research papers
Structural characterization of the N-terminal part of the MERS-CoV nucleocapsid by X-ray diffraction and small-angle X-ray scattering
aCNRS, AFMB UMR 7257, 13288 Marseille, France, and bAix-Marseille Université, AFMB UMR 7257, 13288 Marseille, France
*Correspondence e-mail: nicolas.papageorgiou@afmb.univ-mrs.fr, bruno.coutard@afmb.univ-mrs.fr
The N protein of coronaviruses is a multifunctional protein that is organized into several domains. The N-terminal part is composed of an intrinsically disordered region (IDR) followed by a structured domain called the N-terminal domain (NTD). In this study, the via X-ray diffraction measurements is reported at a resolution of 2.4 Å. Since the first 30 amino acids were not resolved by X-ray diffraction, the structural study was completed by a SAXS experiment to propose a structural model including the IDR. This model presents the N-terminal region of the MERS-CoV as a monomer that displays structural features in common with other coronavirus NTDs.
of the N-terminal region of the MERS-CoV N proteinKeywords: MERS-CoV; nucleocapsid; structure; SAXS; RNA-binding domain.
PDB reference: N-terminal domain of the MERS-CoV nucleocapsid, 4ud1
1. Introduction
Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) is the aetiological agent responsible for an outbreak of a severe respiratory syndrome disease in the Middle East with sporadic spread to Europe, Africa, Asia and America. Since June 2012, the date of the first clinical case observed in Saudi Arabia, more than 1600 other cases have been confirmed, with a fatality rate of 36%, as reported by the World Health Organization in December 2015. In humans, MERS-CoV can result in asymptomatic viraemia to severe respiratory distress associated with organ failure. The animal source of the virus is still under investigation, but to date scenarios involving bats and/or camels have been proposed (Azhar et al., 2014; Corman et al., 2014; Müller et al., 2015; Raj et al., 2014).
MERS-CoV is a positive-strand RNA virus belonging to the Betacoronavirus genus within the Coronaviridae family of the Nidovirales order. The 5′ two-thirds of the MERS-CoV genome contains open reading frames 1a and 1b, which are translated into the viral polyproteins pp1a and pp1ab, respectively. The processing of these two proteins leads to 16 nonstructural proteins which are involved in the replication complex. The 3′-proximal third encodes the viral structural proteins and several accessory proteins, which are translated from a set of subgenomic mRNAs. Among the structural proteins, the nucleocapsid (N) protein is a key protein displaying several functions. Indeed, it is not only involved in genome packaging through the formation of a ribonucleoprotein complex (RNP; reviewed in Chang et al., 2014), but it also regulates viral RNA synthesis during replication and transcription (Chang et al., 2014; Nelson et al., 2000; Stohlman et al., 1988; Wu et al., 2014). Furthermore, the N protein participates in deregulation of the cell cycle, host translational shutoff and innate immunity disruption (reviewed in McBride et al., 2014).
The coronavirus N protein is a >40 kDa protein organized into two main folded domains called the N-terminal domain (NTD) and the C-terminal domain (CTD) separated by a flexible linker (Fig. 1a). The NTD is subdivided into an RNA-binding module preceded by an intrinsically disordered region (IDR). This IDR contributes to the RNA-binding properties of the NTD (Chang et al., 2009). The linker region contains a Ser/Arg stretch that could correspond to sites involved in the regulation of the functions of the N protein (Chang et al., 2009; He et al., 2004; Peng et al., 2008; Surjit et al., 2005; Wu et al., 2009). The CTD is involved in N-protein dimerization and RNA binding (Chen et al., 2007; Takeda et al., 2008; Yu et al., 2006). It is followed by another IDR. Based on or small-angle X-ray scattering data, the proposed structural models of the N-protein organization suggest that the NTD and CTD may be independent domains with no interaction between each other (Chang et al., 2006). Since the full-length N protein contains a large fraction (>35%) of disordered regions that are recalcitrant to crystallization, it is therefore relevant to study the structural and functional features of each domain independently.
The three-dimensional structures of the NTDs from several coronaviruses have previously been determined: those from Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV; Huang et al., 2004; Saikatendu et al., 2007), infectious bronchitis virus Beaudette (IBV; Fan et al., 2005; Jayaram et al., 2006), murine hepatitis virus (MHV; Grossoehme et al., 2009) and human coronavirus OC43 (HCoV-OC43; Chen et al., 2013). An alignment between the NTD sequences of MERS-CoV, IBV and SARS-CoV shows 37% sequence identity, while all reported coronavirus NTD structures are organized as a five-stranded antiparallel β-sheet core domain with disordered loops of varying sizes connecting the strands. A positively charged β-hairpin protrudes out of the core domain. Structural analysis enabled this region to be proposed as a possible RNA-binding domain. Indeed, mutational analysis and NMR studies led to the conclusion that this region is a major actor in RNA recruitment (Chen et al., 2013; Clarkson et al., 2009; Grossoehme et al., 2009; Saikatendu et al., 2007; Tan et al., 2006). Recently, an inhibitor of the RNA–N interaction has been demonstrated to have an antiviral effect on HCoV-OC43 (Lin et al., 2014). The coronavirus N protein is thus an attractive target for antiviral research. Because of the worldwide spread of MERS-CoV, with potential risks for healthcare, it is important to accumulate structural and functional information on MERS-CoV proteins in order to provide tools for antiviral development.
