Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2019 Nov 21;14(11):e0219332. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0219332

Protein:Protein interactions in the cytoplasmic membrane apparently influencing sugar transport and phosphorylation activities of the e. coli phosphotransferase system

Mohammad Aboulwafa 1,2, Zhongge Zhang 1, Milton H Saier Jr 1,*
Editor: Hernâni Gerós3
PMCID: PMC6872149  PMID: 31751341

Abstract

The multicomponent phosphoenolpyruvate (PEP)-dependent sugar-transporting phosphotransferase system (PTS) in Escherichia coli takes up sugar substrates from the medium and concomitantly phosphorylates them, releasing sugar phosphates into the cytoplasm. We have recently provided evidence that many of the integral membrane PTS permeases interact with the fructose PTS (FruA/FruB) [1]. However, the biochemical and physiological significance of this finding was not known. We have carried out molecular genetic/biochemical/physiological studies that show that interactions of the fructose PTS often enhance, but sometimes inhibit the activities of other PTS transporters many fold, depending on the target PTS system under study. Thus, the glucose (Glc), mannose (Man), mannitol (Mtl) and N-acetylglucosamine (NAG) permeases exhibit enhanced in vivo sugar transport and sometimes in vitro PEP-dependent sugar phosphorylation activities while the galactitol (Gat) and trehalose (Tre) systems show inhibited activities. This is observed when the fructose system is induced to high levels and prevented when the fruA/fruB genes are deleted. Overexpression of the fruA and/or fruB genes in the absence of fructose induction during growth also enhances the rates of uptake of other hexoses. The β-galactosidase activities of man, mtl, and gat-lacZ transcriptional fusions and the sugar-specific transphosphorylation activities of these enzyme transporters were not affected either by frustose induction or by fruAB overexpression, showing that the rates of synthesis of the target PTS permeases were not altered. We thus suggest that specific protein-protein interactions within the cytoplasmic membrane regulate transport in vivo (and sometimes the PEP-dependent phosphorylation activities in vitro) of PTS permeases in a physiologically meaningful way that may help to provide a hierarchy of preferred PTS sugars. These observations appear to be applicable in principle to other types of transport systems as well.

Introduction

The prokaryotic phosphoenolpyruvate (PEP):sugar phosphotransferase system (PTS) consists of two general energy coupling proteins, Enzyme I, (EI, PtsI; TC# 8.A.7.1.1 in the Transporter Classification Database, TCDB (www.tcdb.org)) and HPr (HPr, PtsH; TC# 8.A.8.1.1), as well as the sugar-specific Enzyme II (EII) complexes (IIABC(D); TC families 4.A.1-7) [15]. The EII complexes usually consist of three proteins or protein domains, IIA, IIB and IIC, although the EII systems of one family, the mannose EII family, consist of four proteins, IIA, IIB, IIC and IID, where IID is an integral membrane protein required for the function of the IIC transporter [6, 7]. Moreover, several members of the glucose family (TC# 4.A.1) use the same EIIAGlc protein (Crr).

The IIA and IIB proteins are cytoplasmic phosphoryl carrier proteins or protein domains while the IIC proteins/domains are integral membrane transporters that catalyze sugar phosphorylation concomitantly with sugar uptake into the cell [8, 9]. In these coupled sugar transport/phosphorylation reactions, called “group translocation,” the phosphoryl moiety of IIB-P is transferred to the incoming sugar to yield a cytoplasmic sugar phosphate (Sugar-P) [10]. The overall phosphoryl transfer reactions are shown in Fig 1.

Fig 1. Phosphoryl transfer pathway for the bacterial phosphotransferase system (PTS).

Fig 1

The figure shows the transfer of a phosphoryl group from phosphoenolpyruvate (PEP) to enzyme I (EI), then to HPr, then to the sugar-specific enzyme IIAs and then to the enzyme IIBs before transfer to the incoming sugar via the enzyme IIC, which catalyzes both transport and phosphoryl transfer in a coupled process. The PTS also catalyzes the group translocation of many other sugars. As indicated, the three extracellular sugars represented are mannitol (Mtl), fructose (Fru), and N-acetylglucosamine (NAG), and their phosphorylated derivatives are released into the cytoplasm. Arrows indicate the pathways of phosphoryl transfer.

In this Figure, arrows indicate the pathways of phosphoryl transfer between the protein constituents of the PTS as defined in the introductory paragraph. Essentially, the same general phosphoryl transfer pathway is used for the phosphorylation of all PTS sugars such as glucose (Glc) and its non-metabolizable analogue, methyl α-glucoside (αMG), transported by the glucose PTS (IIAGlc/IIBGlc/IICGlc, Crr/PtsG; TC# 4.A.1.1.1), mannose (Man) and its non-metabolizable analogue, 2-deoxyglucose (2DG), transported by the mannose PTS (ManXYZ; IIAMan-IIBMan/IICMan/IIDMan; TC# 4.A.6.1.1), trehalose (Tre; an α, α-disaccharide of glucose), transported by the trehalose PTS (Crr/TreB; IIAGlc/IIBCTre; TC# 4.A.1.2.4), and galactitol, transported by the galactitol PTS (IIAGat/IIBGat/IICGat = GatA/GatB/GatC). Many other PTS sugars are transported and phosphorylated in a coupled transport/phosphorylation process known as group translocation (see Class 4 in TCDB).

In addition to these three D-sugars, mannitol (Mtl), fructose (Fru) and N-acetylglucosamine (NAG), the PTS transports and phosphorylates many other sugars, and each bacterial or archaeal species possessing the PTS has a different complement of PTS Enzyme II complexes. Sugars transported via the PTS in various organisms include aldo- and keto-hexoses, amino sugars and their N-acetylated derivatives, hexitols, pentoses, pentitols and a variety of disaccharides, oligosaccharides and glycosides [8]. In Escherichia coli, there are many Enzyme II (EII) complexes, some of which are still not functionally characterized [11]. The EIIs we will be concerned with in this report, in addition to the three illustrated in the scheme shown in Fig 1, are specific for sugars such as galactitol (Gat), glucose (Glc) and the non-metabolizable glucose analogue, methyl α-glucoside (αMG), trehalose (Tre), and mannose (Man) [this system also transports Glc, 2-deoxyglucose (2DG), glucosamine (Glm) and fructose]. These systems are tabulated in Table 1 with their protein abbreviations, protein domain orders, TC numbers (TC #s) in the Transporter Classification Database (TCDB; www.tcdb.org), and primary sugar substrates [1215].

Table 1. Proteins of the PTS in E. coli, relevant to the study reported here.

References for these systems can be found in TCDB.

PTS Complex Protein Constituents (Domains) TC # Substrate(s)
Fructose (Fru) FruA: IICFru-IIBFru-IIB'Fru
FruB: IIA-FPr
4.A.2.11 Fru
Mannitol (Mtl) MtlA: IICMtl-IIBMtl-IIAMtl 4.A.2.1.2 Mtl
Galactitol (Gat) GatA: IIAGat; GatB: IIBGat; GatC: IICGat 4.A.5.1.1 Gat
N-Acetylglucosamine (NAG) NagE: IICNAG-IIBNAG-IIANAG 4.A.1.1.2 NAG
Glucose (Glc) PtsG: IICGlc-IIBGlc;
Crr: IIAGlc
4.A.1.1.1 Glc, methyl α-glucoside (αMG)
Mannose (Man) ManX: IIABMan; ManY: IICMan; ManZ: IIDMan 4.A.6.1.1 Man, 2-deoxyglucose (2DG), Glc, Fru, glucosamine (Glm)
Trehalose (Tre) TreB: IIBTre-IICTre
(Uses IIAGlc; there is no IIATre)
4.A.1.2.4 Tre

In addition to the transport reaction that can be studied in vivo, there are two in vitro sugar phosphorylation reactions, the PEP-dependent sugar phosphorylation reaction that depends on EI, HPr and the complete EII complex, and a sugar-P:sugar transphosphorylation (TP) reaction that depends only on IIB and IIC [1619]. All of these reactions have been used to investigate the consequences of integral membrane protein interactions in the current study.

Recently, Babu et al published global interactome data for E. coli, including cytoplasmic proteins, integral inner and outer membrane proteins and periplasmic proteins [1]. These studies revealed that many Enzyme II components interact with other soluble and integral membrane proteins of the PTS as well as with other non-PTS proteins. A representative selection of these PTS protein interactions is reproduced in Table 2. Of all the Enzyme II constituents, the fructose PTS proteins, FruA and FruB, appeared to form the most extensive PTS interactome network.

Table 2. Selected high scoring PTS transporter (Enzyme II complex) interactions.

The data were derived from Babu et al., 2018 [1]. The higher the score, the stronger the interaction should be, although these scores are also dependent on the protein concentrations.

