research communications
Burkholderia phymatum in complex with NAD
of a short-chain dehydrogenase/reductase fromaDepartment of Chemistry and Biochemistry, Hampton University, 200 William R. Harvey Way, Hampton, VA 23668, USA, bUCB Pharma, Bedford, Massachusetts, USA, cSeattle Structural Genomics Center for Infectious Disease (SSGCID), Seattle, Washington, USA, and dCenter for Global Infectious Disease Research, Seattle Children's Research Institute, 307 Westlake Avenue North Suite 500, Seattle, Washington, USA
*Correspondence e-mail: oluwatoyin.asojo@hamptonu.edu
Burkholderia phymatum is an important symbiotic nitrogen-fixing betaproteobacterium. B. phymatum is beneficial, unlike other Burkholderia species, which cause disease or are potential bioagents. Structural genomics studies at the SSGCID include characterization of the structures of short-chain dehydrogenases/reductases (SDRs) from multiple Burkholderia species. The of a short-chain dehydrogenase from B. phymatum (BpSDR) was determined in C2221 at a resolution of 1.80 Å. BpSDR shares less than 38% sequence identity with any known structure. The monomer is a prototypical SDR with a well conserved cofactor-binding domain despite its low sequence identity. The substrate-binding cavity is unique and offers insights into possible functions and likely inhibitors of the enzymatic functions of BpSDR.
Keywords: SSGCID; oxidoreductases; Burkholderia phymatum; short-chain dehydrogenase/reductase family; NAD; structural genomics; Seattle Structural Genomics Center for Infectious Disease.
1. Introduction
Burkholderia are nonfermenting motile Gram-negative bacteria that are among the largest groups of species of Betaproteobacteria and include infective and symbiotic species (Yabuuchi et al., 1992; Sawana et al., 2014). Burkholderia can cause serious infections in humans; for example, B. pseudomallei causes melioidosis, a deadly emerging opportunistic infection (Hall et al., 2019; Poe et al., 1971; Veluthat et al., 2021), and B. glumae and B. gladioli cause infections in plants (Zhou-qi et al., 2016). B. phymatum was identified in root-nodule isolates from tropical legumes and is capable of symbiotic with the legume Machaerium lunatum and Mimosa pudica (Vandamme et al., 2002). Due to the importance of Burkholderia, there is a need to clarify the structures of enzymes that play important roles in the life cycles of these bacteria. The SSGCID has characterized the structures of proteins that may play important roles in these bacteria. The short-chain dehydrogenase/reductases (SDRs) are NAD(P)(H)-dependent oxidoreductases that may be involved in the metabolism of diverse molecules, including amino acids, cofactors, hormones and xenobiotic or other compounds. The protein structure reported here is a putative SDR which shares less than 38% sequence identity with any published structure. This structure is part of structural genomics efforts at the Seattle Structural Genomics Center for Infectious Disease (Raymond et al., 2011; Myler et al., 2009; Baugh et al., 2013). This manuscript was completed in a partnership between Hampton University and the SSGCID (Asojo, Dranow et al., 2018; Asojo, Subramanian et al., 2018).
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Macromolecule production
SDR from B. phymatum (BpSDR) was produced at the SSGCID (Myler et al., 2009; Stacy et al., 2011) following standard protocols described previously (Bryan et al., 2011; Choi et al., 2011; Serbzhinskiy et al., 2015). Dr Mary Lidstrom of the University of Washington provided genomic DNA from B. phymatum STM815 (Moulin et al., 2014). The sequence (UniProt ID B2JGP2, GenBank ID ACC70227.1) encoding amino acids 1–289 was PCR-amplified from genomic DNA using the primers shown in Table 1. The resultant amplicon was cloned by ligation-independent cloning into pET-14b expression vector pBG1861 provided by Dr Wesley Van Voorhis of the University of Washington. The vector encodes a noncleavable hexahistidine fusion tag (MAHHHHHHM-ORF). The plasmid DNA was transformed into chemically competent Escherichia coli BL21(DE3) cells (Table 1).