In this study, we present the three-dimensional structure of the MERS-CoV NTD with its upstream IDR region (hereafter referred to as NTD+) at a resolution of 2.4 Å obtained by X-ray diffraction measurements as well as a small-angle X-ray scattering (SAXS) study of the protein in solution in order to assess the state of MERS-CoV NTD+, and propose a structural model of NTD+ including its disordered region.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Protein production, purification and characterization
The codon-optimized DNA encoding the N-terminal region (amino acids 1–164; NTD+) of the MERS-CoV nucleocapsid (strain Betacoronavirus England 1, accession No. KC164505) was synthesized by GenScript. The DNA sequence was amplified by a two-step PCR before cloning into the expression vector pMCOX20A to enable the fusion of a cleavable thioredoxin/6×His tag at the N-terminus of NTD+ (Lantez et al., 2011). The protein was then produced in Escherichia coli T7 Express (DE3) cells (New England Biolabs). Expression was induced overnight at 290 K in TB medium with 0.5 mM IPTG when the OD600 nm of the culture had reached 0.6. Purification of the protein and tag removal was performed in non-denaturing conditions as described previously (Lantez et al., 2011). The final (SEC) step was performed in 10 mM HEPES, 300 mM NaCl pH 7.5. The protein folding and stability were assessed by thermal shift assays (Geerlof et al., 2006) following a previously described protocol (Malet et al., 2009). The nonspecific RNA-binding properties of the MERS-CoV NTD+ were assessed by fluorescence polarization-based assays using 5′-CCAGGCGACAUCAGCG-3′ RNA labelled at the 3′ end with a Cy3 probe. The binding assay was performed in 50 mM Tris buffer pH 7.5, 1 mM DTT, 2 mM MgCl2. The Cy3-labelled RNA was used at 50 nM. Fluorescence polarization measurements were performed in a microplate reader (PHERAstar FS, BMG Labtech) with an optical module equipped with polarizers and using excitation and emission wavelengths of 546 and 563 nm, respectively.
In order to confirm the M HEPES, 150 mM NaCl pH 7.5. Detection was performed using a triple-angle light-scattering detector (miniDAWN TREOS, Wyatt Technology), a quasi-elastic light-scattering instrument (DynaPro, Wyatt Technology) and a differential refractometer (Optilab rEX, Wyatt Technology). Molecular-weight and hydrodynamic radius determination was performed by the ASTRA V software (Wyatt Technology) using a dn/dc value of 0.185 ml g−1. Proteins were loaded at a final concentration of 5 mg ml−1.
state, analytical SEC with online multi-angle laser absorbance and (MALLS/UV/RI) measurements were carried out on an Alliance 2695 HPLC system (Waters) using a Silica Gel KW802.5 column (Shodex) equilibrated in 10 m2.2. Protein crystallization, data collection and processing
Crystallization trials were performed by the hanging-drop vapour-diffusion method at 293 K using a nanodrop-dispensing robot (Mosquito, TTP Labtech). Optimal crystallization conditions were obtained by mixing 100 nl protein solution at 25 mg ml−1 with 100 nl reservoir solution (0.1 M sodium acetate pH 5, 2 M ammonium sulfate). The crystals of MERS-CoV NTD+ were flash-cooled in liquid nitrogen at 110 K. Glycerol was added to the mother liquor as a cryoprotectant to a final concentration of 20%.
Diffraction data for the native enzyme were collected on the ID30A-1 beamline at the European Synchrotron Radiation Facility (ESRF), Grenoble, France using a Pilatus3 2M detector at a wavelength of 0.965 Å and a temperature of 100 K.
The data were integrated by XDS (Kabsch, 2010), indexed in C121 (unit-cell parameters a = 208.648, b = 67.021, c = 60.94, α = β = γ = 90), scaled and truncated to a resolution of 2.4 Å assuming a minimum accepted signal-to-noise ratio equal to 2. The data were subsequently used for with Phaser for phasing and were refined and validated by PHENIX (Adams et al., 2010). The molecular-graphics software Coot (Emsley & Cowtan, 2004) was used for model building, while Chimera (Pettersen et al., 2004) was used to visualize and draw the models.
2.3. Small-angle X-ray scattering (SAXS) measurements and data processing
All SAXS measurements were carried out on beamline BM29 at the ESRF at a working energy of 12.5 keV, leading to a scattering vector s ranging from 0.025 to 5 nm−1. Data were recorded using a Pilatus 1M detector at a sample-to-detector distance of 2.43 m. The scattering vector s is defined as
where λ is the wavelength of the incident radiation in nanometres and θ is half of the angle between the incident and the scattered radiation.
