Placeholder Image

Subtitles section Play video

  • The following content is provided under a Creative

  • Commons license.

  • Your support will help MIT OpenCourseWare

  • continue to offer high quality educational resources for free.

  • To make a donation or view additional materials

  • from hundreds of MIT courses, visit MIT OpenCourseWare

  • at ocw.mit.edu.

  • ELIZABETH NOLAN: We're going to end the unit on synthesis

  • today.

  • And the focus of today's lecture will really

  • be looking at one system in detail

  • and the types of experiments that

  • are done to elucidate a biosynthetic pathway

  • for a non-ribosomal peptide.

  • And so just to recap from last time,

  • if we think about studying assembly lines in lab,

  • and we're thinking about this for a non-ribosomal peptide

  • synthetase, what needs to be done?

  • So first, it's necessary to, typically,

  • overexpress and purify domains, didomains or modules.

  • And so on Monday, it came up that often, these proteins

  • are enormous and it's not possible or feasible to express

  • entire modules, or entire proteins that

  • have multiple modules.

  • So oftentimes, people will look at individual domains,

  • or didomains, which are smaller and more amenable,

  • to overexpression in an organism like E. coli.

  • Then it's necessary to assay for A domain activity.

  • So we're called the A domains through the adenylation

  • domains.

  • And the question is, what monomer

  • is selected and activated?

  • And so the ATP-PPi exchange assay comes up here.

  • There needs to be assays for loading

  • of the T domain, or carrier protein, with the monomer.

  • Assay for peptide bond formation, which

  • is the condensation domain.

  • And then often, some assay for chain

  • released by the thioesterase domain.

  • OK, so assay for TE activity.

  • Chain release.

  • And so in terms about of thinking about these T domains,

  • we learned that these T domains need to be post-translationally

  • modified with the Ppant arm, which means we

  • need an enzyme called a PPTase.

  • And so in many cases, we don't know what the PPTase

  • is for a given gene cluster.

  • And what's done, often in the lab,

  • is that a PPTase from B. subtilis, named Sfp,

  • is used in order to post-translationally modify

  • the T domains with the Ppant arm.

  • So there is a serine residue in these T domains

  • that gets modified.

  • We looked over that in a prior lecture.

  • So this one is very useful.

  • And if you don't know the enzyme to use,

  • people will use recombinant Sfp And just recall,

  • we have the T domain.

  • There's a serine moiety.

  • We have a PPTase.

  • That's going to stick on the P pant arm here.

  • So we call this apo, holo, and then the amino acid,

  • or aryl acid monomer, in the case of NRPS

  • gets loaded here via a thioester.

  • And so Sfp can be used to get us here.

  • And even what people have done is make modified analogs,

  • where there's some R group.

  • So you can imagine using chemical synthesis

  • to load a monomer, or even some other type of group

  • that, for some reason, you might want to transfer here.

  • And this Sfp is very promiscuous and it can do that.

  • And so the take-home here is if you need a PPTase, overexpress,

  • purify, and utilize Sfp.

  • Here's just an example for review,

  • where we have a carrier protein, so a T domain,

  • and we have the PPTase activity here, Sfp,

  • attaching this Ppant arm.

  • And here, it's described with an R group.

  • And just to give you an example of possibilities here,

  • there have been many reports of CoA analogs being transferred

  • to T domains by Sfp.

  • And these can range from things like an isotope label

  • to peptides to steroids to some non-ribosomal peptide

  • derivative, or a fluorophore.

  • So this has been used as a tool.

  • And you might ask, why is this possible?

  • And if we just take a look at the structure of Sfp from B.

  • subtilits with coASH and magnesium bound.

  • What we see is that this end of the coA

  • is extended out into the solvent.

  • And at least in this structure here, it's

  • not interacting with regions of the protein.

  • So you can imagine that it's possible to attach

  • some group, even a bulky group, here

  • and be able to transfer it there.

  • So where we're going to focus the rest of the lecture

  • is on an assembly line responsible

  • for the biosynthesis of a natural product called

  • enterobactin, and this is a siderophore.

  • And so in thinking about this, what I would just

  • like to first note is that when we talk about these assembly

  • lines, we can group them into two types, which

  • are non-iterative and iterative assembly.

  • And so what does this mean?

  • So we've seen examples of non-iterative assembly

  • last time on Monday with the ACV tripeptide and the vancomycin

  • synthetase.

  • So in these non-interative assembly lines,

  • effectively, each step has its own module.

