Export of {beta}-Lactamase Is Independent of the Signal Recognition Particle*

Daniel Beha {ddagger}, Sandra Deitermann {ddagger} §, Matthias Müller {ddagger} and Hans-Georg Koch {ddagger} 

From the {ddagger} Institute for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Hermann-Herder-Strasse 7, 79104 Freiburg, Germany, § Faculty of Biology, and Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg, Hermann-Herder-Strasse 7, 79104 Freiburg, Germany

Received for publication, January 28, 2003 , and in revised form, April 7, 2003.
    ABSTRACT
 TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
In Escherichia coli, three different types of proteins engage the SecY translocon of the inner bacterial membrane for translocation or insertion: 1) polytopic membrane proteins that prior to their insertion into the membrane are targeted to the translocon using the bacterial signal recognition particle (SRP) and its receptor; 2) secretory proteins that are targeted to and translocated across the SecY translocon in a SecA- and SecB-dependent reaction; and 3) membrane proteins with large periplasmic domains, requiring SRP for targeting and SecA for the translocation of the periplasmic moiety. In addition to its role as a targeting device for membrane proteins, a function of the bacterial SRP in the export of SecB-independent secretory proteins has also been postulated. In particular, {beta}-lactamase, a hydrolytic enzyme responsible for cleavage of the {beta}-lactam ring containing antibiotics, is considered to be recognized and targeted by SRP. To examine the role of the SRP pathway in {beta}-lactamase targeting and export, we performed a detailed in vitro analysis. Chemical cross-linking and membrane binding assays did not reveal any significant interaction between SRP and {beta}-lactamase nascent chains. More importantly, membrane vesicles prepared from mutants lacking a functional SRP pathway did block the integration of SRP-dependent membrane proteins but supported the export of {beta}-lactamase in the same way as that of the SRP-independent protein OmpA. These data demonstrate that in contrast to previous results, the bacterial SRP is not involved in the export of {beta}-lactamase and further suggest that secretory proteins of Gram-negative bacteria in general are not substrates of SRP.


    INTRODUCTION
 TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
To target newly synthesized proteins to the SecYEG translocon of the inner bacterial membrane, Escherichia coli employs two different protein targeting routes. Secretory proteins destined for the periplasmic space or the outer membrane are recognized posttranslationally by the cytoplasmic chaperone SecB and are subsequently transferred to SecA, which translocates the preprotein across the SecYEG channel in an ATP-dependent manner (1, 2). Inner membrane proteins on the other hand are selectively recognized by the bacterial signal recognition particle (SRP),1 consisting of the protein Ffh and the 4.5 S RNA. Upon binding of SRP, ribosome-associated nascent chains of membrane proteins are cotranslationally targeted to FtsY, the bacterial homologue of the SRP receptor, and are finally inserted into the lipid bilayer through the SecYE translocon (37).

For a subset of integral membrane proteins, i.e. membrane proteins with large periplasmic domains, SRP and SecA cooperate during the integration process (810). Targeting of these proteins to SecY is exclusively mediated by SRP and FtsY, leading to a stable binding of ribosome-associated nascent chains to the translocon. Translocation of the periplasmic moiety across the inner membrane, however, requires the activity of SecA.

There is conflicting evidence as to the involvement of SRP in the targeting of a subset of secretory proteins like {beta}-lactamase, alkaline phosphatase (PhoA), or ribose-binding protein (11). The depletion of either FtsY or Ffh concomitantly leads to decreased translocation of these proteins, suggesting that SRP and its receptor are involved in their export across the inner bacterial membrane (1113). Because these proteins are considered to be SecB-independent, it had been proposed that SRP functions as an export-specific chaperone rather than a targeting factor for {beta}-lactamase, PhoA, and ribose-binding protein, replacing SecB during export (11). The interpretation of in vivo Ffh and FtsY depletion experiments is, however, complicated by the observation that targeting and integration of SecY is SRP-dependent. Decreasing the cellular concentrations of either SRP or FtsY simultaneously reduces the concentration of active translocons, making it difficult to differentiate between those export defects caused primarily by SRP/FtsY depletion and those originating from diminished concentrations of SecY (6, 14).

In E. coli, the ability of SRP to interact with its substrate is predominantly dependent on the length and the hydrophobicity of the signal sequence (1517). Signal anchor sequences of integral membrane proteins like mannitol permease (MtlA) (18) or FtsQ (17) have been shown to cross-link efficiently with SRP, whereas such an interaction cannot be detected with the cleavable signal sequences of secretory proteins such as the outer membrane protein OmpA (18). However, signal sequence mutants of the SecB-independent secretory protein PhoA can be cross-linked to SRP provided that the hydrophobicity of the signal sequence is increased by inserting multiple leucine residues (7, 15, 17). The SecB-dependent outer membrane protein PhoE has also been shown to interact with SRP under conditions in which the hydrophobicity and the extension of the {alpha}-helical signal sequence is increased by replacing a helix-breaking glycine residue with a helix-promoting leucine residue (19). This PhoE derivative, however, is still exported in an SRP-independent manner. SRP binding to cleavable signal sequences of secretory proteins is further influenced by trigger factor, a ribosome-associated chaperone (15, 17, 18). Binding of trigger factor to OmpA nascent chains subsequently prevents SRP binding to OmpA. In the absence of trigger factor, however, SRP can be cross-linked to the OmpA signal sequence (18).

