Previous Article | Next Article ![]()
Journal of Bacteriology, December 2001, p. 7135-7144, Vol. 183, No. 24
Microbiology Unit, Department of
Biochemistry, University of Oxford, Oxford OX1 3QU, United Kingdom
Received 25 June 2001/Accepted 18 September 2001
Rhodobacter sphaeroides has multiple homologues of
most of the Escherichia coli chemotaxis genes, organized
in three major operons and other, unlinked, loci. These include
cheA1 and
cheR1 (che
Op1) and cheA2,
cheR2, and
cheB1 (che Op2). In-frame deletions of these
cheR and cheB homologues were constructed
and the chemosensory behaviour of the resultant mutants examined on
swarm plates and in tethered cell assays. Under the conditions tested,
CheR2 and CheB1 were essential for normal
chemotaxis, whereas CheR1 was not.
cheR2 and
cheB1, but not
cheR1, were also able to complement
the equivalent E. coli mutants. However, none of the
proteins were required for the correct polar localization of the
chemoreceptor McpG in R. sphaeroides. In E.
coli, CheR binds to the NWETF motif on the high-abundance
receptors, allowing methylation of both high- and low-abundance
receptors. This motif is not contained on any R. sphaeroides chemoreceptors thus far identified, although 2 of the 13 putative chemoreceptors, McpA and TlpT, do have similar sequences. This suggests that CheR2 either interacts with
the NWETF motif of E. coli methyl-accepting chemotaxis
proteins (MCPs), even though its native motif may be slightly
different, or with another conserved region of the MCPs. Methanol
release measurements show that R. sphaeroides has an
adaptation system that is different from that of Bacillus
subtilis and E. coli, with methanol release measurable on the addition of attractant but not on its removal. Intriguingly, CheA2, but not CheA1, is able to
phosphorylate CheB1, suggesting that signaling through
CheA1 cannot initiate feedback receptor adaptation via
CheB1-P.
Since bacteria are too small to
sense a gradient along their length, they employ a system of temporal
sensing. This allows them to detect concentration changes over
distances equivalent to several body lengths. Many bacterial species
possess a chemosensory system that allows the comparison of the current
concentration of chemoeffectors in the environment to that encountered
a few seconds previously. Bacterial chemotaxis has been studied most extensively in Escherichia coli and Salmonella
enterica serovar Typhimurium (for reviews, see references 2,
8, and 46). In a homogeneous environment E. coli shows a random swimming pattern of "runs" (periods of
smooth swimming) and "tumbles" (periods of reorientation caused by
flagellum bundle disruption). When the concentration of an attractant
is increased, the cells exhibit a greatly reduced frequency of
tumbling, increasing the chance that they will swim toward the source
of attractant. After a few seconds the cells adapt, reverting to their
prestimulus tumbling bias, and are capable of responding to a
subsequent change in chemoeffector concentration. Sensory adaptation is
essential for temporal sensing and for the accumulation of bacteria in
environments that are optimal for growth.
Methyl-accepting chemotaxis proteins (MCPs) are both the site of
initial signal transduction and of adaptation in the chemosensory pathway (for reviews, see references 10 and
28). These proteins function as homodimers. They have two
transmembrane helices flanking a periplasmic ligand-binding domain and
a cytoplasmic signaling domain. The latter domain is highly conserved
among the MCPs of eubacterial and archaeal species (27).
It contains specific glutamate residues in two regions, K1 and R1,
which are methylated during adaptation. Methyl groups are transferred
to the specific glutamate residues of the MCPs from
S-adenosylmethionine by a constitutively active
methyltransferase, CheR (44). These groups are removed by
the methylesterase, CheB (54), and released as methanol
(18). CheB activity is increased on its phosphorylation by
CheA-P (15). CheB has a regulatory N-terminal domain and a
C-terminal catalytic, amidase-esterase domain (9).
Inhibition of the catalytic domain is reduced upon phosphorylation of
the regulatory domain by CheA-P (23). The ligand occupancy
of the periplasmic domain of the MCP reflects the current chemoeffector concentration, whereas the methylation state of the cytoplasmic domain
is a "record" of the concentration a few seconds previously. Methylated MCPs are more proficient at CheA activation than
unmethylated MCPs (5). When a repellent binds or an
attractant leaves the ligand-binding domain of the MCP, a signal is
transmitted through a cytoplasmic linker protein CheW to CheA (6,
7, 29). CheA autophosphorylates and the phosphoryl group is
transferred either to CheY or, at a slower rate, to CheB. CheY-P binds
to FliM, effecting a switch in the direction of flagellar motor
rotation and hence a tumble. CheB-P demethylates the MCPs, reducing the level of CheA activation by the MCPs. Conversely, when the attractant concentration increases, CheY-P and CheB-P levels decrease. In response
to a persistent stimulus, the cells achieve a steady state of MCP
methylation. This restores the prestimulus pattern of runs and tumbles,
allowing a response to subsequent changes in concentration of chemoeffector.
By modulating the methylation state of the MCPs, CheR and CheB-P enable
adaptation of the chemosensory system to a background level of
chemoeffector. CheR and CheB have been extensively studied in E. coli (for recent reviews, see references 9 and
17). CheR is predominantly found associated with the
extreme C-terminal pentapeptide, NWETF, of the high-abundance receptor
proteins Tsr and Tar in a 1:1 molar ratio (53). The Trp at
the second position and the Phe at the last position are critical
(38). The NWETF motif is not present in the
"low-abundance" receptors Tap and Trg. Cells expressing only
low-abundance receptors exhibit poor swarming, impaired MCP
methylation, and compromised adaptation (11, 51). Fusion
of the NWETF motif to the C terminus of Trg greatly enhances
methylation and chemotaxis in a strain expressing Trg as the sole
receptor (12). This suggests that the binding of CheR to
this motif is critical for methylation and thus adaptation.
