![]() | ![]() |
Formats:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
Copyright © 2008, The American Society for Biochemistry
and Molecular Biology, Inc. α-Macroglobulins Are Present in Some Gram-negative
Bacteria CHARACTERIZATION OF THE
α2-MACROGLOBULIN FROM ESCHERICHIA
COLI* ![]() Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Genetics, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, Illinois 60607 1
To whom correspondence should be addressed: 900 S. Ashland, M/C 669, Chicago,
IL 60607. Tel.: 312-996-5534; Fax: 312-413-0353; E-mail:
pgettins/at/uic.edu.
Received April 23, 2008; Revised July 28, 2008. Abstract α-Macroglobulins (αMs) are large glycoproteins that have been
identified in a wide range of vertebrate and invertebrate species and are
mostly thiol ester containing proteinase inhibitors. A recent analysis of
bacterial genomes (Budd, A., Blandin, S., Levashina, E. A.,
and Gibson, T. J. (2004. ) Genome Biol.
5, R38.)
identified many α-macroglobulin-like sequences that appear to have been
acquired by Gram-negative bacteria from their metazoan hosts. We report the
first expression and characterization of such a bacterial
α-macroglobulin, that from Escherichia coli. This is also the
first α-macroglobulin to be characterized that is predicted to be
membrane-anchored. We found that the 183-kDa protein contains an intact thiol
ester, is monomeric, and is localized to the periplasmic space. Reaction with
proteinase results in limited cleavage within a bait region, rapid activation
of the thiol ester, cross-linking to the attacking proteinase or other
available nucleophiles, and partial protection of the proteinase against
macromolecular substrates. Given these properties and the co-occurrence of the
αM gene with one for a repair transglycosylase, this suggests a possible
role for bacterial αMs in cell defense following host attack. Such a
role would make bacterial αMs appropriate novel targets for antibiotic
drugs. The α-macroglobulins
(αMs)2 are a
family of large proteins (monomers of >1400 residues) present in all types
of metazoans (1). Most,
although not all, have been found to contain an internal thiol ester formed
between the side chains of a cysteine and a glutamine residue 3 residues
further C-terminal. The thiol ester is usually critical for the functioning of
the αM. In humans the best characterized αM is
α2M, which is an extremely abundant tetrameric plasma
glycoprotein composed of 1451 residue subunits, and which acts as a
pan-proteinase inhibitor, using a unique trapping conformational change-based
mechanism (2). Other human
αMs include pregnancy zone protein
(3), CD109
(4), and CPAMD8
(5), although these have been
far less well characterized. Closely related to α2M are the
complement proteins C3, C4, and C5, all three of which appear to have evolved
from the same primordial gene as α2M
(6). This relationship is
suggestive of a potential role for α2M and other
α-macroglobulins in host defense
(7-9). Although no αM proteins have ever been reported from bacteria, a
recent data base search of bacterial genomes identified αM-like genes in
a wide range of Gram-negative bacteria from a number of different clades.
These include proteobacteria, cyanobacteria, spirochetes, and thermophillic
bacteria (10). The
phylogenetic distribution was, however, uneven and suggestive of acquisition
of the gene from the metazoan host, perhaps as a colonization factor. Most
intriguingly, the αM gene was almost always found in tandem with a gene
for a cell wall repair transglycosylase, PBP1C
(11), suggesting that the
αM-like protein, together with the transglycosylase might function in
bacterial defense subsequent to breach of the outer cell wall by the
antibiotic response of the host. To better understand the properties and potential functions of such
host-acquired bacterial αMs, we have carried out the first expression
and characterization of a bacterial αM, that from Escherichia
coli (which we term ECAM). This is predicted to be a mature protein of
1636 residues, following removal of a 17-residue signal peptide, with a
periplasmic localization sequence and an internal thiol ester. Our
experimental findings are consistent with these predictions and suggest that
the protein might serve in bacterial defense by capturing host proteinases
that gain access to the periplasmic space through breach of the outer cell
wall. This might make such bacterial αMs attractive novel antibiotic
targets, particularly in instances of multidrug resistance. In addition, this
characterization of a membrane-associated member of the macroglobulin family
may serve as a model for two poorly studied human membrane-associated
αMs, CD109, which is predicted to have a C-terminal
glycosylphosphatidylinositol anchor
(4) and CPAMD8, which has been
found to be associated with the membrane through ionic interactions
(5). EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES Materials—Human neutrophil elastase (HNE) (Athens Research
and Technology) was dissolved in 5 mm sodium acetate (pH 5.0).
Activity was checked by titration with α1PI and found to be
~90%. Trypsin, chymotrypsin, porcine pancreatic elastase,
N-(methoxysuccinyl)-l-alanyl-l-alanyl-l-prolyl-l-valine
chloromethylketone (AAPV-CMK),
N-(methoxysuccinyl)-l-alanyl-l-alanyl-l-prolyl-l-valine
(AAPV)-p-nitroanilide, iodoacetamide, 5-iodoacetamidofluorescein
(IAF), 3,4-dichloroisocoumarin, 5,5′-dithiobis(2-nitrobenzoic acid)
(DTNB), and β-mercaptoethanol were purchased from Sigma. Antibodies were
obtained from Thermo Scientific (Fremont, CA) (mouse monoclonal anti-HNE),
Chemicon (rabbit polyclonal antitrypsin), and Upstate (Lake Placid)
(monoclonal mouse anti-His tag). Cloning of Soluble ECAM—DNA encoding ECAM (residues 2-1636),
and thus lacking the first 17-residue signal sequence and the N-terminal
cysteine, was amplified from E. coli MG1655 genomic DNA (ATCC). The
N-terminal cysteine was not included because its side chain would not be
lipidated without the signal sequence. The amplified DNA was cloned into
pQE-30 plasmid (Qiagen), resulting in the His tag, MRGSHHHHHHGSACEL, being
linked to the N terminus of ECAM for purification purposes. The plasmid
sequence was verified by DNA sequencing. The resulting plasmid was transformed
into E. coli SG13009 cells for expression. Expression and Purification of Soluble ECAM—Cells were grown
in 2YT medium (1.6% (w/v) tryptone, 1% (w/v) yeast extract, 0.5% (w/v) NaCl)
to an A600 (attenuance) of 0.8-1.0 and induced for 5 h at
20 °C with 1 mm isopropyl β-d-thiogalactoside.
