Dynamic map of protein interactions in the Escherichia coli chemotaxis pathway
David Kentner1 & Victor Sourjik1
- Zentrum für Molekulare Biologie der Universität Heidelberg, DKFZ-ZMBH Alliance, Heidelberg, Germany
Correspondence to: Victor Sourjik1 Zentrum für Molekulare Biologie der Universität Heidelberg, DKFZ-ZMBH Alliance, Im Neuenheimer Feld 282, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany. Tel.: +49 6221 54 6858; Fax: +49 6221 54 5894; Email: v.sourjik@zmbh.uni-heidelberg.de
Received 15 July 2008; Accepted 17 December 2008; Published online 20 January 2009
Article highlights
- We present a highly efficient interaction mapping approach based on fluorescence resonance energy transfer (FRET). We use it to identify 19 positive FRET pairs out of the 28 possible protein combinations in the chemotaxis pathway of E. coli. Interactions are further classified in direct and scaffold-mediated by performing experiments in several background strains in vivo.
- Stimulation dependence of interactions revealed an increased binding of adaptation enzyme CheB to its targets upon phosphorylation, which apparently serves to enhance the negative feedback to receptor activity and thereby contributes to robustness of the pathway.
- Measurements of response kinetics at different levels of the pathway demonstrate that receptor rearrangements in the sensory complexes are not the cause of kinase regulation in chemotaxis but rather the consequence of the same conformational change.
- Overall, the study produced no false-positives and only one false-negative, confirming efficiency of presented approach for interaction screens. FRET-based interaction mapping thus stands as simple and reliable means for the investigation of other protein networks in bacteria or eukaryotes.
Synopsis
The chemotaxis system controlling the swimming behavior of the bacterium Escherichia coli is one of best-studied model signaling pathways and has been used to illustrate many fundamental principles of biological signal processing (Sourjik, 2004; Wadhams and Armitage, 2004). The pathway regulates flagellar rotation dependent on chemotactic stimuli and consists of five ligand-specific membrane-associated receptors and six cytoplasmic proteins. Excitation signaling is mediated by histidine kinase CheA, coupling protein CheW and response regulator CheY, whereas CheY phosphatase CheZ plays the role in signal termination, and receptor methyltransferase CheR and methylesterase CheB constitute a simple adaptation system. Despite its simplicity, the pathway shows large signal amplification (Li and Weis, 2000; Gestwicki and Kiessling, 2002; Sourjik and Berg, 2002b, 2004; Lai et al, 2005) and impressive robustness against such perturbations as gene expression noise (Alon et al, 1999; Kollmann et al, 2005).
Fluorescence resonance energy transfer (FRET), which is based on the distance-dependent energy transfer from an excited donor to an acceptor fluorophore, allows the detection of intracellular interactions of fluorescently labeled proteins non-invasively and with high selectivity (Wouters and Bastiaens, 2001). It was recently used to study stimulation dependence of several interactions in the chemotaxis pathway, and to investigate signal processing by receptor–kinase complexes (Sourjik and Berg, 2002a, 2002b; Vaknin and Berg, 2006, 2007; Sourjik et al, 2007).
In the current study, we extend FRET-based interaction mapping to the entire chemotaxis pathway, using the library of fusions to cyan and yellow fluorescent proteins (CFP and YFP, respectively) as donor–acceptor pairs. To reduce the chances of false negatives due to the large distance or unfavorable orientation of proteins in the complex and to find pairs with strongest FRET efficiency for subsequent investigation of stimulation dependence, the library contains both N- and C-terminal fusions of CFP and YFP to all chemotaxis proteins, the aspartate receptor Tar and the serine receptor Tsr. Most fusions are functional and show the expected localization in the cell.