  • So each carrier protein, T domain, each condensation

  • or catalytic domain, is used only once as the chain grows.

  • And we see the chain passed along from module

  • to module here.

  • So also, the PKS we looked at for synthesis of DEB

  • is one of these non-iterative assembly lines.

  • So in contrast, in the example we're

  • going to look at today with the enterobactin synthetase is

  • an iterative assembly line, and this

  • is similar to what we saw in fatty acid synthase.

  • So in these iterative assembly lines,

  • effectively, only one module is employed over and over again.

  • So you can have the same carrier protein

  • and same catalytic domain used for multiple cycles of chain

  • elongation.

  • And that's what we saw in fatty acid synthase,

  • where there are multiple cycles in addition

  • of a C2 unit via the same domains.

  • And so what we're going to see today

  • is this type of iterative assembly

  • is responsible for the synthesis of this molecule here.

  • So first, just an overview of building blocks.

  • And then we'll talk about why organisms

  • want to make this molecule, and then

  • focus on the biosynthetic logic and experiments.

  • So this molecule, enterobactin, is produced from two monomers.

  • So we have 2, 3 dihydroxybenzoic acid, or DHB,

  • and we have serine here.

  • And there is a two-module assembly line

  • responsible for the synthesis of this natural product.

  • And that assembly line is shown here.

  • So we see that there's three proteins, EntE, EntB, and EntF.

  • We have an initiation module, elongation module, and this TE

  • domain for termination.

  • So overall, three separate proteins, two modules,

  • and seven domains.

  • So this NRPS is quite small.

  • And this is an example of a non-ribosomal peptide that's

  • produced by E. coli.

  • So E. coli makes this molecule, as well as

  • some other gram-negative bacteria.

  • So this is iterative.

  • We have three of each of these monomers,

  • yet only two T domains here, so imagine

  • one responsible for each.

  • So before we get more into this biosynthetic logic,

  • let's just take a moment to think about why

  • this molecule is produced.

  • So this is a case where we actually

  • have very good understanding about why an organism is

  • producing a natural product.

  • And this actually gives a segue into JoAnne's section

  • on metal homeostasis, which will come up after cholesterol

  • after spring break.

  • So many bacteria use non-ribosomal peptide synthesis

  • machinery in order to make chelators

  • in order to acquire iron.

  • And that's because iron is an essential nutrient

  • and it's actually quite scarce.

  • So if you imagine an organism in the soil,

  • maybe it needs to obtain iron from a rock.

  • Somehow it needs to get iron from our pool,

  • and concentrations are very tightly regulated,

  • and most iron is tightly bound.

  • And we can also think about this from a standpoint

  • of solubility, so simple KST type things.

  • We all know that iron 3, which is the predominant oxidation

  • state in aerobic conditions, is very insoluble.

  • So our cars rust up here in the Northeast

  • because they sit outside on the road in the winter,

  • and that's no good.

  • So we can think about 10 to the minus 18 molar.

  • And then if we think about free ion in human serum,

  • for instance, the concentration is even lower

  • because there's inherent toxicity associated

  • with free iron.

  • And you'll hear about that from JoAnne in more detail later.

  • So these organisms have a predicament

  • because for metabolism, they need

  • iron on the order of micromolar concentrations.

  • So how does some organism obtain micromolar iron

  • when in environments where, say, that's 10

  • to the minus 24 molar?

  • And there's a number of strategies that come up,

  • but one of the strategies is the biosynthesis

  • of non-ribosomal peptides that act as metal scavengers

  • and metal chelators.

  • And so I just show you two examples here.

  • And we have enterobactin, which we're going to focus on today.

  • And this is really just a wonderful molecule.

  • Yersiniabactin-- and I put this up here, in part,

  • because there were some questions

  • about those cyclization domains in the bleomycin gene cluster,

  • that we looked at that assembly line on Monday.

  • And this is another example where

  • cyclization of cysteine residues occurs in order

  • to give the final natural product via those modified

  • condensation domains here.

  • So if we think about enterobactin

  • for a moment longer, what happens,

  • effectively, this molecule can bind

  • iron 3 with higher affinity.

  • And the iron bound form is shown here.

  • So these aryl acids, these catechol groups,

  • provide six oxygen donors to the iron center

  • to get a structure like this.

  • So in terms of the organism in production,

  • what happens when these organisms are confronted

  • with iron limitations?

  • So essentially, they're starved for essential nutrients.

  • They'll turn on biosynthesis.