Sensory adaptation in nonenteric bacteria shows some variations on the
E. coli paradigm. For example, in the gram-positive bacterium Bacillus subtilis, CheY-P causes periods of
smooth-swimming as opposed to tumbling. In addition, this bacterium
shows CheB-dependent methanol release both upon addition and removal of
attractant (19, 47). Remethylation of the MCPs appears to
be dependent on phosphorylated CheY (20). B. subtilis has two further proteins, CheC and CheD, which are
required for normal methylation (33, 34). CheC inhibits
CheR activity and hence reduces MCP methylation. CheD is thought to
facilitate CheA activation and is required for CheR activity
(33). The archaeon Halobacterium salinarum also
shows increased turnover of methyl groups in response to both positive
and negative chemical and light stimuli (1, 43). Together,
these differences suggest that chemotaxis and adaptation are more
complex in many other species than they are in enteric bacteria.
The purple, nonsulfur, The discovery of CheR and CheB homologues in R. sphaeroides
and the identification of MCPs with conserved glutamyl residues suggest
a role for methylation-dependent chemotaxis. In this study we set out
to examine the function of CheR1,
CheR2, and CheB1 in
R. sphaeroides chemotaxis.
Bacterial strains and growth conditions.
Bacterial strains
and plasmids are shown in Tables 1 and 2.
R. sphaeroides strains were grown in succinate medium
(39) at 30°C, either aerobically or
photoheterotrophically as described previously (26). E. coli strains were grown at
37°C in Luria-Bertani (LB) medium. The antibiotics kanamycin,
nalidixic acid, and streptomycin were used at 25 µg/ml, and
ampicillin was used at 100 µg/ml.
0021-9193/01/$04.00+0 DOI: 10.1128/JB.183.24.7135-7144.2001
Copyright © 2001, American Society for Microbiology. All rights reserved.
CheR- and CheB-Dependent Chemosensory Adaptation
System of Rhodobacter sphaeroides

![]()
ABSTRACT
Top
Abstract
Introduction
Materials and Methods
Results
Discussion
References
![]()
INTRODUCTION
Top
Abstract
Introduction
Materials and Methods
Results
Discussion
References
-subgroup bacterium Rhodobacter
sphaeroides provides an alternative model system for the study of chemotaxis. It can grow aerobically, photoheterotrophically, and anaerobically in the dark by using a variety of alternative electron acceptors. It exhibits taxis toward various chemoeffectors, light, and
oxygen (4). Transport and partial metabolism are required for some chemosensory responses (16), and the extent of
the responses can depend on the growth conditions. Unlike E. coli and B. subtilis, R. sphaeroides changes
swimming direction by interrupting flagellar rotation (2,
3). Upon an increase in attractant concentration the frequency
of stops decreases (32). R. sphaeroides
possesses multiple homologues of the E. coli chemotaxis genes arranged in three operons and at other unlinked loci.
che Op1 contains cheD,
cheY1, cheA1,
cheW1, cheR1, and
cheY2, and che
Op2 contains
cheY3,
cheA2, cheW2,
cheW3, cheR2,
cheB1, and tlpC (13, 37,
49). Thirteen chemoreceptors, including both membrane-spanning
and cytoplasmic or transducer-like proteins (Tlps), have been
identified to date. These are differentially expressed according to the
environmental condition (14). It is not known whether the
products of the che operons operate through independent,
linear pathways or whether there is significant cross talk between the
components of these operons. It is interesting that, while most of the
receptors identified in R. sphaeroides have conserved
glutamate residues which could be involved in adaptation, only two
(McpA and TlpT) contain a motif with limited homology to the
CheR-binding site (50;
www.jgi.doe.gov/JGI_microbial/html/rhodobacter/rhodob_homepage.html). R. sphaeroides also possesses a homologue of the
B. subtilis adaptation protein, CheD, but no CheC encoding
gene has been identified.
![]()
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Top
Abstract
Introduction
Materials and Methods
Results
Discussion
References
TABLE 1.
Strains used in this study
TABLE 2.
Plasmids used in this study
Molecular genetic techniques All cloning steps were carried out by standard methods (35). Sequencing-quality plasmid DNA was extracted by using the Plasmid Midi-Kit (Qiagen) or the WizardPlus kit (Promega), sequenced by the University of Oxford Biochemistry sequencing service, and analyzed with the GCG software package (University of Wisconsin). PCRs were carried out by using Pfu DNA polymerase (Stratagene and Promega) and purified as described previously (26). All primers were synthesized by Genosys Biotechnologies, Inc.
Construction of deletion strains Regions upstream and downstream from the gene of interest were cloned together into pK18mobsacB, as detailed below, and sequenced to ensure that they were in frame and contained no PCR misincorporation errors. These constructs were introduced into the chromosome of R. sphaeroides by allelic exchange as described previously (13, 36).
cheR1 A 0.42-kb region immediately upstream of cheR1 was cut from pCHE3.1 with EcoRI and PstI and cloned into pUC19 to generate plasmid pACM35. A 0.4-kb fragment immediately downstream of cheR1 was cut from pCHE3.1 with BglII and PstI, pACM35 was linearized with PstI, the single-stranded ends of both fragments were filled in with T4 DNA polymerase, and the two were ligated together. The resultant plasmid with the upstream and downstream regions in the correct orientation was designated pACM36. The entire insert from this pUC19 derivative was excised with EcoRI and HindIII and ligated into similarly cut pK18mobsacB to generate the final construct pAG1.
cheR2 A 0.54-kb region immediately upstream of cheR2 was amplified by PCR by using primers that encompassed the start codon and that included 5' EcoRI and 3' BamHI sites. A 0.54-kb region that contained the downstream flanking sequence of cheR2, including the ribosome-binding site of cheB1, was amplified by PCR with primers that included 5' BamHI and 3' HindIII sites. The first PCR product was cloned into appropriately cut pK18mobsacB to produce plasmid pHV3. The second PCR product was ligated into pHV3 cut with BamHI and HindIII to generate pHV4.
cheB1 A 1.4-kb region immediately upstream of cheB1 was cut from pJPA112 with PstI and PvuII. A 1.4-kb region immediately downstream of cheB1 was cut from pJPA113 with EcoRI, the single-stranded ends filled in with T4 DNA polymerase and then cut again with BamHI. These were cloned together into pUC19 cut with PstI and BamHI to generate pTJC10. The entire insert from this plasmid was excised with PstI and BamHI and ligated into similarly cut pK18mobsacB to generate pTJC11.
