Altered Substrate Selectivity in a Mutant of an Intrahelical Salt Bridge in UhpT, the Sugar Phosphate Carrier of Escherichia coli*

Jason A. HallDagger , Mon-Chou Fann, and Peter C. Maloney§

From the Department of Physiology, Johns Hopkins University Medical School, Baltimore, Maryland 21205

    ABSTRACT
Top
Abstract
Introduction
References

Site-directed and second site suppressor mutagenesis identify an intrahelical salt bridge in the eleventh transmembrane segment of UhpT, the sugar phosphate carrier of Escherichia coli. Glucose 6-phosphate (G6P) transport by UhpT is inactivated if cysteine replaces either Asp388 or Lys391 but not if both are replaced. This suggests that Asp388 and Lys391 are involved in an intrahelical salt bridge and that neither is required for normal UhpT function. This interpretation is strengthened by the finding that mutations at Lys391 (K391N, K391Q, and K391T) are recovered as revertants of the inactive D388C variant. Further work shows that although the D388C variant is null for G6P transport, movement of 32Pi by homologous Pi/Pi exchange is unaffected. This raises the possibility that this derivative may have latent function, a possibility confirmed by showing that D388C is a gain-of-function mutation in which phosphoenolpyruvate (PEP) is the preferred substrate. Added study of the Pi/Pi exchange shows that in wild type UhpT this partial reaction is readily blocked by G6P but not PEP. By contrast, in the D388C variant, Pi/Pi exchange is unaffected by G6P but is inhibited by both PEP and 3-phosphoglycerate. These latter substrates are used by PgtP, a related Pi-linked antiporter, which lacks the Asp388-Lys391 salt bridge but has instead an uncompensated arginine at position 391. For this reason, we conclude that in both UhpT and PgtP position 391 can serve as a determinant of substrate selectivity by acting as a receptor for the anionic carboxyl brought into the translocation pathway by PEP.

    INTRODUCTION
Top
Abstract
Introduction
References

In Escherichia coli, transport of hexose phosphates is mediated by the Pi-linked antiport carrier, UhpT (1-3). This well characterized transporter is one of a class of secondary transport systems that together form the Major Facilitator Superfamily (4-6), the largest known collection of related secondary transporters. Although members of the Major Facilitator Superfamily show great diversity in their substrate specificity and kinetic mechanism, they all share a common structural theme, one characterized by the presence of approximately 12 transmembrane segments thought to transverse the membrane in an alpha -helical conformation. Direct information as to the arrangement of these helices is limited, although several potential models have been formulated in specific cases (7-9).

One approach to the analysis of helix packing in membrane proteins involves identification of interacting charged residues in transmembrane helices. Ordinarily, one expects the presence of an uncompensated electric charge to be highly destabilizing to such structures, due to the low dielectric of the hydrophobic environment. However, this circumstance can be mitigated if oppositely charged amino acids are brought together to form an ion pair or salt bridge (10, 11). The idea that such a salt bridge may stabilize secondary structure has both theoretical and experimental support (11-13). Moreover, intra- and interhelical salt bridges have been identified in both globular and in intrinsic membrane proteins (9, 13-18).

In work described here, we used site-directed mutagenesis and second site suppressor analysis to search for salt bridges in UhpT. This approach led to identification of an intrahelical ion pairing involving Asp388 and Lys391 in TM11.1 Further study indicated that this salt bridge is essential for proper UhpT function and that at least one member of this pair, Lys391, can play a direct role in determining substrate specificity.

    EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES

Strains and Plasmids-- Strain XL1-Blue (recA1 endA1 gyrA96 thi1 hsdR17 supE44 relA1 lac (F' proAB lacIqZDelta M15 Tn10)) (Stratagene Cloning Systems) was used for all cloning steps. Strain RK5000 (araD139 Delta (ArgF-lac)U169 relA1 rpsL150 thi gyrA219 non metE780 Delta (ilvB-uhpABCT')2056 recA) (19) served as host for tests of expression and function of plasmid-encoded UhpT and its derivatives. Plasmids pBS281 and pTrc(HisC6S) encoded wild type UhpT and a histidine-tagged cysteine-less UhpT, respectively (20).2 pTrc(HisC6S) was constructed by replacing the six cysteines found in UhpT with serine residues (21).1

Mutagenesis-- Site-directed mutagenesis was performed by using either sequential polymerase chain reaction (22) or by the method of Kunkel (23). Mutant uhpT alleles were sequenced using the Sequenase (v. 2.0) reaction (Amersham Pharmacia Biotech) to confirm the desired mutation and rule out the presence of other changes.