  • So they'll express the enterobactin synthetase,

  • which will allow for production of enterobactin.

  • So this is happening in the cytoplasm.

  • So we have those three proteins that

  • comprise the assembly line that use the HDML serine to produce

  • the natural product.

  • And then in addition to that biosynthetic machinery,

  • the organism needs to also express and use

  • a whole bunch of transport machinery.

  • So what happens is that this natural product is exported

  • into the extracellular space.

  • So this is a gram-negative organism,

  • so it has an inner membrane and an outer membrane.

  • And it's in the extracellular space

  • that enterobactin will scavenge iron 3.

  • So there's formation of the coordination

  • complex, shown in cartoon here.

  • And then there's a dedicated receptor

  • on the outer membrane that will recognize that iron bound form

  • and bring that into the cell.

  • And then through transport and through breakdown

  • of the natural product, this iron

  • can be released and then used.

  • So iron is a co-factor of many types of proteins and enzymes

  • here.

  • So a whole lot is going on.

  • We're going to focus on the biosynthetic part.

  • And so in thinking about this, from the standpoint

  • of a non-ribosomal peptide synthetase,

  • what's something interesting?

  • So in the examples we saw last time,

  • we had the ACD tripeptide, the vancomycin synthetase.

  • These assembly lines are only forming peptide bonds,

  • so we saw formation of amide bond.

  • If we take a look at enterobactin

  • and we think about the monomers coming from, what do we see?

  • So this has some C3 symmetry.

  • And we can see that it's comprised of three of these DHB

  • serine monomers, so 1, 2, 3.

  • And effectively, there's formation of amide bonds

  • between DHC and serine.

  • So it's shown and throughout here.

  • But there's also ester linkages formed.

  • So this ring here is often called a trilactone,

  • or a macrolactone, and somehow, these three esters

  • need to be formed.

  • So how is the enterobactin synthetase doing this?

  • So if we look at an overview of different enterobactin

  • synthetase, the gene cluster, what do we learn?

  • So the first point to make is that there are actually

  • six proteins required.

  • So you've seen three so far, in terms of the assembly line.

  • So we have an A, B, C, D, E, and F.

  • And A, B, and C are required for the biosynthesis

  • of this aryl acid building block here, this DHB.

  • And then this is a case, rather unusual,

  • where the PPTase was identified, and we're

  • going to talk about that more as we go through the experiment.

  • So I just told you about using Sfp

  • if you don't know what to do.

  • This was the case where the researchers

  • were able to identify the dedicated

  • PPTase for the assembly line.

  • So that's EntE.

  • And then we have B, E, and F that provide

  • an iterative assembly line that yields the natural product,

  • as shown here.

  • OK, so also just note that B is coming up twice.

  • We're seeing it here and we're seeing it here.

  • So that should bring up a question, what's

  • going on with this enzyme?

  • And then we'll address that as we move forward.

  • So in terms of thinking about this synthetase,

  • we'll do an overview and then look at the experiments.

  • So we have an A domain and B. We have a protein here

  • that has a T domain and an IDL domain that we'll get back to.

  • This is EntE, and then here we have EntF.

  • And then we have our PPTase.

  • So effectively, here, we can have our initiation.

  • Here, we have elongation.

  • And here, termination.

  • So what is the overview, in terms of what

  • happens for A domain activity?

  • Loading of the T domains and peptide bond formation.

  • So for the overview, we'll first consider

  • getting a monomer on to EntB.

  • So EntB has a T domain.

  • And that has a serine.

  • The serine needs to be modified under the PPTase EntD.

  • Holo EntD.

  • We put the Ppant arm.

  • And then what we'll see is that EntE is the A domain that's

  • responsible for activating DHB and transferring

  • that monomer to EntB.

  • So then in terms of EntF and getting

  • the two domains of EntF loaded, it's

  • going to be loaded with L-serine.

  • And so here, you have EntF, again,

  • focusing on the T domain.

  • Again, we have that action of EntD

  • to give us the holo form with the Ppant arm.

  • And then we see that, in this case,

  • the A domain is within the same protein.

  • So the A domain of EntF is going to activate L-serine

  • and transfer that to the T domain.

  • So we have EntF, A domain to get us here.

  • So then what about peptide bond formation?

  • So we see the C domain, condensation domain as an EntF.

  • And so what we can imagine is that we

  • have our EntB loaded with the aryl acid monomer

  • plus EntF loaded with L-serine.

  • And what's going to happen?