R. sphaeroides behavioral assays Swarm plates containing 0.25% agar (BiTek; Difco) and 100 µM attractant were inoculated and incubated as described elsewhere (26). Each experiment was performed in triplicate and repeated three times to generate nine data sets.
Aerobic and photoheterotrophic cells were analyzed by the tethered cell assay as described in detail previously (26). At least three data sets, which together included at least 10 cells, were collected for each strain. Growth rates were measured as described in Martin et al. (26).Construction of expression plasmids.
The coding sequences
(excluding the ATG start codon) of cheR1,
cheR2, and
cheB1 were amplified by PCR with primers
incorporating exogenous 5' and 3' restriction sites facilitating
in-frame cloning into pQE30 (Qiagen). The fragments were cloned such
that expression was under the control of the IPTG
(isopropyl-
-D-thiogalactopyranoside)-inducible tac promoter and that the protein products would have an
N-terminal tag of six-histidine residues to facilitate purification.
The cheR1,
cheR2, and
cheB1 fragments had 5' BamHI
and 3'HindIII sites and, once cloned, generated
expression plasmids pQE30R1, pQE30R2, and pQE30B1, respectively. The
cloning of cheA1 and
cheA2 in pQE30 has been described
previously (37). Sequence analysis of the clones revealed
no PCR misincorporation errors.
E. coli behavioral assay. E. coli swarming assays were carried out by a modification of the method of Wolfe et al.(52). RP437, RP1254, and RP4972 were each transformed with pREP4 prior to transformation with the cheR1, cheR2, or cheB1 expression plasmids. pREP4, which expresses the LacIq repressor protein, minimizes "leaky" expression from Ptac. The strains carrying the appropriate expression plasmids were grown overnight in LB broth with ampicillin and kanamycin at 30°C. LB swarm plates containing 0.25% agar, antibiotics as appropriate, and IPTG at 0, 1, 10, 100, or 1,000 µM were inoculated in triplicate with 5 µl of the stationary-phase culture and incubated at 30°C. RP437 swarm plates were photographed after 8 h, and swarm plates of the mutant strains were photographed after 15 h of incubation.
Growth rates were measured as described by Shah et al. (37).Methanol release experiments
A modified
version of the methanol release assay developed for R.
sphaeroides was used (21). All experiments were
carried out under photoheterotrophic conditions. Cells were grown to an optical density at 660 nm (OD660) of between 0.8 and 1.2, and a volume adjusted for cell number was harvested by centrifugation. The pellet was washed once in 1 ml of HEPES-Cm buffer (10 mM Na-HEPES [pH 7.2]-50 µg of chloramphenicol ml
1, sparged with
nitrogen), resuspended in 1 ml of HEPES-Cm, and incubated for 40 min
with illumination at 50 µM m
2 s
1 with 40 µl of
L-[methyl-3H]methionine (0.06 µmol ml
1; specific activity, 185 mCi
mmol
1; Amersham). The cells were harvested, washed in
HEPES-Cm buffer, and loaded onto a sterile 0.45-µm (pore size)
syringe filter (Nalgene). HEPES-Cm buffer was passed through the filter
for 30 min to remove the excess radiolabel. The flow rate was adjusted
to 1 ml min
1. Each experiment included monitoring of (i)
prestimulus behavior (HEPES-Cm buffer for 10 min), (ii) the response to
1 mM sodium propionate in HEPES-Cm (10 min), and (iii) the response to
its replacement by HEPES-Cm without attractant (10 min). Next, 0.5-ml samples were collected and subjected to vapor-phase transfer into 7 ml
of Optiphase Hi-Safe scintillation fluid (Fisher) for 16 h, and
the radioactivity was measured in a Beckman 5000TD scintillation counter. At least three data sets were collected for each experiment.
Purification of CheA1, CheA2, and CheB1 Cells containing the appropriate expression plasmids were grown in 2YT medium with antibiotics as appropriate to an OD600 of 0.8 at 37°C. Expression was induced by the addition of 0.1 mM IPTG for 20 h at 18°C. After induction, cells were harvested by centrifugation (6,000 × g, 15 min) and resuspended in lysis buffer (10% [vol/vol] glycerol; 50 mM Tris-HCl, pH 8.0; 150 mM NaCl; 10 mM imidazole; 1 mM dithiothreitol [DTT]) in a volume of 60 ml per liter of the original culture. Cells were lysed by sonication on ice for six 20-s intervals (Vibracell; Sonics and Materials, Inc.). Lysates were cleared by centrifugation (35,000 × g, 15 min) and filtration of the supernatant through a 0.45-µm (pore-size) syringe filter. The filtered supernatant was applied to a Ni-nitrilotriacetic acid agarose column (Qiagen) equilibrated with lysis buffer. The column was washed with 60 column volumes of lysis buffer prior to elution of the protein in lysis buffer supplemented with 250 mM imidazole.
Phosphotransfer assays.
All reactions were performed in
TGMNKD buffer (50 mM Tris-HCl, pH 8.0; 10% [vol/vol] glycerol; 5 mM
MgCl2; 150 mM NaCl; 50 mM KCl; 1 mM DTT) at
20°C. Then, a 5 µM concentration of either CheA1 or CheA2 was
preincubated with 0.5 mM [
-32P]ATP (14 GBq
mmol
1; Amersham) for 15 min before the addition
of CheB1 in a final reaction volume of 100 µl.
A 10-µl sample was taken prior to addition of
CheB1 (T = 0). After the addition
of CheB1, 10-µl samples were taken at the
intervals shown and quenched in 5 µl of 3× sodium dodecyl sulfate
(SDS)-EDTA loading dye (7.5% [wt/vol] SDS; 90 mM EDTA; 37.5 mM
Tris-HCl, pH 6.8; 37.5% [vol/vol] glycerol; 3% [vol/vol]
-mercaptoethanol). Samples were heated to 65°C for 30 s prior
to SDS-polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis (PAGE) on 15% gels according
to the method of Laemmli (22). Gels were dried and exposed
to phosphor screens (Kodak), and the radioactive bands were detected by
using an SF-PhosphorImager with ImageQuant version 5.0 software
(Molecular Dynamics).