The cell lysate, obtained after sonication, was loaded onto an
Ni2+-nitrilotriacetate Superflow column (Qiagen), washed with 50
mm sodium phosphate buffer, 300 mm NaCl, 14.5
mm β-mercaptoethanol, and 10 mm imidazole (pH 7.4)
and eluted with 50 mm sodium phosphate, 300 mm NaCl,
14.5 mm β-mercaptoethanol, and 250 mm imidazole (pH
7.4). Iodoacetamide (20 mm) was added to the eluted protein, to
specifically block the free cysteine present in the His tag, and allowed to
react for 30 min. Proteins were then dialyzed overnight against 10
mm MES (pH 7.0), loaded onto a Q-Sepharose HP column equilibrated
with 20 mm MES, and eluted with a 100-500 mm NaCl
gradient running at a speed of 2 ml/min. ECAM was further purified on a
phenyl-Sepharose HP column equilibrated with 20 mm MES (pH 7.0), 1
m Na2SO4 and eluted with a 50 to 100% buffer
B (20 mm MES, pH 7.0, 0.1% Tween) gradient running at a speed of 2
ml/min. The resulting pure ECAM was dialyzed against 10 mm MES (pH
6.5), 250 mm NaCl, concentrated to 6 mg/ml, and kept frozen at -80
°C. Polyacrylamide Gel Electrophoresis—To avoid heat cleavage of
ECAM during sample preparation
(12), samples were denatured
at 37 °C by incubating for 30 min in 10 m urea containing 2%
SDS, rather than by heating at 95 °C. Reactions with proteinase were for 5
min, followed by inhibition with 500 μm chloromethylketone or
3,4-dichloroisocoumarin inhibitors before adding loading buffer. For samples
requiring breakage of the thioester bond, ECAM was incubated with 200
mm methylamine (pH 8.0) for 10 min. MALDI-TOF Mass Spectrometry—Matrix-assisted laser
desorption/ionization time-of-flight (MALDI-TOF) analysis was carried out at
the Research Resource Center at the University of Illinois, Chicago, IL.
ZipTips (Millipore, Billerica, MA), packed with C4 resin, were used to prepare
the protein sample for mass spectrometric analysis using sinapic acid as the
matrix according to the manufacturer's protocol. Samples were spotted onto a
MALDI-TOF target and analyzed by a positive-ion Voyager-DE PRO Mass
Spectrometer (Applied Biosystems) equipped with a nitrogen laser. Spectra were
externally calibrated. For proteinase-treated samples, ECAM was treated with
proteinase for 5 min followed by the addition of 500 μm
chloromethylketone or 3,4-dichloroisocoumarin inhibitors in 100 mm
Tris (pH 8.0). For ECAM and HNE reactions, 5.4 μm ECAM was
reacted with 5.4 μm HNE in 100 mm Tris (pH 8.0) for 5
min then inhibited with 500 μm AAPV-CMK. No detectable HNE
activity was observed after inhibition. DTNB Assay for Free SH Groups—Free sulfhydryl groups were
assayed by reaction with DTNB
(13), following the change in
absorbance at 412 nm, measured on a Shimadzu UV-2101PC spectrophotometer
equipped with a thermostatted cell holder maintained at 25 °C. Time points
were fitted to a single exponential using nonlinear least squares fit. The
resulting pseudo first-order rate constant was converted to a second-order
rate constant by dividing by the concentration of the free base form of
methylamine present in 200 mm solution at pH 8.0, using a
pKa for methylamine of 10.43. For measurement of the
kinetics of thiol ester cleavage, reaction was initiated by the addition of
either 200 mm methylamine (pH 8.0) or of proteinases into cuvettes
containing either 8.5 μm ECAM or 2.5 μm (tetramer)
plasma α2M in 100 mm Tris, 200 μm
DTNB (pH 8.0). An extinction coefficient at 412 nm of 13,600
m-1 cm-1 was used for all calculations. Proteinase Protection and Inhibition Assays—The ability of
ECAM to protect HNE against macromolecular substrates/inhibitors was measured
by reacting 10 nm HNE and ECAM (10-200 nm) together for
5 min in 50 μl, followed by addition of 50 or 100 nm
α1PI. The resulting mixture was added to cuvettes containing
200 μm AAPV-p-nitoanilide in 100 mm Tris (pH
8.0) and residual proteinase activity measured spectrophotometrically,
monitored at 405 nm on a Shimadzu UV-2101PC spectrophotometer. The activities
of 10 nm HNE alone or in the presence of 100 nm ECAM
were measured in the same way, but without addition of α1PI.