  • The C domain of EntF is going to catalyze formation

  • of the amide bond here to give us EntB plus EntF, effectively,

  • with DHA serine attached.

  • So this gives us some insight, just this overview,

  • in terms of how the amide bond is formed and pretty

  • much follows what we saw for the ACV tripeptide and vancomycin

  • biosynthesis for the heptapeptide that

  • forms its backbone.

  • So a question we have at this stage is,

  • well, we see in that structure, in addition to these amides,

  • there's also esters.

  • How are those formed?

  • And then what assays are needed?

  • And so first, we're going to think about formation

  • of the ester linkages, and then we'll

  • launch into the experiment.

  • So let's take a look at this assembly line.

  • So we have EntE, the A domain, EntB, this didomain.

  • That has the T domain.

  • And here's EntF.

  • And we see in this cartoon, the T domains

  • are already modified with the P pant arm.

  • And here is the serine residue of the TE domain

  • that, ultimately, accepts the chain.

  • So what happens?

  • If we take a look, so we saw this on the board,

  • EntE becomes loaded with dihydroxybenzoic acid.

  • EntF becomes loaded with serine.

  • The condensation domain catalyzes this formation

  • of an amide bond between two monomers.

  • And then what happens?

  • We see transfer of this DHB serine unit to the TE domain

  • here.

  • And then we can imagine these two domains being

  • loaded with monomers again.

  • And what happens?

  • What do we think about this?

  • Effectively, formation of one amide bond

  • transferred to the TE domain.

  • Formation of another amide bond.

  • And look.

  • The second moiety here is transferred to the TE domain,

  • to the initial monomer, via this ester linkage.

  • This is really unusual behavior for a TE domain.

  • And what happens again?

  • We see this happen again, so we get this linear trimer

  • of enterobactin, effectively.

  • And then what happens?

  • Chain release to form the macrolactone here.

  • We have this group that can come around here.

  • So what is the hypothesis?

  • The hypothesis that was put forth by the researchers

  • is that in this assembly line, effectively,

  • this thioesterase is serving as a waiting room.

  • And it's allowing these DHB serine monomers

  • to wait around and remain attached, such

  • that these esters can be formed.

  • And somehow, it senses this appropriate size,

  • this linear trimer, and then catalyzes chain release,

  • as shown here.

  • AUDIENCE: Does it mess up?

  • ELIZABETH NOLAN: Does it mess up?

  • AUDIENCE: Yeah, does it always give you a 3

  • under [INAUDIBLE] circle?

  • ELIZABETH NOLAN: Yes, to the best of my knowledge.

  • What's very interesting is that-- so this is worked out

  • as Chris Walsh's group.

  • Recently, Alison Butler's lab at Santa Barbara

  • has discovered an enterobactin analog

  • that has an additional unit in it here.

  • So it looks like there's other thioesterases around that

  • serve as waiting rooms and can accommodate different ring

  • sizes.

  • But this one will just give this size.

  • And that's a very interesting question, just in terms of,

  • how is this thioesterase doing that?

  • We need more structural understanding to get at that.

  • In addition, these are just some overviews

  • that I've put in the notes, other depictions

  • of this process and the waiting room

  • hypothesis from the literature.

  • So we're going to look at the experiments that

  • were done to study this.

  • And I really, 1, like enterobactin,

  • so I got excited about this molecule as an undergraduate,

  • actually.

  • But beyond that, why I like to present on this system,

  • in terms of experiments, is that many firsts came from it,

  • and it really serves as a paradigm

  • for many, many other studies.

  • So if we just consider the various firsts that

  • came from the studies of the enterobactin synthetase, 1,

  • it was the first siderophore synthetase to be studied,

  • and there's hundreds of siderophores out there

  • and many have been investigated since this one.

  • It's the first example of a siderophore synthetase

  • to be characterized for the Ppant arms.

  • This was the first identification

  • of a dedicated PPTase for one of these assembly lines.

  • And the first identification of the thioesterase domain

  • that has this behavior of forming this cyclo-oligomer.

  • And the first identification of an aryl carrier protein, so

  • this T domain that carries DHB here.

  • And in terms of the experiments we'll go through,

  • these experiments that were devised in this system

  • have been generalized across many, many assembly lines

  • and the methods are still routinely used today.

  • But a major difference I want to point out

  • is that today, we have so many microbial genomes sequenced

  • that a lot of work is driven by bioinformatics here, in terms

  • of identifying that NRPS.

  • So often, the gene cluster may be identified well

  • before the natural product is ever isolated.