Among the SecB-independent secretory proteins, {beta}-lactamase has always been considered to be a bona fide SRP substrate, in particular because its signal sequence is more hydrophobic than signal sequences of other secretory proteins (7, 15). However, so far no detailed in vitro analyses have been performed to really study the involvement of SRP in the targeting pathway of {beta}-lactamase. Our analyses using protease protection assays, flotation gradient experiments, and chemical cross-linking demonstrate that targeting and export of {beta}-lactamase proceed independently of the SRP pathway.


    EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
 TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
Bacterial Strains and Plasmids—The genotypes and sources of the E. coli strains and the plasmids used in this study are shown in Table I.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
TABLE I
Strains and plasmids used in this study

 

Reagents—Growth media components and chemicals were obtained from Roth (Karlsruhe, FR Germany), Sigma, and Pierce. Restriction enzymes and other reagents for cloning and DNA purification were purchased from New England Biolabs (Frankfurt, FR Germany), Qiagen (Hilden, FR Germany), and Novagen (Schwalbach, Germany).

Cell Growth and General Techniques—E. coli strains for plasmid isolation were cultured in Luria Broth. For the preparation of inner membrane vesicles, cells were cultured in phosphate-buffered medium as described by Müller and Blobel (20). Cell extracts for in vitro transcription and translation were prepared from cells grown either on S30 medium (20) or on S150 medium (21, 22). When required, antibiotics were added to the culture medium at the following concentrations: 50 µg of ampicillin/ml, 25 µg of kanamycin/ml, and 10 µg of tetracycline/ml.

Plasmid Construction—pJMSKK, a kanamycin-resistant pBlue-script derivative, was constructed as follows. The ampicillin resistance gene (bla) of pBluescript SK+ was excised with BspHI and the vector blunt-ended with the Klenow fragment of DNA polymerase I. The bla gene was replaced with the kanamycin cassette from pFDX2322, cut with NaeI and SpeI, and also blunt-ended with the Klenow fragment of DNA polymerase I. pJMSKK was used to construct a vector carrying the bla gene under T7 promoter control. For this, the bla gene of pBluescript SK+ was excised with BspHI, blunt-ended with the Klenow fragment of DNA polymerase I, and ligated into the EcoRV site of pJMSKK. The constructed plasmid was termed pJMSKK Bla7. For the construction of the secA36 allele under T7-RNA polymerase control, genomic DNA of the SecA36 mutant GN42 was amplified using the primer SecA1 (5'-GAGATTTTCATATGCTAATCAAATTGTTAAC-3') and SecA2 (5'-CGCAGAATCCTCGAGCTTTTACTTCAACAG-3') introducing an NdeI and an XhoI cleavage site. After restriction digest the PCR product was cloned into the NdeI and XhoI sites of pET19b under the control of the T7 promoter. The resulting plasmid was termed pET19b-SecA36 and coded for a SecA36 derivative carrying an N-terminal His10 tag to expedite purification.

Purification of SecA, SecB, F1-ATPase, Ffh, FtsY, and SecA36 The purification of SecA (23), SecB (22), F1-ATPase (24), Ffh (6), and FtsY (6) followed protocols reported previously. For the purification of His10-SecA36, pET19b-SecA36 was transformed into the E. coli strain TUNER(DE3) pLysS. Cells were grown at 37 °C overnight on Luria Broth supplemented with D-glucose (1%), washed, and subcultured on the same medium lacking glucose. At an A600 of 0.5, cells were induced with 1 mM isopropyl-{beta}-D-thiogalactoside, incubated further until at an A600 of 1.5–1.8, and harvested. After resuspension in 50 mM triethanolamine acetate (pH 7.5), 50 mM KCH3COO (KOAc), 5 mM Mg(CH3COO)2, cells were disrupted using a French press at 8000 pounds/square inch in the presence of Complete protease inhibitor mixture (Roche Applied Science). After centrifugation at 30,000 x g, the supernatant was subjected to high speed centrifugation (150,000 x g), and SecA36 overproduction was confirmed by SDS-PAGE of the supernatant and subsequent Coomassie staining. For further purification the supernatant was buffer-exchanged in 2.5-ml steps on PD-10 columns (Amersham Biosciences), to adapt the salt conditions to 50 mM potassium phosphate (pH 7.5), and 300 mM KOAc, suitable for further purification using the TALON® IMAC System (Clontech Laboratories, Inc., Palo Alto, CA). The buffer exchanged supernatant was supplemented with Complete/EDTA protease inhibitor mixture and phenylmethylsulfonyl fluoride (0.5 mM), and 3.5 ml of this material was incubated overnight at 4 °C with 2 ml of the Talon resin. Washing was performed according to the manufacturer's manual with 50 mM potassium phosphate (pH 7.5), and 300 mM KOAc. After washing, the resin with the bound protein was filled into 2-ml gravity-flow columns (Qiagen, Hilden, Germany), and proteins were eluted stepwise with increasing imidazole concentrations (0–150 mM). SecA36 fractions were analyzed on a Coomassie-stained SDS gel, and pure SecA36 containing fractions were pooled. Protein concentrations were determined using the Pierce BCA protein assay kit.