Isolation of Second Site Suppressor Mutants-- Strain RK5000 carrying a pTrc(HisC6S) derivative encoding the D388C mutation was grown overnight at 37 °C in LB broth containing F6P (0.15%) and ampicillin (100 µg/ml). Overnight cultures were washed and resuspended in an equal volume of M63 minimal medium salts (24), and 0.1-ml aliquots were plated on M63 minimal plates containing thiamine (2 µg/ml), required amino acids (each 50 µg/ml), ampicillin (100 µg/ml), and F6P (0.15%) as a carbon source. Plates were incubated at 37 °C for 4-5 days, after which colonies arising from the background lawn were picked and restreaked on minimal plates to isolate single colonies. To ensure that growth was due to suppressor mutation(s) in uhpT, candidate plasmids were isolated, and uhpT was excised at its flanking restriction sites by digestion with NcoI and NgoMI. The uhpT gene was reinserted into a parental vector, which was then used to transform strain RK5000 to confirm the original phenotype. In most cases, the phenotype traveled with uhpT, and in these instances the gene was completely sequenced to identify the responsible mutation(s).

Immunoblot Analysis-- SDS-polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis was performed using cell extracts without preheating in sample buffer (25). Protein was transferred to nitrocellulose and probed with a peptide-directed rabbit polyclonal antibody reactive to a UhpT C-terminal epitope (26, 27). Western blots were developed using chemiluminescence (Amersham Pharmacia Biotech), and after scanning the films, UhpT expression was quantitated by densitometry of digitized images, as described (27, 28).

Transport Assays-- Cells grown overnight in LB broth plus antibiotic were diluted 200-fold in the same medium and grown at 37 °C to a density of 2-5 × 108 cells/ml. Cells were harvested by centrifugation, washed twice, and then resuspended in Buffer A (50 mM MOPS/K, 100 mM potassium sulfate, 1 mM magnesium sulfate, pH 7.0) to achieve an OD660 of 1.4, equivalent to about 2 × 109 cells/ml. After equilibration at room temperature, G6P or PEP transport was initiated by adding a one-twentieth volume of labeled substrate (final concentration, 50 µM), after which aliquots were removed for filtration on Millipore filters (0.45-µm pore size) and washing (twice) with 5 ml of Buffer A lacking magnesium sulfate. Transport of Pi was monitored in the same way, using cells pregrown in M63 minimal medium (as above) with 0.2% glucose as carbon source. The high Pi content of M63 (24) ensured maximal repression of other Pi transporters (Pst and Pit), so that most Pi transport occurred via UhpT.

To assay transport (and metabolism) of F6P or PEP in vivo, overnight broth cultures were diluted 1000-fold into M63 salts (above) containing 0.15% F6P or PEP as carbon source. Cultures were placed at 37 °C with continuous shaking, and growth was monitored by changes in optical density at 660 nm.

Chemicals-- Unlabeled substrates (G6P, F6P, 3-PGA, PEP, 2DG6P, and glycerol 3-phosphate), from Sigma, contained 0.5-1.0% inorganic phosphate (30), which was ignored in calculation of kinetic constants. [14C]G6P (56.6 µCi/µmol) and [32P]KPi (1 Ci/mmol) were obtained from NEN Life Science Products. [14C]PEP (38.6 µCi/µmol) was from Amersham Pharmacia Biotech.

    RESULTS

Identification of an Intrahelical Salt Bridge-- Our main objective was to identify possible inter- or intrahelical salt bridges that might exist among or within UhpT transmembrane helices. The topological map of this transporter (Fig. 1), as well as results from earlier studies (28), led us to choose four cationic residues (Lys82, Arg275, Lys391, and Lys404) and four anionic residues (Asp279, Glu305, Asp388, and Asp400) as candidate participants in salt bridges. Our experimental approach to this question then proceeded in two phases. Initially, we replaced each target with cysteine to determine whether normal function was disrupted. For those cases in which a significant deficit was recorded, we then asked whether function was preserved if a residue of like charge was present (Table I). In this screen, only the K404C variant retained partial function, indicating that most of our target residues were essential for G6P transport by UhpT. In most of these latter cases, it appeared that this requirement was specific, because only for position 279 and 388 was it possible to substitute a residue of like charge and recover significant function (Table I).