Protein 1 Protein 2 Score
FruA FruB 12.9
FruA MtlA 11.4
FruA GatC 10.3
FruA NagE 9.4
FruA TreB 7.4
FruA MngA 7.1
FruA DhaL 6.9
MtlA GatC 9.7
MtlA FruB 8.4
ManY GatA 7.5
ManY GatB 6.9
ManY GatC 7.4
ManY MngA 7.7
NagE PtsG 7.0
NagE FruB 5.4

The observation that the Fru PTS might serve to coordinate the activities of other PTS EII complexes correlated with the previously published suggestion that the fructose PTS was the primordial PEP-dependent PTS Enzyme II complex [20]. This suggestion resulted from several observations. (1) The fructose PTS, of all the sugar-specific Enzyme II complexes, is most widely distributed in the prokaryotic world. (2) The fructose system in E. coli has more fructose-like Enzyme II complex homologs than any other. (3) Fructose is the only sugar that feeds directly into glycolysis without interconversion to another sugar derivative. (4) Only fructose can feed into glycolysis via two distinct PTS-mediated pathways: Fru → Fru-1-P → Fru-1,6-bis-P (IIFru), and Fru → Fru 6-P → Fru-1,6-bis P (IIMan). (5) Only the fructose PTS of functionally characterized systems in E. coli has its own HPr-like protein, FPr. (6) Only the fructose Enzyme II complex of E. coli and many other bacteria have extra IIB domains that function in protein-protein interactions rather than phosphoryl transfer [21].

More recent studies revealed that there are at least three evolutionarily distinct superfamilies of PTS Enzyme IIC components [22]. First, the PTS Glucose-Glucoside (Glc) family, the Fructose-Mannitol (Fru) family, the Lactose-N, N′-Diacetylchitobiose (Lac) family, and (4) probably the Glucitol (Gut) family comprise one large sequence-divergent superfamily with all IIC constituents being homologous (TC# 4.A.1-4; see TCDB, www.tcdb.org) [12, 13, 23, 24]. Second, the Galactitol (Gat) family (TC# 4.A.5) and the L-Ascorbate (L-Asc) family (TC# 4.A.7) comprise a distinct superfamily [11, 24, 25], and finally, the functionally diverse Mannose family (TC# 4.A.6) comprises the third PTS superfamily [26]. Each of these three superfamilies of IIC permeases are believed to have evolved independently of each other [22, 27]. However, it should be noted that the IIA and IIB phospho-carrier constituents, which also probably evolved at least 3 times independently of each other, did not coevolve with the IIC permease constituents, suggesting that there has been extensive shuffling of the IIA, IIB and IIC constituents/domains during the evolutionary divergence of these protein complexes [22, 2830].

Bacterial cytoplasmic membranes are crowded with integral membrane proteins that form complexes, inhibiting their lateral mobilities, constraining their flexibilities and probably altering their activities [3134]. Our integral membrane interactome data suggested that many membrane proteins interact with many other membrane proteins, with a wide range of affinities [1]. Some of the high scoring interactions are likely to be permanent, high affinity interactions, while lower scoring interactions are more likely to be transient in nature [35, 36]. Among the observed interactions were many involving Enzyme IIC constituents of the PTS, particularly the fructose IIC protein, FruA, which also bears two additional domains, IIB and IIB′, where IIB′ is not involved in phosphoryl transfer, but plays a role in protein-protein interactions [21] (Table 2).

As noted above, the PTS offers technical advantages over other transport systems for its characterization. It can be assayed in vivo by measuring its sugar transport (uptake) activities, and it can be assayed in vitro by measuring its sugar phosphorylation reactions. These include its PEP-dependent sugar phosphorylating activities as well as its sugar-P-dependent transphosphorylating (TP) activities [19, 37]. The latter reactions require only the IIB and IIC domains which are usually, but not always, fused together (see Table 1). Thus, while the PEP:sugar activity requires protein:protein interactions involving EI, HPr, IIA and IIBC, the sugar-P:sugar TP reaction does not depend on these interactions (except for IIMan) since only the IIC and IIB domains are directly involved.

The results of the studies reported here suggest that in the cytoplasmic membrane of E. coli, the transport of various PTS sugars is influenced by the presence of other PTS permeases in general, and the degree of activation or inhibition depends on the specific systems under study as well as their concentrations in the membrane. Thus, high level expression of the fructose EII complex activates the mannitol, N-acetyl glucosamine, glucose and mannose systems, but it inhibits the galactitol and trehalose systems in wild type cells. Although these protein-protein interactions do not appreciably affect the sugar-P:sugar TP reactions or synthesis of the target EIIs, we did observe a highly specific activation of the in vitro PEP-dependent phosphorylation of mannitol and N-acetylglucosamine, dependent on both FruA and FruB. In this case, we propose that FruB activates MtlA, but that this activation depends on the presence of FruA which could anchor FruB to the membrane, adjacent to MtlA. The more general conclusion is that integral membrane transport proteins in the cytoplasmic membranes of E. coli are in close contact and influence each other’s activities in the intact cell, either in one direction (activation) or the other (inhibition). In some cases, these effects appear to be highly specific, while in others they may be more general. This is, to the best of our knowledge, the first example where global proteomic analyses based on a complete interactome data set, have led to the discovery of regulating interactions influencing the enzymatic and transport activities of some of the interacting integral membrane proteins.

Results

The E. coli integral membrane protein interactome, which includes thousands of putative interactions with other integral membrane proteins as well as other cellular proteins, has been published [1]. Table 2 summarizes the high scoring interactions observed between the constituents of different Enzyme II complexes of the PTS. Not surprisingly, the fructose-1-P-forming fructose-specific membrane constituent of the PTS, FruA (the enzyme IICBB’Fru), interacts with its own FruB protein, the fructose-specific enzyme IIA-FPr protein, the immediate phosphoryl donor for fructose transport energization and phosphorylation, thus providing the energy for fructose uptake via FruA (Table 1; [21]). The interaction score is high (12.9), indicating that this interaction occurs with high affinity since the conditions used to measure these interactions involved growth in LB medium without induction of PTS gene expression [1]. In addition, FruA appeared to interact with several other Enzyme II constituents of the PTS with large scores, far more than for any other PTS Enzyme IIC (Table 2). These interactions include those with MtlA (the IICBA specific for mannitol; score of 11.4), GatC (The galactitol Enzyme IIC; score of 10.3), NagE (The N-acetylglucosamine Enzyme IICBA; score of 9.4), TreB (The trehalose Enzyme IIBC; score of 7.4), and MngA (the 2-0-α-mannosyl-D-glycerate Enzyme IIABC; score of 7.1) (Tables 1 and 2). Other Enzymes II appeared to interact with FruA with lower scores. MtlA additionally interacts with FruB (score, 8.4) and GatC (score, 9.7), while the broad specificity glucose/mannose/fructose/glucosamine Enzyme IIC, ManY, interacts with all three constituents of the galactitol Enzyme II complex, GatA (7.5), GatB (6.9) and GatC (7.4) as well as MngA (7.7) (Table 2).

Many other integral membrane proteins, several of which proved to be transporters, also appeared to interact with FruA. These include the MDR pumps, AcrB (score of 12.9) and MdtF (17.9), the dicarboxylate transporter, DcuA (17.2), the iron porters, FeoB (11.4) and Fet (YbbM; 14.3), the FocA formate channel (9.5), the NupC nucleoside uptake porter (19.6), the MgtA Mg2+ uptake ATPase (12.1) and others [1]. These results suggest that numerous integral membrane transport systems interact, possibly within the hydrophobic matrix of the cytoplasmic membrane, but their biochemical and physiological significance could not be determined from these data alone. Therefore, the transport studies and biochemical analyses reported here were conducted, specifically for the putative PTS protein interactions.

Confirmation of the interactome results using a bacterial two hybrid system

As reported by Babu et al. [1], FruA interacts with other membrane proteins as well as its cognate cytoplasmic partner, FruB (Table 2). A bacterial adenyl cyclase two hybrid (BACTH) system was used to confirm several of these interactions, conducted according to the manufacturers’ instructions (Euromedex bacterial two-hybrid system, Cat # EUK001). Interactions of FruA were demonstrated for the GatC, NagE, TreB and MtlA membrane proteins as well as the cytoplasmic FruB protein. Also, interactions of FruB were observed for MtlA and NagE (S1 Fig). These observations confirm some of the interactions reported by Babu et al., 2018 [1] and suggest that many integral membrane proteins interact with each other in the plane of the membrane, many of them, most likely, in a transient fashion.

Transport studies involving PTS group translocators

Because the FruA protein seemed to interact with many other Enzyme II protein complexes with high scores, more than for any of the other PTS proteins, we decided to examine the effect of growth with and without fructose to induce synthesis of the fructose-specific Enzyme II complex, FruA/FruB, on the rates of uptake of other PTS sugars in wild type (WT) E. coli cells. The results are summarized in Fig 2A, which gives the relative apparent rates of sugar transport by the fructose-induced cells relative to uninduced cells. The raw data for this Figure are presented in S1, S2, S3, S3B, S4, S4B, S5 and S5B Tables. S3B, S4B and S5B Tables are controls for S3, S4 and S5 Tables, respectively. For example, in S3 and S4 Tables, fructose was present during growth, but in S3B and S4B Tables, fructose was absent. Clearly, induction by fructose was necessary for regulation; values recorded represent actual values within experimental error, as indicated by the standard deviation values. As an additional control, the same experiments were conducted with the isogenic strain deleted for the fruBKA operon (ΔfruBKA; triple mutant (TM)), Fig 2B.