A range of seven protein concentrations was measured (0.21, 0.41, 0.77, 1.55, 3.06, 5.85 and 11.66 mg ml−1) in 10 mM HEPES pH 7.5, 300 mM NaCl. All samples were centrifuged for 15 min at 15 000g before the experiment in order to minimize contributions from aggregated particles.
The measurements proceeded with 45 µl protein sample injected into a 1.8 mm capillary with a flow to minimize radiation damage; data were collected at 277 K.
Ten exposures of 1 s each were made for each protein concentration and were combined to give the average scattering curve for each measurement. A buffer reference was performed before and after measurement for each protein sample in the same conditions. The −1.
intensity was calibrated using BSA as a reference at 5 mg mlData were processed with the ATSAS package (Petoukhov & Svergun, 2007) according to the standard procedure. Ten frames of 1 s per protein were averaged using PRIMUS (Konarev et al., 2003). Frames affected by radiation damage were excluded and the buffer background was subtracted from the sample.
3. Results
3.1. Protein production and purification
NTD+ of the MERS-CoV N protein was partly designed based on available coronavirus N-protein crystal structures (Chen et al., 2007; Fan et al., 2005; Grossoehme et al., 2009; Saikatendu et al., 2007). Sequence alignments coupled with disorder predictions revealed that the N-terminal intrinsically disordered region (IDR) starts at position 1 and ends at position 36, whereas the structured RNA-binding domain (RBD) encompasses amino acids 37–164 (Fig. 1a). To date, the crystal structures of NTDs from different coronaviruses have been obtained after the removal of the IDR. In this study, the domain encompassing amino acid 1 to amino acid 164 was used to produce NTD+ of the MERS-CoV N, thus including the N-terminal IDR. The recombinant wild-type (wt) protein was produced in E. coli and was purified for crystallization, SAXS experiments and studies. The quality of the recombinant protein was assessed by a thermal shift assay (TSA) and an RNA-binding assay using a nonspecific RNA sequence. TSA experiments revealed a transition curve from a folded to an unfolded state for MERS-CoV NTD+, suggesting that the protein is structured. Moreover, the observed melting temperature (Tm) is 313 K. For comparison, the Tm of the MERS-CoV NTD+ is 8 K lower than that obtained for the SARS-CoV NTD (Fang et al., 2009). An RNA-binding assay using fluorescence polarization was performed as an additional quality assessment. The protein displays an affinity constant in the hundred-nanomolar range for a nonspecific RNA, with a Kd of 153 nM. The results are shown in Fig. 2(a). Together, these results show that MERS-CoV NTD+ is well folded and suitable for crystallization.
3.2. by X-ray diffraction
2btl ; Fan et al., 2005). A unique solution was found in C121 with five molecules per Subsequent converged with no particular problems to an Rwork of 0.23 and an Rfree of 0.27. Details of data collection and are shown in Table 1. The structure was deposited as PDB entry 4ud1 .
(MR) was carried out using the IBV NTD (PDB entry
|
The NTD+ domain is globular overall (fully β), presenting a kidney-shaped surface organized as a main core featuring three antiparallel β-strands forming a central β-sheet from which a flexible β-hairpin structure extrudes. These features are interconnected with flexible coil loops. The flexibility of these coils is reflected by elevated B factors (overall versus local) and is also illustrated in Fig. 3, where the MERS-CoV NTD+ structure (PDB entry 4ud1 , blue) is superimposed with the IBV (PDB entry 2btl ; Fan et al., 2005) and SARS-CoV (PDB entry 1ssk ; Huang et al., 2004) NTD structures (green and red, respectively). The first 30 residues of the N-terminal region of MERS-CoV NTD+, corresponding to a disordered region, could not be resolved. This region was previously scarcely resolved in all structures obtained using X-ray diffraction techniques, while it was resolved as far as amino acid 24 in the 1ssk structure measured in solution by NMR.
Fig. 4 shows the electrostatic surfaces of several N-terminal RNA-binding domains of NTD+ originating from closely related viruses. Surfaces were calculated by APBS and truncated from −5 mV (red) to +5 mV (blue). Figs. 4(a) and 4(b) show front and back views of the protein, respectively. The common feature of all structures is the positively charged hairpin (oriented towards the top side in the figure) and a hydrophobic core domain (Fig. 5b). By contrast, the bottom side presents some differences in the charge distribution, especially for the proteins originating from murine hepatitis virus and human coronavirus OC43, which show a more important negatively charged region compared with the other structures (Ma et al., 2010).
Analyses of the molecular arrangement within the crystal show stacking of Pro33 in front of the Trp43 residue belonging to the nearby molecule. The same stacking is also found within the crystal packing of the IBV NTD structure as presented in Fig. 5. In these figures hydrophobic residues (Val, Ile, Leu, Phe, Trp, Cys, Ala, Tyr, His, Thr, Ser, Gly and Lys) following the classification of Livingstone & Barton (1993) are labelled in green and highlight the conserved hydrophobic propensity of the core domain.