View larger version (18K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Fig. 1.   UhpT topology. Shown is the topology of UhpT as derived from the analysis of hydropathy (30), the results of reporter gene fusions in UhpT and GlpT (31, 32), and the accessibility of residues in UhpT to impermeant probes (27). Targets for mutagenesis in this study are shown as either circles or squares, indicating anionic or cationic residues, respectively.

                              
View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Table I
UhpT function in mutants of charged residues within the hydrophobic sector

The second step in our analysis was based on the fact that three pairs of these residues were in a registration (i, i+3) or (i, i+4) consistent with their participation in a salt bridge in an alpha -helix. Members of the remaining pair, Lys82 and Glu305, were at the center of their respective helices, where they too might interact (7). Accordingly, we generated double mutants in which cysteine residues replaced each target pair (Table II). This test provided clear positive evidence that Asp388 and Lys391 might normally interact as an ion pair, because sugar phosphate transport in the D388C/K391C double mutant was about half that found in the wild type protein (Table II); when normalized to UhpT expression, the specific activity of this double mutant was about 75% that of the wild type.2 In no other case, however, did the specific activity in the double mutants rise above about 1% of the parental protein. Thus, this approach did not provide evidence of interaction for our other targets.

                              
View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Table II
UhpT function in double mutants of selected pairs of charged residues

Isolation of Second Site Suppressor Mutants-- To further test the idea of an interaction between Asp388 and Lys391, we isolated revertants of the inactive D388C mutation by screening for growth on F6P as a carbon source. This genetic screen was initiated with the expectation that if Asp388 and Lys391 interact so as to eliminate an uncompensated charge, at least some revertants of D388C might map to position 391. We performed this screen in an otherwise cysteine-less background rather than with the wild type protein, because the partially reduced activity of the cysteine-less protein (compare Tables I and III) allowed for a denser background lawn on minimal plates,2 increasing the frequency of revertants. In addition, this cysteine-less parental protein had an N-terminal polyhistidine tag (20) to facilitate later biochemical work.

                              
View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Table III
UhpT function and expression in second site suppressor mutants of D388C UhpT

As noted under "Experimental Procedures," we were able to eliminate revertants arising from mutations outside the UhpT structural gene. Those that remained contained the original D388C mutation along with a second site suppressor at position 391 in which Lys391 was replaced by one of three uncharged residues, threonine, glutamine, or asparagine.

We characterized these revertants in several ways. For example, phenotypic growth tests in liquid medium confirmed that each of these double mutants utilized F6P (Fig. 2). Indeed, they grew slightly more rapidly than did the parental, cysteine-less protein (Fig. 2). By contrast, the host strain, RK5000 (Delta uhpT), and the D388C mutant showed greatly delayed responses; eventual growth of these strains presumably reflects the appearance of adaptive revertants arising after slow growth under strong selective pressure (33, 34). We also examined the three suppressor mutants with respect to their expression of UhpT and their capacity to transport G6P (Table III). In the wild type protein, the D388C mutation had reduced UhpT expression nearly 2-fold (not shown), and a similarly reduced expression was found when the D388C mutation was placed in the cysteine-less background (Table III). In both cases, however, G6P transport was reduced to near background levels (Tables I and III). By contrast, in all suppressor mutations, both UhpT expression and G6P transport were elevated to levels resembling that found in the parental protein. It is evident, then, that neither Asp388 nor Lys391 are required for normal UhpT function. Equally clear, the presence of one without the other is detrimental. This behavior strongly argues that Asp388 and Lys391 form an ion pair in TM11.


View larger version (17K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Fig. 2.   Growth of UhpT and its derivatives on F6P. RK5000 carrying plasmids encoding the parental, cysteine-less UhpT (), its D388C derivative (black-triangle), or one of three D388C suppressors, D388C/K391T (), D388C/K391N (triangle ), and D388C/K391Q (open circle ), were grown in minimal medium M63 with F6P as carbon source. Strain RK5000 (black-square) was also examined. Growth was monitored by changes in optical density at 660 nm. The data, from a single experiment, are representative of findings made in three independent trials.