Fig 2. Ratios of apparent transport activities for various sugars (PTS substrates and galactose) by wild type E. coli BW25113 (WT) and its fruBKA isogenic mutants (BW25113ΔfruA, BW25113ΔfruB and BW25113-fruBKA:kn (triple mutant, TM)) using cells grown in LB with (WT or mutant + Fru) and without 0.2% fructose.

Fig 2

(A) Relative apparent sugar uptake by wild type E. coli BW25113 (WT) grown in the presence and absence of fructose. (B) Relative apparent sugar uptake by the fruBKA triple E. coli BW25113 mutant (TM) grown in the presence and absence of fructose. (C&D) Relative apparent sugar uptake by the triple mutant (TM) relative to that of the wild type E. coli BW25113 strain when grown in LB or LB plus 0.2% fructose, respectively, as indicated. (E&F) Relative apparent sugar uptake by a fruA mutant relative to that of the wild type E. coli BW25113 strain when grown in LB and LB plus 0.2% fructose, respectively. (G&H) Relative apparent sugar uptake by a fruB mutant relative to that of the wild type E. coli BW25113 strain when grown in LB or LB plus 0.2% fructose, respectively. 1, Fructose; 2, Mannitol; 3, N-acetylglucosamine; 4, Methyl alpha glucoside; 5, 2-Deoxyglucose; 6, Trehalose; 7, Galactitol and 8, Galactose. The raw data for these plots are shown in supplementary materials (S1, S2, S3, S3B, S4, S4B, S5 and S5B Tables). Note: In this Figure and elsewhere, αMG and 2DG uptake values represent accumulation levels, while for other sugars, a combination of uptake + metabolic rates were estimated. Galactose is taken up via the GalP secondary carrier, not by the PTS.

The results presented in Fig 2A show that in a wild type E. coli strain, growth in the presence of fructose enhanced the amounts of uptake of some radioactive sugars while decreasing the amounts of uptake of others. Thus, the apparent mannitol (Mtl) transport rate increased 7-fold, the apparent N-acetylglucosamine (NAG) transport rate increased 6.4-fold, 2-deoxyglucose (2DG) uptake increased 8.7-fold, and methyl α-glucoside (αMG) uptake increased 2.8-fold, due to the presence of fructose in the growth medium. Interestingly, the apparent uptake of trehalose (Tre) and galactitol (Gat) decreased while galactose (Gal, a non-PTS sugar) uptake did not change appreciably.

The fructose operon was completely deleted, and this ΔfruBKA deletion strain (triple mutant; TM) was used in parallel experiments (Fig 2B). With the fruBKA operon absent, the apparent fructose transport rate was reduced to 5% of the wild type rate. None of the other apparent PTS sugar uptake rates, except for that of 2-deoxyglucose, taken up by the mannose system, was affected by the inclusion of fructose in the growth medium. This last fact may have resulted because fructose is a (poor) substrate of the mannose EII complex, and therefore may also be an inducer of this system.

When the TM was examined relative to the wild type (WT) strain, with only LB in the growth medium, none of the apparent sugar uptake rates was affected (Fig 2C), but when fructose was present during growth, the apparent transport of those sugars that had been stimulated by fructose induction in the WT showed low ratios of uptake, while those that were inhibited in the WT showed increased ratios (Fig 2D), in agreement with those presented in Fig1A. When either fruA or fruB was deleted, all regulatory effects were abolished (Fig 2E and 2G), as was true for the ΔfruBKA strain (Fig 2C). However, the apparent transport ratios, ΔfruA/WT and ΔfruB/WT, showed depressed ratios for those sugars whose uptake was increased by fru operon induction in the WT (Mtl, NAG, αMG and 2DG), and increased values for those sugars whose apparent transport was depressed by fru operon induction (Tre and Gat) (compare Fig 2A with Fig 2D, 2F and 2H).

In summary, it appears that high level expression of the fruBKA operon has effects on the uptake of other PTS sugars, with apparent Mtl, NAG, αMG and 2DG transport consistently showing activation while those for Gat and Tre show inhibition. In ΔfruA and ΔfruB mutants, no regulatory effects were observed. These results suggested that either FruA, FruB, or more likely, both, serve(s) regulatory roles, influencing the apparent rates of transport of other PTS sugars, positively or negatively, depending on the sugar-specific transport system assayed.

Fig 3 presents corresponding results for strains in which the fruA, fruB, or fruA and fruB genes were overexpressed. Overexpression of fruA in the TM genetic background increased apparent Mtl and NAG transport rates 4-5-fold, but increased apparent αMG and 2DG transport rates 7 and 11-fold, respectively, compared to the control strain bearing the empty pMAL plasmid (Fig 3A). When the same experiment was conducted in the wild type genetic background, qualitatively similar results were obtained, but enhancement of the apparent transport rates were diminished except for the mannose/2DG uptake system, which was increased (Fig 3B). Only in the WT background did overexpression of fruA or fruB increase the apparent 2DG uptake rate. Surprisingly, in both cases, apparent Tre and Gat transport rates were not appreciably depressed, possibly due to the non-native conditions used. Thus, when fruB was overexpressed in either the triple mutant (TM; Fig 3C) or the WT genetic background (WT; Fig 3D), there was a significant increase in activity only when 2DG uptake was measured in the WT background. fruB overexpression did seem to stimulate 2DG uptake. Finally, when both fruA and fruB were simultaneously overexpressed using two different compatible plasmids, in either the TM or WT genetic background, the apparent stimulatory effects on Mtl, NAG, αMG and 2DG transport were similar to those observed when only fruA was overexpressed. Again, in this experiment, overexpression of fruA, fruB, or fruA and fruB did not cause apparent Tre and Gat transport to decrease.

Fig 3. Ratios of apparent transport activities for various sugars (PTS substrates and galactose) by wild type E. coli BW25113 (WT) and its fruBKA triple mutant (BW25113-fruBKA:kn (TM) over-expressing individual or combined fruBKA operon genes.

Fig 3

Ratios of apparent transport rates for [14C]sugar uptake in wild type (WT) and ΔfruBKA mutant backgrounds over-expressing individual or combined fruBKA operon genes as presented at the tops of the figures: A. fruA in the TM strain. B. fruA in the WT parental strain. C. fruB in the TM strain. D. fruB in the WT parental strain. E. fruA and fruB in the TM strain. F. fruA and fruB in the WT parental strain. 1, Fructose; 2, Mannitol; 3, N-acetylglucosamine; 4, Methyl alpha glucoside; 5, 2-Deoxyglucose; 6, Trehalose; 7, Galactitol and 8, Galactose. The raw data for these plots are provided in supplementary materials (S6S12 Tables). ND, not determined.

To explain these results, we must consider that the overexpression of fruA and fruB caused by fructose induction was dissimilar from that obtained using the two compatible plasmids, pMAL and pZA31-PtetM2, which have different copy numbers. Thus, balanced and equimolar expression of fruA and fruB was achieved in the former case but not in the latter case. Additionally, both FruA and FruB interact with many proteins (see Introduction), which may influence the consequences of their high levels of expression. Nevertheless, the results confirm the suggestion that FruA is primarily responsible for the stimulation of Mtl, NAG, 2DG and αMG uptake, although FruB may play a lesser role.

Operon induction properties using lacZ fusions

The three transport systems showing largest responses to fructose induction in wild type cells were the systems encoded by the mannitol (mtl), galactitol (gat) and mannose (man) operons (see Fig 2). Therefore, in order to determine if these effects reflected changes in operon transcription or EII activities, transcriptional lacZ fusions were constructed to operons encoding these three PTS systems (mtlA-lacZ; gatY-lacZ and manXYZ-lacZ). These were used in studies to determine the effects of fructose in the growth medium prior to transport rate determinations. The results are presented in Table 3. It can be seen that the presence of fructose in the growth medium, or the overexpression of specific fru operon genes, had no apparent effect on the induction of mtl, gat, and man operon expression. These results imply that the effects observed in Figs 2 and 3 reflect the enzyme II activities and not their syntheses. This conclusion is substantiated by the results obtained when the transphosphorylation reactions were studied (see Table 4 below).

Table 3. Ratios of the responses of lacZ fusion-bearing strains to various conditions and genetic backgrounds (S13S15 Tables).

WT = wild type, BW25113; OE = overexpression; ΔfruBKA = deletion of the entire fruBKA operon, also called triple mutant, TM. All strains were grown in LB medium to which 0.2% fructose was added, only for the first two entries as indicated. The remaining entries reveal the consequences of the overexpression of specific fru genes or gene combinations on lacZ-fusion gene expression. In no case were the changes significant, suggesting that the presence of fructose in the growth medium or the overexpression (OE) of specific fru genes, or the entire fru operon, did not influence expression of the mtl, gat, or man operons.

mtlA-lacZ gatY-lacZ manXYZ-lacZ
WT, ± 0.2% fructose/WT (S13 Table) 0.9 0.4 0.7
ΔfruBKA, ± 0.2% fructose/ΔfruBKA (S13 Table) 0.9 1.2 1.6
WT fruA OE/WT (S14 Table) 1.2 1.0 1.3
WT fruB OE/WT (S14 Table) 1.1 1.1 1.1
ΔfruBKA, fruA OE/ΔfruBKA (S14 Table) 1.1 1.1 1.0
ΔfruBKA, fruB OE/ΔfruBKA (S14 Table) 1.1 1.1 1.0
ΔfruBKA, fruA/fruB OE/ΔfruBKA (S15 Table) 1.0 0.9 1.1

Table 4. Effects of overexpressing fruA and varying amounts of purified FruB on the transphosphorylation activities of tested enzyme II complexes.