|
Recombinant BpSDR was purified by the standard two-step protocol consisting of immobilized metal-affinity (IMAC) followed by (SEC) at SSGCID. All runs were performed on an ÄKTApurifier 10 (GE) using automated IMAC and SEC programs as described previously (Bryan et al., 2011). Specifically, SEC was performed on a HiLoad 26/600 Superdex 75 column (GE Healthcare) using a mobile phase consisting of 300 mM NaCl, 20 mM HEPES, 5% glycerol, 1 mM TCEP pH 7.0. BpSDR eluted as a single peak with a projected molecular weight of 22 kDa, indicating that the protein could either be a monomer or a dimer in solution. Protein purity was assessed using a reduced SDS–PAGE gel. The peak fractions were concentrated to 44.8 mg ml−1 using an Amicon Ultra-15 30K molecular-weight cutoff concentrator (Millipore, Billerica, Massachusetts, USA). Aliquots of 200 µl were flash-frozen in liquid nitrogen and stored at −80°C until use for crystallization. The pure protein is available at https://apps.sbri.org/SSGCIDTargetStatus/Target/BuphA.00010.n, as are the expressing clones.
2.2. Crystallization
BpSDR was crystallized using the sitting-drop vapor-diffusion method. Prior to crystallization, NAD was added to the protein stock to a final concentration of 4 mM. Crystallization drops consisting of 0.4 ml BpSDR (45 mg ml−1) and 0.4 ml precipitant were equilibrated against 80 ml precipitant in the reservoir at 14°C. Crystals were obtained using condition C4 from the MCSG1 sparse-matrix screen [170 mM ammonium acetate, 85 mM sodium acetate–HCl pH 4.5, 25%(w/v) PEG 4000, 15%(v/v) glycerol] as the precipitant (Table 2). Upon harvesting, crystals were cryocooled by plunging them into liquid nitrogen without additional cryoprotection.
|
2.3. Data collection and processing
X-ray diffraction data were collected on LS-CAT beamline 21-ID-F at the Advanced Photon Source (APS). Diffraction data (Table 3) were integrated using XDS and reduced using XSCALE (Kabsch, 2010). Data quality was assessed using POINTLESS (Evans, 2006). Raw diffraction data images are available at https://proteindiffraction.org/project/5ig2/.
|
2.4. Structure solution and refinement
The BpSDR structure was solved by (MR) using MOLREP (Lebedev et al., 2008; Vagin & Teplyakov, 2010). The MR search model was the structure of a Rv0851c ortholog short-chain dehydrogenase from Mycobacterium paratuberculosis (PDB entry 3tjr; Baugh et al., 2015), the structure with the closest amino-acid sequence identity to BpSDR (38% at over 89% coverage). Model building and structure were performed using iterative cycles of Coot (Emsley et al., 2010) and Phenix (Liebschner et al., 2019). The quality of the model was assessed using MolProbity (Chen et al., 2010). Figures were prepared using PyMOL (DeLano, 2002). The resulting structure-refinement data are provided in Table 4.
|
3. Results and discussion
The BpSDR was solved in C2221 with three monomers in the (Fig. 1). The three monomers of BpSDR are very similar (with an r.m.s.d. of 0.119 Å for the alignment of all Cα atoms) and have the prototypical SDR topology (Fig. 1). Three dimers consistent with prototypical SDR dimers are easily generated by symmetry analysis (Fig. 1b). The buried surface interface for each prototypical SDR dimer is large, including over 50 amino acids and covering ∼2640 Å2 per monomer. BpSDR is a ternary complex, with each monomer having an acetate molecule in the substrate-binding domain and a NAD molecule in the cofactor-binding domain (Fig. 2a). The cofactor-binding domain is the largest central cavity in the structure, and it is connected to the substrate-binding domain (Fig. 2b). The 278 amino acid residues in each monomer have a secondary structure consisting of 12.2% β-strand, 47.8% α-helix and 6.5% 310-helix and have the five β-α-β motifs of a prototypical SDR (Fig. 2c).