In Vitro Reactions—The composition of the transcription/translation system of E. coli and the purification of its components, the preparation of INV, the flotation gradient analysis, and proteinase K protection assay employed in this study have been described previously (1, 6, 8). Synthesis of nascent chains was achieved as described in Beck et al. (18), in the presence of RNase H (1 unit/25 µl), 10 µg/ml 10Sa RNA antisense oligonucleotide (25), and 0.5 µg/µl oligonucleotide Bla-175 (5'-GCAGGCATCGTGGTGTCACG-3'). Chemical cross-linking using DSS (Pierce) was performed as described previously (18). The in vitro reactions for subsequent cross-linking experiments were performed in the presence of HEPES-NaOH instead of triethanolamine acetate. Immunoprecipitation was performed in 4–6-fold scaled up reactions using polyclonal rabbit antibodies against trigger factor and Ffh, covalently linked to protein A-Sepharose matrix (26).

Sample Analysis and Quantification—All samples were analyzed on SDS-polyacrylamide gels (13, 15, or 7–17%). Radiolabeled proteins were visualized by PhosphorImaging using a Amersham Biosciences PhosphorImager and quantified using ImageQuant software from Amersham Biosciences.


    RESULTS
 TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
In Vitro Synthesis and Translocation of {beta}-Lactamase—For analyzing its targeting to and its translocation across the E. coli membrane, the {beta}-lactamase gene of pBluescript II was cloned under a T7-dependent promoter in a kanamycin-resistant pBluescript derivative. In vitro synthesis was performed using a highly purified E. coli cell extract. Transport of {beta}-lactamase was analyzed using inside-out inner membrane vesicles (INV) and was compared with the transport of the SRP-dependent inner membrane protein mannitol permease (MtlA) and the SRP-independent outer membrane protein OmpA. As shown in Fig. 1, when synthesized in the absence of INV all three substrates were sensitive toward proteinase K digestion, but became protease-resistant in the presence of INV. Protease protection of both OmpA and {beta}-lactamase in the presence of INV was accompanied by signal sequence cleavage as indicated by the presence of a protease-resistant band of lower molecular mass. The lower molecular mass of the membrane-protected fragment of MtlA (MtlA-MPF) is due to the cleavage of the large C-terminally located cytoplasmic domain. The transport efficiency into INV of {beta}-lactamase is lower than the transport efficiency of OmpA, a phenomenon which has also been observed in vivo.



View larger version (22K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
FIG. 1.
In vitro synthesis of {beta}-lactamase and translocation into inside-out inner membrane vesicles of E. coli. {beta}-Lactamase, the SRP-independent secretory protein OmpA, and the SRP-dependent membrane protein MtlA were synthesized in vitro in a cell-free translation system in the presence of inside-out inner membrane vesicles (INV). 35S-labeled translation products were subjected to a protease protection assay (0.5 mg/ml proteinase K (PK), 20 min, 25 °C) or directly precipitated with trichloroacetic acid, separated by SDS-PAGE, and visualized by PhosphorImaging. Arrows indicate the positions of precursor (pOmpA; {beta}-lactamase (pB1a)), processed band (OmpA, Bla), full-length protein (MtlA), and the membrane-protected fragment of MtlA (MtlA-MPF).

 

A SecY Mutation Interfering with Efficient SecA Binding to the Translocon Blocks {beta}-Lactamase Transport—Although both the SRP-dependent and the SecA-dependent protein targeting pathways converge at the SecYEG complex in the inner bacterial membrane, we have shown recently (27) by using translocon mutants that different domains of SecY and different components of the translocon are engaged by both processes. These translocon mutants were assayed for their ability to transport {beta}-lactamase. As shown in Fig. 2 (top panel), the translocation of {beta}-lactamase is completely blocked in INV prepared from the secY mutants secY39 and secY205. A severe translocation defect is furthermore observed in INV from a secG deletion strain and in SecE-depleted INV. In these translocation assays using mutant INV, the effects of transport on {beta}-lactamase are indistinguishable from those of transport on the SRP-independent secretory protein OmpA (Fig. 2, middle panel) but clearly different from those on the integration of the SRP-dependent substrate MtlA (Fig. 2, bottom panel). The integration of MtlA is not significantly influenced by the secY205 mutation and the secG deletion. The biochemical characterization of the secY205 mutant had revealed that the translocation defect originates primarily from reduced SecA binding to the mutant SecY (28), and consequently, the transport of SecA-independent proteins like MtlA is not impaired by this mutation. The function of SecG is also specifically associated with the SecA function (29) and does not seem to be required for SecA-independent protein transport (27). The secY39 mutation affects both the SecA-dependent as well as the SRP-dependent protein transport. However, the effects on {beta}-lactamase and OmpA translocation are more severe than on MtlA integration. A complete block of MtlA integration can only be observed in SecE-depleted INV (Fig. 2, middle panel). SecE depletion concomitantly leads also to reduced SecY concentrations, because in the absence of SecE, SecY is rapidly degraded by the membrane-bound protease FtsH (30), resulting in a transport defect for both SecA- and SRP-dependent proteins. In summary, these data indicate that {beta}-lactamase translocation depends on the same domains of SecY and the same components of the translocon as the translocation of the SRP-independent substrate OmpA which argues for a SecA-dependent translocation of {beta}-lactamase.