All reactions were carried out at 25 °C. ECAM Cellular Localization—For identification of the
compartmental localization of ECAM, the full-length protein, including both
the signal sequence and the N-terminal cysteine of the mature protein, was
expressed. Full-length ECAM cDNA in plasmid pNTR-SD (mobile plasmid
collection, ORF:b2520) was obtained from the Japanese National BioResource
Project
(www.shigen.nig.ac.jp/ecoli/strain/top/top.jsp).
The pNTR-SD plasmid has the addition of three amino acids, Met-Arg-Ala, to the
N terminus, and two amino acids, Gly-Leu, to the C terminus of ECAM.
Expression of ECAM from pNTR-SD plasmid was tested in the E. coli
SG13009 cell and found to be inducible by 1 mm isopropyl
β-d-thiogalactoside at 20 °C. Furthermore, ECAM was found
to be associated with the membrane by a fractionation study. For this study,
E. coli SG13009 cells containing pNTR-SD plasmid were grown to
A600 0.5-0.8 and ECAM expression induced at 20 °C for
5 h. Expressing cells were sonicated and the supernatant isolated by
centrifugation at 20,000 × g for 1 h. The supernatant was
further fractionated by ultracentrifugation at 138,000 × g for
1 h to separate the membrane and cytoplasmic fractions. The membrane fraction
was dissolved in 2% SDS buffer. All fractions were then subjected to SDS-PAGE
analysis. Confocal Microscopy—Cells, with and without induction of
ECAM, were washed 3 times with 10 mm sodium phosphate (pH 8.0)
before and after the addition of 5 mm iodoacetamide and reacted for
30 min, to block all free sulfhydryl groups. Cells were then treated with both
1 μm IAF (or iodoacetamide to prevent IAF incorporation) and 200
mm methylamine for 10 min to label free sulfhydryl group
specifically released by methylamine. Next, cells were washed 3 times with 10
mm sodium phosphate (pH 8.0) to remove excess IAF, and fixed with
4% formaldehyde and washed again with 10 mm sodium phosphate (pH
8.0). Slides were prepared from cells mixed with agarose (0.3%) to keep cells
static for microscopy. Cell imaging experiments were done on a Zeiss LSM 510
confocal microscope with excitation filter 488 nm and emission filter 505
nm. Ultracentrifugation—Samples for analytical
ultracentrifugation were prepared in 100 mm Tris (pH 8.0). For the
reaction of HNE and ECAM, ECAM was reacted with equimolar HNE in 100
mm Tris (pH 8.0) for 5 min then inhibited with 500 μm
AAPV-CMK. No detectable HNE activity was observed after inhibition. Native
ECAM was treated in the same way. For multisignal experiments, absorbance data
at 280 and 250 nm from 3 samples (4 μm HNE alone, 2.7
μm ECAM alone, and 5.4 μm ECAM reacted with 5.4
μm HNE) were obtained simultaneously. These multiwavelength data
were used for global multisignal analysis to permit location of the component
proteins in the sample of the reaction mixture
(14). Methylamine-reacted
samples were treated the same way for global multisignal analysis. A Beckman
Proteomelab XL-I analytical ultracentrifuge, equipped with a Ti-60 rotor was
used for sedimentation velocity experiments, with a rotor speed of 50,000 rpm.
Radial absorbance scans were collected at 4-min intervals. 5.4 SEDFIT was used
to calculate c(s) distributions and SEDPHAT was used to normalize the
obtained sedimentation coefficient values to the corresponding values in water
at 20 °C. Fluorescence Spectroscopy—Fluorescence experiments were
performed on a PTI Quantamaster instrument equipped with double monochromators
on both the excitation and emission sides. Cuvettes containing 500
nm ECAM in 100 mm Tris buffer (pH 8.0), either alone or
with 200 mm methylamine or 500 nm HNE, were excited at
295 nm and emission spectra recorded from 300 to 400 nm in 4-nm steps at room
temperature. Slits of 1 and 8 nm were used for excitation and emission,
respectively. For the reaction of ECAM with HNE, correction was made for the
fluorescence of HNE recorded on a separate sample under identical
conditions. CD Spectroscopy—CD spectra were recorded on a Jasco J-710
spectropolarimeter at 25 °C. Samples of 0.1 μm ECAM or 0.025
μm plasma α2M in 20 mm potassium
phosphate buffer were run in 2-mm cuvettes. Differential Scanning Calorimetry—Differential scanning
calorimetry measurements were performed on a VP-DSC calorimeter (Microcal).
Melting temperatures were measured in 20 mm sodium phosphate buffer
(pH 7.4) with 7.1 μm ECAM. Data were analyzed with Origin
software (Microcal). Secondary Structure Prediction—Secondary structure of ECAM
was calculated using the web-based PhD algorithm
(15)
(www.predictprotein.org/). RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Predicted Structural Features of E. coli
α-Macroglobulin—The E. coli YfhM gene encodes a
1653-residue pre-protein, containing a 17-residue signal peptide
(Fig. 1
Secondary structure prediction was carried out using the PhD algorithm
(22,
23). Most of the structure was
predicted to be stretches of β sheet, with short loop regions between
each (Fig. 1 A significant difference between C3 and ECAM is that 1148 residues precede
the predicted thiol ester domain in ECAM, whereas only 962 residues,
containing 7 MG domains and half of the CUB domain, precede the thiol ester
domain in C3. The latter also includes an ~100-residue long region that
generates the excisable, α-helical C3a fragment. Thus, given the
~105 residue size of an MG domain, ECAM may either possess additional MG
domains before the thiol ester domain compared with C3, or else some
additional type of β-sheet-containing domain that is not present in C3.