Results are expressed as the ratios of enzyme activities in the presence relative to the absence of purified FruB for the different preparations. The raw data are presented in S25 and S26 Tables. In all cases, neither FruA nor FruB influenced the transphosphorylation activities for the 5 sugar-specific Enzyme II complexes assayed.

Radioactive sugar Relative enzyme activity
(OE FruA/TM)
Relative enzyme activity (EII plus purified FruB /EII alone)
TM-pMAL-fruA TM-pMAL
Purified FruB (μg) Purified FruB (μg)
0.24 0.37 1.48 1.85 1.85
Value±SD Value±SD Value±SD Value±SD Value±SD Value±SD
Mannitol 1±0.14 1.01±0.1 0.98±0.11 0.87±0.05 0.8±0.08 1.07±0.13
N-Acetylglucos-amine 0.8±0.14 1.05±0.09 0.98±0.08 1.05±0.24 1.15±0.15 1.1±0.17
Trehalose 0.5±0.02 1.06±0.09 0.92±0.01 0.94±0.06 0.96±0.06 1.07±0.08
Methyl alpha glucoside 1.2±0.04 0.97±0.04 1.01±0.02 1.04±0.01 0.97±0.09 1.02±0.08
2-Deoxyglucose 1.2±0.01 1.13±0.13 1.12±0.2 1±0.05 1.02±0.16 1.03±0.13

Summarizing, growth with or without fructose, or after overexpressing fruA and/or fruB had essentially no effect on the levels of the β-galactosidase activities of the mtlA-, gatY- and manXYZ-lacZ bearing strains. This clearly implied that the mtl, gat and man operons were not repressed or induced by the presence of fructose in a wild type or ΔfruBKA strain or by single or dual overexpression of fruA and fruB in the triple mutant, ΔfruBKA, genetic background.

PEP-dependent phosphorylation of PTS sugars in vitro

Fig 4A presents the consequences of growth in the presence of fructose on the PEP-dependent phosphorylation of various PTS sugars. As expected, fructose phosphorylation activity increased dramatically, but mannitol and N-acetylglucosamine phosphorylation activities increased as well. Interestingly, galactitol phosphorylation decreased dramatically although phosphorylation of other PTS sugars were apparently not affected. Upon overexpression of the complete fruBKA operon (Fig 4B), or of the fruA and fruB genes co-expressed on compatible plasmids, similar results were obtained with increased phosphorylation activities of Fru > Mtl > NAG (Fig 3C and 3D). FruA or FruB overproduction alone had little or no effect, and the phosphorylation of other PTS sugars also showed little effect. Mannitol phosphorylation increased 4 to 6-fold, while phosphorylation of N-acetylglucosamine increased 2 to 3-fold, and phosphorylation of galactitol decreased to about one eighth. Inclusion of fructose, fructose 1-P, fructose 6-P or fructose 1,6-bisphosphate during the in vitro assay had essentially no effect on mannitol, N-acetylglucosamine or galactitol phosphorylation.

Fig 4. PEP-dependent phosphorylation of various radioactive PTS sugars by crude extracts of wild type and ΔfruBKA strains of E. coli following either induction with fructose or overexpression of fruBKA or fruA and fruB.

Fig 4

Ratios of the PEP-dependent phosphorylation rates for various radioactive PTS sugars by crude extracts of wild type and ΔfruBKA strains of E. coli. A. wild type cells induced by growth in LB + fructose (0.2%) compared to LB grown cells. B. Effect of the overexpression of the entire fruBKA operon on in vitro PEP-dependent sugar phosphorylation rates when cells were grown in LB medium. C. The consequences of the simultaneous overexpression of fruA and fruB in the WT background. D. The same as C except that the ΔfruBKA strain was used. 1, Fructose; 2, Mannitol; 3, N-acetylglucosamine; 4, Methyl alpha glucoside; 5, 2-Deoxyglucose; 6, Trehalose and 7, Galactitol. The raw data for these plots are presented in S16S21 Tables. Other conditions and combinations of gene overexpression did not result in appreciable changes in activities (see S16S21 Tables).

The mtlA gene was inactivated with a kanamycin resistance gene insertion or was deleted (ΔmtlA), and the crude extracts were compared with the wild type. Crude extracts were assayed for PEP-dependent [14C]mannitol phosphorylation after growth with or without fructose, and the activity was reduced to a few percent of the wild type level in the insertion or deletion mutant (S22 Table), showing that mannitol cannot be phosphorylated at an appreciable level by other PTS Enzyme II complexes under these conditions.

To further examine the effects of the FruA and FruB proteins on activation of other PTS Enzyme II complexes, recombinant FruB was purified to near homogeneity (S2 Fig), and it was added to crude extracts of the recombinant ΔfruBKA mutant ± overexpression of fruA. The results, presented in Table 5, show that purified FruB had a FruA-dependent activating effect on [14C]mannitol phosphorylation in vitro when PEP was the phosphoryl donor, regardless of whether membrane pellets were used from the WT or ΔfruBKA strain, or whether a crude extract was used from the mutant lacking the fru operon. Purified HPr did not stimulate mannitol phosphorylation.

Table 5. Effect of purified FruB or HPr on the PEP-dependent phosphorylation of [14C]mannitol using membrane pellets (MP) of E. coli strain BW25113-pMAL-fruA and BW25113-fruBKA:kn-pMAL-fruA or crude extracts (Cr.Ext.) of strain BW25113-fruBKA:kn-pMAL-fruA as compared to their corresponding control strains BW25113-pMAL and BW25113-fruBKA:kn-pMAL.

Purified protein added Activity ratio (Enzyme II plus FruB or HPr /Enzyme II alone)
MP-WT-pMAL MP-WT-pMAL-fruA MP- ΔfruBKA -pMAL MP- ΔfruBKA -pMAL-fruA Cr.Ext-ΔfruBKA -pMAL Cr.Ext-ΔfruBKA -pMAL-fruA
FruB (0.23 μM) 1.5 8.6 1.2 8.1 1.2 7.5
HPr (0.55 μM) 2.0 2.3 1.7 2.3 1.5 1.5

Moreover, while mannitol phosphorylation responded dramatically to the inclusion of FruB in the assay mixture, a lesser activation was observed when N-acetylglucosamine was the sugar substrate (Fig 5). Activation by FruB but not HPr showed that FruB activation is not due to the activity of the FPr domain of FruB but is dependent on the presence of FruA (Table 5).

Fig 5. Effect of purified FruB on PEP-dependent phosphorylation activities of crude extracts of the recombinant triple mutant E. coli strain BW25113-fruBKA:kn-pMAL-fruA (TM-pMAL-fruA, closed symbols) as compared to the BW25113-fruBKA:kn-pMAL (TM-pMAL, open symbols), assaying phosphorylation of [14C]PTS sugars, mannitol (Mtl, squares) and N-acetylglucosamine (NAG, triangles).

Fig 5

The raw data are presented in S23 Table.

The crude extract of E. coli strain BW25113-mtlA:kn or BW25113ΔmtlA grown in LB+0.2% fructose was prepared and used to demonstrate the absence of mannitol phosphorylation by FruA (S22 Table). The results eliminate the possibility that stimulation of mannitol phosphorylation was due to cross substrate specificity causing mannitol phosphorylation by EIIFru.

Effect of a high-speed supernatant (HSS), derived from E. coli cells with fruBKA overexpressed, on the in vitro PEP-dependent phosphorylation activities of membrane pellet preparations with overexpressed fruA or galP

In view of the in vitro phosphorylation results described above and presented in Table 5 and Fig 5, a high-speed supernatant [(HSS), supplying all of the soluble proteins of the PTS (Enzyme I, HPr and FruB)] from a strain overexpressing the fruBKA operon, was examined for the effects on phosphorylation activities of membrane pellet preparations overexpressing either fruA or galP (Fig 6 and S24 Table).

Fig 6.

Fig 6

Effects of using a HSS from lysed E. coli BW25113 chs kn:T:Ptet-fruBKA cells, overexpressing the fruBKA operon, on the PEP-dependent phosphorylation activities of enzymes II in membrane pellets (MP) of E. coli BW25113 overexpressing fruA (A) or galP (B) for PTS sugars: 1, Fructose; 2, Mannitol; 3, N-acetylglucosamine and 4, Galactitol. An aliquot of an 8 h HSS from E. coli BW25113 chs kn:T:Ptet-fruBKA (WT OE fruBKA operon) was used as a source of soluble PTS enzymes for the measurement of PEP-dependent phosphorylation activities. The raw data are presented in S24 Table.