View larger version (71K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
FIG. 2.
The SRP-independent protein OmpA and {beta}-lactamase engage the same domains of SecY and the same translocon components during translocation. {beta}-Lactamase, OmpA, and MtlA were synthesized in vitro in the presence of wild type INV (WT) or INV prepared from various SecYEG mutants. Transport of 35S-labeled translation products was analyzed by protease protection assay (see legend to Fig. 1). Translocation of OmpA and {beta}-lactamase was calculated as the ratio of signal present in proteinase K (PK)-resistant bands and that recovered from the corresponding bands before proteolytic digestion. The indicated percentage of MtlA integration was calculated as the ratio between the signal of MtlA-MPF and the full-length MtlA. The values were corrected for the loss of methionine residues occurring during proteinase K cleavage.

 

The SecA dependence was directly tested by utilizing a new assay system for SecA-dependent proteins, based on the biochemical complementation of the secY205 mutant INV with a mutant SecA (28). A systematic search for secA mutations suppressing the secY205 phenotype led to the isolation of allele-specific suppressors, one of which is the secA36 mutant, carrying a single amino acid substitution within the high affinity ATP-binding site of SecA (28). By using PCR we amplified the secA36 allele from the mutant strain GN42 and cloned it into a T7-dependent expression vector for overexpression and purification. The purified SecA36 was then tested for its ability to suppress in vitro the translocation defect of the secY205 INV. As shown in Fig. 3 (top panel), in the absence of SecA36, no {beta}-lactamase translocation into secY205 INV was observed; the presence of SecA36, however, enhanced {beta}-lactamase translocation significantly (Fig. 3, top panel, compare lanes 6 and 12). Purified wild type SecA, on the other hand, was unable to overcome the SecY205 defect (data not shown). Enhanced translocation of {beta}-lactamase in the presence of SecA36 was not only observed for secY205 INV but also for wild type INV, which is in agreement with the enhanced ATPase activity of SecA36. As a control, we also tested the effect of SecA36 on the translocation of the SecA-dependent OmpA (Fig. 3, lower panel). Like for {beta}-lactamase, the addition of SecA36 greatly enhanced the translocation of OmpA into secY205 INV and also into wild type INV. These data demonstrate that {beta}-lactamase, despite being a SecB-independent protein, requires SecA for translocation in the same way as the SecB-dependent protein OmpA.



View larger version (44K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
FIG. 3.
SecA is required for the translocation of both OmpA and {beta}-lactamase. In vitro translocation of 35S-labeled pBla and pOmpA into wild type INV or INV prepared from the secY205 mutant strain was analyzed in the presence or absence of purified SecA36 (0.3 mg/ml final concentration). Samples were either trichloroacetic acid-precipitated or digested with proteinase K (PK) before electrophoresis.

 

Ribosome-associated Nascent Chains of {beta}-Lactamase Are Not Cotranslationally Targeted to the SecY Translocon—In principle, the observation that export of {beta}-lactamase is catalyzed by SecA does not exclude an involvement of SRP during the targeting of {beta}-lactamase to the SecYEG complex. SRP-dependent targeting and SecA-dependent translocation as individual steps have been identified in the export of bacterial membrane proteins with large periplasmic domains (8, 10). One of the salient features of both the eukaryotic and prokaryotic SRP is that it interacts with its substrates cotranslationally and targets the ribosome-associated nascent chains (RNCs) via the SRP receptor to the translocon. SRP-dependent cotranslational targeting can be analyzed using flotation gradient centrifugation. Stable binding of RNCs to the translocon allows their selective recovery from the membrane fractions of such a flotation gradient. We have demonstrated recently (8) that this assay provides a reliable method to differentiate between SRP-dependent and SRP-independent substrates. Fig. 4A shows the results of flotation gradient centrifugation for ribosome-associated nascent chains of the SRP-independent substrate OmpA and the SRP-dependent membrane proteins MtlA and Momp2. Although the vast majority of OmpA RNCs was recovered from the bottom fractions 4 and pellet (P) of such a gradient, independent of whether INV were present or not, in the presence of INV MtlA and Momp2 nascent chains were mainly recovered from the membrane fractions 2 and 3 of the gradient, indicating cotranslational targeting. In flotation gradient centrifugation {beta}-lactamase RNCs behave clearly different from the MtlA and Momp2 RNCs in that even in the presence of INV 80% of the RNCs was recovered from the bottom fractions of the flotation gradient (Fig. 4B). We have shown recently that SRP is able to bind to the cleavable signal sequence of OmpA in the absence of the ribosome-associated chaperone trigger factor. We therefore analyzed targeting of {beta}-lactamase RNCs also in the absence of trigger factor. However, as shown in Fig. 4B, even in the absence of trigger factor no significant cotranslational binding of {beta}-lactamase RNCs could be observed, arguing against an SRP-mediated targeting of {beta}-lactamase RNCs.