Here it should be noted that the very low sequence homology between equivalent
strands in the eight MG domains of C3, which made it impossible to predict the
secondary/tertiary structure of C3 prior to its x-ray structure determination
(27), makes it impossible here
to unambiguously identify the exact number and boundaries of MG domains
expected in this region of ECAM. Similarly, the region following the thiol
ester domain in ECAM is 213 residues long, whereas in C3 there are 145
residues that cover the second part of the CUB domain and the last fibronectin
type III domain (MG8). If a CUB domain, interrupted as it is in C3 and human
α2M by the thiol ester domain, as well as a homolog of MG8
are also present in ECAM, there may be an additional small domain of about 70
residues in this region in ECAM that accounts for the extra length. Consistent
with this, the secondary structure prediction for the last 100 residues of
ECAM only poorly fits the pattern expected for an MG domain, with no
β-sheet predicted for the 30 residues between 1538 and 1569, which is
suggestive of a different domain following the last MG domain
(Fig. 1 ECAM Is a Monomeric Multidomain Protein—To produce a soluble
form of ECAM for biochemical and biophysical characterization, a modified form
of the protein was expressed in which the 17-residue N-terminal lipoprotein
signal sequence and the following cysteine were deleted, and a His tag
substituted to help with purification. This protein should contain all of the
domains present in membrane-localized ECAM, but lack the lipid modifications
to the N-terminal cysteine. Overexpression of this construct in E.
coli resulted in high level expression of an ~180-kDa protein that
could be isolated from the soluble fraction of the harvested cells
(supplemental Fig. S1). Mass spectrometry confirmed the expected mass of 183
kDa (Fig. 2
Sedimentation velocity measurements indicated that the protein was a single
species, with sedimentation coefficient (s20,w) of 5.9 S,
consistent with it being a 183-kDa monomer
(Fig. 3A
Additional support for the correct folding of ECAM was provided by the CD
spectrum, which was very similar to that of human α2M
(supplemental Fig. S2), and thus also consistent with the secondary structure
prediction (Fig. 1 ECAM Contains an Intact Thiol Ester—A hallmark of members of
the α-macroglobulin and C3/4/5 family that also contain the
CXEQ motif is that they contain an intact,
β-cysteinyl-γ-glutamyl thiol ester in the native state that is
relatively stable. From the structure of C3 it is clear that the reason for
the stability of the thiol ester is that, although it occurs at the surface of
the thiol ester domain, it is protected from hydrolysis or other nucleophilic
attack by domain-domain contacts with the MG8 domain. In particular a pair of
tyrosines in MG8 (residues 1439 and 1440 in mature human
α2M), which are highly conserved in the family, form a
hydrophobic pocket around the thiol ester, although this YY motif is absent
from ECAM. In the absence of proteolytic activation, and consequent
conformational disturbance around the thiol ester, cleavage of the thiol ester
requires a high concentration of a potent, small, nucleophile such as
methylamine or hydroxylamine. Such cleavage results in generation of a free
thiol (33), and in many cases
a large conformational change in the α-macroglobulin
(34). Reaction of native ECAM with DTNB detected no free SH groups, consistent
with the only cysteine in the soluble form of ECAM being in a thiol ester
linkage. To test this, ECAM was reacted with 0.2 m methylamine at
pH 8.0 in the presence of DTNB and the change in absorbance monitored as a
function of time (supplemental Fig. S3). By analogy with other
α2Ms and complement components, the methylamine should cleave
the thiol ester and generate a new free SH group. This was found to be the
case with ECAM, resulting in a final concentration of SH that was consistent
with the presence of one thiol ester per chain (0.9 ± 0.10 from 3
determinations). The second-order rate constant calculated for the reaction of
methylamine with the thiol ester was 11.5 m-1
s-1. This compares with a value of 12.5 m-1
s-1 determined here for the thiol ester in human
α2M reacted with methylamine, which is closely similar to
values determined elsewhere under similar conditions
(35-37).
Thus ECAM appears to contain an intact thiol ester that is protected from
nucleophilic attack, even though the YY motif present in other
α-macroglobulins does not seem to be present. Possibly a comparably
hydrophobic surface patch is generated in ECAM by different residues. Thiol Ester Cleavage in ECAM Does Not Cause a Major Conformational
Change—Cleavage of the thiol ester in human, although not bovine,
α2M causes a major change in conformation that results in a
45% enhancement of the endogenous protein fluorescence, a change in
sedimentation coefficient from 17.2 to 18.4
(38), and an increase in
electrophoretic mobility on non-denaturing PAGE
(39). Although ECAM has many
more tryptophans than human α2M (30 versus 11), no
change in tryptophan fluorescence was found between the native and
methylamine-treated states of ECAM (supplemental Fig. S4). The sedimentation
coefficient also did not change (data not shown) and native PAGE showed no
detectable difference in mobility (Fig.
5B
Reaction with Proteinase Is
Stoichiometric—α2M and other metazoan
α-macroglobulins are efficient proteinase inhibitors that function by
physically sequestering the attacking proteinase as a result of massive
conformational changes that are initiated by proteolytic cleavage of the
macroglobulin within a so-called bait region. The bait region is located
approximately in the middle of the polypeptide and, in the case of human
α2M, contains a sufficient range of different amino acids to
make it a suitable “bait” for a wide spectrum of proteinase
specificities (41). The
efficiency of inhibition is extremely high, such that there is often a
stoichiometric relationship between pairs of bait regions cleaved and
molecules of proteinase inhibited
(42). Reaction of ECAM with HNE resulted in specific cleavage to give a pair of
bands that ran as ~80- and 100-kDa species, with the 100-kDa species being
more intense (Fig.