ofThe most similar structures to BpSDR were identified using PDBeFold analysis (https://www.ebi.ac.uk/msd-srv/ssm) at the default threshold cutoff of 70%. PDBeFold analysis revealed that the MR search model (PDB entry 3tjr; Baugh et al., 2015) has the highest structural similarity to BpSDR. To compare the substrate-binding cavities and determine whether the small molecules that bind to similar SDRs can bind to BpSDR, the closest structures with bound ligands in their substrate-binding domain were selected from the results of PDBeFold analysis. The inhibitor-bound structures identified from this analysis include PDB entry 1fmc (7α-hydroxysteroid dehydrogenase in complex with NADH and 7-oxoglycochenodeoxycholic acid; Tanaka et al., 1996), PDB entry 4yai (Ligl from Sphingobium sp. strain SYK-6 in complex with NADH and GGE; Pereira et al., 2016), PDB entry 2jap (clavulanic acid dehydrogenase; MacKenzie et al., 2007), PDB entry 6g4l (17β-hydroxysteroid dehydrogenase type 14 mutant Y253A in complex with a nonsteroidal inhibitor; Badran et al., 2019) and PDB entry 3tjr (crystal structure of the Rv0851c ortholog short-chain dehydrogenase from M. paratuberculosis; Baugh et al., 2015). The superposed structures reveal conserved cofactor-binding domains and varied substrate-binding cavities (Figs. 3 and 4).
LIGPLOT analysis reveals a network of well conserved residues in the cofactor-binding domains (Fig. 3b). BpSDR has less than 40% sequence identity to other known homologs (Fig. 4). However, it maintains the same overall topology as found in other SDRs. Its cofactor-binding domain is virtually identical to that in M. paratuberculosis (PDB entry 3tjr). Some conformational flexibility is observed in the substrate-binding domain and the carboxyl-terminus (Fig. 4). The variability in the substrate-binding domain may be exploited for the design of selective inhibitors or for the development of novel biocatalysts for chiral transformations.
4. Conclusion
BpSDR has the prototypical SDR topology, a well conserved cofactor-binding site and structural differences in the carboxyl-terminus and substrate-binding regions. Our ongoing studies include studying structural differences between SDRs in order to identify selective inhibitors for SDRs from bacterial pathogens closely related to B. phymatum.
Acknowledgements
The SSGCID consortium is directed by PJM (principal investigator). It comprises many different scientists working at multiple centers towards determining the three-dimensional structures of proteins from biodefense organisms and emerging infectious diseases. In particular, we would like to thank the SSGCID cloning, protein-production and X-ray crystallography groups at the Center for Global Infectious Disease Research, the University of Washington and UCB. Hampton University's partnership with the SSGCID includes functional characterization and educational training. JA (MS, Hampton University) was sponsored by the Saudi Arabia Government and Northern Border University and supervised by OAA.
Funding information
This work was supported by federal funds from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), National Institutes of Health (NIH), Department of Health and Human Services under Contract No. HHSN272201700059C from 1 September 2017 (SSGCID was funded under NIAID Contracts Nos. HHSN272201200025C from 1 September 2012 through 31 August 2017 and HHSN272200700057C from 28 September 2007 through 27 September 2012).