3.3. assays
Preparative SEC experiments that were carried out for protein crystallization and RNA binding revealed that wt NTD+ eluted predominantly as monomers. However, this result is not sufficient to claim that the protein cannot behave as a transient multimer. SEC-MALLS experiments indicated that the observed molecular weight was 18 kDa, which is close to the theoretical molecular weight (17.8 kDa), confirming the SEC results (Fig. 2b). The hydrodynamic radius (Rh) was equal to 1.85 ± 0.45 nm. Although the MALLS data exclude the possibility that multimers are formed after the protein elutes from SEC, cross-linking experiments were also performed with NTD+. The results revealed that even in the presence of glutaraldehyde NTD+ has a very poor ability to produce cross-linked multimers (data not shown). Altogether, the studies suggest that NTD+ of the MERS-CoV nucleocapsid behaves as a monomer in solution and that, as suggested by the small interface between NTD+ molecules in the crystal, the interaction observed in the crystal does not reflect an interaction in solution. In order to characterize the behaviour of MERS-CoV NTD+ in solution as well as to obtain structural information about the N-terminal part of NTD+, SAXS experiments were also carried out.
3.4. Small-angle X-ray scattering (SAXS) measurements
3.4.1. Guinier analysis
Fig. 6 shows the Guinier analysis in the range sRg < 1.3, where Rg is the expressed in nanometres (Rg = 2 nm). The data corresponding to concentrations (conc) from 1.55 to 11.66 mg ml−1 present increasing nonlinearity with concentration. Data are represented as open circles, while red lines correspond to a linear regression. The values of concentration in mg ml−1, Rg in nanometres as well as the normalized intensity I(0)/conc are shown. Both Rg and I(0)/conc increase with increasing concentration, as is characteristic of an interparticle interference term originating from attractive intermolecular forces. However, for the lower concentration data (0.2, 0.41 and 0.77 mg ml−1) the above values stabilize at approximately Rg = 2 nm and I(0)/conc = 26.5.
Taking into account the calibration SAXS profile of BSA, we estimate a molecular weight (MW) of 25 kDa, which is approximately 30% higher than the expected protein MW of 17.8 kDa.
3.4.2. GNOM analysis
All concentrations were processed separately by GNOM (Svergun, 1992) using the PRIMUS interface. The results are shown in Table 2. All parameters increase together with the concentration, as observed by Guinier analysis in the low-s region. Taking into account a mean value of the Porod volume (V) calculated for the three lower concentrations, 〈V〉 = 27.7 nm3, we estimate an MW in the range 13.8 < MW < 18.4 kDa (V/2 < MW < V/1.5), which is in accordance with the MW of the protein monomer (17.8 kDa).
|
Considering the three lower concentrations, the GNOM analysis gives a Rg of 2 nm, which is equal to that found by the Guinier analysis. The ratio of Rg and Rh (Rg/Rh) provides shape information about proteins. Comparison with the hydrodynamic radius Rh of 1.85 nm measured by MALLS gives an Rg/Rh ratio of 1.08. The usual Rg/Rh value for a globular protein is ∼0.775, which means that Rg is smaller than Rh. However, when molecules deviate from globular to nonspherical or elongated structures then Rg/Rh tends to values above 0.775 as Rg becomes larger than Rh. In the present case the Rg/Rh value is probably owing to a deviation from a globular structure owing to the additional N-terminal region (amino acids 1–30) of the protein which protrudes out of the main globular domain of the protein as discussed below.
3.4.3. EOM analysis (ensemble-optimization method)
A preliminary analysis with DAMMIF (Franke & Svergun, 2009) of all four lower concentrations separately showed almost identical particles that nicely fit the experimental data (data not shown). The calculated particles feature a globular region with a protuberance (Fig. 10b). The structure 4ud1 described above nicely fits the globular part. In order to model the supplementary protuberant part of the DAMMIF particle we considered an additional 30-amino-acid N-terminal region and used the EOM 2.0 program (Bernadó et al., 2007; Tria et al., 2015). Model PDB structures with an N-terminal region containing the missing sequence were created. Two different kinds of EOM strategy were used: (i) the N-terminal region (amino acids 1–30) was modelled as a fully random region and (ii) the N-terminal region was divided into three equally long fully random parts spanning amino acids 1–30. The globular part of the protein taken from the 4ud1 structure was kept fixed in all cases. Both strategies gave the same results with respect to the final model structures as well as the corresponding Rg, size distributions, Rflex and Rσ statistics given by EOM.
EOM created a pool of 10 000 possible particles with Rg and size distributed randomly over the Gaussian-like distribution profiles shown in red bold lines in Fig. 7(a). For each specific concentration data set EOM chooses particle ensembles containing all possible conformations that fit the data. The Rg and size distributions of these ensembles are shown as black sticks. Fig. 7(b) depicts the typical ensemble models calculated. Models with high Rg (>2.2 nm) and large size (>8 nm) correspond to molecules with a spatially extended N-terminal region, while lower values of Rg and size correspond to molecules with an N-terminal region folded closely to the main core.