Increased expression of fruB in a high speed supernatant (HSS) from cells overexpressing fruBKA, gave a large increase (about 56-fold) of fructose phosphorylation as expected, but mannitol phosphorylation increased 9.1-fold, while N-acetylglucosamine phosphorylation increased 2.7-fold for the overexpressed fruA membrane pellets (Fig 6A). Overexpressed galP membrane pellets did not show activation (Fig 6B; S24 Table). Interestingly, inhibition of [14C]galactitol phosphorylation observed in fruA overexpressed membrane pellets was similarly observed in galP overexpressed membrane pellets. These results suggest that while the activation of mannitol (and to a lesser extent, N-acetylglucosamine) phosphorylation in vitro is specific to the fructose PTS enzymes, FruA and FruB, the inhibition of galactitol phosphorylation is not as specific.

Effects of fruA overexpression and purified FruB on sugar-P:sugar transphosphorylation reactions

In contrast to the PEP-dependent phosphorylation reactions catalyzed by the PTS, the sugar-phosphate:sugar transphosphorylation reactions depend only on the Enzyme IIB-IIC complex (as well as IID for the mannose system), not on Enzyme I, HPr or the Enzyme IIA proteins. Therefore, these reactions were studied as controls. The phosphorylation of several sugars (mannitol, N-acetylglucosamine, trehalose, methyl α-glucoside and 2-deoxyglucose) were assayed in the presence of either FruA (due to the overexpression of the fruA gene) alone or FruA and variable quantities of purified FruB (0.24, 0.37, 1.48 and 1.85 μg per reaction mixture). As shown in Table 4, in no case was there a significant effect (>50%) on the transphosphorylation reactions examined (see S25 & S26 Tables for the raw data).

These transphosphorylation reactions do not depend on protein:protein interactions, except for the mannose system, in which the IIABman protein must interact with the IICman- IIDman complex, and in this case, it appears that all constituents of the system are associated in the membrane. In all other cases examined, the IIB and IIC domains are present in a single polypeptide chain (see Table 1). Thus, it appears likely that the effects of varying the expression level(s) of one or more PTS IIC/IIB component(s) on the in vivo transport and in vitro phosphorylation activities of other Enzyme II complexes of different specificities is due to facilitation or inhibition of protein-protein interactions within and between the Enzyme II complexes of the PTS. Thus, the results confirm the results obtained using the lacZ fusions and suggest that turnover of the EIIs does not influence the in vivo transport or in vitro PEP-dependent sugar phosphorylation results. FruA and FruB do not promote or inhibit synthesis of other PTS Enzymes. The effects appear to be on the transport and PEP-dependent phosphorylation activities of these enzyme transporters, not on their syntheses or sugar-P:sugar transphosphorylation activities.

Discussion

As noted in the introductory section of this paper, the PTS, found only in prokaryotes, both bacteria and archaea, but not in eukaryotes so far examined, is complex, both in structure and function [211]. It consists of energy-coupling phosphoryl transfer proteins (Enzyme I, HPr, and the sugar-specific IIA and IIB proteins or protein domains) as well as the PTS sugar transporters, the IIC constituents of the systems that catalyze transfer of the phosphoryl moieties of the IIB~P proteins to the incoming sugars [3, 4, 6] (see Introduction and Table 1). However, it has also been shown that the PTS serves as a chemoreception system [3841] and regulates carbon, nitrogen and energy metabolism [4244]. Prior to the present study, the enzyme IIC proteins had not been shown to function as parts of regulatory networks involving direct protein-protein interactions within the membrane.

In a global interactome study involving both soluble and integral membrane proteins in E. coli K12 [1], we reported that many integral membrane proteins interact with each other, and particularly prominent, were those involving the fructose-specific Enzyme IIC proteins of the PTS (see Table 2). Because these PTS enzyme-transporters can be assayed in vitro as well as in vivo, we investigated the consequences of these interactions. Most striking was the observation that many of the PTS permeases interact with the fructose PTS (FruA/FruB), more than with any other PTS Enzyme II complex (Table 2). However, the biochemical and physiological significance of these interactions was not known. As a result, we carried out the molecular genetic, biochemical and physiological studies reported here, revealing that the activities of the Enzyme IICs of several different PTS sugar-specific transporters are enhanced by their interactions with FruA (the fructose Enzyme IIBC), but that others are inhibited by the corresponding interactions. These effects were large, as great as 20-fold, and far in excess of the standard errors of the measurements. The results also showed that regulation of the uptake of PTS sugars in vivo does not correlate quantitatively with regulation of sugar phosphorylation in vitro. This confirms conclusions of previous studies suggesting that although the two processes, transport and phosphorylation, are coupled under normal conditions in vivo, the rate limiting steps for phosphorylation in vitro are different from those for sugar uptake in vivo [4547]. This can be explained, for example, if cell lysis partially disrupts the relevant protein-protein interactions.

The level of the fructose Enzyme II complex in the membrane proved to determine the extent of activation or inhibition of the target Enzyme II systems. Moreover, the magnitude and direction of regulation depended on the specific target PTS transport system under study. Thus, the glucose, mannose, mannitol and N-acetylglucosamine permeases exhibited enhanced in vivo sugar transport activities, and sometimes enhanced in vitro PEP-dependent sugar phosphorylation activities (but to differing extents), while the galactitol and trehalose systems showed inhibited activities (also to differing extents) when the fructose system was induced to a high level in wild type cells. Most of these effects were shown to occur either due to fruBKA operon induction by the presence of fructose during growth of the wild type cells used for the assay, or to fruA and/or fruB gene overexpression in the absence of fructose in the growth medium. We found that the presence of fructose during assay in vivo or in vitro was unimportant for this regulation, except for induction of the regulating system as noted above. In fact, exhaustive studies failed to reveal a significant role for the presence of the sugar substrate or sugar-phosphate product of the activating or inhibiting Enzyme II complex on the extent of regulation, either during assay or during growth, except for induction of the regulating system.

As controls, first, the sugar-specific transphosphorylation activities of these PTS enzyme/transporters (dependent only on the presence of the IIBC domains, not on the presence of Enzyme I, HPr or the Enzymes IIA) [1619, 48], and second, the rates of synthesis of the target PTS permeases, as measured using lacZ transcriptional fusions, were shown not to be affected. These observations clearly suggested that the activating or inhibiting effects observed were due to the consequences of direct protein-protein interactions within the membrane, only on the activities, not the syntheses, of the target enzymes II. The fact that the transphosphorylation reactions of these EIIs were not decreased by high level expression of IIFru additionally suggested that these EIIs did not undergo degradation or turnover.

It seemed reasonable, but was not proven, that regulation depended on interactions of the target PTS permeases with the energy coupling proteins of the PTS as well as the regulating Enzyme II. It should be noted, however, that the interactions might also influence the stabilities of the target Enzymes II, although this seems less likely due to the remarkable stability of the membrane-embedded EIIs as well as the uninfluenced transphosphorylation activities. We thus suggest that specific protein-protein interactions (PPIs) within the cytoplasmic membrane regulate the activities of PTS permeases in a physiologically meaningful way that may contribute to and enhance the importance of the hierarchy of preferred PTS sugars as previously demonstrated when studying catabolite repression [2, 49, 50]. Since these effects could be demonstrated in the absence of a functional fructose-transporting system, we suggest that it is the direct PPIs, and not the activities of the regulating proteins, that determine the regulatory effects. Thus, it is the levels of the regulating system that seem to determine the degrees of activation or inhibition of the target Enzyme II complexes.

While these conclusions appear valid for the in vivo transport results, the same seems to be true of the PEP-dependent sugar phosphorylation results, although this is less certain as the regulatory effects were substantially smaller. In this regard, both the lack of any regulatory effect on the IIBC-dependent in vitro transphosphorylation reactions and target PTS gene transcription, as well as the lesser regulatory effects in vitro compared to in vivo, strengthen the suggestion that complex formation involving PTS proteins plays an important role, and that cell disruption may have dissociated some of these interactions.

It is interesting to note that in a previous publication, we suggested that the fructose Enzyme IIABC complex was the primordial system, and that all other PTS Enzymes II arose later during evolution of the more complex PTS [20, 51]. The original evidence for this suggestion has been summarized in the Introduction. It is relevant to the present studies that only the fructose Enzyme II has a duplicated IIB domain (IIB’) that functions in protein-protein interactions and not in phosphoryl transfer [21]. It is possible that this “extra” domain plays a role in the regulatory interactions documented in this report. Moreover, we have demonstrated the biochemical significance of the large number of protein-protein interactions for the fructose PTS, as compared with those for any other sugar-specific Enzyme II complex, again consistent with the suggestion that the fructose PTS was the primordial system.

The observations cited above, explaining the functions of the interactions of the fructose PTS with other Enzyme II complexes, appear to be applicable in principle to other Enzymes II as well as to other (non-PTS) types of transport systems. Thus, in preliminary studies, we found that several Enzymes II, in addition to the fructose Enzyme II, interact with other Enzymes II (see Table 2), having activating or inhibiting effects that depend both on the level of the inhibiting Enzyme II complex and apparently, on the hierarchical position of the target systems under study. Moreover, we found that high level expression of genes encoding the Enzymes II of the PTS influence the activities of certain non-PTS integral membrane transporters in vivo, and vice versa. These observations lead to the suggestion that interactions of many integral membrane transport proteins (and possibly a variety of integral membrane enzymes) occur in the plane of the membrane, influencing their activities, possibly in a physiologically significant and relevant way. The experiments reported here therefore serve as guides to direct further experimentation aimed at defining the consequences of intra-membrane protein-protein interactions. Future studies will be required to determine the extent to which these interactions occur and prove to be physiologically important.