References
Asojo, O. A., Dranow, D. M., Serbzhinskiy, D., Subramanian, S., Staker, B., Edwards, T. E. & Myler, P. J. (2018). Acta Cryst. F74, 294–299. CrossRef IUCr Journals Google Scholar
Asojo, O. A., Subramanian, S., Abendroth, J., Exley, I., Lorimer, D. D., Edwards, T. E. & Myler, P. J. (2018). Acta Cryst. F74, 187–192. Web of Science CrossRef IUCr Journals Google Scholar
Badran, M. J., Bertoletti, N., Keils, A., Heine, A., Klebe, G. & Marchais-Oberwinkler, S. (2019). J. Steroid Biochem. Mol. Biol. 189, 135–144. CrossRef CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Baugh, L., Gallagher, L. A., Patrapuvich, R., Clifton, M. C., Gardberg, A. S., Edwards, T. E., Armour, B., Begley, D. W., Dieterich, S. H., Dranow, D. M., Abendroth, J., Fairman, J. W., Fox, D., Staker, B. L., Phan, I., Gillespie, A., Choi, R., Nakazawa-Hewitt, S., Nguyen, M. T., Napuli, A., Barrett, L., Buchko, G. W., Stacy, R., Myler, P. J., Stewart, L. J., Manoil, C. & Van Voorhis, W. C. (2013). PLoS One, 8, e53851. Web of Science CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
Baugh, L., Phan, I., Begley, D. W., Clifton, M. C., Armour, B., Dranow, D. M., Taylor, B. M., Muruthi, M. M., Abendroth, J., Fairman, J. W., Fox, D., Dieterich, S. H., Staker, B. L., Gardberg, A. S., Choi, R., Nakazawa Hewitt, S., Napuli, A. J., Myers, J., Barrett, L. K., Zhang, Y., Ferrell, M., Mundt, E., Thompkins, K., Tran, N., Lyons-Abbott, S., Abramov, A., Sekar, A., Serbzhinskiy, D., Lorimer, D., Buchko, G. W., Stacy, R., Stewart, L. J., Edwards, T. E., Van Voorhis, W. C. & Myler, P. J. (2015). Tuberculosis, 95, 142–148. CrossRef CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Bryan, C. M., Bhandari, J., Napuli, A. J., Leibly, D. J., Choi, R., Kelley, A., Van Voorhis, W. C., Edwards, T. E. & Stewart, L. J. (2011). Acta Cryst. F67, 1010–1014. Web of Science CrossRef IUCr Journals Google Scholar
Chen, V. B., Arendall, W. B., Headd, J. J., Keedy, D. A., Immormino, R. M., Kapral, G. J., Murray, L. W., Richardson, J. S. & Richardson, D. C. (2010). Acta Cryst. D66, 12–21. Web of Science CrossRef CAS IUCr Journals Google Scholar
Choi, R., Kelley, A., Leibly, D., Nakazawa Hewitt, S., Napuli, A. & Van Voorhis, W. (2011). Acta Cryst. F67, 998–1005. Web of Science CrossRef IUCr Journals Google Scholar
DeLano, W. L. (2002). PyMOL. https://www.pymol.org. Google Scholar
Emsley, P., Lohkamp, B., Scott, W. G. & Cowtan, K. (2010). Acta Cryst. D66, 486–501. Web of Science CrossRef CAS IUCr Journals Google Scholar
Evans, P. (2006). Acta Cryst. D62, 72–82. Web of Science CrossRef CAS IUCr Journals Google Scholar
Gouet, P., Courcelle, E., Stuart, D. I. & Métoz, F. (1999). Bioinformatics, 15, 305–308. Web of Science CrossRef PubMed CAS Google Scholar
Gouet, P., Robert, X. & Courcelle, E. (2003). Nucleic Acids Res. 31, 3320–3323. Web of Science CrossRef PubMed CAS Google Scholar
Hall, C. M., Jaramillo, S., Jimenez, R., Stone, N. E., Centner, H., Busch, J. D., Bratsch, N., Roe, C. C., Gee, J. E., Hoffmaster, A. R., Rivera-Garcia, S., Soltero, F., Ryff, K., Perez-Padilla, J., Keim, P., Sahl, J. W. & Wagner, D. M. (2019). PLoS Negl. Trop. Dis. 13, e0007727. CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
Kabsch, W. (2010). Acta Cryst. D66, 125–132. Web of Science CrossRef CAS IUCr Journals Google Scholar
Lebedev, A. A., Vagin, A. A. & Murshudov, G. N. (2008). Acta Cryst. D64, 33–39. Web of Science CrossRef IUCr Journals Google Scholar
