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.

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.

YidC and SecYEG form a heterotetrameric protein translocation channel.

The heterotrimeric SecYEG complex cooperates with YidC to facilitate membrane protein insertion by an unknown mechanism. Here we show that YidC contacts the interior of the SecY channel resulting in a ligand-activated and voltage-dependent complex with distinct ion channel characteristics. The SecYEG pore diameter decreases from 8 Å to only 5 Å for the YidC-SecYEG pore, indicating a reduction in channel cross-section by YidC intercalation. In the presence of a substrate, YidC relocates to the rim of the pore as indicated by increased pore diameter and loss of YidC crosslinks to the channel interior. Changing the surface charge of the pore by incorporating YidC into the channel wall increases the anion selectivity, and the accompanying change in wall hydrophobicity is liable to alter the partition of helices from the pore into the membrane. This could explain how the exit of transmembrane domains from the SecY channel is facilitated by YidC.

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.

Signal sequence-independent SRP-SR complex formation at the membrane suggests an alternative targeting pathway within the SRP cycle.

Protein targeting by the signal recognition particle (SRP) and the bacterial SRP receptor FtsY requires a series of closely coordinated steps that monitor the presence of a substrate, the membrane, and a vacant translocon. Although the influence of substrate binding on FtsY-SRP complex formation is well documented, the contribution of the membrane is largely unknown. In the current study, we found that negatively charged phospholipids stimulate FtsY-SRP complex formation. Phospholipids act on a conserved positively charged amphipathic helix in FtsY and induce a conformational change that strongly enhances the FtsY-lipid interaction. This membrane-bound, signal sequence-independent FtsY-SRP complex is able to recruit RNCs to the membrane and to transfer them to the Sec translocon. Significantly, the same results were also observed with an artificial FtsY-SRP fusion protein, which was tethered to the membrane via a transmembrane domain. This indicates that substrate recognition by a soluble SRP is not essential for cotranslational targeting in Escherichia coli. Our findings reveal a remarkable flexibility of SRP-dependent protein targeting, as they indicate that substrate recognition can occur either in the cytosol via ribosome-bound SRP or at the membrane via a preassembled FtsY-SRP complex.

The putative assembly factor CcoH is stably associated with the cbb3-type cytochrome oxidase.

Cytochrome oxidases are perfect model substrates for analyzing the assembly of multisubunit complexes because the need for cofactor incorporation adds an additional level of complexity to their assembly. cbb(3)-type cytochrome c oxidases (cbb(3)-Cox) consist of the catalytic subunit CcoN, the membrane-bound c-type cytochrome subunits CcoO and CcoP, and the CcoQ subunit, which is required for cbb(3)-Cox stability. Biogenesis of cbb(3)-Cox proceeds via CcoQP and CcoNO subcomplexes, which assemble into the active cbb(3)-Cox. Most bacteria expressing cbb(3)-Cox also contain the ccoGHIS genes, which encode putative cbb(3)-Cox assembly factors. Their exact function, however, has remained unknown. Here we analyzed the role of CcoH in cbb(3)-Cox assembly and showed that CcoH is a single spanning-membrane protein with an N-terminus-out-C-terminus-in (N(out)-C(in)) topology. In its absence, neither the fully assembled cbb(3)-Cox nor the CcoQP or CcoNO subcomplex was detectable. By chemical cross-linking, we demonstrated that CcoH binds primarily via its transmembrane domain to the CcoP subunit of cbb(3)-Cox. A second hydrophobic stretch, which is located at the C terminus of CcoH, appears not to be required for contacting CcoP, but deleting it prevents the formation of the active cbb(3)-Cox. This suggests that the second hydrophobic domain is required for merging the CcoNO and CcoPQ subcomplexes into the active cbb(3)-Cox. Surprisingly, CcoH does not seem to interact only transiently with the cbb(3)-Cox but appears to stay tightly associated with the active, fully assembled complex. Thus, CcoH behaves more like a bona fide subunit of the cbb(3)-Cox than an assembly factor per se.