Construction of egfp fusions and fluorescence microscopy. A pK18mobsacB derivative, pGW41, that contained mcpG fused in-frame to egfp from pEGFP-N1 (Clontech), together with downstream flanking sequences, was used to generate strain JPA500 in a recent study (48). This strain contained mcpG-egfp in place of the wild-type gene in the chromosome. The pK18mobsacB derivatives for the deletion of cheR1, cheR2, and cheB1 (pAG1, pHV4, and pTJC11, respectively) were introduced into JPA500 to generate deletion mutants in the mcpG-egfp fusion background (JPA569, JPA564, and JPA516, respectively).
Fluorescence microscopy was performed as described previously (48).| |
RESULTS |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Deletion analysis of cheR1, cheR2, and cheB1. The predicted amino acid sequences of CheR1 (encoded in che Op1, accession no. X80205) and of CheR2 and CheB1 (encoded in che Op2, accession no. AJ000977) were compared with the equivalent proteins from E. coli and B. subtilis. The CheR1, CheR2, and CheB1 of R. sphaeroides have 43, 37, and 47% identity, respectively, with the corresponding E. coli proteins and were therefore designated homologues of these adaptation enzymes.
Unmarked strains were constructed with cheR1 (JPA568), cheR2 (JPA565), or cheB1 (JPA517) deleted in frame. The responses of these strains to gradients of chemoattractants (see Materials and Methods) was compared to the wild-type strain WS8N on swarm plates, under both aerobic and photoheterotrophic conditions (Fig. 1). Deletion of cheR1 had no significant effect on swarming ability in comparison to the wild-type strain under both environmental conditions (P > 0.05). However, deletion of either cheR2 or cheB1 resulted in a similar, significant decrease in swarm size to most attractants tested under both environmental conditions (P < 0.05). Only the swarms toward fumarate and malate under photoheterotrophic conditions showed no statistical difference; however, these attractants also cause very limited swarming with the wild type under photoheterotrophic conditions. All of the mutants showed normal growth rates (data not shown).
|
cheR1 strain displayed wild-type
responses to the addition and removal of propionate under both
environmental conditions (Fig. 2c and d). The rotation rate of
unstimulated cells showed some variability, but this was not strain
dependent. In contrast, responses were lost to both the addition and
the removal of propionate under both environmental conditions in both the
cheR2 and
cheB1 strains (Fig. 2e, f, g, and h).
Thus, under the conditions tested, CheR2 and
CheB1 were essential for chemotaxis in both swarm
plate and tethered cell assays, whereas CheR1 was dispensable. However, strains deleted for either
cheR2 or
cheB1 retained a stopping frequency
similar to unstimulated wild-type cells, unlike the corresponding
E. coli mutants that are either exclusively smooth swimming
or tumbly, respectively (data not shown; see references 42
and 54).
|
Expression of CheR1, CheR2, and
CheB1 of R. sphaeroides in wild-type and
mutant strains of E. coli
CheR1,
CheR2, and CheB1 of R.
sphaeroides were expressed as N-terminal His6
fusions from plasmid pQE30 in E. coli strains RP437
(wild type), RP1254 (
cheR), and RP4972
(
cheB). In each case, upon induction with IPTG, bands
of the correct size were detected by SDS-PAGE (data not shown). The
effects of this expression on swarming behavior are shown in Fig.
3. CheR1 did not restore swarming to RP1254 at any level of induction (data not shown). CheR2 complemented RP1254 when induced at low levels (up to
10 µM IPTG [Fig. 3a]), restoring the ability of RP1254 to form
chemotaxis rings in swarm plates. CheR2 inhibited swarming
of RP437 at IPTG concentrations of
100 µM, but there was a severe
inhibition of growth at these levels of induction (data not shown). At
lower levels of induction there was no effect on swarming (Fig. 3b). CheB1 complemented RP4972 only in the absence of IPTG (Fig.
3c). IPTG concentrations of 1, 10, and 100 µM abolished
complementation by CheB1 but did not affect growth rate
(data not shown). CheB1 inhibited swarming of RP437 in the
absence of IPTG without affecting the growth rate (Fig. 3b). Thus,
there is some expression from the noninduced Ptac promoter
even in the presence of pREP4. Complementation of both the E.
coli mutant strains required an incubation period of 15 h
to achieve swarm sizes comparable to those obtained with the wild-type
strain, RP437, after 8 h. However, swarm rings were observed in
all cases where partial complementation was observed, indicating
restoration of some chemotaxis. Microscopic examination revealed that
the presence of R. sphaeroides CheB1 reduced
the high tumbling bias of RP4972 and CheR2 reduced the
smooth bias of RP1254 (data not shown). Together, these data suggest
that CheR2 and CheB1 from R.
sphaeroides function as adaptation enzymes and are able, at
least in part, to complement the equivalent E. coli
mutations.
|
Methanol release during the chemotactic response.
To
investigate the methylation of R. sphaeroides MCPs, the
pattern of methanol release from the wild-type strain, WS8N, was assessed. WS8N cells showed a release of methanol upon the addition of
1 mM propionate but not upon its removal (Fig.
4a). This is different from the pattern
of methanol release seen both in E. coli and in B. subtilis. To determine the roles of CheR1,
CheR2, and CheB1 in this
methanol production, the three deletion strains JPA568, JPA565, and
JPA517 were investigated. In cells deleted for
cheR1, methanol was detected upon
both the addition and the removal of 1 mM propionate (Fig. 4b).
Interestingly, a mutant lacking all of che
Op1 (JPA117) showed a wild-type response to the
addition of propionate with methanol release upon addition but not upon
its removal (Fig. 4c). At least three data sets were collected for each
strain. Thus, the methanol released upon the removal of propionate in
the
cheR1 strain must depend on one or
more components encoded by che Op1
other than cheR1.
|
Phosphorylation of CheB1 by CheA1 and
CheA2.