View larger version (42K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
FIG. 4.
Flotation analysis of RNC of {beta}-lactamase in comparison to RNCs of pOmpA, MtlA, and Momp2. In vitro synthesis was performed either in a cell-free system prepared either from wild type (E. coli MC4100) or from a trigger factor deletion strain (delta-tig). INV or INV buffer was added after 30 min of synthesis at 37 °C, and the mixture was incubated for another 15 min at 37 °C. The reaction mixture was subsequently separated by a flotation gradient centrifugation. Following centrifugation, 4x 100-µl fractions were withdrawn from the top of the gradient and after trichloroacetic acid precipitation subjected to SDS-PAGE. The pellet fraction (P) was dissolved directly in loading buffer. Fractions 2 and 3 correspond to the membrane fraction. For calculating % membrane association, the signal present in all five fractions was summed up and set as 100%. A, flotation gradient analysis of RNCs of the SRP-independent secretory protein OmpA compared with RNCs of the SRP-dependent membrane proteins MtlA and Momp2. The numbering corresponds to the amino acid residues of each chain. In vitro synthesis was performed employing the wild type system. B, flotation gradient analyses of {beta}-lactamase RNCs, synthesized in wild type and delta-tig systems.

 

Chemical Cross-linking Reveals a Strong Interaction between {beta}-Lactamase RNCs and Trigger Factor but Not with SRP— Chemical and site-specific cross-linking has been used extensively to monitor the interaction between SRP and its substrates. In particular, by employing the membrane-permeable chemical cross-linker DSS, the individual steps of SRP binding to RNCs and their subsequent targeting to the translocon have been analyzed. This approach was utilized to determine directly whether SRP binds to {beta}-lactamase RNCs as they emerge from the ribosomal exit tunnel. {beta}-Lactamase RNCs were synthesized in a cell extract prepared from a wild type strain and a trigger factor deletion strain ({Delta}tig), both containing the endogenous Ffh concentrations. Samples were subsequently treated with DSS, and the identity of cross-linked bands was verified by immunoprecipitation with antibodies raised against Ffh and trigger factor. Under wild type conditions, a strong cross-link between {beta}-lactamase and trigger factor was observed (Fig. 5, lane 4), whereas no significant interaction with Ffh could be detected (Fig. 5, lane 3). We next considered the possibility that SRP might interact with {beta}-lactamase RNCs in the absence of trigger factor, a phenomenon that has been observed for OmpA RNCs (18). Synthesizing {beta}-lactamase RNCs in the {Delta}tig cell extract and subsequent DSS cross-linking revealed only a very weak trigger factor interaction in comparison to the wild type conditions (Fig. 5, compare lanes 4 and 8), presumably resulting from trigger factor contaminations in our T7-RNA polymerase preparations, but more importantly, even in the absence of a strong trigger factor interaction, no enhanced Ffh binding to {beta}-lactamase was observed (Fig. 5, compare lanes 3 and 7). This was not due to limited amounts of Ffh present in the cell extract, because supplementation of the {Delta}tig cell extract with purified Ffh during synthesis did not increase Ffh binding (Fig. 5, lane 11). In summary, chemical cross-linking revealed that SRP has only a weak affinity for {beta}-lactamase RNCs, which is most likely not sufficient to support SRP-dependent targeting.



View larger version (60K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
FIG. 5.
Nascent chains of {beta}-lactamase are recognized by trigger factor but no significant binding to SRP is detectable. {beta}-Lactamase was synthesized in vitro under wild type or trigger factor depleted conditions (delta tig), in the presence of an antisense oligode-oxynucleotide which gave rise to a 175-amino acid N-terminal fragment of {beta}-lactamase (pBla-175). Cosynthesis of some full size products (pBla) was observed under these conditions. Where indicated, Ffh (2 ng/µl) was present during synthesis. [35S]Methionine-labeled translation products were either precipitated with trichloroacetic acid or subjected to cross-linking with DSS (2.5 mM), immunoprecipitated (IP) using anti-Ffh and anti-trigger factor (TF) antibodies, separated by SDS-PAGE (7–17% acrylamide), and visualized by PhosphorImaging. Molecular masses are shown to the right. Cross-linking products with trigger factor (*) are indicated. Arrows indicate cross-linked material that could be immunoprecipitated with anti-Ffh antibodies.

 

FtsY-depleted INV Support {beta}-Lactamase Translocation— The proposal that {beta}-lactamase is targeted to the membrane via the SRP pathway is mainly based on in vivo depletion experiments in which Ffh or 4.5 S RNA, the components of the bacterial SRP, or the SRP receptor FtsY had been depleted (1113). In several studies (12) it had been shown that {beta}-lactamase export is sensitive toward reduced levels of SRP/FtsY suggesting a direct involvement of the SRP pathway in {beta}-lactamase transport. These studies, however, did not take into consideration that SecY, the central component of the bacterial translocon, is targeted to the membrane via the SRP pathway, and consequently any impairment of the SRP pathway will ultimately also affect the translocation of SRP-independent substrates. We therefore used an E. coli mutant strain in which the expression of FtsY is under the control of the araB promoter and monitored the cellular levels of both FtsY and SecY by Western blotting (data not shown). Cells were grown in the absence of arabinose and harvested immediately after the FtsY concentration declined but before a significant reduction of the SecY concentration was observed. These cells were then used for the preparation of INV.