5A
To test that the region of cleavage by HNE represented a true, wide
specificity, bait region, other proteinases that the enteric bacterium E.
coli might encounter (trypsin, chymotrypsin and porcine pancreatic
elastase) were reacted with either methylamine-treated ECAM, to avoid
complications arising from cross-linking to the thiol ester (chymotrypsin and
PPE), or native ECAM (trypsin reaction). Consistent with analogous cleavage
within the 883-943 region, reactions with chymotrypsin and porcine pancreatic
elastase produced 2 bands, similar to those that resulted from the reaction of
ECAM with HNE, which migrated as ~80- and 100-kDa species on SDS-PAGE
(supplemental Fig. S5, a-c). The trypsin reaction was
carried out on native ECAM that still contained an intact thiol ester. In
addition to the new lower molecular mass band at ~100 kDa, there was also
a higher mass band at about 250 kDa that may be a cross-linked species
containing only ECAM, generated by reaction of the activated thiol ester of
one ECAM with another ECAM molecule. Consistent with this, Western blotting
carried out on the trypsin-reacted ECAM sample, using antitrypsin antibody,
showed that the 100-kDa band again contained proteinase, whereas the
~250-kDa band did not (supplemental Fig. S5d). Proteolysis of ECAM Results in Rapid Cleavage of the Thiol Ester and
Conformational Change—Reaction of ECAM with stoichiometric amounts
of proteinase resulted in rapid appearance of free SH groups (one per
molecule) as a result of thiol ester hydrolysis (supplemental Fig. S6).
Although the reaction was too fast to follow the first 80% of the cleavage,
both fitting of the remainder of the time course to a second-order process and
an estimate of the rate constant from use of half-lives gave values of the
rate constant of about 5 × 104 m-1
s-1. This serves to show that proteolysis results in large
activation of the thiol ester, analogous to the activation observed for
various α2Ms and complement components, because it is of the
order of 4000-fold faster than methylamine-induced cleavage. This in turn
suggests that proteolysis results in a conformational change in ECAM in the
vicinity of the thiol ester that renders the latter much more reactive to
ambient nucleophiles, as with C3, C4, and other α2Ms. This
was examined by fluorescence spectroscopy, which showed, however, that
cleavage within the bait region led to only ~5% change in fluorescence
(supplemental Fig. S4). This compares with an enhancement of over 60% for bait
region cleavage of human α2M by proteinase
(38). Sedimentation velocity measurements, however, showed much clearer evidence
for conformational change as a result of reaction of ECAM with proteinase.
Thus the monomer increased its sedimentation coefficient from 5.9 to 7.7 S
(Fig. 3 Although HNE is mostly cross-linked to ECAM, such covalent cross-linking
was not necessary for association with ECAM, because the same localization of
HNE with the faster sedimenting species was obtained for ECAM preincubated
with methylamine and then reacted with HNE (data not shown). In addition, the
same large mobility shift on native PAGE was seen upon HNE reaction of ECAM
that had been pre-treated with methylamine to cleave the thiol ester
(Fig. 5B ECAM Inhibits Proteinase against Reaction with Macromolecular
Substrates—To determine its ability to inhibit proteinase, ECAM was
incubated with HNE and the residual proteolytic activity against both low and
high molecular weight substrates measured as described under
“Experimental Procedures.” No significant inhibition of the
proteinase against low molecular weight substrates was found
(Fig. 7
Full-length ECAM Localizes to the Periplasmic Space of E.
coli—To test the prediction that ECAM localizes to the inner
membrane of the periplasm, fluorescence microscopy and ultracentrifugation of
cellular components were carried out. Fractionation of cellular components of
E. coli overexpressing full-length ECAM (containing the leader
sequence and N-terminal cysteine and hence presumably lipidated) by
ultracentrifugation, as described under “Experimental Procedures,”
showed that full-length ECAM was inducible and only present in the membrane
fraction (supplemental Fig. S7). Fluorescence microscopy of E. coli
overexpressing full-length ECAM and that had been treated with IAF alone
showed minimal nonspecific fluorescence
(Fig. 8A
Significance of ECAM for Bacteria—It is clear from the
sequence analyses carried out by Budd et al.
(10) that
α-macroglobulins present in metazoans have not evolved from an ancestral
gene present in bacteria, but rather that bacterial α-macroglobulins
represent instances of opportunistic acquisition of a gene from metazoan
hosts. As such, elucidation of the function of bacterial
α-macroglobulins is unlikely to shed light on the physiological role of
human members of the C3/α2M family. However, the acquisition
of such a gene on multiple occasions likely attests to a beneficial function
for the protein in bacteria. In addition, the distribution of αMs is
restricted to Gram-negative bacteria, and then nearly always in colonizing,
rather than free-living species, which suggests a role that enhances their
ability to survive in their host environment
(10). There are even
differences in the presence of an α-macroglobulin between closely
related species. For example, the liver bacterium Helicobacter
hepaticus possesses one, whereas the stomach bacterium Helicobacter
pylori does not (10). The
question then is what properties do such bacterial α-macroglobulins
possess that may confer such an advantage? We have demonstrated that ECAM behaves in many respects very similarly to
metazoan αMs. It contains an intact thiol ester that has low reactivity
to ambient nucleophiles unless there is stoichiometric reaction with
proteinase. Proteolysis occurs for a variety of proteinases within the bait
region of ECAM, is relatively rapid, and results in association of a large
fraction of the proteinase with dimeric or trimeric ECAM. Given the
demonstration that ECAM is localized to the periplasmic space, probably
attached to the inner membrane through lipid anchoring of its N terminus, as
predicted from its primary structure, this suggests that ECAM could
efficiently function to trap foreign proteinases that gain access to the
periplasmic space following host-mediated breach of the outer wall of the
bacterium. Although the trapping represents incomplete protection from access
to macromolecular substrates, it should still serve to localize the proteinase
to the immediate vicinity of the membrane-associated ECAM, and hence may serve
to limit the proteolytic potential of otherwise freely diffusing proteinase.