The transfer of phosphoryl groups from purified
CheA1 and CheA2 to purified
CheB1 in the presence of ATP was measured in
vitro. CheA1 and CheA2 both
autophosphorylated when preincubated with [
-32P]ATP. CheB1 was
added to each of the phosphorylated CheA preparations, and the transfer
of label was monitored (Fig. 5).
CheA2-32P was able
to transfer phosphoryl groups to CheB1, but there
was no detectable phosphotransfer from
CheA1-32P. Control
reactions showed that there was no change in the level of label on the
CheAs when CheB1 was not added. Furthermore,
CheB1 was not phosphorylated in reaction mixtures
containing labeled ATP but lacking either of the CheAs (data not
shown).
|
Effect of deletions on MCP localization.
In E. coli
MCPs are localized to the poles of the cell, and this localization is
dependent on CheW and CheA but not on CheR and CheB (24, 25,
40). A chemoreceptor of R. sphaeroides, McpG, also
forms clusters at a single pole of the cell. Correct localization of
this MCP is dependent upon components of che Op2 (26, 48). We investigated the effect of
CheR1, CheR2, and CheB1 on the localization of McpG in R. sphaeroides cells by generating strains containing the
mcpG-egfp fusion in mutants deleted of cheR1 (JPA569),
cheR2 (JPA564), and
cheB1 (JPA516). The pattern of
fluorescence of the McpG-GFP fusion strain in a WS8N background (JPA500) was compared to that shown by the fusion in the deletion backgrounds (Table 3). The localization
of the fusion protein was scored as "one pole" (as seen in 93.7%
of cells with a wild-type background [JPA500])or "aberrant."
Aberrant localization included cells showing similar levels of
fluorescence at both poles and fluorescence not associated with the
cell pole. Wild-type cells that did not contain the
mcpG-egfp fusion did not fluoresce. The McpG-GFP fusion
localized to one pole in 95.4% of the
cheR1 cells, 94.9% of the
cheR2 cells, and 97.0% of the
cheB1 cells (Table 3). A similar
localization profile was observed with photoheterotrophically grown
cells (data not shown). Therefore, localization of McpG does not depend
upon CheR1, CheR2, or
CheB1. This indicates that the adaptation
proteins of R. sphaeroides are not essential for normal McpG
clustering at a pole.
|
| |
DISCUSSION |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Several observations have led to the suggestion that MCPs and methylation-dependent adaptation may have a role in R. sphaeroides chemotaxis. In this study we examined the R. sphaeroides adaptation enzyme homologues CheR1, CheR2, and CheB1 by genetic and biochemical approaches.
Deletion of the che Op1 encoded
cheR1 does not affect the ability of
R. sphaeroides to respond to the compounds tested either on
swarm plates or in tethered cell assays under aerobic or
photoheterotrophic conditions, a finding consistent with the report of
Hamblin et al. (13). The inability of
CheR1 to complement a
cheR mutant of E. coli indicates that CheR1 is
unable to substitute for the CheR of E. coli. This is of
interest since CheR1 shares greater sequence
identity with the E. coli protein than does
CheR2 (43 and 37%, respectively). The methanol
release data do, however, suggest that CheR1 has
a role, as yet unidentified, in R. sphaeroides chemotaxis.
The deletion of either cheR2 or cheB1, which both lie within che Op2, resulted in a nonchemotactic phenotype under aerobic and photoheterotrophic conditions, both on swarm plates and in tethered cell assays. Both CheR2 and CheB1 can substitute for the corresponding homologues in E. coli. These findings suggest that CheR2 is the principal methyltransferase under laboratory conditions and that CheB1 functions as a methylesterase. The formation of swarm rings by the complemented strains demonstrates that CheR2 and CheB1 support chemotaxis in E. coli and are not simply restoring the tumble bias. CheR2 and CheB1, unlike CheR1, must therefore allow adaptation of these E. coli MCPs. The CheR of E. coli binds to the conserved NWETF motif on the high-abundance receptors, allowing methylation of both high- and low-abundance receptors (12). This motif has not been identified on any R. sphaeroides chemoreceptors, including the highly expressed McpG, although McpA and TlpT have similar motifs (GWEDF and GFEDF, respectively). However, McpA is expressed at low levels under the conditions tested, and its deletion has no effects on chemosensory behavior (unpublished data), whereas transmembrane prediction analysis shows that TlpT is probably a cytoplasmic protein. The ability of CheR2 to function in the E. coli chemosensory pathway is interesting, since it suggests that CheR2 is either able to interact with this motif, even though its native binding motif may be different, or CheR2 may interact with a different, conserved region of the MCPs.
In E. coli, null mutants of cheR and cheB cause smooth-swimming and tumbly phenotypes, respectively (42, 54). However, these strains retain the ability to respond (although not adapt) to changes in chemoattractant concentration (45, 54). Thus, while the strains appear nonchemotactic on swarm plates, changes in flagellar switching frequency are observed on the addition or the removal of attractant in tethered cell and free-swimming assays. In R. sphaeroides, deletion of either cheR2 or cheB1 results in a strain that is nonchemotactic on swarm plates. However, unlike the equivalent E. coli mutants, these strains are incapable of responding to the addition or the removal of attractant in the tethered cell assay. In addition, these strains retain a stopping frequency similar to that of unstimulated wild-type cells. Therefore, while R. sphaeroides contains homologues of the E. coli adaptation enzymes that will complement the equivalent E. coli mutations, the phenotypes observed on their deletion are significantly different. Further investigations are ongoing to determine whether these differences are the result of the multiple homologues of the adaptation enzymes present in R. sphaeroides or reflect a more substantial difference in the adaptation pathway between E. coli and R. sphaeroides.
Modified experimental conditions allowed us to demonstrate for the
first time methanol release upon challenge with chemoeffector. Methanol
production was observed upon the addition of 1 mM propionate but not
upon its removal. This is in contrast to the pattern of methanol
release in E. coli, where release is associated with the
increased methylesterase activity of CheB-P, resulting in reduced
activation of CheA by the MCPs. In R. sphaeroides methanol release upon the addition of propionate was abolished in both a
cheB1 strain and in a
cheR2 strain. Taken together with the complementation data, this suggests that CheR2 is
the principal methyltransferase and that CheB1 is
the principal methylesterase.