Altered Substrate Specificity of the D388C Mutant-- UhpT and its relatives comprise a coherent family of transporters and receptors (4, 6), each having high specificity for some organic phosphate ester and low affinity toward inorganic phosphate (1). This family has twelve bacterial members, seven of which have been functionally characterized (28). A multiple alignment of the amino acid sequences within this group (28) suggests that some residues within TM11 are highly conserved. This is not true, however, for residues assigned to the intrahelical salt bridge in UhpT, Asp388 and Lys391 (Fig. 3). Instead, most family members have either an aliphatic (Ala or Val) or polar (Ser, Thr, or Asn) residue at these positions. However, in one case, the phosphoenolpyruvate transporter of Salmonella typhimurium, we noted the presence of Val388 and Arg391. This was of interest for two reasons. First, the presence of an apparently uncompensated positive charge in the PgtP TM11 contrasted sharply with evidence that this was detrimental to UhpT. Second, because of their acidic carboxyl group, substrates of PgtP (PEP and PGAs) (35, 36) carry one more negative charge than do substrates of UhpT. For this reason, we considered it feasible that Arg391 in PgtP might serve as an internal receptor for the anionic carboxyl on PEP and PGA. And, if so, we reasoned that the D388C variant in UhpT, which no longer transports F6P or G6P, might show an unexpected bias toward transport of PgtP substrates due to the remaining Lys391.


View larger version (24K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Fig. 3.   Conserved residues in TM11. Multiple alignment of TM11 sequences for Pi-linked transporters and receptors with ~30% identity to UhpT. Residues conserved in at least five family members are highlighted with shading; charged residues are shown in bold type. The alignment is modified from Fann et al. (28) by addition of GlpT from Rickettsia prowazekii (52).

To test this idea, we exploited the fact that UhpT and PgtP (and other members of this family) each display a Pi self-exchange reaction (3, 37, 38). Thus, if the UhpT D388C derivative retained this partial reaction, one might justify an extended search for substrates other than G6P. When we examined Pi transport in both the D388C mutant and its parental protein, it became clear that despite its null phenotype for G6P transport (Tables I and III), the mutant displayed considerable Pi self-exchange (Fig. 4). For example, the reactions had comparable Michaelis constants (Km values of 740 and 550 µM, respectively, for parent and mutant), and nearly equivalent maximal velocities (105 and 59 nmol/min/mg protein, respectively). Given that the D388C variant is expressed at only 60% of the parental level (Table III), we concluded that D388C UhpT displays an essentially normal Pi self-exchange reaction.


View larger version (12K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Fig. 4.   Kinetics of phosphate exchange. A, rates of Pi self-exchange were estimated as described under "Experimental Procedures" for strain RK5000 without (black-square) and with plasmids encoding cysteine-less UhpT () or its D388C derivative (black-triangle). B, the kinetics of Pi self-exchange for cysteine-less UhpT () and its D388C derivative (black-triangle), presented as recommended by Hofstee (39).

Having found that Pi self-exchange is normal in the D388C mutant, we used this reaction as a vehicle to compare substrate preference for parental and mutant proteins. This was essential because UhpT itself does not transport three-carbon organophosphates (29), and the mutant we wished to analyze does not respond to sugar 6-phosphates (Table III). Accordingly, for both wild type and mutant proteins, we ranked putative substrates with respect to their capacity to inhibit Pi self-exchange. As expected from earlier work (29), this reaction was strongly inhibited by G6P or the nonmetabolizable 2DG6P in wild type UhpT, whereas PEP and 3-PGA were ineffective inhibitors (Fig. 5A). These findings contrasted sharply with results obtained with the D388C variant, which was strongly inhibited by PEP and 3-PGA but not by G6P and 2DG6P (Fig. 5B). Neither protein responded to glycerol 3-phosphate, a substrate of the related GlpT antiporter (37, 38). To quantitate these observations, we calculated for each substrate an inhibition constant (Ki) from linear Dixon plots (40) (Fig. 5C and Table IV). This showed that the D388C mutation causes a 50-100-fold decrease in the Ki value for normal UhpT substrates while at the same time increasing by 20-fold the apparent affinity for PEP or 3-PGA.