  • And this is a case where the natural product

  • isolation occurred first, so that was done well, well

  • before here.

  • And this is a case where we know how

  • to get the organism to produce this natural product.

  • You starve the organism of iron and it will start to make it,

  • in many instances, for other natural products produced

  • by these assembly lines.

  • We don't know how to get the organism

  • to actually make the molecule in a laboratory setting there.

  • So there's some interesting work being done about that.

  • Some actually recent work out of Northeastern,

  • actually trying to grow organisms

  • in soil-like environments and seeing what they

  • can be provoked to produce.

  • If you're curious, I'm happy to give you references.

  • OK, so where are we going to start,

  • in terms of characterization of this synthetase here?

  • We're, more or less, going to follow the logic outlined up

  • here for this.

  • So here's the cartoon of the players.

  • And the first order of business is

  • that it's necessary to characterize the adenylation

  • domains.

  • So we need to ask, what the monomers

  • are selected and activated?

  • And we have two adenylation domains to consider,

  • so EntE and the A domain of EntF.

  • So what was done?

  • For EntE, where we'll start, this protein

  • was purified from E. coli and characterized here.

  • And so how was it characterized?

  • It was characterized by ATP-PPi exchange,

  • like what we saw for the amino acyltransferase synthetase

  • characterization.

  • And so what was observed is that when

  • EntE was combined with dihydroxybenzoic acid, ATP

  • and radiolabeled PPi, there was incorporation of the P32 label

  • into ATP.

  • So that indicates formation of this adenylate intermediate.

  • And resulted in the conclusion that EntE

  • is the A domain that activates this aryl acid monomer, so

  • this chemistry, which should be very

  • familiar at this stage based on our discussions

  • in the translation unit.

  • So what about EntF and its A domain?

  • So again, we're working with E. coli proteins.

  • EntF was purified from E. coli.

  • And again, this ATP-PPi assay was performed.

  • And so in this case, what was observed is

  • that when EntF was incubated with L-serine, ATP,

  • and radiolabeled PPi, there was incorporation of the radiolabel

  • into ATP, which indicates that EntF,

  • its A domain is responsible for that activation of L-serine.

  • And so you can imagine in each set of experiments,

  • the researchers also tried the other monomer, and in

  • the case of EntF, would have seen no ATP-PPi exchange

  • with DHB.

  • And likewise, for EntE, if they tried with L-serine,

  • there would be no exchange.

  • You'd want to see that, in terms of making a robust conclusion

  • here for that.

  • So that's good.

  • Now, the next question is we need

  • to get these monomers to these T domains here.

  • And so that's the next step, is to study the T domain.

  • And something you all need to appreciate

  • about the time of this work, there

  • wasn't a whole lot known about PPTases.

  • There wasn't Sfp that you could borrow from your lab mate,

  • or maybe you've expressed 100 milligrams for yourself

  • and you could get that Ppant arm on here.

  • And so JoAnne may want to elaborate,

  • but there were a lot of effort to try to figure out,

  • what is going on here?

  • JOANNE STUBBE: And graduate students had no thesis.

  • Because they couldn't get any activity of any

  • of the enterobactin genes.

  • ELIZABETH NOLAN: Yeah.

  • JOANNE STUBBE: Until it was discovered what was going on.

  • ELIZABETH NOLAN: Right.

  • So this was a major, major effort, undertaking,

  • and discovery here.

  • And so they couldn't find activity,

  • and that's because these two domains needed to be modified

  • and they weren't modified.

  • But some little detective work here.

  • So in the analysis of purified EntF,

  • what analysis of this purified protein

  • had revealed, in some instances, with substoichiometric

  • phosphopantetheine.

  • And so is that a contamination or is that meaningful?

  • In this case, it was a meaningful observation

  • that, when chased, proved to be very hopeful.

  • It suggested that maybe there's a T domain here

  • that's modified.

  • That's something we can infer from this.

  • So if this Ppant arm is attached to EntF, how does it get there?

  • And if we rewind and think about what was going on at the time,

  • it was only shortly before that the PPTase for the acyl carrier

  • protein and fatty acid synthetase was discovered.

  • So that might beg the question, is it possible

  • that this enzyme also modifies EntF,

  • if you don't know much about its substrate scope?

  • And so that hypothesis was tested and it didn't pan out.

  • So if EntF was incubated with ACPS

  • from fatty acid biosynthesis and coASH,

  • there was no product formation.

  • There was no transfer of the Ppant arm to here.