An indication of the responsiveness of the protein to environmental conditions
is that it has been shown to be up-regulated over 3-fold under anaerobic
compared with aerobic conditions
(43). A second type of
bacterial use of αMs involves a very different type of
“acquisition” of an α-macroglobulin from the host. It has
recently been shown that a Gram-positive bacterium, Streptococcus
pyogenes, possesses a surface protein, GRAB, that can bind to human
α2M (44). One
use of such a surface-bound host α2M could then serve to
inhibit host proteinases in the immediate vicinity of the outer cell wall. In
keeping with this, GRAB has been found to be an importance virulence factor
for group A streptococci (45,
46). An alternative, rather
intriguing, use for the GRAB-host α2M-proteinase complex
could be as a means of gaining entry into host cells by using the recognition
of the proteinase-complexed host α2M to bind to, and be
internalized by, the clearance receptors very low density lipoprotein receptor
or low density lipoprotein receptor-related protein (LRP) of the host
(47). However, for ECAM, the
likely periplasmic location of the protein, and the absence of the necessary
lysine motif that is required for binding to LRP (there being no lysines in
the region from residue 1535 to 1569 (Fig.
1 The frequent occurrence of a bacterial αM gene in tandem with that of
a cell-wall repair transglycosylase, PBP1C, is consistent with such a role in
defense against host attack in Gram-negative bacteria
(10). As a result, bacterial
αMs such as ECAM could be useful novel targets for anti-microbial drug
development, particularly for multidrug-resistant Gram-negative bacteria such
as pathogenic strains of E. coli and Pseudomonas aeruginosa,
where resistance has been developed against drugs that target more orthodox
bacterial proteins (49). [Supplemental Data]
Acknowledgments We thank the National BioResource Project (NIG, Japan) for the generous
gift of the full-length ECAM clone, Dr. Bob Lee (UIC Research Resources
Center) for running the MALDI-TOF spectra, and Drs. Klavs Dolmer and Steven
Olson for comments on the manuscript. Notes *This work was supported, in whole or in part, by National
Institutes of Health Grant R01
GM54414. The MicroCal VP differential scanning
calorimeter and the Beckman XL-1 analytical
ultracentrifuge were purchased through National
Institutes of Health Grants
S10 RR15958 and S10 RR22361,
respectively. The costs of publication of this article were defrayed in part
by the payment of page charges. This article must therefore be hereby marked
“advertisement” in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1734
solely to indicate this fact. The on-line version of this article (available at
http://www.jbc.org)
contains supplemental Figs. S1-S7. Footnotes 2The abbreviations used are: αM, α-macroglobulin;
α2M, α2-macroglobulin;
α1PI, α1-proteinase inhibitor (SERPINA1);
DTNB, 5,5′-dithiobis(2-nitrobenzoic acid); ECAM, E. coli
α-macroglobulin; HNE, human neutrophil elastase; IAF,
iodoacetamidofluorescein; MALDI-TOF, matrix-assisted laser desorption
time-of-flight mass spectrometry; MG, macroglobulin; IAF,
5-iodoacetamidofluorescein; AAPV,
N-(methoxysuccinyl)-l-alanyl-l-alanyl-l-prolyl-l-valine;
CMK, chloromethylketone; MES, 4-morpholineethanesulfonic acid. References 1. Sottrup-Jensen, L. (1989. ) J. Biol.
Chem. 264
11539-11542 [PubMed] 2. Barrett, A. J., and Starkey, P. M. (1973. )
Biochem. J. 133
709-724 [PubMed] 3. Sand, O., Folkersen, J., Westergaard, J. G., and Sottrup-Jensen, L.
(1985. ) J. Biol. Chem.
260
15723-15735 [PubMed] 4. Lin, M., Sutherland, D. R., Horsfall, W., Totty, N., Yeo, E.,
Nayar, R., Wu, X.-F., and Schiuh, A. C. (2002. )
Blood 99
1683-1691 [PubMed] 5. Li, Z.-F., Wu, X.-H., and Engvall, E. (2004. )
Genomics 83
1083-1093 [PubMed] 6. Sottrup-Jensen, L., Stepanik, T. M., Kristensen, T.,
Lønblad, P. B., Jones, C. M., Wierzbicki, D. M., Magnusson, S., Domdey,
P. B., Wetsel, R. A., Lundwall, Å., Tack, B. F., and Fey, G. H.
(1985. ) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A.
82 9-13 [PubMed] 7. Chu, C. T., and Pizzo, S. V. (1994. ) Lab.
Investig. 71
792-812 [PubMed] 8. Armstrong, P. B., Melchior, R., and Quigley, J. P.
(1996. ) J. Insect Physiol.
42 53-64. 9. Onara, D. F., Forlenza, M., Gonzalez, S. F., Rakus, K. L.,
Pilarczyk, A., Irnazarow, I., and Wiegertjes, G. F. (2008. )
Dev. Comp. Immunol. 32
339-347 [PubMed] 10. Budd, A., Blandin, S., Levashina, E. A., and Gibson, T. J.