In order to enable a quantitative characterization of the size or Rg distributions, EOM uses two metrics: Rflex and Rσ (Tria et al., 2015). The Rflex metric is given as a percentage in the range 0–100%, with Rflex = 100% indicating maximum flexibility. The Rσ metric indicates the variance of the ensemble distribution with respect to the original pool and is defined as the ratio σe/σp, where σe and σp are the standard deviations for the distributions of the selected ensemble and the pool, respectively. Values close to 1 describe a fully flexible system.
In Table 3 we report the Rflex and Rσ metrics of the ensembles, as well as Rflex-pool showing the Rflex metric of the pool, as a function of concentration between 0.2 and 3.06 mg ml−1. For each concentration the Rflex of the ensemble ranges between 75 and 85% with an Rflex-pool of 90% and a Rσ in the range between 0.99 and 1.3. These values suggest the presence of important flexibility as discussed by Tria et al. (2015). However, visual inspection of the Rg and size distributions in Fig. 7 shows the presence of a main ensemble population centred around Rg = 2.2 ± 0.2 nm as well as the presence of a secondary ensemble population centred around Rg = 1.7 ± 0.2 nm which is clearly evident for the three lower concentrations. The presence of these distinct ensembles might indicate two preferential conformations of the N-terminal region, which could be open or closed.
|
3.4.4. Analysis of a merged profile
Taking into account all the above analysis, the data at the five lower concentrations (0.2, 0.41, 0.77, 1.55 and 3.06 mg ml−1) were merged in order to retrieve a single data file with good signal to noise. The low-s region of the merged file is an average of the 0.2 and 0.4 mg ml−1 data, while the high-s region is an average of the 0.77, 1.55 and 3.06 mg ml−1 data.
A full analysis of the merged data with GNOM, DAMMIF and EOM was undertaken. Details of this analysis are shown in Table 4. A three-dimensional ab initio model was constructed from the merged SAXS data using DAMMIF (s range from 0.1 to 5 nm−1).
‡The molecular weight was calculated using calibrated data for BSA (66 kDa) at a concentration of 5 mg ml−1. |
No predefined shape or symmetry was used. 20 different models were calculated and subsequently averaged and filtered by DAMAVER (Volkov & Svergun, 2003). Fig. 8 presents the resulting numerical fits of GNOM, DAMMIF and EOM analysis. The GNOM fit curve is completely superimposed on the DAMMIF fit curve shown by the red continuous line, while the EOM fit curve is shown by the blue continuous line along with the merged data (open circles). The error signals, red dots for GNOM and DAMMIF and blue dots for EOM, are shown at the bottom of the figure and have been almost superimposed for spatial economy.
Fig. 9(a) shows the P(r) distribution of the merged data with Dmax = 8 nm. Fig. 9(b) shows a of the merged data, featuring an increase in the signal in the high-s region (>2.5 nm−1), probably owing to the flexible N-terminal region.
In Fig. 10(a) we show the three ensemble structures resulting from the EOM analysis of the merged data together with the corresponding Rg and size distributions considered by EOM (Fig. 10b). The contribution of each ensemble to the measured SAXS profile is shown as a percentage under each ensemble structure.
The corresponding metrics Rflex = 84% (Rflex-pool = 91%) and Rσ = 1.12 correspond to a predominantly flexible N-terminal region, while the size and Rg distributions shown in Fig. 10(b) provide evidence for two distinct populations (around Rg = 2.2 nm and Rg = 1.6 nm) as calculated previously for each concentration separately. As a conclusion from the EOM analysis, we can stress the presence of a flexible N-terminal region together with the presence of two conformations for the molecule: open and closed. In all cases the first 20 amino acids form a loop without being randomly unfolded.
The three ensemble model structures calculated by EOM fit within the filtered particle calculated by DAMAVER as shown in Fig. 10(c). The protuberant part of the particle mainly corresponds to the open conformation with the N-terminal region pointing out from the globular part.
4. Discussion and conclusion
MERS NTD+ encompassing amino acids 1–164 was crystallized even though sequence prediction revealed the presence of a disordered N-terminal region from amino acid 1 to amino acid 37. Attempts to crystallize the NTD domain (from positions 37 to 164) did not lead to suitable crystals from commercial screens. It should be noted that during the writing of this study a preliminary crystallographic analysis of the NTD region encompassing amino acids 39–165 has been published (Wang et al., 2015).
Our structural study therefore focused on the NTD+ domain, which could provide additional structural information by combining and SAXS analysis. Interestingly, the of the crystal was made up of five NTD+ molecules organized with an interaction between Pro33 and Trp43 of the neighbouring molecule (Fig. 5). This interaction highlights the role of the intrinsically disordered region (IDR) in the crystal organization and illustrates the need to design several constructs for a given domain of interest in order to improve the success rate at the level of protein expression or crystallization (Bignon et al., 2013; Gräslund et al., 2008).