  • Yeah?

  • AUDIENCE: Was it obvious the fatty acid synthesis--

  • was there [INAUDIBLE] synthesis at the time,

  • or did it have a name?

  • ELIZABETH NOLAN: I don't think it had a name,

  • but I defer to JoAnne, who was on the thesis

  • committee, because this is really the first one.

  • AUDIENCE: Were the analogs of mercury obvious at the time?

  • ELIZABETH NOLAN: No, it's really discovery work at this stage.

  • The question is, is there a possible lead from somewhere?

  • And if you try it, what will happen?

  • And really, there is no clue as to what is this modification

  • and that design involved.

  • But if you see an enzyme with activity in one system,

  • maybe it will be active with another.

  • Maybe not.

  • And in this case, it didn't work,

  • but it was something certainly worthwhile to try.

  • So then what was done?

  • So there is a search for another PPTase,

  • and this was done using BLAST.

  • And what BLAST, this bioinformatics,

  • revealed was the identification of that enzyme EntD.

  • So here, we have this EntD, the PPTase here.

  • And so EntD was overexpressed and purified.

  • And so in this case, a histag was used, affinity column

  • purification.

  • And the question is, what happens if we incubate

  • EntD with EntF and coASH?

  • And so in these experiments, radiolabeled coASH was used,

  • and radio labels are commonly used

  • to look for transfer of either Ppant arms or monomers,

  • as we'll see as we go forward, to these domains.

  • And so the question is, will we see transfer of the radiolabel

  • to EntF in the presence of EntD and coASH?

  • And so here are the results from the experiment.

  • So we have formation of holo EntF,

  • as monitored by the radiolabel, versus time.

  • And so what's done, the reaction is run for a given time point.

  • The reaction is quenched with acid

  • to precipitate the proteins.

  • And then you can imagine measuring radioactivity

  • in the pellet.

  • coASH will remain in the soluble fraction

  • and then protein in the pellet here.

  • You can imagine control assays with EntD included there.

  • And so what do we see?

  • So as I said before, that we tried the acyl carrier,

  • ACPS from fatty acid synthesis.

  • There's no reaction.

  • But look.

  • When EntD is present, we see transfer of this Ppant arm

  • to the protein here.

  • So this was a really exciting result at the time.

  • We have a new enzyme, a new activity,

  • this post-translational modification there.

  • And this opens the door to further studies.

  • If you can get the Ppat arm on, then we

  • can look at loading the monomers here.

  • So what's the next step?

  • We have EntF loaded.

  • We're also going to want to try to load EntD--

  • EntB, excuse me-- here.

  • But of course, you need to know some more about EntB.

  • And so let's think about that.

  • I'll also note, just noted here, the next step

  • is to look at loading of L-serine onto this moiety

  • here, as drawn.

  • And you can think about how to do that experimentally.

  • So what about EntB?

  • This was another mystery, in terms of experimental work

  • and exploration.

  • And so initially, EntB was purified and characterized

  • for its activity that led towards the biosynthesis

  • of the BHP monomer.

  • So this ICL domain is involved in the series

  • of reactions that give DHB.

  • On a historical note, it was thought

  • there was another protein.

  • And this protein was named EntG that

  • was thought to be required for enterobactin biosynthesis.

  • And EntG would be the T domain that is for the aryl acid.

  • So effectively, it would be this T domain,

  • or aryl carrier protein for dihydroxybenzoic acid.

  • But the problem was they couldn't find a gene for EntG.

  • And so as it turned out, what more detective

  • work showed is that this EntG is actually just

  • the N-terminus of EntB here.

  • So they realize that EntB has another role, another function,

  • and that in addition to having this function and the synthesis

  • of dihydroxybenzoic acid, because of this domain

  • at the N-terminus, it's also the carrier

  • protein for this monomer here.

  • So how is this sorted out here?

  • What we can do is just take a look at a sequence alignment.

  • And so this is from one of the papers about all

  • of these explorations.

  • And effectively, what we're taking a look at

  • are known [INAUDIBLE] phosphopantetheinylation sites,

  • the proteins.

  • So something is known about fatty acid synthesis

  • and some other carrier proteins here from different organs.

  • And so effectively, if we just look

  • at this region of the alignment, we

  • see this serine residue with an [INAUDIBLE]

  • And this happens to be serine 245 of EntB.

  • So this led to the hypothesis that maybe this serine 245

  • towards the C-terminus terminus of EntB

  • is the site where the Ppant arm is attached here.

