Search for: All records

Abstract Outer membrane protein (OMP) biogenesis in gram‐negative bacteria is managed by a network of periplasmic chaperones that includes SurA, Skp, and FkpA. These chaperones bind unfolded OMPs (uOMPs) in dynamic conformational ensembles to suppress aggregation, facilitate diffusion across the periplasm, and enhance folding. FkpA primarily responds to heat‐shock stress, but its mechanism is comparatively understudied. To determine FkpA chaperone function in the context of OMP folding, we monitored the folding of three OMPs and found that FkpA, unlike other periplasmic chaperones, increases the folded yield but decreases the folding rate of OMPs. The results indicate that FkpA behaves as a chaperone and not as a folding catalyst to influence the OMP folding trajectory. Consistent with the folding assay results, FkpA binds all three uOMPs as determined by sedimentation velocity (SV) and photo‐crosslinking experiments. We determine the binding affinity between FkpA and uOmpA₁₇₁by globally fitting SV titrations and find it to be intermediate between the known affinities of Skp and SurA for uOMP clients. Notably, complex formation steeply depends on the urea concentration, suggesting an extensive binding interface. Initial characterizations of the complex using photo‐crosslinking indicate that the binding interface spans the entire FkpA molecule. In contrast to prior findings, folding and binding experiments performed using subdomain constructs of FkpA demonstrate that the full‐length chaperone is required for full activity. Together these results support that FkpA has a distinct and direct effect on OMP folding that it achieves by utilizing an extensive chaperone‐client interface to tightly bind clients. 

The periplasmic chaperone network ensures the biogenesis of bacterial outer membrane proteins (OMPs) and has recently been identified as a promising target for antibiotics. SurA is the most important member of this network, both due to its genetic interaction with the β-barrel assembly machinery complex as well as its ability to prevent unfolded OMP (uOMP) aggregation. Using only binding energy, the mechanism by which SurA carries out these two functions is not well-understood. Here, we use a combination of photo-crosslinking, mass spectrometry, solution scattering, and molecular modeling techniques to elucidate the key structural features that define how SurA solubilizes uOMPs. Our experimental data support a model in which SurA binds uOMPs in a groove formed between the core and P1 domains. This binding event results in a drastic expansion of the rest of the uOMP, which has many biological implications. Using these experimental data as restraints, we adopted an integrative modeling approach to create a sparse ensemble of models of a SurA•uOMP complex. We validated key structural features of the SurA•uOMP ensemble using independent scattering and chemical crosslinking data. Our data suggest that SurA utilizes three distinct binding modes to interact with uOMPs and that more than one SurA can bind a uOMP at a time. This work demonstrates that SurA operates in a distinct fashion compared to other chaperones in the OMP biogenesis network. 

Abstract SurA is thought to be the most important periplasmic chaperone for outer membrane protein (OMP) biogenesis. Its structure is composed of a core region and two peptidylprolyl isomerase domains, termed P1 and P2, connected by flexible linkers. As such these three independent folding units are able to adopt a number of distinct spatial positions with respect to each other. The conformational dynamics of these domains are thought to be functionally important yet are largely unresolved. Here we address this question of the conformational ensemble using sedimentation equilibrium, small‐angle neutron scattering, and folding titrations. This combination of orthogonal methods converges on a SurA population that is monomeric at physiological concentrations. The conformation that dominates this population has the P1 and core domains docked to one another, for example, “P1‐closed” and the P2 domain extended in solution. We discovered that the distribution of domain orientations is defined by modest and favorable interactions between the core domain and either the P1 or the P2 domains. These two peptidylprolyl domains compete with each other for core‐binding but are thermodynamically uncoupled. This arrangement implies two novel insights. Firstly, an open conformation must exist to facilitate P1 and P2 exchange on the core, indicating that the open client‐binding conformation is populated at low levels even in the absence of client unfolded OMPs. Secondly, competition between P1 and P2 binding paradoxically occludes the client binding site on the core, which may serve to preserve the reservoir of binding‐competent apo‐SurA in the periplasm.