We first tested the FtsY-depleted vesicles for their ability to support the integration of the SRP-dependent substrate MtlA. As shown in Fig. 6, MtlA integration was significantly impaired, demonstrating that the FtsY concentration in these vesicles is below the concentration required for efficient targeting of SRP-dependent substrates. Integration could, however, be restored by adding purified FtsY to these INV, indicating that the integration defect did not result from a reduced level of SecY translocons. This is further corroborated by the observation that the translocation of the SRP-independent substrate OmpA proceeds basically at wild type levels in the FtsY-depleted vesicles. The FtsY-depleted vesicles do not express any defect in the translocation of {beta}-lactamase, demonstrating that {beta}-lactamase transport, like the transport of OmpA, does not depend on FtsY. We also tried a similar approach to obtain INV from the conditional Ffh mutant strain WAM113 (data not shown). However, we were unable to reduce the cellular levels of Ffh without simultaneously reducing the cellular concentration of SecY. Consequently, INV from WAM 113 grown in the absence of arabinose failed to support even the translocation of the SRP-independent substrate OmpA. This underlines the difficulty in interpreting in vivo depletion studies using conditional SRP mutant strains.



View larger version (44K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
FIG. 6.
Translocation of {beta}-lactamase into membrane vesicles is not dependent on the presence of a functional SRP pathway. In vitro synthesis and translocation of MtlA, pOmpA, or pBla was carried out in the presence of INV buffer, wild type INV, or INV derived from an FtsY-depleted E. coli strain (N4156pARA14-FtsY'). Following synthesis samples were divided into two equal portions: one was directly trichloroacetic acid-precipitated and subjected to SDS-PAGE, and the other was treated with proteinase K (PK) before electrophoresis. Where indicated purified FtsY was added (20 ng/µl final concentration).

 


    DISCUSSION
 TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
Although the majority of secretory proteins in E. coli depend on both SecA and SecB for translocation (2, 31), there is a subset of secretory proteins that are SecB-independent and for this reason are considered to be dependent on SRP. A chaperoning function of SRP for the SecB-independent secretory proteins PhoA, RBP, and {beta}-lactamase has been mainly deduced from in vivo depletion experiments, in which the individual components of the SRP pathway have been depleted, resulting in the accumulation of preproteins in the cytoplasm (1113). A further characterization of SRP-dependent substrates in E. coli has, however, identified SecY as an SRP substrate, raising the possibility that the observed translocation defects are primarily the result of a reduced number of SecY translocons (6, 14). Notably, in these depletion experiments also SecB-dependent proteins like OmpF, LamB, and maltose-binding protein were affected (11, 12), further pointing to secondary effects obscuring the true substrate specificity of the bacterial SRP. This has been confirmed by recent in vivo analyses using a temperature-sensitive ffh mutant (32). Although the insertion of the membrane proteins FtsQ and AcrB was significantly impaired in this mutant, there was no effect on signal sequence processing of secretory proteins like PhoA, maltose-binding protein, or LamB. The processing of {beta}-lactamase, however, was slightly delayed under non-permissive conditions (32). These data could indicate that among the secretory proteins, at least {beta}-lactamase might interact with SRP. This has been also deduced from the fact that the signal sequence of {beta}-lactamase is more hydrophobic than the signal sequences of other secretory proteins (Table II) (7).


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
TABLE II
Hydrophobicity and SRP dependency of secretory proteins and inner membrane proteins of E. coli

 

By using protease protection assays, flotation gradient centrifugation, and chemical cross-linking, we provide a detailed in vitro analysis of {beta}-lactamase export, demonstrating that in contrast to previous proposals the export of {beta}-lactamase does not depend on the SRP-targeting pathway. These results are important in view of the question of what are the determinants for substrate recognition by the bacterial SRP and, in particular, whether the bacterial SRP pathway is also involved in the export of secretory proteins. In several studies (1517) it has been shown that the hydrophobicity of the targeting signal is probably the dominating feature for the selective recognition by the bacterial SRP. SRP is able to bind to mutated signal sequences of secretory proteins, characterized by increased hydrophobicity (7, 15, 17, 33, 34). Binding of SRP to this modified signal sequence, however, does not necessarily route the protein into the cotranslational targeting pathway. A PhoE mutant, carrying a glycine to leucine substitution within the signal sequence, is bound with high affinity by SRP as analyzed by chemical cross-linking but does not depend on the SRP pathway in vivo (19). Calculating the hydrophobicity of different signal sequences from secretory proteins and the first signal anchor sequences of membrane proteins using the MEMSAT algorithm (35) reveals that the hydrophobicity value of both {beta}-lactamase and the membrane protein leader peptidase are within the cut-off range of 2.8–3.2 for which the overlap between predicted membrane proteins and predicted soluble proteins is minimized (Table II). The hydrophobicity values of other experimentally identified SRP substrates are constantly above this cut-off value, and the value for secretory proteins is always below. This supports the argument that the hydrophobicity is the main determinant for SRP binding but further suggests that for proteins with intermediate hydrophobicity other factors might be important as well for selecting the targeting route.

