Differential Affinity and Catalytic Activity of CheZ in E. coli Chemotaxis

Push–pull networks, in which two antagonistic enzymes control the activity of a messenger protein, are ubiquitous in signal transduction pathways. A classical example is the chemotaxis system of the bacterium Escherichia coli, in which the kinase CheA and the phosphatase CheZ regulate the phosphorylation level of the messenger protein CheY. Recent experiments suggest that both the kinase and the phosphatase are localized at the receptor cluster, and Vaknin and Berg recently demonstrated that the spatial distribution of the phosphatase can markedly affect the dose–response curves. We argue, using mathematical modeling, that the canonical model of the chemotaxis network cannot explain the experimental observations of Vaknin and Berg. We present a new model, in which a small fraction of the phosphatase is localized at the receptor cluster, while the remainder freely diffuses in the cytoplasm; moreover, the phosphatase at the cluster has a higher binding affinity for the messenger protein and a higher catalytic activity than the phosphatase in the cytoplasm. This model is consistent with a large body of experimental data and can explain many of the experimental observations of Vaknin and Berg. More generally, the combination of differential affinity and catalytic activity provides a generic mechanism for amplifying signals that could be exploited in other two-component signaling systems. If this model is correct, then a number of recent modeling studies, which aim to explain the chemotactic gain in terms of the activity of the receptor cluster, should be reconsidered.

[1]  V. Sourjik,et al.  Dynamic map of protein interactions in the Escherichia coli chemotaxis pathway , 2009, Molecular systems biology.

[2]  R. Weis,et al.  Distributed subunit interactions in CheA contribute to dimer stability: a sedimentation equilibrium study. , 2004, Biochimica et biophysica acta.

[3]  M. Eisenbach,et al.  Oligomerization of the Phosphatase CheZ Upon Interaction with the Phosphorylated Form of CheY , 1996, The Journal of Biological Chemistry.

[4]  S. V. Aksenov,et al.  A spatially extended stochastic model of the bacterial chemotaxis signalling pathway. , 2003, Journal of molecular biology.

[5]  M. Eisenbach,et al.  Mutants with Defective Phosphatase Activity Show No Phosphorylation-dependent Oligomerization of CheZ , 1996, The Journal of Biological Chemistry.

[6]  Jeroen S. van Zon,et al.  Diffusion of transcription factors can drastically enhance the noise in gene expression. , 2006, Biophysical journal.

[7]  J. Timmer,et al.  Design principles of a bacterial signalling network , 2005, Nature.

[8]  Ned S. Wingreen,et al.  Precise adaptation in bacterial chemotaxis through “assistance neighborhoods” , 2006, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[9]  S. Leibler,et al.  An ultrasensitive bacterial motor revealed by monitoring signaling proteins in single cells. , 2000, Science.

[10]  Pieter Rein ten Wolde,et al.  Enzyme Localization Can Drastically Affect Signal Amplification in Signal Transduction Pathways , 2007, PLoS computational biology.

[11]  H. Berg,et al.  Localization of components of the chemotaxis machinery of Escherichia coli using fluorescent protein fusions , 2000, Molecular microbiology.

[12]  H. Berg,et al.  Single-cell FRET imaging of phosphatase activity in the Escherichia coli chemotaxis system. , 2004, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[13]  M. Surette,et al.  Active Site Interference and Asymmetric Activation in the Chemotaxis Protein Histidine Kinase CheA* , 1996, The Journal of Biological Chemistry.

[14]  H. Berg,et al.  Binding of the Escherichia coli response regulator CheY to its target measured in vivo by fluorescence resonance energy transfer , 2002, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[15]  Monica L. Skoge,et al.  Chemosensing in Escherichia coli: two regimes of two-state receptors. , 2006, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[16]  Ellen S. Vitetta,et al.  An allosteric model for heterogeneous receptor complexes : Understanding bacterial chemotaxis responses to multiple stimuli , 2006 .