Although divergent in size and sequence, the NTDs for which structures have been determined to date share a common fold with a central β-sheet and a β-hairpin extension. As expected, the three-dimensional structure of MERS-CoV NTD+ displays the same structural organization. Its β-extension is positively charged (Fig. 4) and in several coronaviruses it has been proposed to contribute to RNA binding through electrostatic interactions with the phosphodiester groups of the RNA (Fan et al., 2005). In addition to these interactions, the conserved hydrophobic core domain could interact with bases of the RNA through several aromatic residues (Huang et al., 2004; McBride et al., 2014; Spencer & Hiscox, 2006). Interestingly, in the of MERS-CoV NTD+, Trp43 located in the core domain was found to stack with a proline (Pro33) of the adjacent NTD+, as in the crystal packing of IBV NTD (Huang et al., 2004).
We therefore wanted to assess the +. SEC-MALLS analysis together with SAXS data demonstrated that, at least under our experimental conditions at pH 7.5, MERS NTD+ behaves mainly as a monomer in solution. As previously reported, the of the MHV N protein is partly mediated by an interaction between the NTD modules (Hurst et al., 2009). Moreover, the NTD of the IBV N protein also has a weak propensity for dimerization (Fan et al., 2005; Jayaram et al., 2006). We can thus propose that, by itself, MERS-CoV NTD+ cannot promote MERS-CoV N-protein assembly, but could contribute by a mechanism that still has to be unravelled to the formation of the RNP through NTD–NTD interaction after the CTD has already promoted the oligomerization.
state of MERS-CoV NTDThe role of Trp43 in RNA binding has also been addressed. MERS-CoV NTD+ binds to a nonspecific RNA in the hundred-nanomolar range, and a W43A substitution did not significantly alter the affinity constant (data not shown). RNA-binding studies on MHV NTD revealed that aromatic residues located in β3 and β5 are strong determinants for sequence-specific RNA binding (Grossoehme et al., 2009), whereas Trp43 precedes the β1 strand. However, analysis of RNA binding to the SARS-CoV NTD by NMR showed that even for a polyadenine RNA the core region is still involved in the binding (Huang et al., 2004). It is therefore possible that Trp43 could be involved in RNA binding, but not as a main contributor, and its single substitution does not allow perturbation of the function. At this stage, the role of Trp43, a conserved residue in the betacoronaviruses, still remains to be investigated.
SAXS experiments were undertaken to characterize MERS-CoV NTD+ in solution. The SAXS results showed that the protein is monomeric and composed of a globular part and a flexible N-terminal region of 30 residues. This region is not completely disordered but points out from the globular part with two preferential conformations: an open conformation and a closed conformation. In all cases the first 20 amino acids form a loop without being randomly unfolded. Let us recall that this N-terminus is involved in RNA binding, working cooperatively with the other RNA-binding sites of the N protein (Chang et al., 2009). However, it is possible that it plays other roles since viral IDRs tend to be involved in various interactions with host-cell components other than RNA, such as host membranes or proteins (Xue et al., 2014).
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by the SILVER Large Scale Collaborative Project (grant agreement No. 260644) of the European Union Seventh Framework and the French Infrastructure for Integrated Structural Biology (FRISBI) ANR-10-INSB-05-01. The authors also thank the ESRF for provision of synchrotron beam time and the MASSIF and BM29 staff for data collection, as well as Stéphanie Blangy and Silvia Spinelli for their contribution to the experiments.
References
Adams, P. D. et al. (2010). Acta Cryst. D66, 213–221. Web of Science CrossRef CAS IUCr Journals Google Scholar
Azhar, E. I., Hashem, A. M., El-Kafrawy, S. A., Sohrab, S. S., Aburizaiza, A. S., Farraj, S. A., Hassan, A. M., Al-Saeed, M. S., Jamjoom, G. A. & Madani, T. A. (2014). MBio, 5, e01450-14. CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