Initial FRET mapping of protein interactions in our assay is made by acceptor photobleaching (Figure 2), whereby acceptor (YFP) is bleached by short high-intensity laser illumination. After the identification of positive FRET pairs, the dependence of these interactions on chemotactic stimulation is examined using a flow assay (Figure 2B). This analysis enables us to picture the entire network of protein interaction in the chemotaxis pathway, with 19 positive FRET pairs being identified out of the 28 possible protein combinations (Figure 2C). Most positive pairs interact even in the absence of all other chemotaxis proteins (Figure 2C, solid lines), whereas interactions of other pairs depend on a common binding partner (Figure 2C, dotted and dashed lines). Nine FRET pairs are responsive to chemotactic stimulation, five of which clearly correspond to direct protein interactions (Figure 2C, black circles). Although stimulation dependence of most pairs could be expected based on existing biochemical data (Li et al, 1995; McEvoy et al, 1999) or FRET experiments (Sourjik and Berg, 2002a, 2002b; Vaknin and Berg, 2006), the observed attractant-induced decrease in affinity between the adaptation enzyme CheB and both of its interaction partners, receptors and CheA, was novel. Such dependence implies an additional enhancement of a negative feedback from the level of kinase activity to that of receptor activity, which is provided by CheB phosphorylation. This feedback is essential to maintain robust output of the chemotaxis system under such perturbations as gene expression noise (Kollmann et al, 2005), and a recent computational analysis suggested that strong binding of phosphorylated CheB to receptors and weak binding of phosphorylated CheY to CheA are important for robust adaptation in chemotaxis (Matsuzaki et al, 2007).
Figure 2
FRET analysis of the chemotaxis pathway. (A) FRET measurement by acceptor bleaching. FRET is seen as an increase in CFP emission upon bleaching of YFP for 20 s using a 532-nm laser. Bleaching eliminates energy transfer to the YFP acceptor, causing an unquenching of CFP emission. Example shows CheW–CFP/CheW–YFP pair expressed in
[cheA-cheZ] cells. See Materials and methods and Supplementary Figure S1A for details. FRET efficiency for a given pair (Supplementary Tables SII and SIII) was derived from the data as a fractional change in CFP fluorescence. (B) FRET responses to chemostimulation, seen as changes in the YFP/CFP ratio. Examples show VS153 (
[cheR-cheZ]
tsr) cells expressing CFP–CheAS/CheY–YFP (orange line; left Y axis) and CFP–CheAS/CheBS164C–YFP (green line; right Y axis) pairs. Cells were stimulated with 100
M MeAsp, added at 200 s and removed at 400 s. See Materials and methods and Supplementary Figure S1B for details. (C) FRET interaction map of the chemotaxis pathway. Positive FRET pairs (lines) correspond to direct (solid lines) or presumably indirect interactions that depend either on receptors (dashed lines) or on CheA (dotted lines). Receptors and CheZ are present as homodimers; CheAS and CheAL can form homo- or heterodimers and are depicted as a heterodimer. FRET signal amplitudes are summarized in Supplementary Tables SII and SIII. FRET between Tar and CheW was detected using a truncated Tar1–425 fusion. Receptor–receptor FRET occurs between receptor dimers as it could be measured with both Tar–Tar and Tar–Tsr. Interactions were further classified into stimulation-independent (open circles), direct stimulation-dependent (black circles) and those with indirect or unclear stimulation-dependent (grey circles; see text for details). The stimulus dependence of CheA–CheB and Tar–CheB FRET was measured with a catalytic CheBS164C mutant. The CheY–FliM FRET pair was not included in our initial interaction mapping analysis, but was identified previously (Sourjik and Berg, 2002a).
Equally important for the overall picture of the chemotaxis pathway is the observation that many pathway's interactions are not stimulation dependent. This allows us to rule out many potential regulation mechanisms, such as activity-dependent CheZ oligomerization (Blat and Eisenbach, 1996) or large conformational changes in the sensory complexes.
We further demonstrate differences in concentration dependence and kinetics of response to stimulation at different levels of signal processing. Upon a step-like attractant stimulation, changes in kinase activity—reflected by the level of phosphorylation-dependent FRET between CheY and CheZ—show fastest kinetics, followed by rearrangement of receptors in the sensory complexes, and then by changes in CheB binding to receptors and CheA. Receptor rearrangement shows different dependence on the stimulus strength than the downstream kinase regulation, confirming previous observations (Vaknin and Berg, 2007) and suggesting that amplification of chemotactic signals takes place among signaling domains of interacting receptors. Moreover, both dose–response and kinetics measurements reveal two distinct stimulation-induced movements or rearrangements of receptors.