[17]  D. Bray,et al.  Receptor clustering as a cellular mechanism to control sensitivity , 1998, Nature.

[18]  D E Koshland,et al.  The branch point effect. Ultrasensitivity and subsensitivity to metabolic control. , 1984, The Journal of biological chemistry.

[19]  A. Wolfe,et al.  Genetic analysis of the catalytic domain of the chemotaxis-associated histidine kinase CheA , 1997, Journal of bacteriology.

[20]  M. Levin,et al.  Kinetic Characterization of Catalysis by the Chemotaxis Phosphatase CheZ , 2008, Journal of Biological Chemistry.

[21]  J. S. Parkinson,et al.  The smaller of two overlapping cheA gene products is not essential for chemotaxis in Escherichia coli , 1995, Journal of bacteriology.

[22]  H Wang,et al.  Characterization of the CheAS/CheZ complex: a specific interaction resulting in enhanced dephosphorylating activity on CheY‐phosphate , 1996, Molecular microbiology.

[23]  Yuhai Tu,et al.  Effects of adaptation in maintaining high sensitivity over a wide range of backgrounds for Escherichia coli chemotaxis. , 2007, Biophysical journal.

[24]  Y. Tu,et al.  Quantitative modeling of sensitivity in bacterial chemotaxis: The role of coupling among different chemoreceptor species , 2003, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[25]  R C Stewart,et al.  Rapid phosphotransfer to CheY from a CheA protein lacking the CheY-binding domain. , 2000, Biochemistry.

[26]  Rui Zhao,et al.  Structure and catalytic mechanism of the E. coli chemotaxis phosphatase CheZ , 2002, Nature Structural Biology.

[27]  R. Stewart,et al.  The short form of the CheA protein restores kinase activity and chemotactic ability to kinase-deficient mutants. , 1993, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[28]  D. Koshland,et al.  An amplified sensitivity arising from covalent modification in biological systems. , 1981, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[29]  Y. Tu,et al.  An allosteric model for heterogeneous receptor complexes: understanding bacterial chemotaxis responses to multiple stimuli. , 2005, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[30]  R. Bourret,et al.  Intermolecular complementation of the kinase activity of CheA , 1993, Molecular microbiology.

[31]  F. Dahlquist,et al.  Regulation of phosphatase activity in bacterial chemotaxis. , 1998, Journal of molecular biology.

[32]  C. Rao,et al.  An allosteric model for transmembrane signaling in bacterial chemotaxis. , 2004, Journal of molecular biology.

[33]  T. Duke,et al.  Heightened sensitivity of a lattice of membrane receptors. , 1999, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[34]  S. Khan,et al.  Determinants of chemotactic signal amplification in Escherichia coli. , 2001, Journal of molecular biology.

[35]  R. Bourret,et al.  Alteration of a Nonconserved Active Site Residue in the Chemotaxis Response Regulator CheY Affects Phosphorylation and Interaction with CheZ* , 2001, The Journal of Biological Chemistry.

[36]  M. Elowitz,et al.  Protein Mobility in the Cytoplasm ofEscherichia coli , 1999, Journal of bacteriology.

[37]  G. L. Hazelbauer,et al.  Cellular Stoichiometry of the Components of the Chemotaxis Signaling Complex , 2004, Journal of bacteriology.

[38]  R. Silversmith High mobility of carboxyl-terminal region of bacterial chemotaxis phosphatase CheZ is diminished upon binding divalent cation or CheY-P substrate. , 2005, Biochemistry.

[39]  R. Stewart,et al.  CheZ Phosphatase Localizes to Chemoreceptor Patches via CheA-Short , 2003, Journal of bacteriology.

[40]  Karen Lipkow,et al.  Changing Cellular Location of CheZ Predicted by Molecular Simulations , 2006, PLoS Comput. Biol..

[41]  P. R. ten Wolde,et al.  Simulating biochemical networks at the particle level and in time and space: Green's function reaction dynamics. , 2005, Physical review letters.