View larger version (13K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Fig. 5.   Substrate specificity of UhpT and its D388C derivative. Pi self-exchange was estimated for both cysteine-less UhpT (A) and its D388C derivative (B) in the presence of G6P (), 2DG6P(open circle ), PEP (black-triangle), or 3-PGA (triangle ) using 32Pi at 0.1 mM along with the indicated concentrations of competing substrates. In the absence of competing substrate, 32Pi transport varied between 8.5-15.5 nmol/min/mg protein for cysteine-less UhpT, and 6-11.7 nmol/min/mg protein for its D388C variant, and these values were used to normalize values for the individual trials. C, graphical presentation of the data using the method of Dixon (40): cysteine-less UhpT with G6P () or PEP (black-triangle); the D388C variant with G6P (open circle ) or PEP (triangle ). Ki values for these and other test substrates are shown in Table IV.

                              
View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Table IV
Inhibition constants for UhpT substrates
Inhibition constants (Ki) were determined for each test substrate as an inhibitor of Pi self-exchange, using linear Dixon plots (40) as reported earlier (see Fig. 5), with the assumption of competitive interaction between Pi and the test substrate. G3P, glycerol 3-phosphate.

These findings strongly suggested that D388C is a gain-of-function mutation in UhpT, and to test this directly we examined this protein with respect to both growth on and transport of PEP. The first test clearly documented that the D388C variant was able to use PEP as sole carbon source, in contrast to its revertants or to the wild type protein (Fig. 6A). Similarly, only the mutant, not its revertants, was able to transport PEP (Fig. 6B). Coupled with the observation that UhpT transports G6P only when the Asp388/Lys391 salt bridge remains intact or when both its elements are removed, these findings lead us to conclude that in both UhpT and PgtP position 391 can serve as a determinant of substrate selectivity.


View larger version (12K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Fig. 6.   Growth on and transport of PEP. Growth on (A) and transport of (B) PEP was measured as described under "Experimental Procedures." A, RK5000 without (black-square) and with plasmids expressing cysteine-less UhpT (), its D388C derivative (black-triangle), or second site suppressors, D388C/K391T (), D388C/K391N (triangle ), and D388C/K391Q (open circle ), were grown in M63 with PEP as a carbon source. Growth was monitored as described in the legend of Fig. 2. B, transport of PEP was examined for D388C UhpT (black-triangle) and various controls (black-square), including RK5000, and RK5000 expressing cysteine-less UhpT and its suppressors, D388C/K391T, D388C/K391N, and D388C/K391Q.


    DISCUSSION

The study of membrane transport proteins reveals several instances in which a functional or structural role can be assigned to one or more charged residues in a transmembrane helix. The former category is well represented by several cases in E. coli, including two charged residues (Glu126 and Arg144) thought necessary for substrate binding in the lactose permease, LacY (8), a pair of cationic residues (Arg46 and Arg275) that may function as substrate recognition elements in UhpT (28), and acidic residues (Asp51 and Asp120) that help set co-ion specificity for MelB, the Na+/melibiose cotransporter (41). Such residues may also act as stabilizing factors by virtue of their interaction in a salt bridge. Thus, in bacteriorhodopsin, Arg227 and Asp96 form an interhelical salt bridge, whereas Arg82 and Asp85 are involved in an intrahelical ion pair (14). Interhelical salt bridges in LacY have also been recognized (9, 17); indeed, these have been indispensable to development of current models of helix packing in this symporter (9, 17). Similarly, it has been proposed that Arg499 and Glu503 form an ion pair in the Na+/glucose cotransporter, SGLT1 (42).

In the present study, we used site-directed and second site suppressor mutagenesis as tools to ask if charged residues in the UhpT hydrophobic sector might take part in salt bridges, basing our interpretation on the original analysis of salt bridges in LacY (43). This approach highlighted two residues in TM11, Asp388 and Lys391, as interacting in an intrahelical ion pair. Thus, sugar phosphate transport was not found after individual replacement of either Asp388 or Lys391, but function was retained when uncharged residues replaced both of them (Tables II and III).