We have shown previously (18) that the secretory protein OmpA is recognized by SRP in the absence of the ribosome-associated chaperone trigger factor, suggesting that secretory proteins, as they emerge from the ribosome, are preferentially recognized by trigger factor, preventing a stable interaction with SRP. This is different from what we observed for {beta}-lactamase nascent chains. Even in the absence of trigger factor, only a weak interaction with SRP can be detected. This is surprising in view of the significantly higher hydrophobicity of the {beta}-lactamase signal sequence in comparison to the OmpA signal sequence (Table II). Thus, neither the hydrophobicity of the {beta}-lactamase signal sequence nor binding of trigger factor to {beta}-lactamase provides a comprehensive explanation as to why SRP fails to interact with {beta}-lactamase RNCs.

It has been suggested recently that the conformation of the signal sequence is an important feature for the recognition by the bacterial SRP. Studies with PhoE signal sequence mutants indicate that the presence of a helix-breaker like proline prevents the recognition by SRP (19), suggesting that besides the hydrophobicity the length of the {alpha}-helical structure of a signal sequence is an important feature for selecting the targeting route. A similar observation has also been made for the substrate recognition by the SRP of higher eukaryotes. Mutated signal sequences of invertase, carrying helix-breaking amino acids within the hydrophobic core, do not interact with the mammalian SRP (36). Although helix-destabilizing amino acids are frequently found toward the C terminus of the hydrophobic core of cleavable signal sequences (19), the hydrophobic core of the {beta}-lactamase signal sequence contains two proline residues, one of which is located within the center of the hydrophobic core, and this probably has an even more pronounced destabilizing effect on the {alpha}-helical properties of the signal sequence, subsequently preventing a stable interaction with SRP.

Collectively, our results demonstrate that the SecB-independent protein {beta}-lactamase does not interact with the bacterial SRP and can be efficiently exported in the absence of a functional SRP pathway. It has been shown previously that {beta}-lactamase interacts with GroEL and GroES (37, 38) and that export of {beta}-lactamase is impaired in groEL and groES mutants (39). It therefore seems to be likely that GroEL and GroES substitute for SecB as transport-specific chaperones. Furthermore, the data presented here strongly support the view that the bacterial SRP is specific for membrane proteins and is not involved in the export of secretory proteins.


    FOOTNOTES
 
* This work was supported by Sonderforschungsbereich Grant 388, the Fonds der Chemischen Industrie, and European Union Grant QLK3-CT-1999-0917. 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. Back

To whom correspondence should be addressed. Tel.: 49-761-2035250; Fax: 49-761-2035253; E-mail: Hans-Georg.Koch{at}biochemie.uni-freiburg.de.

1 The abbreviations used are: SRP, signal recognition particle; INV inner membrane vesicle; PhoA, alkaline phosphatase; Bla, {beta}-lactamase; MtlA-MPF, membrane-protected fragment of mannitol permease; RNCs, ribosome-associated nascent chains; DSS, disuccinimidyl suberate. Back


    ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
 
We gratefully acknowledge Juan MacFarlane for providing the plasmid pJMSKK-Bla7, Koreaki Ito for providing strains GN42 and TY1, Joen Luirink for providing strain N4156 pAra 14-FtsY', and Christoph Neumann-Haefelin for help with the preparation of FtsY-depleted membrane vesicles.