Experimental procedures

Constructions of bacterial two-hybrid plasmids

The Euromedex bacterial two-hybrid system (Euromedex, Cat # EUK001), consisting of two compatible plasmids, pUT18 and pKNT25, were designed to detect protein-protein interactions in vivo. pUT18 encodes Ap resistance and carries the ColE1 origin and the Plac promoter driving T18 domain of cAMP synthase of Bordetella pertussis, while pKNT25 encodes Kn resistance and carries the p15A origin and the Plac promoter driving T25 domain of cAMP synthase. To determine any possible interactions between two target proteins, one gene was fused to the N-terminus of T18 in pUT18 while the other was fused to the N-terminus of T25 of pKNT25. These two plasmids were co-transformed into an E. coli strain lacking its own cAMP synthase gene cyaA. In the case in which the two target proteins closely interacted, thereby bringing together the T18 and T25 domains, the E. coli cells synthesized cAMP, thereby exhibiting unique phenotypes that can be assessed.

fruA, fruB, gatC, nagE, treB, mtlA, galP, lacY and pheP were amplified by PCR from BW25113 genomic DNA using carefully designed oligonucleotides (S28 Table), digested with appropriate restriction enzymes, and then ligated into the same sites of pUT18 individually. In each of these resultant plasmids, the target structural gene, with no stop codon, is inserted immediately upstream of the N-terminus of T18 in pUT18, creating a single hybrid gene that encodes the target protein at the N-terminus and the T18 domain at the C-terminus. These plasmids are denoted pUT18-fruA, pUT18-fruB, pUT18-gatC, pUT18-nagE, pUT18-treB, pUT18-mtlA, pUT18-galP, pUT18-lacY and pUT18-pheP, respectively (S27 Table).

Similarly, fruA, fruB, mtlA and nagE were individually fused to the N-terminus of the T25 domain in pKNT25. Each of these resultant plasmids carries a single hybrid gene encoding the target protein at the N-terminus and the T25 domain at the C-terminus. These plasmids are denoted pKNT25-fruA, pKNT25-fruB, pKNT25-mtlA and pKNT25-nagE, respectively (S27 Table).

To test the possible interaction between two proteins, a recombinant pUT18 plasmid and a recombinant pKENT25 plasmid were co-transformed by electroporation into the E. coli BTH101 strain deleted for cyaA. The transformants were inoculated onto MacConkey agar plates supplemented with maltose, kanamycin (Kn), ampicillin (Ap) and IPTG. The plates were incubated at 30°C for up to 48 h. The appearance of red colonies indicated positive interactions between the target proteins. The intensity of red color was proportionally correlated to the level of protein-protein interactions.

Constructions of fruA, fruB, fruBKA and mtlA deletion mutants

Strains (and plasmids) and DNA oligonucleotides used in this study are described in Supplementary S27 and S28 Tables, respectively. The deletion mutants of fruA, fruB, fruBKA and mtlA were generated from the parental strain (E. coli K-12 strain BW25113) using a standard method as described in [52]. Briefly, to construct each mutant, a kanamycin resistance gene (kn), flanked by the FLP recognition site (FRT), amplified from the template plasmid pKD4 using a pair of specific mutation oligos (S28 Table), was first substituted for the target gene or operon. Where indicated, the kn gene was subsequently eliminated (leaving an 85-bp FRT sequence) using plasmid pCP20 that bears the FLP recombinase. Replacements of the target genes/operons by the FRT-flanking kn gene and subsequent removal of the kn gene were confirmed by colony PCR and DNA sequencing, yielding deletion mutants ΔfruA, ΔfruB, ΔfruBKA and ΔmtlA, respectively (S27 Table).

Construction of the Ptet driven fruBKA strain

Using plasmid pKDT:Ptet [53] as template, the DNA region containing the kn gene and the Ptet promoter was PCR amplified using a specific primer pair, PtetfruB-P1/PtetfruB-P2 (S28 Table). The PCR products were integrated into the BW25113 chromosome to replace the fruBKA promoter (PfruBKA between the 123th nucleotide and the 1st nucleotide relative to the translational start point of fruB). This chromosomal integration led to Ptet-driven fruBKA expression (strain BW_Ptet-fruBKA) (S27 Table).

Construction of overexpression plasmids

pMAL-p2X [54] was used to overexpress various cytoplasmic and transport proteins in E. coli. This plasmid carries a ColE1 origin, lacIq and a strong IPTG inducible promoter Ptac, driving malE gene expression (useful in making N-terminal fusions for protein purification purposes). To make a control plasmid (carrying Ptac but not malE), pMAL-p2X was digested with BglII (+435 to +440 relative to the start site of malE) and SalI (located downstream of malE in the multiple cloning site region) and then re-ligated, yielding pMAL-empty which is the same as pMAL-p2X except that most of malE has been removed.

The structural regions of fruA (encoding the fructose uptake transporter), fruB (encoding the fructose-specific PTS multiphosphoryl transfer protein) and galP (encoding the galactose:H+ symporter), were PCR amplified from BW25113 genomic DNA (using specific pairs of primers as indicated in S28 Table), digested with NdeI and BamHI, and then ligated into the same sites of pMAL-p2X individually. In each resultant recombinant plasmid, the target structural gene (no promoter and no 5’ UTR) is substituted for malE in pMAL-p2X, and its expression is exclusively under the control of the IPTG inducible promoter Ptac. These plasmids were referred to as pMAL-fruA, pMAL-fruB and pMAL-galP, respectively (S27 Table).

Chromosomal PmtlA-lacZ, Pman-lacZ and PgatY-lacZ Transcriptional Fusions

The mtlA promoter region (-386 bp to +57 bp relative to the mtlA translational start point), the man promoter region (-234 bp to +54 bp relative to the manX translational start point) and the gatY promoter region (-204 bp to +42 bp relative to the gatY translational start point), each plus a stop codon at the 3’ end, were amplified from BW25113 genomic DNA. These DNA fragments, referred to as promoter regions (each containing a promoter region, the first 14 to 19 codons plus a stop codon at the end) were then inserted between the XhoI and BamHI sites of the plasmid pKDT [53], yielding the plasmids pKDT_PmtlA, pKDT_Pman and pKDT_PgatY, respectively. In each of these newly made plasmids, an rrnB terminator (rrnBT) is present between the kn gene and the downstream cloned promoter. The DNA fragments containing the kn gene, rrnBT and those of the promoter regions (plus the first 14 to 19 codons followed by a stop codon) were PCR amplified from the above plasmids and individually integrated into the chromosome of MG1655 carrying the seamless lacY deletion [53] to replace lacI and PlacZ but not the 5’ UTR of lacZ. All of these chromosomal integrations were confirmed by colony PCR and subsequent DNA sequencing analyses. These promoter-lacZ fusions were individually transferred to BW25113 by P1 transduction, yielding strains BW_PmtlA-lacZ, BW_Pman-lacZ and BW_PgatY-lacZ, respectively. Similarly, these reporters were transferred to ΔfruBKA, yielding strains ΔfruBKA_PmtlA-lacZ, ΔfruBKA_Pman-lacZ and ΔfruBKA_PgatY-lacZ, respectively (S27 Table). In each of these reporter strains, the promoter of interest drives the first 14 to 19 codons of the target gene followed by the lacZ’ 5’ UTR and the structural gene.

β-Galactosidase assays

The E. coli reporter strains were grown in 5 ml of media contained in 18 mm diameter glass test tubes under the same conditions as for the uptake experiments. During incubation, samples were removed for measurements of OD600nm and β-galactosidase activities after being appropriately diluted.

To measure β-galactosidase activities, 0.8 ml of Z-buffer containing β-mercaptoethanol (2.7 μl/ml) and SDS (0.005%) were mixed with 0.2 ml of sample and 25 μl of CHCl3 in test tubes [55]. The tubes were vortexed twice (each time for 10 seconds) at a constant speed and incubated in a 37°C water bath until equilibration. A 0.2 ml aliquot of ONPG substrate (4 mg/ml) was then added to each test tube. When yellow color developed, the reaction was stopped by adding 0.5 ml 1 M Na2CO3 followed by vortexing. After that, the reaction mixtures were centrifuged, and the absorbance values of the supernatants were measured at 420 nm and 550 nm. A control tube was run in parallel using diluted or undiluted LB broth instead of the test sample. β-galactosidase activity was expressed in Miller units = [(OD420-1.75XOD550)/[(sample volume in ml) X time in min X OD600nm] X 1000 X dilution factor [56].