Unexpectedly, methanol release was observed upon both the addition and
the removal of propionate in the
cheR1
strain. However, despite this difference in the pattern of methanol
release, the
cheR1 strain was capable
of exhibiting normal chemotaxis both on swarm plates and in the
tethered cell assay. This is a similar pattern to that observed in
wild-type B. subtilis and H. salinarum cells
(19, 30, 47). In B. subtilis the additional
proteins CheC and CheD are required for chemoreceptor methylation.
orf1 in che
Op1 (49) has 29% similarity with
cheD from B. subtilis. The methanol release
profile in the
che Op1 strain was
similar to that of wild-type cells. Therefore, the methanol produced
upon the removal of propionate in the
cheR1 strain depends on components of
che Op1, possibly the cheD
homologue. This would suggest that there is an interaction between the
CheD and CheR1 of R. sphaeroides. In
B. subtilis, CheD has been shown to interact with the
protein CheC (34), although the mechanism by which CheD
regulates chemotaxis in B. subtilis remains unclear.
However, despite the presence of CheD, R. sphaeroides has no
apparent CheC homologue. Investigations are under way to determine
whether any CheR1-CheD interaction exists and
also the role of these proteins in adaptation in R. sphaeroides. It is clear that both CheR2 and
CheB1 share some functional similarity with the
equivalent adaptation enzymes of E. coli, as demonstrated by
the complementation and methanol release data. However, adaptation to
chemical stimuli in R. sphaeroides is more complex than in
E. coli and also shows some similarity with the system of
B. subtilis.
CheB1 has an important role in methylation-dependent chemotaxis. It is essential for chemotaxis in swarm plates and in tethered cell assays. CheB1 is also required for a normal pattern of methanol production. Complementation data show that it shares functional similarity with its E. coli counterpart and hence may be phosphorylated by E. coli CheA. In vitro phosphotransfer assays demonstrated that in R. sphaeroides CheB1 is phosphorylated by CheA2 but not by CheA1 (although both CheA1 and CheA2 can autophosphorylate in vitro). This finding is surprising since it suggests that any signal mediated by CheA1 cannot be subject to feedback adaptation via CheB1-P. The intriguing disparity between the ability of the CheAs to phosphorylate CheB1 is not readily identifiable from a comparison of the sequences of the two histidine protein kinases.
In agreement with a previous study in which it was shown that components of che Op1were not required for McpG-GFP clustering (48), CheR1 is not required for correct McpG-GFP localization. Furthermore, neither of the che Op2-encoded proteins, CheR2 and CheB1, was required for the aggregation of McpG in a chemoreceptor complex. Similarly, in E. coli CheR and CheB are not required for receptor clustering (24). The methylation state of the deletion mutants is likely to be altered with respect to the wild-type and therefore, as in E. coli, the methylation state of the chemoreceptor complex does not affect receptor localization. In this regard at least, the CheR1, CheR2, and CheB1 proteins of R. sphaeroides have properties similar to those of their counterparts in E. coli.
We have investigated the roles of CheR1, CheR2, and CheB1 from R. sphaeroides. It is clear that adaptation to chemoeffectors in this bacterium will not conform to the E. coli paradigm. The mechanism of adaptation may share some similarity with the gram-positive organism B. subtilis and the archeon H. salinarum, but there are also crucial differences between the species. The data presented here illustrate selectivity and discrimination within the histidine protein kinase and the response regulator components of the R. sphaeroides che pathways. The completion of the R. sphaeroides genome indicates additional CheR and CheB homologues, and investigations into the role of the multiple proteins in behavior and adaptation are under way to derive an alternative model by which bacteria may adapt to chemotactic stimuli.
| |
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS |
|---|
We thank J. S. Parkinson for the E. coli
cheR and
cheB mutants.
This work was supported by the BBSRC, and T.J.C. was the recipient of an undergraduate bursary from the Nuffield Foundation.
| |
FOOTNOTES |
|---|
* Corresponding author. Mailing address: Microbiology Unit, Department of Biochemistry, University of Oxford, South Parks Road, Oxford, OX1 3QU, United Kingdom. Phone: 44-1865-275299. Fax: 44-1865-275297. E-mail: armitage{at}bioch.ox.ac.uk.
Present address: Department of Oral Biology, Dental School,
University of Newcastle, Newcastle-upon-Tyne NE2 4BW, United Kingdom.
| |
REFERENCES |
|---|
|
|
|---|
| 1. | Alam, M., M. Lebert, D. Oesterhelt, and G. L. Hazelbauer. 1989. Methyl-accepting taxis proteins in Halobacterium halobium. EMBO J. 8:631-639[Medline]. |
| 2. | Armitage, J. P. 1999. Bacterial tactic responses. Adv. Microb. Physiol. 41:229-289[Medline]. |
| 3. |
Armitage, J. P., and R. M. Macnab.
1987.
Unidirectional intermittent rotation of the flagellum of Rhodobacter sphaeroides.
J. Bacteriol.
169:514-518 |
| 4. |
Armitage, J. P., and R. Schmitt.
1997.
Bacterial chemotaxis: Rhodobacter sphaeroides and Sinorhizobium meliloti variations on a theme?
Microbiology
143:3671-3682 |
| 5. |
Borkovich, K. A.,
L. A. Alex, and M. I. Simon.
1992.
Attenuation of sensory receptor signaling by covalent modification.
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA
89:6756-6760 |
| 6. |
Borkovich, K. A.,
N. Kaplan,
J. F. Hess, and M. I. Simon.
1989.
Transmembrane signal transduction in bacterial chemotaxis involves ligand-dependent activation of phosphate group transfer.
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA
86:1208-1212 |
| 7. | Borkovich, K. A., and M. I. Simon. 1990. The dynamics of protein phosphorylation in bacterial chemotaxis. Cell 63:1339-1348[CrossRef][Medline]. |
| 8. |
Bren, A., and M. Eisenbach.
2000.
How signals are heard during bacterial chemotaxis: protein-protein interactions in sensory signal propagation.