Liebschner, D., Afonine, P. V., Baker, M. L., Bunkóczi, G., Chen, V. B., Croll, T. I., Hintze, B., Hung, L.-W., Jain, S., McCoy, A. J., Moriarty, N. W., Oeffner, R. D., Poon, B. K., Prisant, M. G., Read, R. J., Richardson, J. S., Richardson, D. C., Sammito, M. D., Sobolev, O. V., Stockwell, D. H., Terwilliger, T. C., Urzhumtsev, A. G., Videau, L. L., Williams, C. J. & Adams, P. D. (2019). Acta Cryst. D75, 861–877. Web of Science CrossRef IUCr Journals Google Scholar
MacKenzie, A. K., Kershaw, N. J., Hernandez, H., Robinson, C. V., Schofield, C. J. & Andersson, I. (2007). Biochemistry, 46, 1523–1533. Web of Science CrossRef PubMed CAS Google Scholar
Moulin, L., Klonowska, A., Caroline, B., Booth, K., Vriezen, J. A., Melkonian, R., James, E. K., Young, J. P., Bena, G., Hauser, L., Land, M., Kyrpides, N., Bruce, D., Chain, P., Copeland, A., Pitluck, S., Woyke, T., Lizotte-Waniewski, M., Bristow, J. & Riley, M. (2014). Stand. Genomic Sci. 9, 763–774. CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
Myler, P. J., Stacy, R., Stewart, L., Staker, B. L., Van Voorhis, W. C., Varani, G. & Buchko, G. W. (2009). Infect. Disord. Drug Targets, 9, 493–506. CrossRef PubMed CAS Google Scholar
Pereira, J. H., Heins, R. A., Gall, D. L., McAndrew, R. P., Deng, K., Holland, K. C., Donohue, T. J., Noguera, D. R., Simmons, B. A., Sale, K. L., Ralph, J. & Adams, P. D. (2016). J. Biol. Chem. 291, 10228–10238. Web of Science CrossRef CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Poe, R. H., Vassallo, C. L. & Domm, B. M. (1971). Am. Rev. Respir. Dis. 104, 427–431. CrossRef CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Raymond, A., Haffner, T., Ng, N., Lorimer, D., Staker, B. & Stewart, L. (2011). Acta Cryst. F67, 992–997. Web of Science CrossRef IUCr Journals Google Scholar
Sawana, A., Adeolu, M. & Gupta, R. S. (2014). Front. Genet. 5, 429. Web of Science CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
Serbzhinskiy, D. A., Clifton, M. C., Sankaran, B., Staker, B. L., Edwards, T. E. & Myler, P. J. (2015). Acta Cryst. F71, 594–599. Web of Science CrossRef IUCr Journals Google Scholar
Stacy, R., Begley, D. W., Phan, I., Staker, B. L., Van Voorhis, W. C., Varani, G., Buchko, G. W., Stewart, L. J. & Myler, P. J. (2011). Acta Cryst. F67, 979–984. Web of Science CrossRef IUCr Journals Google Scholar
Tanaka, N., Nonaka, T., Tanabe, T., Yoshimoto, T., Tsuru, D. & Mitsui, Y. (1996). Biochemistry, 35, 7715–7730. CrossRef CAS PubMed Web of Science Google Scholar
Vagin, A. & Teplyakov, A. (2010). Acta Cryst. D66, 22–25. Web of Science CrossRef CAS IUCr Journals Google Scholar
Vandamme, P., Goris, J., Chen, W. M., de Vos, P. & Willems, A. (2002). Syst. Appl. Microbiol. 25, 507–512. Web of Science CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
Veluthat, C., Venkatnarayan, K., Padaki, P. & Krishnaswamy, U. M. (2021). BMJ Case Rep 14, e242499. Google Scholar
Yabuuchi, E., Kosako, Y., Oyaizu, H., Yano, I., Hotta, H., Hashimoto, Y., Ezaki, T. & Arakawa, M. (1992). Microbiol. Immunol. 36, 1251–1275. CrossRef PubMed CAS Web of Science Google Scholar
Zhou-qi, C., Bo, Z., Guan-lin, X., Bin, L. & Shi-wen, H. (2016). Rice Sci. 23, 111–118. Google Scholar
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) Licence, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original authors and source are cited.