Bernadó, P., Mylonas, E., Petoukhov, M. V., Blackledge, M. & Svergun, D. I. (2007). J. Am. Chem. Soc. 129, 5656–5664. Web of Science PubMed Google Scholar
Bignon, C., Li, C., Lichière, J., Canard, B. & Coutard, B. (2013). Acta Cryst. D69, 2580–2582. CrossRef IUCr Journals Google Scholar
Chang, C.-K., Hou, M.-H., Chang, C.-F., Hsiao, C.-D. & Huang, T.-H. (2014). Antiviral Res. 103, 39–50. Web of Science CrossRef CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Chang, C.-K., Hsu, Y.-L., Chang, Y.-H., Chao, F.-A., Wu, M.-C., Huang, Y.-S., Hu, C.-K. & Huang, T.-H. (2009). J. Virol. 83, 2255–2264. Web of Science CrossRef PubMed CAS Google Scholar
Chang, C.-K., Sue, S.-C., Yu, T.-H., Hsieh, C.-M., Tsai, C.-K., Chiang, Y.-C., Lee, S.-J., Hsiao, H.-H., Wu, W.-J., Chang, W.-L., Lin, C.-H. & Huang, T.-H. (2006). J. Biomed. Sci. 13, 59–72. CrossRef PubMed CAS Google Scholar
Chen, C.-Y., Chang, C.-K., Chang, Y.-W., Sue, S.-C., Bai, H.-I., Riang, L., Hsiao, C.-D. & Huang, T.-H. (2007). J. Mol. Biol. 368, 1075–1086. CrossRef PubMed CAS Google Scholar
Chen, I.-J., Yuann, J.-M. P., Chang, Y.-M., Lin, S.-Y., Zhao, J., Perlman, S., Shen, Y.-Y., Huang, T.-H. & Hou, M.-H. (2013). Biochim. Biophys. Acta, 1834, 1054–1062. Web of Science CrossRef CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Clarkson, M. W., Lei, M., Eisenmesser, E. Z., Labeikovsky, W., Redfield, A. & Kern, D. (2009). J. Biomol. NMR, 45, 217–225. CrossRef PubMed CAS Google Scholar
Corman, V. M., Ithete, N. L., Richards, L. R., Schoeman, M. C., Preiser, W., Drosten, C. & Drexler, J. F. (2014). J. Virol. 88, 11297–11303. Web of Science CrossRef CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Emsley, P. & Cowtan, K. (2004). Acta Cryst. D60, 2126–2132. Web of Science CrossRef CAS IUCr Journals Google Scholar
Fan, H., Ooi, A., Tan, Y. W., Wang, S., Fang, S., Liu, D. X. & Lescar, J. (2005). Structure, 13, 1859–1868. Web of Science CrossRef PubMed CAS Google Scholar
Fang, H.-J., Chen, Y.-Z., Li, M. S., Wu, M.-C., Chang, C.-L., Chang, C.-K., Hsu, Y.-L., Huang, T.-H., Chen, H.-M., Tsong, T.-Y. & Hu, C.-K. (2009). Biophys. J. 96, 1892–1901. CrossRef PubMed CAS Google Scholar
Franke, D. & Svergun, D. I. (2009). J. Appl. Cryst. 42, 342–346. Web of Science CrossRef CAS IUCr Journals Google Scholar
Geerlof, A. et al. (2006). Acta Cryst. D62, 1125–1136. Web of Science CrossRef CAS IUCr Journals Google Scholar
Gräslund, S., Sagemark, J., Berglund, H., Dahlgren, L. G., Flores, A., Hammarström, M., Johansson, I., Kotenyova, T., Nilsson, M., Nordlund, P. & Weigelt, J. (2008). Protein Expr. Purif. 58, 210–221. Web of Science PubMed Google Scholar
Grossoehme, N. E., Li, L., Keane, S. C., Liu, P., Dann, C. E., Leibowitz, J. L. & Giedroc, D. P. (2009). J. Mol. Biol. 394, 544–557. CrossRef PubMed CAS Google Scholar
Harpaz, Y., Gerstein, M. & Chothia, C. (1994). Structure, 2, 641–649. CrossRef CAS PubMed Web of Science Google Scholar
He, R. et al. (2004). Virus Res. 105, 121–125. CrossRef PubMed CAS Google Scholar
Huang, Q., Yu, L., Petros, A. M., Gunasekera, A., Liu, Z., Xu, N., Hajduk, P., Mack, J., Fesik, S. W. & Olejniczak, E. T. (2004). Biochemistry, 43, 6059–6063. Web of Science CrossRef PubMed CAS Google Scholar
Hurst, K. R., Koetzner, C. A. & Masters, P. S. (2009). J. Virol. 83, 7221–7234. CrossRef PubMed CAS Google Scholar
Jayaram, H., Fan, H., Bowman, B. R., Ooi, A., Jayaram, J., Collisson, E. W., Lescar, J. & Prasad, B. V. (2006). J. Virol. 80, 6612–6620. Web of Science CrossRef PubMed CAS Google Scholar
Kabsch, W. (2010). Acta Cryst. D66, 125–132. Web of Science CrossRef CAS IUCr Journals Google Scholar
Konarev, P. V., Volkov, V. V., Sokolova, A. V., Koch, M. H. J. & Svergun, D. I. (2003). J. Appl. Cryst. 36, 1277–1282. Web of Science CrossRef CAS IUCr Journals Google Scholar
Lantez, V., Dalle, K., Charrel, R., Baronti, C., Canard, B. & Coutard, B. (2011). PLoS Negl. Trop. Dis. 5, e936. Web of Science CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