J. Bacteriol.
182:6865-6873 |
| 9. | Djordjevic, S., and A. M. Stock. 1998. Structural analysis of bacterial chemotaxis proteins: components of a dynamic signaling system. J. Struct. Biol. 124:189-200[CrossRef][Medline]. |
| 10. | Falke, J. J., R. B. Bass, S. L. Butler, S. A. Chervitz, and M. A. Danielson. 1997. The two-component signaling pathway of bacterial chemotaxis: a molecular view of signal transduction by receptors, kinases, and adaptation enzymes. Annu. Rev. Cell Dev. Biol. 13:457-512[CrossRef][Medline]. |
| 11. |
Feng, X.,
J. W. Baumgartner, and G. L. Hazelbauer.
1997.
High- and low-abundance chemoreceptors in Escherichia coli: differential activities associated with closely related cytoplasmic domains.
J. Bacteriol.
179:6714-6720 |
| 12. |
Feng, X.,
A. A. Lilly, and G. L. Hazelbauer.
1999.
Enhanced function conferred on low-abundance chemoreceptor Trg by a methyltransferase-docking site.
J. Bacteriol.
181:3164-3171 |
| 13. | Hamblin, P. A., B. A. Maguire, R. N. Grishanin, and J. P. Armitage. 1997. Evidence for two chemosensory pathways in Rhodobacter sphaeroides. Mol. Microbiol. 26:1083-1096[CrossRef][Medline]. |
| 14. | Harrison, D. M., J. Skidmore, J. P. Armitage, and J. R. Maddock. 1999. Localization and environmental regulation of MCP-like proteins in Rhodobacter sphaeroides. Mol. Microbiol. 31:885-892[CrossRef][Medline]. |
| 15. | Hess, J. F., K. Oosawa, N. Kaplan, and M. I. Simon. 1988. Phosphorylation of three proteins in the signalling pathway of bacterial chemotaxis. Cell 53:79-87[CrossRef][Medline]. |
| 16. |
Jeziore-Sassoon, Y.,
P. A. Hamblin,
W. C. Bootle,
P. S. Poole, and J. P. Armitage.
1998.
Metabolism is required for chemotaxis to sugars in Rhodobacter sphaeroides.
Microbiology
144:229-239 |
| 17. | Jurica, M. S., and B. L. Stoddard. 1998. Mind your B's and R's: bacterial chemotaxis, signal transduction and protein recognition. Structure 6:809-813[Medline]. |
| 18. |
Kehry, M. R.,
T. G. Doak, and F. W. Dahlquist.
1984.
Stimulus-induced changes in methylesterase activity during chemotaxis in Escherichia coli.
J. Biol. Chem.
259:11828-11835 |
| 19. | Kirby, J. R., C. J. Kristich, S. L. Feinberg, and G. W. Ordal. 1997. Methanol production during chemotaxis to amino acids in Bacillus subtilis. Mol. Microbiol. 24:869-878[CrossRef][Medline]. |
| 20. |
Kirby, J. R.,
M. M. Saulmon,
C. J. Kristich, and G. W. Ordal.
1999.
CheY-dependent methylation of the asparagine receptor, McpB, during chemotaxis in Bacillus subtilis.
J. Biol. Chem.
274:11092-11100 |
| 21. |
Kort, R.,
W. Crielaard,
J. L. Spudich, and K. J. Hellingwerf.
2000.
Color-sensitive motility and methanol release responses in Rhodobacter sphaeroides.
J. Bacteriol.
182:3017-3021 |
| 22. | Laemmli, U. K. 1970. Cleavage of structural proteins during the assembly of the head of bacteriophage T4. Nature 227:680-685[CrossRef][Medline]. |
| 23. |
Lupas, A., and J. Stock.
1989.
Phosphorylation of an N-terminal regulatory domain activates the CheB methylesterase in bacterial chemotaxis.
J. Biol. Chem.
264:17337-17342 |
| 24. |
Lybarger, S. R., and J. R. Maddock.
1999.
Clustering of the chemoreceptor complex in Escherichia coli is independent of the methyltransferase CheR and the methylesterase CheB.
J. Bacteriol.
181:5527-5529 |
| 25. |
Maddock, J. R., and L. Shapiro.
1993.
Polar location of the chemoreceptor complex in the Escherichia coli cell.
Science
259:1717-1723 |
| 26. | Martin, A. C., G. H. Wadhams, and J. P. Armitage. 2001. The roles of the multiple CheW and CheA homologues in chemotaxis and in chemoreceptor localization in Rhodobacter sphaeroides. Mol. Microbiol. 40:1261-1272[CrossRef][Medline]. |
| 27. |
Morgan, D. G.,
J. B. Baumgartner, and G. L. Hazelbauer.
1993.
Proteins antigenically related to methyl-accepting chemotaxis proteins of Escherichia coli detected in a wide range of bacterial species.
J. Bacteriol.
175:133-140 |
| 28. | Mowbray, S. L., and M. O. Sandgren. 1998. Chemotaxis receptors: a progress report on structure and function. J. Struct. Biol. 124:257-275[CrossRef][Medline]. |
| 29. |
Ninfa, E. G.,
A. Stock,
S. Mowbray, and J. Stock.
1991.
Reconstruction of the bacterial chemotaxis signal transduction system from purified components.
J. Biol. Chem.
266:9764-9770 |
| 30. |
Nordmann, B.,
M. R. Lebert,
M. Alam,
S. Nitz,
H. Kollmannsberger,
D. Oesterhelt, and G. L. Hazelbauer.
1994.
Identification of volatile forms of methyl groups released by Halobacterium salinarium.
J. Biol. Chem.
269:16449-16454 |
| 31. | Penfold, R. J., and J. M. Pemberton. 1992. An improved suicide vector for construction of chromosomal insertion mutations in bacteria. Gene 118:145-146[CrossRef][Medline]. |
| 32. |
Poole, P. S., and J. P. Armitage.
1988.
Motility response of Rhodobacter sphaeroides to chemotactic stimulation.