(2004. ) Genome Biol.
5 R38. [PubMed] 11. Schiffer, G., and Holtje, J. V. (1999. ) J.
Biol. Chem. 274
32031-32039 [PubMed] 12. Harpel, P. C., Hayes, M. B., and Hugli, T. E. (1979. )
J. Biol. Chem. 254
8669-8678 [PubMed] 13. Ellman, G. L. (1959. ) Arch. Biochem.
Biophys. 82
70-77 [PubMed] 14. Balbo, A., Minor, K. H., Velikovsky, C. A., Mariuzza, R. A.,
Peterson, C. B., and Schuck, P. (2005. ) Proc. Natl.
Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 102
81-86 [PubMed] 15. Rost, B., Sander, C., and Schneider, R. (1994. )
Comput. Appl. Biosci.
10 53-60 [PubMed] 16. Sankaran, K., Gupta, S. D., and Wu, H. C. (1995. )
Methods Enzymol. 250
683-697 [PubMed] 17. Pugsley, A. P. (1993. ) Microbiol.
Rev. 57
50-108 [PubMed] 18. Yamaguchi, K., Yu, F., and Inouye, M. (1988. )
Cell 53
423-432 [PubMed] 19. Seydel, A., Gounon, P., and Pugsley, A. P. (1999. )
Mol. Microbiol. 34
810-821 [PubMed] 20. Sottrup-Jensen, L., Stepanik, T. M., Kristensen, T., Wierzbicki, D.
M., Jones, C. M., Lønblad, P. B., Magnusson, S., and Petersen, T. E.
(1984. ) J. Biol. Chem.
259
8318-8327 [PubMed] 21. Jensen, P. E., and Sottrup-Jensen, L. (1986. )
J. Biol. Chem. 261
15863-15869 [PubMed] 22. Rost, B., and Sander, C. (1993. ) J. Mol.
Biol. 232
584-599 [PubMed] 23. Rost, B., and Sander, C. (1996. ) Annu. Rev.
Biophys. Biomol. Struct. 25
113-136 [PubMed] 24. Bork, P., and Beckmann, G. (1993. ) J. Mol.
Biol. 231
539-545 [PubMed] 25. Janssen, B. J. C., Huizinga, E. G., Raaijmakers, H. C. A., Roos,
A., Daha, M. R., Nilsson-Ekdahl, K., Nilsson, B., and Gros, P.
(2005. ) Nature
437
505-511 [PubMed] 26. Ajees, A., Gunasekaran, K., Narayana, S. V. L., Kotwal, G. J., and
Murthy, H. M. K. (2006. ) Nature
444
221-225 [PubMed] 27. Janssen, B. J. C., Christodouliou, A., McCarthy, A., Lambris, J.
D., and Gros, P. (2006. ) Nature
444
213-216 [PubMed] 28. Doan, N., and Gettins, P. G. W. (2007. )
Biochem. J. 407
23-30 [PubMed] 29. Nagar, B., Jones, R. G., Diefenbach, R. J., Isenman, D. E., and
Rini, J. M. (1998. ) Science
280
1277-1281 [PubMed] 30. van den Elsen, J. M. H., Martin, A., Wong, V., Clemenza, L., Rose,
D. R., and Isenman, D. E. (2002. ) J. Mol.
Biol. 322
1103-1115 [PubMed] 31. Cunningham, L. W., Crews, B. C., and Gettins, P.
(1990. ) Biochemistry
29
1638-1643 [PubMed] 32. Privalov, P. L. (1982. ) Adv. Protein
Chem. 35
1-104 [PubMed] 33. Sottrup-Jensen, L., Petersen, T. E., and Magnusson, S.
(1980. ) FEBS Lett.
121
275-279 [PubMed] 34. Larsson, L.-J., Lindahl, P., Hallèn-Sandgren, C., and
Björk, I. (1987. ) Biochem. J.
243 47-54 [PubMed] 35. Larsson, L.-J., and Björk, I. (1984. )
Biochemistry 23
2802-2807 [PubMed] 36. Bowen, M. E., and Gettins, P. G. W. (1998. )
J. Biol. Chem. 273
1825-1831 [PubMed] 37. Strickland, D. K., Bhattacharya, P., and Olson, S. T.
(1984. ) Biochemistry
23
3115-3124 [PubMed] 38. Björk, I., and Fish, W. W. (1982. )
Biochem. J. 207
347-356 [PubMed] 39. Barrett, A. J., Brown, M. A., and Sayers, C. A. (1979. )
Biochem. J. 181
401-418 [PubMed] 40. Dangott, L. J., and Cunningham, L. W. (1982. )
Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun.
107
1243-1251 [PubMed] 41. Sottrup-Jensen, L., Lønblad, P. B., Stepanik, T. M.,
Petersen, T. E., Magnusson, S., and Jörnvall, H. (1981. )
FEBS Lett. 127
167-173 [PubMed] 42. Björk, I., Larsson, L.-J., Lindblom, T., and Raub, E.
(1984. ) Biochem. J.
217
303-308 [PubMed] 43. Brokx, S. J., Ellison, M., Locke, T., Bottorff, D., Frost, L., and
Weiner, J. H. (2004. ) J. Bacteriol.
