltransferase sequences available in GenBank. The subtle differences required for substrate recognition in the important motif B′ family of methyltransferases could even be exploited to produce new compounds for the pharmaceutical industry. Our results also suggest the plausibility of engineering a single protein capable of producing caffeine from XR. Such a protein could facilitate the production of herbivore-resistant crops that are more ecologically friendly. MATERIALS AND METHODS Purification, Crystallization, and Data Collection Native XMT and DXMT were purified and crystallized as previously described (McCarthy et al., 2007). SeMet DXMT protein was produced via inhibition of the Met metabolism pathway (Doublie, 1997) and prepared using the same expression and purification protocols as the native DXMT (McCarthy et al., 2007). The SeMet DXMT crystallized in similar conditions, 23% to 28% polyethylene glycol 3350, 200 mm Li2SO4, 100 mm Tris-HCl, pH 8.5 to 8.7, containing 2 mm dithiothreitol (DTT), 2 mm SAH, and 2 mm Tb, to the native DXMT with plate-like morphology in 1 to 3 d at 20°C. The crystals were then flash frozen at 100 K after transferring them to identical crystallization conditions containing 38% polyethylene glycol 3350. These crystals were orthorhombic, space group C2221, with one molecule in the asymmetric unit and a 2.0 Å dataset was collected. A highly redundant dataset to 2.66 Å was collected from a SeMet DXMT crystal at the peak of the SeMet signal, as measured by x-ray fluorescence. XMT in complex with SAH and XR crystallized in space group P21 with four molecules per asymmetric unit and a 2.2 Å dataset was collected. All x-ray data were collected on beamline ID14-4 at the European Synchrotron Radiation Facility. All x-ray data were integrated and scaled using the XDS suite (Kabsch, 1993) and a summary of the data statistics is given in Table I. Structure Determination and Refinement Six SeMet sites were located on the basis of their anomalous differences using SHELXD (Uson and Sheldrick, 1999). The sites were refined and experimental phases to 2.66 Å were calculated using the single anomalous dispersion procedure in SHARP and further improved with the density modification package SOLOMON in SHARP (de La Fortelle and Bricogne, 1997). These phases were input into ARP/wARP (Perrakis et al., 1999) and resulted in a fragmented polyalanine model of 281 residues. Subsequent rounds of model building followed by phased refinement using the SHARP phases in REFMAC (Murshudov et al., 1997) allowed the majority of the model to be built. XMT was solved by molecular replacement using PHASER (McCoy et al., 2005) and the DXMT structure as a search model. The crystal structure refinements of DXMT and XMT were performed using REFMAC (Murshudov et al., 1997), with a randomly chosen subset of 5% of reflections for the calculation of the free R factor. All the crystallographic information is summarized in Table I. A well-ordered SAH was easily modeled into both structures in the early stages of refinement. A Tb molecule in two orientations was modeled into DXMT (Supplemental Fig. S1, A and B) and a well-ordered XR molecule was easily modeled into XMT (Supplemental Fig. S1C). Ordered water molecules were added at locations where there was |FO| − |FC| density greater than 3σ above the mean and within hydrogen-bonding contact to a neighboring molecule. Model building was carried out with Coot (Emsley and Cowtan, 2004) and the stereochemical quality of the protein molecules was validated with PROCHECK (Laskowski et al., 1993). Restraints for XR were generated by using the Dundee PRODRG server (Schuttelkopf and van Aalten, 2004). Sequence alignments were done with ClustalW (Thompson et al., 1994) and ESPript (Gouet et al., 1999) and the figures were prepared with PYMOL (DeLano, 2002). Determination of Enzymatic Activity Reactions with purified recombinant DXMT protein were set up as follows: 30 μL of 10 mm SAM, 30 μL of 10× reaction buffer (500 mm Tris-HCl, pH 7.9, 10 mm MgCl2, 100 mm NaCl, 1 mm DTT), and 60 μL of 5 mm substrates (XR, 7mX, and Tb) were made up to a final volume of 285 μL with water. A 100-μL aliquot was taken as a control reaction and then 15 μL of purified protein (21 μg in 1× reaction buffer) were added to the remaining reaction. Both the control and enzyme reactions were incubated at 37°C. Forty-five- or 50-μL samples were taken at various times and added to 200 μL HPLC buffer A (92% water, 8% acetonitrile, 0.1% phosphoric acid, pH 2.2) to stop the reaction. Sixty micrograms of purified XMT were first diafiltered into reaction buffer (50 mm Tris-HCl, pH 7.9, 1 mm MgCl2, 10 mm NaCl, 0.1 mm DTT, and 3 mm SAM) to give a final volume of 1 mL. Then, 240-μL aliquots of XMT in reaction buffer were added to 60 μL of 5 mm solutions of XR, 7mX, or Tb. A 50-μL control sample was immediately taken from each of the reactions and added to 200 μL HPLC buffer A. The reactions were then placed at 37°C and 50-μL samples were taken at various times and added to 200 μL HPLC buffer A to stop the reactions. The samples were then passed through a 0.2-μm filter and were analyzed by HPLC using a Waters reverse-phase C18 column (4 μm, 4.6 × 250 mm) and a gradient of 8% to 50% acetonitrile. Solvent A was 91.9% milliQ water, 8% CH3CN, and 0.1% H3PO4; solvent B was 49.9% milliQ water, 50% CH3CN, and 0.1% H3PO4. Solvents were sparged with 30% helium and the flow rate was 1 mL/min. The gradient was as follows: at 0 min, 98% A/2% B; at 5 min, 92% A/8% B; at 25 min, 50% A/50% B; at 30 min, 30% A/70% B; at 35 min, 30% A/70% B; then from 37 to 45 min, 98% A/2% B. Detection was done using a Waters photodiode array detector. The nucleotide sequences reported in this article have been deposited in the DDBJ/GenBank/EBI Data Bank with accession numbers DQ422954 (XMT) and DQ422955 (DXMT). The atomic coordinates and structure factors have been deposited in the Protein Data Bank, Research Collaboratory for Structural Bioinformatics, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ (http://www.rscb.org) with the accession codes 2EG5 (XMT) and 2EFJ (DXMT). Supplemental Data The following materials are available in the online version of this article.
