Structural insights into the architecture and assembly of eukaryotic flagella.

Cilia and flagella are slender projections found on most eukaryotic cells including unicellular organisms such as Chlamydomonas, Trypanosoma and Tetrahymena, where they serve motility and signaling functions. The cilium is a large molecular machine consisting of hundreds of different proteins that are trafficked into the organelle to organize a repetitive microtubule-based axoneme. Several recent studies took advantage of improved cryo-EM methodology to unravel the high-resolution structures of ciliary complexes. These include the recently reported purification and structure determination of axonemal doublet microtubules from the green algae Chlamydomonas reinhardtii, which allows for the modeling of more than 30 associated protein factors to provide deep molecular insight into the architecture and repetitive nature of doublet microtubules. In addition, we will review several recent contributions that dissect the structure and function of ciliary trafficking complexes that ferry structural and signaling components between the cell body and the cilium organelle.

Moving proteins along in the cilium.

The structures of the bovine and human BBSome reveal that a conformational change is required to recruit the complex to the ciliary membrane.

Noncompetitive binding of PpiD and YidC to the SecYEG translocon expands the global view on the SecYEG interactome in Escherichia coli.

The SecYEG translocon constitutes the major protein transport channel in bacteria and transfers an enormous variety of different secretory and inner-membrane proteins. The minimal core of the SecYEG translocon consists of three inner-membrane proteins, SecY, SecE, and SecG, which, together with appropriate targeting factors, are sufficient for protein transport in vitro However, in vivo the SecYEG translocon has been shown to associate with multiple partner proteins, likely allowing the SecYEG translocon to process its diverse substrates. To obtain a global view on SecYEG plasticity in Escherichia coli, here we performed a quantitative interaction proteomic analysis, which identified several known SecYEG-interacting proteins, verified the interaction of SecYEG with quality-control proteins, and revealed several previously unknown putative SecYEG-interacting proteins. Surprisingly, we found that the chaperone complex PpiD/YfgM is the most prominent interaction partner of SecYEG. Detailed analyses of the PpiD-SecY interaction by site-directed cross-linking revealed that PpiD and the established SecY partner protein YidC use almost completely-overlapping binding sites on SecY. Both PpiD and YidC contacted the lateral gate, the plug domain, and the periplasmic cavity of SecY. However, quantitative MS and cross-linking analyses revealed that despite having almost identical binding sites, their binding to SecY is noncompetitive. This observation suggests that the SecYEG translocon forms different substrate-independent subassemblies in which SecYEG either associates with YidC or with the PpiD/YfgM complex. In summary, the results of this study indicate that the PpiD/YfgM chaperone complex is a primary interaction partner of the SecYEG translocon.

Molecular Mimicry of SecA and Signal Recognition Particle Binding to the Bacterial Ribosome.

Bacteria execute a variety of protein transport systems for maintaining the proper composition of their different cellular compartments. The SecYEG translocon serves as primary transport channel and is engaged in transporting two different substrate types. Inner membrane proteins are cotranslationally inserted into the membrane after their targeting by the signal recognition particle (SRP). In contrast, secretory proteins are posttranslationally translocated by the ATPase SecA. Recent data indicate that SecA can also bind to ribosomes close to the tunnel exit. We have mapped the interaction of SecA with translating and nontranslating ribosomes and demonstrate that the N terminus and the helical linker domain of SecA bind to an acidic patch on the surface of the ribosomal protein uL23. Intriguingly, both also insert deeply into the ribosomal tunnel to contact the intratunnel loop of uL23, which serves as a nascent chain sensor. This binding pattern is remarkably similar to that of SRP and indicates an identical interaction mode of the two targeting factors with ribosomes. In the presence of a nascent chain, SecA retracts from the tunnel but maintains contact with the surface of uL23. Our data further demonstrate that ribosome and membrane binding of SecA are mutually exclusive, as both events depend on the N terminus of SecA. Our study highlights the enormous plasticity of bacterial protein transport systems and reveals that the discrimination between SRP and SecA substrates is already initiated at the ribosome.IMPORTANCE Bacterial protein transport via the conserved SecYEG translocon is generally classified as either cotranslational, i.e., when transport is coupled to translation, or posttranslational, when translation and transport are separated. We show here that the ATPase SecA, which is considered to bind its substrates posttranslationally, already scans the ribosomal tunnel for potential substrates. In the presence of a nascent chain, SecA retracts from the tunnel but maintains contact with the ribosomal surface. This is remarkably similar to the ribosome-binding mode of the signal recognition particle, which mediates cotranslational transport. Our data reveal a striking plasticity of protein transport pathways, which likely enable bacteria to efficiently recognize and transport a large number of highly different substrates within their short generation time.

The interaction network of the YidC insertase with the SecYEG translocon, SRP and the SRP receptor FtsY.

YidC/Oxa1/Alb3 are essential proteins that operate independently or cooperatively with the Sec machinery during membrane protein insertion in bacteria, archaea and eukaryotic organelles. Although the interaction between the bacterial SecYEG translocon and YidC has been observed in multiple studies, it is still unknown which domains of YidC are in contact with the SecYEG translocon. By in vivo and in vitro site-directed and para-formaldehyde cross-linking we identified the auxiliary transmembrane domain 1 of E. coli YidC as a major contact site for SecY and SecG. Additional SecY contacts were observed for the tightly packed globular domain and the C1 loop of YidC, which reveals that the hydrophilic cavity of YidC faces the lateral gate of SecY. Surprisingly, YidC-SecYEG contacts were only observed when YidC and SecYEG were present at about stoichiometric concentrations, suggesting that the YidC-SecYEG contact in vivo is either very transient or only observed for a very small SecYEG sub-population. This is different for the YidC-SRP and YidC-FtsY interaction, which involves the C1 loop of YidC and is efficiently observed even at sub-stoichiometric concentrations of SRP/FtsY. In summary, our data provide a first detailed view on how YidC interacts with the SecYEG translocon and the SRP-targeting machinery.