Culture conditions for uptake of radioactive substrates

A fresh culture (100 μl of the test strain) was used to inoculate 5 ml of LB (in the case of wild type or mutant strains) or LB plus either 100 μg/ml ampicillin for pMAL plasmid harboring strains, or 100 μg/ml ampicillin plus 25 μg/ml chloramphenicol for strains harboring the pMAL/pZA31PtetM2-GFM plasmids. The 18 mm diameter tubes were incubated in a shaking water bath at 250 rpm and 37°C for about 6 h. Aliquots of 100 μl of the cultures were used to inoculate 50 ml of LB/5 mM MgSO4 with or without 0.2% fructose (in the cases of wild type or mutant strains, and strains containing the Ptet promoter in their chromosomes), or 50 ml of LB plus either 100 μg/ml ampicillin or 100 μg/ml ampicillin plus 25 μg/ml chloramphenicol (in the cases of the dual plasmid-harboring strains mentioned above) contained in 250 ml conical flasks, which were incubated in a shaking water bath at 250 rpm and 37°C for 8 h (in the cases of wild type and mutant strains and strains containing the Ptet promoter in their chromosomes) or 6 h, followed by a 2 h induction period with IPTG at a final concentration of 0.2 mM (recombinant plasmid harboring strains). During the IPTG induction period, fructose (0.2%) was included in certain experiments, and the shaking rate and the incubation temperature were lowered to 200 rpm and 30–32°C, respectively. The cells were harvested by centrifugation in a Sorvall centrifuge at 4°C and 10,000 rpm for 20 min. The cell pellets were washed 3x (in the absence of added sugar in the growth medium) or 4x (when a sugar was present in the growth medium). Each wash was with 35 ml of 50 mM Trizma-maleate buffer, pH 7, containing 5 mM MgCl2. The pellets were resuspended in the same buffer to OD600nm values of 0.5, 0.25 or 0.125 for radioactive substrate uptake experiments.

Radioactive substrate uptake

For the uptake assays, the stock solution of each radioactive substrate was used at 5 μCi/μmole for 14C while radioactive tritium was used at 30 μCi/μmole, and in all cases, the substrate concentration of the stock solution was 1 mM. Whenever stated, uptake assays were performed in the presence and absence of certain added non-radioactive sugars. For all uptake assays, the prepared bacterial suspensions of the test strains were used within a time period not exceeding 12 h. The assay mixtures contained 900 μl of a bacterial cell suspension of specified OD600nm, 50 μl of 1 M arginine (pH 7), and 20 μl of the 1 mM stock radioactive substrate. The volume was brought to 1 ml with a cold sugar solution and/or 50 mM Trizma-maleate buffer, pH 7, containing 5 mM MgCl2.

The final concentration of the radioactive sugar substrate in the assay mixture was 20 μM for uptake assays and 10 μM for phosphorylation assays unless otherwise stated. The uptake assays were carried out in a shaking water bath at 37°C for 5–10 min followed by immediate filtration of withdrawn samples (100–250 μl) through 0.45 micron membrane filters under vacuum. The filters containing cells were washed 3x with cold 50 mM Trizma-maleate buffer, pH 7, containing 5 mM MgCl2 before being dried under infra-red lamps. Each dried filter was mixed with 10 ml Biosafe NA solution in scintillation vials, and the radioactivity, expressed as counts per min (CPM), was measured in a Beckman scintillation counter. For normalization of values among samples for different test strains, the radioactivity was expressed as CPM/0.1 OD600nm/0.1 ml/min.

Culture conditions for phosphorylation assays

A fresh culture of the test strain was used as an inoculum which was prepared by inoculating 5 ml contained in an 18 mm diameter test tube or 50 ml contained in 250 ml conical flasks of LB medium without or with the appropriate sugar (e.g., fructose at 0.2%) and antibiotic(s) (100 μg/ml ampicillin (Ap) for pMAL plasmid harboring strains, or 100 μg/ml ampicillin plus 25 μg/ml chloramphenicol (Cm) for strains harboring the pMAL/pZA31PtetM2-GFM plasmids). The flasks were incubated at 37°C, either in a gyratory shaking water bath at 250 RPM for the 250 ml flasks, or in a shaking incubator at 275 RPM for the 2 l flasks for 8 h (wild type, mutant strains and strains containing the chromosomal Ptet promoter), or for 6 h plus a 2 h induction period (recombinant strains). Induction was carried out by adding IPTG to a final concentration of 0.2 mM at 32°C and 200 RPM. The cells were harvested by centrifugation at 4°C, washed 3x with cold modified M63, and then re-suspended in about 7 ml (pellets from 50 ml cultures) or 30 ml (pellets from 1 l cultures) of modified M63 containing 5 mM DTT. The prepared cell suspensions were disintegrated by three passages through a French press at 12,000 PSI. The resultant cell lysates were centrifuged at 10,000 RPM for 10 min at 4°C in a SORVALL centrifuge, and the supernatants produced, termed crude extracts (CE), were either used directly for PEP-dependent phosphorylation assays of PTS enzymes II or subjected to ultracentrifugation in a Beckman centrifuge, Ti-70 titanium rotor, for 2 h at 40,000 RPM. The pellets produced were re-suspended in an appropriate volume of modified M63/5 mM DTT to give the membrane pellets (MP) that were used for PEP-dependent and transphosphorylation assays of PTS enzymes. The 2 h high speed supernatants (HSS) produced were kept overnight on ice at 4°C and then subjected to one or more 2 h centrifugation cycles under the previously mentioned conditions. This was occurred once, twice or thrice to get 4, 6 or 8 h HSSs, which were used as sources of soluble PTS enzymes for PEP-dependent phosphorylation assays. The repeated centrifugations were necessary to remove the last traces of the membranous Enzymes II [16, 54].

PTS phosphorylation assays

These assays were performed as previously described by Aboulwafa and Saier, 2002 [57]. For the PEP-dependent reactions, Enzyme II preparations were either membrane pellets (MP), or crude extracts (CE), and the following assay mixtures were used: 50 mM potassium phosphate buffer (pH 7.4), 10 μM [14C]sugar, or [3H]sugar (in the case of galactitol), 5 mM phosphoenolpyruvate (PEP), 12.5 mM MgCl2, 25 mM KF and 2.5 mM dithiothreitol (DTT). For the sugar-P-dependent reactions (transphosphorylation), the same was applied except that membrane pellets only were used as the enzyme II source, PEP was replaced by a sugar-P (usually at a 1000-fold higher concentration than that of the radioactive sugar unless otherwise stated), and the pH of the potassium phosphate buffer was 6.0. The sugar phosphates used were: glucose-6-phosphate with [14C]methyl α-glucoside or [14C]2-deoxyglucose; fructose-1-phosphate with [14C]fructose, N-acetylglucosamine-6-phosphate with [14C]N-acetylglucosamine, trehalose-6-phosphate with [14C]trehalose, and mannitol-1-phosphate with [14C]mannitol. The radioactive sugar/sugar phosphate concentrations were 10 μM/10 mM except that they were 50 μM/5 mM and 25 μM/5 mM for the [14C]methyl α-glucoside and [14C]2-deoxyglucose phosphorylation assays, respectively. The resin used to separate [14C]sugar from [14C]sugar-phosphate was Dowex® 1X8, chloride form, 50–100 mesh (Sigma-Aldrich). After 4x washing of columns containing resin with deionized water, the 1 M lithium chloride eluate (9 ml), containing the radioactive sugar-P, was mixed with 10 ml of Biosafe II solution for radioactivity measurements in a Beckman scintillation counter. Cold sugar, sugar phosphate, the soluble purified FruB enzyme or the purified HPr protein was incorporated in the reaction mixtures at the specified concentrations.

Protein purification

The His-tagged FruB from an E. coli strain BW25113-fruBKA:kn-pMAL-fruB culture, overexpressing the fruB gene or the equivalent strain overexpressing the ptsH (HPr) gene, was purified by nickel affinity chromatography. The cells were grown in LB and induced for 2 h with 0.2 mM IPTG as stated before for the preparation of cells for the transport assays. The cells were harvested by centrifugation, washed 3x with modified M63 and subjected to 3 cycles of freezing at -20°C and thawing before being lysed with B-PER Complete Bacterial Protein Extraction Reagent (from Thermo Scientific, Cat # 89821) following the manufacturer’s instructions. His-FruB or His-HPr in the cell extract was purified using HisPurTM-Ni-NTA Superflow Agarose (from Thermo Scientific, Cat # 25214) following the manufacturer’s instructions. The eluates, produced from the agarose columns, containing purified His-FruB or His-HPr, were desalted by passage through pre-equilibrated (with modified M63/5 mM DTT) ZebaTM Spin Desalting columns (Thermo Scientific, Cat # 89894). Each Zeba column contained 10 ml of size exclusion resin MWCO 7000 Da. The desalted preparations were concentrated using Amicon ultra centrifugal filter devices, MWCO 5000 Da, Cat # UFC 900502. The purity of the resultant preparation was checked by SDS-PAGE as described by Aboulwafa and Saier, 2011 [54]. Phenylmethylsulfonyl fluoride (PMSF) was incorporated into the purified preparation at 1 mM before being aliquoted and stored at -80°C.

Determination of protein concentrations

The protein concentrations were determined using the Biorad colorimetric protein assay (Cat. #500–0006) with bovine serum albumin as the standard protein.