  • And so this means that some experiments

  • are needed to show that EntB has this carrier protein, or T

  • domain, and that it can be modified with the Ppant arm.

  • And it was predicted EntD would do this.

  • And also, that once modified with the Ppant arm,

  • the aryl acid can be transferred to EntD.

  • So if we just think about EntB for a minute,

  • So have the N-terminal domain.

  • Here's the C-terminal domain.

  • Here's the ICL domain.

  • Here's the T domain for an aryl carrier protein.

  • So amino acid 1, 285.

  • This is 188.

  • It's not quite drawn to scale.

  • So we serine 245 around here, which

  • is the serine of interest for post-translational modification

  • with the Ppant arm.

  • And so what was done is that pathways were performed, where

  • EntB was incubated with EntE and radiolabeled coASH,

  • like what we saw for the studies of EntF.

  • But they made a few additional constructs.

  • So they considered full length EntB, so as shown here.

  • They considered an EntD variant where with C-terminal 25

  • amino acids were deleted.

  • So you can imagine, they just put a stop codon in and leave

  • the last 25 amino acids.

  • So the serine is still there, but a bunch

  • of the C-terminal residues aren't there.

  • And then they also considered a variant of EntB

  • where they deleted this entire N-terminal domain.

  • And so the question is, what are the requirements?

  • Well 1, does this reaction work?

  • Does EntD modify EntB with the Ppant arm?

  • And then if yes, what are the requirements?

  • So is the N-terminal domain needed?

  • Are these C-terminal residues needed?

  • And so these are the gels that come from this experiment.

  • And so what we're looking at on top

  • are total proteins, so Coomassie staining.

  • And on the bottom, we're looking at radioactivity.

  • And the idea here is that we want to track the radiolabels.

  • So in lane 1, we have assays with full length EntB.

  • In lane 2 with the C-terminal truncation.

  • And in lane 3, deletion of the N-terminal domain.

  • OK, so the question is, what do we see from these data here?

  • And so these give us a sense as to where

  • the individual proteins run on the gel.

  • And here, we're looking at the radioactivity.

  • So what do we see?

  • In lane 1, you see a huge blob of radioactivity.

  • This isn't the most beautiful gel, actually.

  • Nevertheless, there's much to learn.

  • So what do we see?

  • We see radioactivity associated with EntB.

  • That's really good news.

  • We see transfer of this radiolabeled Ppant arm.

  • What about lane 3?

  • So what do we see there?

  • AUDIENCE: Also a lot of radioactivity.

  • ELIZABETH NOLAN: Right.

  • We have a lot of radioactivity.

  • We're looking at the construct that only

  • has this C-terminal domain.

  • So what does that tell us?

  • AUDIENCE: It's shorter.

  • That's why it moved down the gel further.

  • ELIZABETH NOLAN: Right.

  • So that's why it has a different migration on the gel.

  • But in terms of seeing the radioactivity, what did

  • we learn?

  • Is this region of the protein essential or dispensable?

  • We don't need this N-terminal domain in order

  • for EntD to modify EntB.

  • So we're seeing that.

  • What about in the middle?

  • AUDIENCE: The deleted region is important [INAUDIBLE]

  • ELIZABETH NOLAN: Right.

  • We see very little radioactivity here.

  • Basically, almost nothing, especially

  • compared to these spots.

  • So deletion of those C-terminal amino acids is detrimental,

  • and so that region is important.

  • So maybe there's protein-protein interaction going on,

  • or something with information that's important.

  • So from here, we learn that EntD transfers the Ppant arm

  • to EntB.

  • The ICL domain is not essential for this,

  • but the C-terminus of this region is here.

  • So now what?

  • We've got in here via the action of EntD.

  • Can we get attachment of the monomer?

  • And so our hypothesis is that EntE, which

  • we saw EntE activate DHB to form with the adenylate,

  • it will also transfer this moiety to EntB.

  • So in this case, what was done, again, we're

  • looking at use of a radiolabel.

  • In this case, the radiolabel is on the DHB lane.

  • And this is an important point.

  • In order to see this, we cannot have radiolabeled Ppant arm,

  • in this case, because that would give you a big background.

  • So they're going to prepare EntB with the Ppant arm unlabeled.

  • We know that will work based on the prior study.

  • And now, we repeat that with unlabeled coASH.

  • And then ask, if we incubate total EntB with EntE, ATP,

  • and radiolabeled DHB, do we see transfer of the radiolabel

  • to this protein here?