Ribosome binding induces repositioning of the signal recognition particle receptor on the translocon.

Cotranslational protein targeting delivers proteins to the bacterial cytoplasmic membrane or to the eukaryotic endoplasmic reticulum membrane. The signal recognition particle (SRP) binds to signal sequences emerging from the ribosomal tunnel and targets the ribosome-nascent-chain complex (RNC) to the SRP receptor, termed FtsY in bacteria. FtsY interacts with the fifth cytosolic loop of SecY in the SecYEG translocon, but the functional role of the interaction is unclear. By using photo-cross-linking and fluorescence resonance energy transfer measurements, we show that FtsY-SecY complex formation is guanosine triphosphate independent but requires a phospholipid environment. Binding of an SRP-RNC complex exposing a hydrophobic transmembrane segment induces a rearrangement of the SecY-FtsY complex, which allows the subsequent contact between SecY and ribosomal protein uL23. These results suggest that direct RNC transfer to the translocon is guided by the interaction between SRP and translocon-bound FtsY in a quaternary targeting complex.

Dynamic interaction of the sec translocon with the chaperone PpiD.

The Sec translocon constitutes a ubiquitous protein transport channel that consists in bacteria of the three core components: SecY, SecE, and SecG. Additional proteins interact with SecYEG during different stages of protein transport. During targeting, SecYEG interacts with SecA, the SRP receptor, or the ribosome. Protein transport into or across the membrane is then facilitated by the interaction of SecYEG with YidC and the SecDFYajC complex. During protein transport, SecYEG is likely to interact also with the protein quality control machinery, but details about this interaction are missing. By in vivo and in vitro site-directed cross-linking, we show here that the periplasmic chaperone PpiD is located in front of the lateral gate of SecY, through which transmembrane domains exit the SecY channel. The strongest contacts were found to helix 2b of SecY. Blue native PAGE analyses verify the presence of a SecYEG-PpiD complex in native Escherichia coli membranes. The PpiD-SecY interaction was not influenced by the addition of SecA and only weakly influenced by binding of nontranslating ribosomes to SecYEG. In contrast, PpiD lost contact to the lateral gate of SecY during membrane protein insertion. These data identify PpiD as an additional and transient subunit of the bacterial SecYEG translocon. The data furthermore demonstrate the highly modular and versatile composition of the Sec translocon, which is probably essential for its ability to transport a wide range of substrates across membranes in bacteria and eukaryotes.

The Sec translocon mediated protein transport in prokaryotes and eukaryotes.

Protein transport via the Sec translocon represents an evolutionary conserved mechanism for delivering cytosolically-synthesized proteins to extra-cytosolic compartments. The Sec translocon has a three-subunit core, termed Sec61 in Eukaryotes and SecYEG in Bacteria. It is located in the endoplasmic reticulum of Eukaryotes and in the cytoplasmic membrane of Bacteria where it constitutes a channel that can be activated by multiple partner proteins. These partner proteins determine the mechanism of polypeptide movement across the channel. During SRP-dependent co-translational targeting, the ribosome threads the nascent protein directly into the Sec channel. This pathway is in Bacteria mainly dedicated for membrane proteins but in Eukaryotes also employed by secretory proteins. The alternative pathway, leading to post-translational translocation across the Sec translocon engages an ATP-dependent pushing mechanism by the motor protein SecA in Bacteria and a ratcheting mechanism by the lumenal chaperone BiP in Eukaryotes. Protein transport and biogenesis is also assisted by additional proteins at the lateral gate of SecY/Sec61α and in the lumen of the endoplasmic reticulum or in the periplasm of bacterial cells. The modular assembly enables the Sec complex to transport a vast array of substrates. In this review we summarize recent biochemical and structural information on the prokaryotic and eukaryotic Sec translocons and we describe the remarkably complex interaction network of the Sec complexes.

YidC occupies the lateral gate of the SecYEG translocon and is sequentially displaced by a nascent membrane protein.

Most membrane proteins are co-translationally inserted into the lipid bilayer via the universally conserved SecY complex and they access the lipid phase presumably via a lateral gate in SecY. In bacteria, the lipid transfer of membrane proteins from the SecY channel is assisted by the SecY-associated protein YidC, but details on the SecY-YidC interaction are unknown. By employing an in vivo and in vitro site-directed cross-linking approach, we have mapped the SecY-YidC interface and found YidC in contact with all four transmembrane domains of the lateral gate. This interaction did not require the SecDFYajC complex and was not influenced by SecA binding to SecY. In contrast, ribosomes dissociated the YidC contacts to lateral gate helices 2b and 8. The major contact between YidC and the lateral gate was lost in the presence of ribosome nascent chains and new SecY-YidC contacts appeared. These data demonstrate that the SecY-YidC interaction is influenced by nascent-membrane-induced lateral gate movements.