J. Bacteriol.
170:5673-5679 |
| 33. | Rosario, M. M., J. R. Kirby, D. A. Bochar, and G. W. Ordal. 1995. Chemotactic methylation and behavior in Bacillus subtilis: role of two unique proteins, CheC and CheD. Biochemistry 34:3823-3831[CrossRef][Medline]. |
| 34. | Rosario, M. M., and G. W. Ordal. 1996. CheC and CheD interact to regulate methylation of Bacillus subtilis methyl-accepting chemotaxis proteins. Mol. Microbiol. 21:511-518[CrossRef][Medline]. |
| 35. | Sambrook, J., E. F. Fritsch, and T. Maniatis. 1989. Molecular cloning: a laboratory manual, 2nd ed. Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, Cold Spring Harbor, N.Y. |
| 36. | Schafer, A., A. Tauch, W. Jager, J. Kalinowski, G. Thierbach, and A. Puhler. 1994. Small mobilizable multipurpose cloning vectors derived from the Escherichia coli plasmids pK18 and pK19: selection of defined deletions in the chromosome of Corynebacterium glutamicum. Gene 145:69-73[CrossRef][Medline]. |
| 37. | Shah, D. S., S. L. Porter, D. C. Harris, G. H. Wadhams, P. A. Hamblin, and J. P. Armitage. 2000. Identification of a fourth cheY gene in Rhodobacter sphaeroides and interspecies interaction within the bacterial chemotaxis signal transduction pathway. Mol. Microbiol. 35:101-112[CrossRef][Medline]. |
| 38. | Shiomi, D., H. Okumura, M. Homma, and I. Kawagishi. 2000. The aspartate chemoreceptor Tar is effectively methylated by binding to the methyltransferase mainly through hydrophobic interaction. Mol. Microbiol. 36:132-140[CrossRef][Medline]. |
| 39. |
Sistrom, W. R.
1960.
A requirement for sodium in the growth of Rhodopseudomonas sphaeroides.
J. Gen. Microbiol.
22:778-785 |
| 40. |
Skidmore, J. M.,
D. D. Ellefson,
B. P. McNamara,
M. M. P. Couto,
A. J. Wolfe, and J. R. Maddock.
2000.
Polar clustering of the chemoreceptor complex in Escherichia coli occurs in the absence of complete CheA function.
J. Bacteriol.
182:967-973 |
| 41. | Sockett, R. E., J. C. A. Foster, and J. P. Armitage. 1990. Molecular biology of the Rhodobacter sphaeroides flagellum. FEMS Symp. 53:473-479. |
| 42. |
Springer, W. R., and D. E. Koshland, Jr.
1977.
Identification of a protein methyltransferase as the cheR gene product in the bacterial sensing system.
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA
74:533-537 |
| 43. |
Spudich, E. N.,
T. Takahashi, and J. L. Spudich.
1989.
Sensory rhodopsin I and II modulate a methylation/demethylation system in Halobacterium halobium.
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA
86:7746-7750 |
| 44. | Stock, J. B., S. Clarke, and D. E. Koshland, Jr. 1984. The protein carboxymethyltransferase involved in Escherichia coli and Salmonella typhimurium chemotaxis. Meth. Enzymol. 106:310-321[Medline]. |
| 45. | Stock, J. B., A. M. Maderis, and D. E. Koshland, Jr. 1981. Bacterial chemotaxis in the absence of receptor carboxyl methylation. Cell 27:37-44[CrossRef][Medline]. |
| 46. | Stock, J. B., and M. G. Surette. 1996. Chemotaxis, p. 1103-1129. In F. C. Neidhardt, R. Curtiss III, J. L. Ingraham, E. C. C. Lin, K. B. Low, B. Magasanik, W. S. Reznikoff, M. Riley, M. Schaechter, and H. E. Umbarger (ed.), Escherichia coli and Salmonella: cellular and molecular biology, 2nd ed. ASM Press, Washington, D.C. |
| 47. | Thoelke, M. S., J. R. Kirby, and G. W. Ordal. 1989. Novel methyl transfer during chemotaxis in Bacillus subtilis. Biochemistry 28:5585-5589[CrossRef][Medline]. |
| 48. | Wadhams, G. H., A. C. Martin, and J. P. Armitage. 2000. Identification and localization of a methyl-accepting chemotaxis protein in Rhodobacter sphaeroides. Mol. Microbiol. 36:1222-1233[CrossRef][Medline]. |
| 49. | Ward, M. J., A. W. Bell, P. A. Hamblin, H. L. Packer, and J. P. Armitage. 1995. Identification of a chemotaxis operon with 2 cheY genes in Rhodobacter sphaeroides. Mol. Microbiol. 17:357-366[CrossRef][Medline]. |
| 50. | Ward, M. J., D. M. Harrison, M. J. Ebner, and J. P. Armitage. 1995. Identification of a methyl-accepting chemotaxis protein in Rhodobacter sphaeroides. Mol. Microbiol. 18:115-121[CrossRef][Medline]. |
| 51. |
Weerasuriya, S.,
B. M. Schneider, and M. D. Manson.
1998.
Chimeric chemoreceptors in Escherichia coli: signaling properties of Tar-Tap and Tap-Tar hybrids.
J. Bacteriol.
180:914-920 |
| 52. |
Wolfe, A. J.,
M. P. Conley,
T. J. Kramer, and H. C. Berg.
1987.
Reconstitution of signalling in bacterial chemotaxis.
J. Bacteriol.
169:1878-1885 |
| 53. | Wu, J. G., J. Y. Li, G. Y. Li, D. G. Long, and R. M. Weis. 1996. The receptor binding site for the methyltransferase of bacterial chemotaxis is distinct from the sites of methylation. Biochemistry 35:4984-4993[CrossRef][Medline]. |
| 54. |
Yonekawa, H.,
H. Hayashi, and J. S. Parkinson.
1983.
Requirement of the cheB function for sensory adaptation in Escherichia coli.
J. Bacteriol.
156:1228-1235 |
This article has been cited by other articles:
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Copyright © 2009 by the American Society for Microbiology. For an alternate route to Journals.ASM.org, visit: http://intl-journals.asm.org | More Info»