  • JOANNE STUBBE: Let me ask a question.

  • This will be a question during class.

  • Can you do this experiment with tritiated CoA and C14-labeled

  • serine, based on what you know about radioactivity?

  • We actually discussed a similar situation.

  • AUDIENCE: Would it last longer [INAUDIBLE]

  • JOANNE STUBBE: Did you go back and look at the lifetimes?

  • Is it infinite compared to any experiments?

  • So it's not lifetimes.

  • Do you have any ideas?

  • AUDIENCE: I mean so tritium, the energy, the particle released,

  • is much lower than the energy of C14.

  • JOANNE STUBBE: Right.

  • So the difference is in the energies.

  • We talked about this.

  • You can tune the scintillation counter.

  • So you measure tritium to C14.

  • So people that do enzymology for a living often

  • use tritium in C14 at the same time.

  • And you can quantitate, if you do your experiments right.

  • It's a very powerful tool together, actually.

  • ELIZABETH NOLAN: So another option,

  • the non-simplistic approach.

  • So basically here, if we're looking at the four lanes,

  • again, we're looking at total protein.

  • We're looking at radioactivity, and can

  • consider the overall reaction, and then a variety of controls.

  • OK, and I want to move forward to get

  • through the rest of the slides and we just have a few more

  • minutes, but you should work through this gel

  • and convince yourself that there is transfer

  • of this radiolabel in the presence of EntD

  • And this was done with unlabeled EntD.

  • OK, so what about peptide bond formation?

  • We have the T domains loaded with the monomer.

  • Can we see activity from the C domain,

  • in terms of the formation of an amide bond.

  • And so this experiment requires a lot of components.

  • So what is the experiment?

  • To look at whether or not EntF catalyzes condensation.

  • Basically, we can incubate EntE, holo EntE, holo EntF, ATP,

  • and these monomers.

  • And what we want to do, in this case,

  • is look at transfer of radiolabeled DHB

  • to serine-loaded EntF.

  • And I guess I got a little ahead of myself on the prior slide.

  • So this is a case where if you add

  • C14 labels in both of your monomers,

  • you'd have a big problem.

  • So key here is to use unlabeled serine and radiolabeled DHB

  • so you're not getting a big background.

  • And an important point to make here in these experiments

  • is that we're looking for detection

  • of a covalent intermediate.

  • So effectively, having this guy here attached to EntF.

  • And so the radiolabel is here.

  • So that's what we're looking for, not the final product,

  • and that's indicated by having the gels.

  • So what do we see?

  • We have the total protein and then the autoradiograph.

  • And so we have holoEntF, EntE, holoEntB.

  • And the question is, where do we see radiolabels transfer?

  • And if we look at lane 3, where we have the proteins, ATP,

  • serine, and radiolabeled DHB, what we observe

  • is that there is some radioactivity here,

  • which is indicative of a covalent intermediate.

  • And again, you should work through these gels

  • and work through the different conditions

  • and make sure it makes sense to you what's seen in each one.

  • So finally, at that stage, the activities

  • for all of these different domains have been found.

  • And so the question is, in the test tube,

  • can we actually get enterobactin biosynthesized,

  • which is going to rely on this TE domain.

  • So the idea is if we incubate everything together,

  • similar to what was done before, can we

  • detect the actual small molecule, rather than

  • this intermediate attached to EntF here?

  • And so the way this was done was by monitoring the reaction

  • by HPLC using reverse stage chromatography.

  • And so here, we have all of the reaction components.

  • Here, we see standard.

  • So in enterobactin, this is the linear trimer,

  • the linear dimer, a monomer.

  • Here's the DHB substrate.

  • And the question is, over time, do we see enterobactin formed?

  • So you can imagine quenching the reaction,

  • taking the soluble component, which

  • should have this small molecule, and looking at each POC.

  • And where you should just focus at the moment is here.

  • So the enterobactin peak, what we see

  • is that over time, there's growth in this peak.

  • You can imagine doing something like LC-MS analysis

  • to confirm it is the species you expect here.

  • So this is full in vitro reconstitution

  • of a non-ribosomal peptide synthetase in the test tube,

  • and it really paved the way for many, many additional

  • experiments related to these types of biosynthetic machines.

  • And so with that, we're going to close this module,

  • and I hope you all have a great spring break.

  • And I leave you in the good hands of JoAnne

  • starting the 28th here for lecture.

The following content is provided under a Creative

Subtitles and vocabulary

Click the word to look it up Click the word to find further inforamtion about it