    REFERENCES
 TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 

  1. Behrmann, M., Koch, H. G., Hengelage, T., Wieseler, B., Hoffschulte, H. K., and Müller, M. (1998) J. Biol. Chem. 273, 13898–13904[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  2. Driessen, A. J., Manting, E. H., and van der Does, C. (2001) Nat. Struct. Biol. 8, 492–498[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  3. MacFarlane, J., and Müller, M. (1995) Eur. J. Biochem. 233, 766–771[Abstract]
  4. de Gier, J. W., Mansournia, P., Valent, Q. A., Phillips, G. J., Luirink, J., and von Heijne, G. (1996) FEBS Lett. 399, 307–309[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  5. Ulbrandt, N. D., Newitt, J. A., and Bernstein, H. D. (1997) Cell 88, 187–196[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  6. Koch, H. G., Hengelage, T., Neumann-Haefelin, C., MacFarlane, J., Hoffschulte, H. K., Schimz, K. L., Mechler, B., and Müller, M. (1999) Mol. Biol. Cell 10, 2163–2173[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  7. Valent, Q. A. (2001) Antonie Leeuwenhoek 79, 17–31[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  8. Neumann-Haefelin, C., Schafer, U., Müller, M., and Koch, H. G. (2000) EMBO J. 19, 6419–6426[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  9. Koch, H. G., Moser, M., Schimz, K. L., and Müller, M. (2002) J. Biol. Chem. 277, 5715–5718[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  10. Scotti, P. A., Valent, Q. A., Manting, E. H., Urbanus, M. L., Driessen, A. J., Oudega, B., and Luirink, J. (1999) J. Biol. Chem. 274, 29883–29888[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  11. Phillips, G. J., and Silhavy, T. J. (1992) Nature 359, 744–746[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  12. Luirink, J., Hagen-Jongman, C. M., van der Weijden, C. C., Oudega, B., High, S., Dobberstein, B., and Kusters, R. (1994) EMBO J. 13, 2289–2296[Abstract]
  13. Ribes, V., Romisch, K., Giner, A., Dobberstein, B., and Tollervey, D. (1990) Cell 63, 591–600[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  14. Seluanov, A., and Bibi, E. (1997) J. Biol. Chem. 272, 2053–2055[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  15. Valent, Q. A., de Gier, J. W., von Heijne, G., Kendall, D. A., Hagen-Jongman, C. M., Oudega, B., and Luirink, J. (1997) Mol. Microbiol. 25, 53–64[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  16. de Gier, J. W., Scotti, P. A., Saaf, A., Valent, Q. A., Kuhn, A., Luirink, J., and von Heijne, G. (1998) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 95, 14646–14651[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  17. Valent, Q. A., Scotti, P. A., High, S., de Gier, J. W., von Heijne, G., Lentzen, G., Wintermeyer, W., Oudega, B., and Luirink, J. (1998) EMBO J. 17, 2504–2512[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  18. Beck, K., Wu, L. F., Brunner, J., and Müller, M. (2000) EMBO J. 19, 134–143[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  19. Adams, H., Scotti, P. A., de Cock, H., Luirink, J., and Tommassen, J. (2002) Eur. J. Biochem. 269, 5564–5571[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  20. Müller, M., and Blobel, G. (1984) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 81, 7421–7425[Abstract]
  21. Müller, M., and Blobel, G. (1984) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 81, 7737–7741[Abstract]
  22. Hoffschulte, H. K., Drees, B., and Müller, M. (1994) J. Biol. Chem. 269, 12833–12839[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  23. Helde, R., Wiesler, B., Wachter, E., Neubuser, A., Hoffschulte, H. K., Hengelage, T., Schimz, K. L., Stuart, R. A., and Müller, M. (1997) J. Bacteriol. 179, 4003–4012[Abstract]
  24. Müller, M., Fisher, R. P., Rienhofer-Schweer, A., and Hoffschulte, H. K. (1987) EMBO J. 6, 3855–3861[Abstract]
  25. Hanes, J., and Plückthun, A. (1997) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 94, 4937–4942[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  26. Alconada, A., Gartner, F., Honlinger, A., Kubrich, M., and Pfanner, N. (1995) Methods Enzymol. 260, 263–286[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  27. Koch, H. G., and Müller, M. (2000) J. Cell Biol. 150, 689–694[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  28. Matsumoto, G., Yoshihisa, T., and Ito, K. (1997) EMBO J. 16, 6384–6393[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  29. Nishiyama, K., Suzuki, T., and Tokuda, H. (1996) Cell 85, 71–81[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  30. Akiyama, Y., Kihara, A., Tokuda, H., and Ito, K. (1996) J. Biol. Chem. 271, 31196–31201[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  31. Koch, H. G., Moser, M., and Müller, M. (2003) Rev. Physiol. Biochem. Pharmacol. 146, 55–95[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  32. Park, S. K., Jiang, F., Dalbey, R. E., and Phillips, G. J. (2002) J. Bacteriol. 184, 2642–2653[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  33. Lee, H. C., and Bernstein, H. D. (2001) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 98, 3471–3476[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  34. Kim, J., Rusch, S., Luirink, J., and Kendall, D. A. (2001) FEBS Lett. 505, 245–248[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  35. Jones, D. T., Taylor, W. R., and Thornton, J. M. (1994) Biochemistry 33, 3038–3049[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  36. Rothe, C., and Lehle, L. (1998) Eur. J. Biochem. 252, 16–24[Abstract]
  37. Bochkareva, E. S., Lissin, N. M., and Girshovich, A. S. (1988) Nature 336, 254–257[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  38. Laminet, A. A., Ziegelhoffer, T., Georgopoulos, C., and Pluckthun, A. (1990) EMBO J. 9, 2315–2319[Abstract]
  39. Kusukawa, N., Yura, T., Ueguchi, C., Akiyama, Y., and Ito, K. (1989) EMBO J. 8, 3517–3521[Abstract]
  40. Cammack, K. A., and Wade, H. E. (1965) Biochem. J. 96, 671–680[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  41. Deuerling, E., Schulze-Specking, A., Tomoyasu, T., Mogk, A., and Bukau, B. (1999) Nature 400, 693–696[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  42. Lesley, S. A., Brow, M. A., and Burgess, R. R. (1991) J. Biol. Chem. 266, 2632–2638[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  43. Baba, T., Jacq, A., Brickman, E., Beckwith, J., Taura, T., Ueguchi, C., Akiyama, Y., and Ito, K. (1990) J. Bacteriol. 172, 7005–7010[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  44. Traxler, B., and Murphy, C. (1996) J. Biol. Chem. 271, 12394–12400[Abstract/Free Full Text]