Lin, S.-Y., Liu, C.-L., Chang, Y.-M., Zhao, J., Perlman, S. & Hou, M.-H. (2014). J. Med. Chem. 57, 2247–2257. Web of Science CrossRef CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Livingstone, C. D. & Barton, G. J. (1993). Comput. Appl. Biosci. 9, 745–756. CAS PubMed Web of Science Google Scholar
Ma, Y., Tong, X., Xu, X., Li, X., Lou, Z. & Rao, Z. (2010). Protein Cell, 1, 688–697. Web of Science CrossRef CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Malet, H., Coutard, B., Jamal, S., Dutartre, H., Papageorgiou, N., Neuvonen, M., Ahola, T., Forrester, N., Gould, E. A., Lafitte, D., Ferron, F., Lescar, J., Gorbalenya, A. E., de Lamballerie, X. & Canard, B. (2009). J. Virol. 83, 6534–6545. Web of Science CrossRef PubMed CAS Google Scholar
McBride, R., van Zyl, M. & Fielding, B. C. (2014). Viruses, 6, 2991–3018. CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
Müller, M. A. et al. (2015). Lancet Infect. Dis. 15, 559–564. PubMed Google Scholar
Nelson, G. W., Stohlman, S. A. & Tahara, S. M. (2000). J. Gen. Virol. 81, 181–188. Web of Science CrossRef PubMed CAS Google Scholar
Notredame, C., Higgins, D. G. & Heringa, J. (2000). J. Mol. Biol. 302, 205–217. Web of Science CrossRef PubMed CAS Google Scholar
Peng, T.-Y., Lee, K.-R. & Tarn, W.-Y. (2008). FEBS J. 275, 4152–4163. CrossRef PubMed CAS Google Scholar
Petoukhov, M. V. & Svergun, D. I. (2007). Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol. 17, 562–571. Web of Science CrossRef PubMed CAS Google Scholar
Pettersen, E. F., Goddard, T. D., Huang, C. C., Couch, G. S., Greenblatt, D. M., Meng, E. C. & Ferrin, T. E. (2004). J. Comput. Chem. 25, 1605–1612. Web of Science CrossRef PubMed CAS Google Scholar
Raj, V. S. et al. (2014). Emerg. Infect. Dis. 20, 1339–1342. CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
Robert, X. & Gouet, P. (2014). Nucleic Acids Res. 42, W320–W324. Web of Science CrossRef CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Saikatendu, K. S., Joseph, J. S., Subramanian, V., Neuman, B. W., Buchmeier, M. J., Stevens, R. C. & Kuhn, P. (2007). J. Virol. 81, 3913–3921. Web of Science CrossRef PubMed CAS Google Scholar
Spencer, K. A. & Hiscox, J. A. (2006). FEBS Lett. 580, 5993–5998. CrossRef PubMed CAS Google Scholar
Stohlman, S. A., Baric, R. S., Nelson, G. N., Soe, L. H., Welter, L. M. & Deans, R. J. (1988). J. Virol. 62, 4288–4295. CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Surjit, M., Kumar, R., Mishra, R. N., Reddy, M. K., Chow, V. T. K. & Lal, S. K. (2005). J. Virol. 79, 11476–11486. CrossRef PubMed CAS Google Scholar
Svergun, D. I. (1992). J. Appl. Cryst. 25, 495–503. CrossRef Web of Science IUCr Journals Google Scholar
Takeda, M., Chang, C.-K., Ikeya, T., Güntert, P., Chang, Y.-H., Hsu, Y.-L., Huang, T.-H. & Kainosho, M. (2008). J. Mol. Biol. 380, 608–622. CrossRef PubMed CAS Google Scholar
Tan, Y. W., Fang, S., Fan, H., Lescar, J. & Liu, D. X. (2006). Nucleic Acids Res. 34, 4816–4825. CrossRef PubMed CAS Google Scholar
Tria, G., Mertens, H. D. T., Kachala, M. & Svergun, D. I. (2015). IUCrJ, 2, 207–217. Web of Science CrossRef CAS PubMed IUCr Journals Google Scholar
Volkov, V. V. & Svergun, D. I. (2003). J. Appl. Cryst. 36, 860–864. Web of Science CrossRef CAS IUCr Journals Google Scholar
Wang, Y.-S., Chang, C. & Hou, M.-H. (2015). Acta Cryst. F71, 977–980. CrossRef IUCr Journals Google Scholar
Wu, C.-H., Chen, P.-J. & Yeh, S.-H. (2014). Cell Host Microbe, 16, 462–472. CrossRef CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Wu, C.-H., Yeh, S.-H., Tsay, Y.-G., Shieh, Y.-H., Kao, C.-L., Chen, Y.-S., Wang, S.-H., Kuo, T.-J., Chen, D.-S. & Chen, P.-J. (2009). J. Biol. Chem. 284, 5229–5239. CrossRef PubMed CAS Google Scholar
Xue, B., Blocquel, D., Habchi, J., Uversky, A. V., Kurgan, L., Uversky, V. N. & Longhi, S. (2014). Chem. Rev. 114, 6880–6911. CrossRef CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Yu, I.-M., Oldham, M. L., Zhang, J. & Chen, J. (2006). J. Biol. Chem. 281, 17134–17139. Web of Science CrossRef PubMed CAS Google Scholar
© International Union of Crystallography. Prior permission is not required to reproduce short quotations, tables and figures from this article, provided the original authors and source are cited. For more information, click here.