Our study provides a holistic picture of chemotactic signaling in E. coli and demonstrates that FRET can be successfully used to systematically map and quantify all intracellular protein interactions in a signaling network, including transient interactions, with no false-positives and nearly no false negatives. A strong advantage of FRET is that it enables systematic mapping of activity dependence of interactions and measuring response kinetics, and therefore yields a dynamic picture of the network. In addition to direct interactions, protein proximities—mediated by association with a common interaction partner—can be identified, facilitating the characterization of multiprotein complexes and their dynamics in vivo. FRET-based interaction mapping thus stands as a simple and reliable means for the investigation of other protein networks in bacteria or eukaryotes.
Acknowledgements
We thank Markus Kollmann for helpful discussions. This study was supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (SO 421/3-1 and SO 421/3-2) and by the EMBO Young Investigator Programme.
References
- Alon U, Surette MG, Barkai N, Leibler S (1999) Robustness in bacterial chemotaxis. Nature 397: 168–171 | Article | PubMed | ISI | ADS | ChemPort |
- Blat Y, Eisenbach M (1996) Oligomerization of the phosphatase CheZ upon interaction with the phosphorylated form of CheY, the signal protein of bacterial chemotaxis. J Biol Chem 271: 1226–1231 | Article | PubMed | ISI | ChemPort |
- Gestwicki JE, Kiessling LL (2002) Inter-receptor communication through arrays of bacterial chemoreceptors. Nature 415: 81–84 | Article | PubMed | ISI | ADS | ChemPort |
- Kollmann M, Lovdok L, Bartholome K, Timmer J, Sourjik V (2005) Design principles of a bacterial signalling network. Nature 438: 504–507 | Article | PubMed | ISI | ADS | ChemPort |
- Lai RZ, Manson JM, Bormans AF, Draheim RR, Nguyen NT, Manson MD (2005) Cooperative signaling among bacterial chemoreceptors. Biochemistry 44: 14298–14307 | Article | PubMed | ChemPort |
- Li G, Weis RM (2000) Covalent modification regulates ligand binding to receptor complexes in the chemosensory system of Escherichia coli. Cell 100: 357–365 | Article | PubMed | ISI | ChemPort |
- Li J, Swanson RV, Simon MI, Weis RM (1995) The response regulators CheB and CheY exhibit competitive binding to the kinase CheA. Biochemistry 34: 14626–14636 | Article | PubMed | ISI | ChemPort |
- Matsuzaki Y, Kikuchi S, Tomita M (2007) Robust effects of Tsr–CheBp and CheA–CheYp affinity in bacterial chemotaxis. Artif Intell Med 41: 145–150 | Article | PubMed
- McEvoy MM, Bren A, Eisenbach M, Dahlquist FW (1999) Identification of the binding interfaces on CheY for two of its targets, the phosphatase CheZ and the flagellar switch protein FliM. J Mol Biol 289: 1423–1433 | Article | PubMed | ISI | ChemPort |
- Sourjik V (2004) Receptor clustering and signal processing in E. coli chemotaxis. Trends Microbiol 12: 569–576 | Article | PubMed | ISI | ChemPort |
- Sourjik V, Berg HC (2002a) Binding of the Escherichia coli response regulator CheY to its target measured in vivo by fluorescence resonance energy transfer. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 99: 12669–12674 | Article | PubMed | ADS | ChemPort |
- Sourjik V, Berg HC (2002b) Receptor sensitivity in bacterial chemotaxis. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 99: 123–127 | Article | PubMed | ADS | ChemPort |
- Sourjik V, Berg HC (2004) Functional interactions between receptors in bacterial chemotaxis. Nature 428: 437–441 | Article | PubMed | ISI | ADS | ChemPort |
- Sourjik V, Vaknin A, Shimizu TS, Berg HC (2007) In vivo measurement by FRET of pathway activity in bacterial chemotaxis. Methods Enzymol 423: 363–391 | Article
- Vaknin A, Berg HC (2006) Osmotic stress mechanically perturbs chemoreceptors in Escherichia coli. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 103: 592–596 | Article | PubMed | ADS
- Vaknin A, Berg HC (2007) Physical responses of bacterial chemoreceptors. J Mol Biol 366: 1416–1423 | Article | PubMed | ChemPort |
- Wadhams GH, Armitage JP (2004) Making sense of it all: bacterial chemotaxis. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol 5: 1024–1037 | Article | PubMed | ISI | ChemPort |
- Wouters FS, Bastiaens PI (2001) Imaging protein–protein interactions by fluorescence resonance energy transfer (FRET) microscopy. Curr Protoc Cell Biol 17: 17.1.1–17.1.15