Initially, the null phenotype arising when Asp388 and Lys391 were removed individually led us to believe that UhpT function was disrupted due to inappropriate helix packing, but this view did not easily explain why a related antiporter, PgtP (32% identity), contained an apparently uncompensated arginine at position 391. We therefore considered the possibility that lack of function in some of our derivatives was related to altered substrate specificity rather than a change in structure. This seemed more likely when we found that Pi self-exchange was unaffected by the D388C mutation (the K391C mutant has not been tested). Subsequently, by using this partial reaction as a screening tool, we showed that D388C is a gain-of-function mutation that biases substrate preference toward PEP and 3-PGA and away from G6P and F6P (Figs. 4-6 and Table IV).

Two questions are raised by our findings. 1) What is the molecular basis of the new substrate specificity in the D388C variant? 2) Why is there at the same time a discrimination against normal UhpT substrates? No definitive answers can be offered to either question, but a single perspective does address both issues. An early model (44) specified that two electropositive centers in UhpT associate with a pair of negative charges brought into the active site by the anionic substrates, Pi and G6P; indeed, we recently identified two required arginines (Arg46 and Arg275) that may fulfill this function (28). If the configuration that accepts sugar phosphate must achieve an electroneutrality, one might expect that substrates such as PEP and PGA, which carry an additional negative charge relative to G6P, might require the presence of a third positive center before productive binding can occur. The second question is answered in much the same way. That is, when the D388C variant is presented with G6P, failure to achieve an electrostatic balance at the sugar phosphate binding site would be associated with an abortive carrier-substrate complex.

Although such arguments account for our findings related to transport of PEP or G6P, this reasoning does not directly explain why the Pi self-exchange is unimpaired in the D388C mutant. At the least one must conclude that TM11 is not involved in binding of Pi. This might be expected if the Pi self-exchange exploits a different configuration of the protein (44), possibly relying predominantly on factors related to either or both of the two essential arginine residues, one of which lies in TM1 (Arg46), the other in TM7 (Arg275). The absence of either of these inactivates G6P transport (28), but in light of the work reported here, it could be instructive to examine the Pi self-exchange reaction as these arginines are removed individually.

The finding of PEP transport by the D388C mutant also leads one to question the stoichiometry and electrical character of the reaction. The kinetic parameters of Pi self-exchange by D388C deviate little from its parent (Fig. 4), implying that heterologous Pi/3-PGA or Pi/PEP antiport by this mutant would retain the exchange stoichiometry shown by wild type UhpT during transport of G6P. In this latter case, early work suggests that UhpT selects monovalent Pi to use in an electroneutral exchange with divalent G6P, with an overall 2-for-1 stoichiometry (44). A similar 2-for-1 stoichiometry during heterologous Pi/PEP antiport is therefore expected to be electrogenic, carrying negative charge inward, because for our assay conditions (pH 7) PEP or 3-PGA mainly exists as the trivalent anion. Because this reaction would occur against the cellular membrane potential (inside negative), one might also expect, as is found, a relatively low growth yield on PEP (Fig. 6A) and a relatively low rate of PEP transport (Fig. 6B). Although we have not yet studied the electrical character of heterologous exchange in D388C, it is clear that this single mutation (D388C) could have mechanistic impact on more than one attribute of the antiport reaction.

That substrate specificity can be altered by change of a single amino acid residue has been demonstrated for several transporters. In LacY, for example, point mutations lead to a preference for maltose (45), sucrose (46), or malto-oligosaccharides (47). Similarly, point mutants in the melibiose carrier of E. coli can show altered cation and/or sugar specificity (48, 49). Most recently efficient transport of lactose was described for a mutant of the E. coli maltose ABC transporter (50). Even among this group, however, our finding that the D388C mutation alters the substrate selectivity of UhpT is unusual. Given that the new preference for PEP or 3-PGA reflects interaction between Lys391 and the substrate carboxyl, we infer that in wild type UhpT the C1 position of G6P lies on TM11 in the neighborhood of the Asp388/Lys391 ion pair. Of additional interest is the possibility that the approaches described here might let us assign specific functional roles to other charged residues. For example, TM7 contains two charged residues, Arg275 and Asp279 (Fig. 3), one of which (Arg275) is known to lie on the translocation pathway (51) and is believed to aid in substrate recognition (28). Arg275 is conserved among relatives of UhpT (28), but only UhpT has a charged residue at position 279. This situation is reminiscent of that found in TM11, where one of a pair of charges (Asp388) is unique to UhpT, whereas the other (Lys391) is more broadly represented (Fig. 3). Although our tests did not identify the Arg275/Asp279 pair as a simple salt bridge, we should not rule out the possibility that these residues associate such that a more general function of Arg275 is moderated by Asp279 to optimize the features specific to UhpT.

    ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We thank Wolfgang Epstein and Robert Brooker for helpful discussion and Robert Kadner for the gift of strain RK5000.

    FOOTNOTES

* This work was supported by National Institutes of Health Grant GM24195.The costs of publication of this article were defrayed in part by the payment of page charges. The article must therefore be hereby marked "advertisement" in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1734 solely to indicate this fact.

Dagger Supported by National Research Service Award postdoctoral training grant F32GM19421.

§ To whom correspondence should be addressed: Dept. of Physiology, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, 725 N. Wolfe St., Baltimore, MD 21205-2185. Tel.: 410-955-8325; Fax: 410-955-4438; E-mail: pmaloney{at}bs.jhmi.edu.

2 J. A. Hall, M.-C. Fann, and P. C. Maloney, unpublished results.

    ABBREVIATIONS

The abbreviations used are: TM, transmembrane segment; F6P, fructose 6-phosphate; G6P, glucose 6-phosphate; PEP, phosphoenolpyruvate; PGA, phosphoglyceric acid; 2DG6P, 2-deoxyglucose 6-phosphate; MOPS, 4-morpholinepropanesulfonic acid.

    REFERENCES
Top
Abstract
Introduction
References
  1. Maloney, P. C., Ambudkar, S. V., Anantharam, V., Sonna, L. A., and Varadhachary, A. (1990) Microbiol. Rev. 54, 1-17
  2. Maloney, P. C., and Wilson, T. H. (1996) in Escherichia coli and Salmonella: Cellular and Molecular Biology (Neidhardt, F. C., Curtiss, R., Ingraham, J. L., Lin, E. C. C., Low, K. B., Magasanik, B., Reznikoff, W. S., Riley, M., Schaechter, M., and Umbarger, H. E., eds), pp. 1130-1148, American Society of Microbiology, Washington, D. C.
  3. Sonna, L. A., Ambudkar, S. V., and Maloney, P. C. (1988) J. Biol. Chem. 263, 6625-6630[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  4. Pao, S. S., Paulsen, I. T., and Saier, M. H. (1998) Microbiol. Mol. Biol. Rev. 62, 1-34[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  5. Marger, M. D., and Saier, M. H. (1993) Trends Biochem. Sci. 18, 13-20[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  6. Henderson, P. J. F. (1993) Curr. Opin. Cell Biol. 5, 708-721[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  7. Goswitz, V. C., and Brooker, R. J. (1995) Protein Sci. 4, 534-537[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  8. Venkatesan, P., and Kaback, H. R. (1998) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 95, 9802-9807[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  9. Varela, M. F., and Wilson, T. H. (1996) Biochim. Biophys. Acta 1276, 21-34[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  10. Rashin, A. A., and Honig, B. (1984) J. Mol. Biol. 173, 515-521[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  11. Honig, B. H., and Hubbell, W. L. (1984) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 81, 5412-5416[Abstract]
  12. Scholtz, J. M., Qian, H., Robbins, V. H., and Baldwin, R. L. (1993) Biochemistry 32, 9668-9676[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  13. Marqusee, S., and Sauer, R. T. (1994) Protein Sci. 3, 2217-2225[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  14. Stern, L. J., and Khorana, H. G. (1989) J. Biol. Chem. 264, 14202-14208[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  15. Lounnas, V., and Wade, R. C. (1997) Biochemistry 36, 5402-5417[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  16. Lee, J.-I., Varela, M. F., and Wilson, T. H. (1996) Biochim. Biophys. Acta 1278, 111-118[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  17. Cain, B. D., and Simoni, R. D. (1988) J. Biol. Chem. 263, 6606-6612[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  18. Kaback, H. R., Frillingos, S., Jung, H., Jung, K., Prive, G. G., Ujwal, M. L., Weitzman, C., Wu, J., and Zen, K. (1994) J. Exp. Biol. 196, 183-195[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  19. Weston, L. A., and Kadner, R. J. (1987) J. Bacteriol. 169, 3546-3555[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  20. Tamai, E., Fann, M.-C., Tsuchiya, T., and Maloney, P. C. (1997) Protein Expression Purif. 10, 275-282[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  21. Yan, R.-T., and Maloney, P. C. (1993) Cell 75, 37-44[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  22. Ho, S. N., Hunt, H. D., Morton, R. M., Pullen, J. K., and Pease, L. R. (1989) Gene (Amst.) 77, 51-59[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  23. Kunkel, T. A. (1985) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 82, 488-492[Abstract]