186
3254-3258 [PubMed] 44. Rasmussen, M., Muller, H.-P., and Bjorck, L. (1999. )
J. Biol. Chem. 274
15336-15344 [PubMed] 45. Toppel, A. W., Rasmussen, M., Rohde, M., Medina, E., and Chhatwal,
G. S. (2003. ) J. Infect. Dis.
187
1694-1703 [PubMed] 46. Godehardt, A. W., Hammerschmidt, S., Frank, R., and Chhatwal, G. S.
(2004. ) Biochem. J.
381
877-885 [PubMed] 47. Herz, J., and Strickland, D. K. (2001. ) J.
Clin. Investig. 108
779-784 [PubMed] 48. Arandjelovic, S., Hall, B. D., and Gonias, S. L.
(2005. ) Arch. Biochem. Biophys.
438 29-35 [PubMed] 49. Alekshun, M. N., and Levy, S. B. (2006. )
Biochem. Pharmacol. 71
893-900 [PubMed] |
PubMed related articles
Your browsing activity is empty. Activity recording is turned off. |
|||||||||||||||||||||
J Biol Chem. 1989 Jul 15; 264(20):11539-42.
[J Biol Chem. 1989]Biochem J. 1973 Aug; 133(4):709-24.
[Biochem J. 1973]J Biol Chem. 1985 Dec 15; 260(29):15723-35.
[J Biol Chem. 1985]Blood. 2002 Mar 1; 99(5):1683-91.
[Blood. 2002]Genomics. 2004 Jun; 83(6):1083-93.
[Genomics. 2004]Genome Biol. 2004; 5(6):R38.
[Genome Biol. 2004]J Biol Chem. 1999 Nov 5; 274(45):32031-9.
[J Biol Chem. 1999]Blood. 2002 Mar 1; 99(5):1683-91.
[Blood. 2002]Genomics. 2004 Jun; 83(6):1083-93.
[Genomics. 2004]J Biol Chem. 1979 Sep 10; 254(17):8669-78.
[J Biol Chem. 1979]Arch Biochem Biophys. 1959 May; 82(1):70-7.
[Arch Biochem Biophys. 1959]Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2005 Jan 4; 102(1):81-6.
[Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2005]Comput Appl Biosci. 1994 Feb; 10(1):53-60.
[Comput Appl Biosci. 1994]Methods Enzymol. 1995; 250():683-97.
[Methods Enzymol. 1995]Microbiol Rev. 1993 Mar; 57(1):50-108.
[Microbiol Rev. 1993]Mol Microbiol. 1999 Nov; 34(4):810-21.
[Mol Microbiol. 1999]J Biol Chem. 1989 Jul 15; 264(20):11539-42.
[J Biol Chem. 1989]J Biol Chem. 1984 Jul 10; 259(13):8318-27.
[J Biol Chem. 1984]J Mol Biol. 1993 Jul 20; 232(2):584-99.
[J Mol Biol. 1993]Annu Rev Biophys Biomol Struct. 1996; 25():113-36.
[Annu Rev Biophys Biomol Struct. 1996]J Mol Biol. 1993 May 20; 231(2):539-45.
[J Mol Biol. 1993]Nature. 2005 Sep 22; 437(7058):505-11.
[Nature. 2005]Nature. 2006 Nov 9; 444(7116):213-6.
[Nature. 2006]Comput Appl Biosci. 1994 Feb; 10(1):53-60.
[Comput Appl Biosci. 1994]Comput Appl Biosci. 1994 Feb; 10(1):53-60.
[Comput Appl Biosci. 1994]Nature. 2006 Nov 9; 444(7116):213-6.
[Nature. 2006]Biochemistry. 1990 Feb 13; 29(6):1638-43.
[Biochemistry. 1990]Adv Protein Chem. 1982; 35():1-104.
[Adv Protein Chem. 1982]FEBS Lett. 1980 Dec 1; 121(2):275-9.
[FEBS Lett. 1980]Biochem J. 1987 Apr 1; 243(1):47-54.
[Biochem J. 1987]Biochemistry. 1984 Jun 5; 23(12):2802-7.
[Biochemistry. 1984]Biochemistry. 1984 Jul 3; 23(14):3115-24.
[Biochemistry. 1984]Biochem J. 1982 Nov 1; 207(2):347-56.
[Biochem J. 1982]Biochem J. 1979 Aug 1; 181(2):401-18.
[Biochem J. 1979]Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 1982 Aug 31; 107(4):1243-51.
[Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 1982]FEBS Lett. 1981 May 18; 127(2):167-73.
[FEBS Lett. 1981]Biochem J. 1984 Jan 1; 217(1):303-8.
[Biochem J. 1984]Biochem J. 1982 Nov 1; 207(2):347-56.
[Biochem J. 1982]Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2005 Jan 4; 102(1):81-6.
[Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2005]Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 1982 Aug 31; 107(4):1243-51.
[Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 1982]Biochem J. 1984 Jan 1; 217(1):303-8.
[Biochem J. 1984]Genome Biol. 2004; 5(6):R38.
[Genome Biol. 2004]J Bacteriol. 2004 May; 186(10):3254-8.
[J Bacteriol. 2004]J Biol Chem. 1999 May 28; 274(22):15336-44.
[J Biol Chem. 1999]J Infect Dis. 2003 Jun 1; 187(11):1694-703.
[J Infect Dis. 2003]Biochem J. 2004 Aug 1; 381(Pt 3):877-85.
[Biochem J. 2004]J Clin Invest. 2001 Sep; 108(6):779-84.
[J Clin Invest. 2001]Genome Biol. 2004; 5(6):R38.
[Genome Biol. 2004]Biochem Pharmacol. 2006 Mar 30; 71(7):893-900.
[Biochem Pharmacol. 2006]