[Supplemental Data]
Acknowledgments We thank G. Cheminade for carrying out the HPLC analysis, the European Molecular Biology Laboratory/European Synchrotron Radiation Facility Joint Structural Biology Group for access to ID14-4, R. Ravelli for help with data collection and structural solution, and V. Petiard, R. Ravelli, and S. Cusack for their support during this work. Finally, we are grateful to C. Petosa and E. Mitchell for critically reading this manuscript. Notes 1This article is dedicated to the memory of Nicholas P. Chopey. The author responsible for distribution of materials integral to the findings presented in this article in accordance with the policy described in the Instructions for Authors (www.plantphysiol.org) is: Andrew A. McCarthy (andrewmc/at/embl.fr). [W]The online version of this article contains Web-only data. [OA]Open Access articles can be viewed online without a subscription. References
|
PubMed related articles
Your browsing activity is empty. Activity recording is turned off. |
|||||||||||||||
Behav Pharmacol. 2005 Mar; 16(2):63-77.
[Behav Pharmacol. 2005]Nature. 2002 Jun 27; 417(6892):915-6.
[Nature. 2002]Front Biosci. 2004 May 1; 9():1864-76.
[Front Biosci. 2004]Plant Mol Biol. 2005 Sep; 59(2):221-7.
[Plant Mol Biol. 2005]Nature. 2000 Aug 31; 406(6799):956-7.
[Nature. 2000]J Biol Chem. 2001 Mar 16; 276(11):8213-8.
[J Biol Chem. 2001]FEBS Lett. 2003 Jul 17; 547(1-3):56-60.
[FEBS Lett. 2003]FEBS Lett. 2003 Jan 16; 534(1-3):75-81.
[FEBS Lett. 2003]Plant Physiol. 2003 May; 132(1):372-80.
[Plant Physiol. 2003]Front Biosci. 2004 May 1; 9():1833-42.
[Front Biosci. 2004]Plant Cell. 2003 Aug; 15(8):1704-16.
[Plant Cell. 2003]Plant Cell. 2003 Aug; 15(8):1704-16.
[Plant Cell. 2003]Prog Biophys Mol Biol. 1995; 63(1):31-65.
[Prog Biophys Mol Biol. 1995]Plant Cell. 2003 Aug; 15(8):1704-16.
[Plant Cell. 2003]Plant Cell. 2003 Aug; 15(8):1704-16.
[Plant Cell. 2003]Biochemistry. 2003 Jul 22; 42(28):8394-402.
[Biochemistry. 2003]Plant Cell. 2003 Aug; 15(8):1704-16.
[Plant Cell. 2003]Front Biosci. 2004 May 1; 9():1833-42.
[Front Biosci. 2004]Plant Physiol. 2003 May; 132(1):372-80.
[Plant Physiol. 2003]Mol Genet Genomics. 2006 Feb; 275(2):125-35.
[Mol Genet Genomics. 2006]Nature. 2000 Aug 31; 406(6799):956-7.
[Nature. 2000]Plant Physiol. 2003 May; 132(1):372-80.
[Plant Physiol. 2003]J Mol Biol. 2002 Jan 18; 315(3):351-71.
[J Mol Biol. 2002]J Biol Chem. 2003 Nov 21; 278(47):47110-8.
[J Biol Chem. 2003]Plant Mol Biol. 2005 Sep; 59(2):221-7.
[Plant Mol Biol. 2005]Biochemistry. 1998 May 5; 37(18):6277-85.
[Biochemistry. 1998]Plant Cell. 2003 Aug; 15(8):1704-16.
[Plant Cell. 2003]Biochemistry. 2003 Jul 22; 42(28):8394-402.
[Biochemistry. 2003]J Biol Chem. 2001 Mar 16; 276(11):8213-8.
[J Biol Chem. 2001]FEBS Lett. 2003 Jan 16; 534(1-3):75-81.
[FEBS Lett. 2003]Curr Opin Struct Biol. 1999 Oct; 9(5):643-8.
[Curr Opin Struct Biol. 1999]Nat Struct Biol. 1999 May; 6(5):458-63.
[Nat Struct Biol. 1999]Acta Crystallogr D Biol Crystallogr. 1997 May 1; 53(Pt 3):240-55.
[Acta Crystallogr D Biol Crystallogr. 1997]Acta Crystallogr D Biol Crystallogr. 2005 Apr; 61(Pt 4):458-64.
[Acta Crystallogr D Biol Crystallogr. 2005]Acta Crystallogr D Biol Crystallogr. 1997 May 1; 53(Pt 3):240-55.
[Acta Crystallogr D Biol Crystallogr. 1997]Acta Crystallogr D Biol Crystallogr. 2004 Dec; 60(Pt 12 Pt 1):2126-32.
[Acta Crystallogr D Biol Crystallogr. 2004]Acta Crystallogr D Biol Crystallogr. 2004 Aug; 60(Pt 8):1355-63.
[Acta Crystallogr D Biol Crystallogr. 2004]Nucleic Acids Res. 1994 Nov 11; 22(22):4673-80.
[Nucleic Acids Res. 1994]Bioinformatics. 1999 Apr; 15(4):305-8.
[Bioinformatics. 1999]