  24. Miller, J. H. (1972) Experiments in Molecular Genetics, p. 431, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, Cold Spring Harbor, NY
  25. Laemmli, U. K. (1970) Nature 227, 680-685[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  26. Harlow, E., and Lane, D. (1988) Antibodies: A Laboratory Manual, pp. 486-510, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, Cold Spring Harbor, NY
  27. Matos, M., Fann, M.-C., Yan, R.-T., and Maloney, P. C. (1996) J. Biol. Chem. 271, 18571-18575[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  28. Fann, M.-C., Davies, A. H., Varadhachary, A., Kuroda, T., Sevier, C., Tsuchiya, T., and Maloney, P. C. (1998) J. Membr. Biol. 164, 187-195[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  29. Maloney, P. C., Ambudkar, S. V., Thomas, J., and Schiller, L. (1984) J. Bacteriol. 158, 238-245[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  30. Friedrich, M. J., and Kadner, R. J. (1987) J. Bacteriol. 169, 3556-3563[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  31. Island, M. D., Wei, B.-Y., and Kadner, R. J. (1992) J. Bacteriol. 174, 2754-2762[Abstract]
  32. Gott, P., and Boos, W. (1988) Mol. Microbiol. 2, 655-663[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  33. Cairns, J., Overbaugh, J., and Miller, S. (1988) Nature 335, 142-145[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  34. Foster, P. L. (1993) Annu. Rev. Microbiol. 47, 467-504[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  35. Saier, M. H., Jr., Wentzel, D. L., Feucht, B. U., and Judice, J. J. (1975) J. Biol. Chem. 250, 5089-5096[Abstract]
  36. Varadhachary, A., and Maloney, P. C. (1991) J. Biol. Chem. 266, 130-135[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  37. Ambudkar, S. V., Larson, T. J., and Maloney, P. C. (1986) J. Biol. Chem. 261, 9083-9086[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  38. Elvin, C. M., Hardy, C. M., and Rosenberg, H. (1985) J. Bacteriol. 161, 1054-1058[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  39. Hofstee, B. H. J. (1959) Nature 184, 1296-1298[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  40. Dixon, M. (1953) Biochem. J. 55, 170-171
  41. Wilson, D. M., and Wilson, T. H. (1992) J. Bacteriol. 174, 3083-3086[Abstract]
  42. Panayotova-Heiermann, M., Loo, D. D. F., Lam, J. T., and Wright, E. M. (1998) Biochemistry 37, 10522-10528[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  43. King, S. C., Hansen, C. L., and Wilson, T. H. (1991) Biochim. Bipophys. Acta 1062, 177-186[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  44. Ambudkar, S. V., Sonna, L. A., and Maloney, P. C. (1986) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 83, 280-284[Abstract]
  45. Brooker, R. J., and Wilson, T. H. (1985) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 82, 3959-3963[Abstract]
  46. King, S. C., and Wilson, T. H. (1990) J. Biol. Chem. 265, 9638-9644[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  47. Olsen, S. G., Greene, K. M., and Brooker, R. J. (1993) J. Bacteriol 175, 6269-6275[Abstract]
  48. Niiya, S., Yamasaki, K., Wilson, T. H., and Tsuchiya, T. (1982) J. Biol. Chem. 257, 8902-8906[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  49. Botfield, M. C., and Wilson, T. H. (1988) J. Biol. Chem. 263, 12909-12915[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  50. Merino, G., and Shuman, H. A. (1997) J. Bacteriol. 179, 7687-7694[Abstract]
  51. Yan, R.-T., and Maloney, P. C. (1995) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 92, 5973-5976[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  52. Andersson, S. G. E., Zomorodipour, A., Andersson, J. O., Sicheritz-Ponten, T., Alsmark, U. C. M., Podowski, R. M., Nauslund, A. K., Eriksson, A.-S., Winkler, H. H., and Kurland, C. G. (1998) Nature 396, 133-140[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]


Copyright © 1999 by The American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Inc.