Materials

All radioactive sugars were purchased from New England Nuclear (NEN) Corp. or American Radiolabeled Chemicals (ARC). Nonradioactive compounds were from commercial sources, usually from the Sigma Chem. Corp. unless otherwise noted, and were of the highest purity available commercially.

Supporting information

S1 Table. Effect of induction with fructose on the uptake of radioactive compounds as indicated below by the wild type E. coli strain BW25113 (WT).

E. coli WT was grown in LB or LB plus 0.2% fructose with 5 mM MgSO4 in both media. All [14C]substrates were used at 20 μM, final concentration, each of 5 μCi/μmole except for [3H]galactitol which was used at 30 μCi/μmole (see Experimental Procedures). Many values reported here and in subsequent tables have been rounded off.

(DOCX)

S2 Table. Effect of growth with fructose on the uptake of radioactive substrates as indicated below by the triple mutant E. coli strain BW25113-fruBKA:kn (TM).

The E. coli TM was grown in LB or LB plus 0.2% fructose with 5 mM MgSO4 in both media. All radioactive substrates were used at 20 μM, each containing 5 μCi/μmole 14C except for [3H]galactitol which was used at 30 μCi/μmole. These concentrations and specific activities were used throughout these studies for transport assays (see Experimental Procedures).

(DOCX)

S3 Table

A. Effect of growth with fructose on the uptake of [14C]substrates as indicated below except for [3H]galactitol by the triple mutant E. coli strain BW25113-fruBKA:kn (TM) as compared to the wild type strain BW25113 (WT). E. coli strains were grown in LB plus 0.2% fructose and 5 mM MgSO4. B. Effect of mutations in the fruBKA operon on the uptake of [14C]compounds by the triple mutant E. coli strain BW25113-fruBKA:kn (TM) as compared to the wild type strain BW25113 (WT), both grown in LB medium.

(DOCX)

S4 Table

A. Effect of deletion of fruA on the uptake of [14C]compounds by the E. coli strain BW25113ΔfruA (WTΔfruA) as compared to the wild type strain BW25113 (WT). E. coli strains were grown in LB/0.2% fructose/5 mM MgSO4. B. Effect of deletion of fruA on the uptake of [14C]compounds by the E. coli strain BW25113ΔfruA (WTΔfruA) as compared to the wild type strain BW25113 (WT), both grown in LB medium.

(DOCX)

S5 Table

A. Effect of deletion of fruB on the uptake of [14C]compounds by the E. coli strain BW25113ΔfruB (WTΔfruB) as compared to the wild type strain BW25113 (WT), both grown in LB medium plus 0.2% fructose/5 mM MgSO4. B. Effect of deletion of fruB on the uptake of [14C]compounds by the E. coli strain BW25113ΔfruB (WTΔfruB) as compared to the wild type strain BW25113 (WT), both grown in LB medium.

(DOCX)

S6 Table. Effect of overexpression of fruA on the uptake of [14C]compounds by the recombinant triple mutant E. coli strain BW25113-fruBKA:kn-pMAL-FruA (TM-pMAL-fruA) as compared to the BW25113-fruBKA:kn-pML (TM-pMAL) strain.

(DOCX)

S7 Table. Effect of overexpression of fruA on the uptake of [14C]compounds by the recombinant E. coli strain BW25113-pMAL-fruA (WT-pMAL-fruA), as compared to the BW25113-pMAL (WT-pMAL) strain, both grown in LB medium.

(DOCX)

S8 Table. Effect of overexpression of fruB on the uptake of [14C]compounds by the recombinant triple mutant E. coli strain BW25113-fruBKA:kn-pMAL-fruB (TM-pMAL-fruA) as compared to the BW25113-fruBKA:kn-pML (TM-pMAL) strain, both grown in LB medium.

(DOCX)

S9 Table. Effect of overexpression of fruB on the uptake of [14C]compounds by the recombinant E. coli strain BW25113-pMAL-fruB (WT-pMAL-fruB), as compared to the BW25113-pMAL (WT-pMAL) strain, both grown in LB medium.

(DOCX)

S10 Table. Effect of co-overexpression of fruA and fruB carried on two separate compatible plasmids on the uptake of [14C]compounds by the recombinant triple mutant E. coli strain BW25113-fruBKA:kn-pMAL-fruA-pZA31-PtetM2-fruB (TM-pMAL-fruA-pZA31-PtetM2-fruB) as compared to the BW25113-fruBKA:kn-pMAL-pZA31-PtetM2-GFM (TM-pMAL-pZA31-PtetM2-GFM) strain, both grown in LB medium.

(DOCX)

S11 Table. Effect of co-overexpression of fruA and fruB carried on two separate compatible plasmids on the uptake of [14C]compounds by the recombinant E. coli strain BW25113-pMAL-fruA-pZA31-PtetM2-fruB (WT-pMAL-fruA-pZA31-PtetM2-fruB) as compared to the BW25113-pMAL-pZA31-PtetM2-GFM (WT-pMAL-pZA31-PtetM2-GFM) strain, both grown in LB medium.

(DOCX)

S12 Table. Effect of overexpression of the fruBKA operon under Ptet promoter control on the uptake of [14C]compounds by the recombinant E. coli strain BW25113-Chs kn:T:Ptet-fruBKA (WT-Ptet-fruBKA) as compared to the BW25113 (WT) strain, both grown in LB medium.

(DOCX)

S13 Table. Effect of fruBKA operon induction with fructose on the expression of certain PTS transporters in E. coli using lacZ transcriptional fusions.

Values in the last column were calculated relative to the control without induction. A negative sign indicates a decrease in apparent expression level. All values are within experiment error.

(DOCX)

S14 Table. Effect of overexpression of the fructose transporter (FruA) gene (fruA) and the gene of its soluble partner FruB (fruB) on the expression of certain PTS transporters in E. coli using lacZ transcriptional fusions.

Values in the last column were calculated relative to the control without induction. A negative sign indicates a decrease in expression level.

(DOCX)

S15 Table. Effect of overexpression of some membrane transporter genes on the expression of other PTS transporters in E. coli using lacZ transcriptional fusions. Values in the last column were calculated relative to the control without induction. A negative sign indicates a decrease in expression level.

(DOCX)

S16 Table. Effect of induction by fructose on PEP-dependent phosphorylation of some PTS sugars by the crude extract preparations of the wild type E. coli BW25113 (WT) and its triple mutant BW25113-fruBKA:kn (TM).

Induction was conducted with 0.2% fructose in LB medium; ND, not determined.

(DOCX)

S17 Table. Effect of overexpression of fruA on phosphorylation of fructose, mannitol, N-acetylglucosamine and galactitol by the membranous fractions of the wild type E. coli BW25113 strain (WT). A 30 μl aliquot of an 8 h HSS of the WT strain was used as a source of the soluble PTS enzymes.

(DOCX)

S18 Table. Effect of overexpression of fruA or fruB on PEP-dependent phosphorylation of PTS sugars by crude extracts of the recombinant wild type E. coli strains BW25113-pMAL-fruA and BW25113-pMAL-fruB as compared to the control strain BW25113-pMAL.

(DOCX)

S19 Table. Effect of separate overexpression of fruA or fruB on the PEP-dependent phosphorylation of PTS sugars by the crude extracts of recombinant triple mutant E. coli strains BW25113-fruBKA:kn-pMAL-fruA and BW25113-fruBKA:kn-pMAL-fruB as compared to the control strain BW25113-fruBKA:kn-pMAL.

(DOCX)

S20 Table. Effect of simultaneous overexpression of fruA and fruB (carried on two separate compatible plasmids in the wild type E. coli BW25113 strain or its triple mutant BW25113-fruBKA:kn) on the PEP-dependent phosphorylation of some PTS sugars by crude extracts of strains BW25113-pMAL-pZA31-PtetM2-GFM (WT control), BW25113-pMAL-fruA-pZA31-PtetM2-fruB (WT O.E. fruA-fruB), BW25113-fruBKA:kn-pMAL-pZA31-PtetM2-GFM (TM-control) and BW25113-fruBKA:kn-pMAL-fruA-pZA31-PtetM2-fruB (TM-O.E fruA.fruB).

(DOCX)

S21 Table. Effect of overexpression of the fruBKA operon by changing its native promoter to Ptet on the PEP-dependent phosphorylation of mannitol, N-acetylglucosamine and galactitol by the membranous fraction of the wild type E. coli BW25113.

(DOCX)

S22 Table. Testing PEP-dependent phosphorylation of mannitol by a crude extract of an E. coli strain with an inactivated (BW25113-mtlA:kn strain) or deleted (BW25113ΔmtlA strain) mtlA gene.

A crude extract of E. coli strain BW25113-mtlA:kn or BW25113ΔmtlA grown in LB + 0.2% fructose was prepared and used for testing the mannitol phosphorylation by FruA.

(DOCX)

S23 Table. Effect of purified FruB on the PEP-dependent phosphorylation of PTS sugars by the crude extracts of recombinant triple mutant E. coli strain BW25113-fruBKA:kn-pMAL-fruA (Triple Mutant; TM-pMAL-fruA) and BW25113-fruBKA:kn-pMAL (TM-pMAL) strain.

(DOCX)

S24 Table. Effect of using a HSS of lysed E. coli BW25113 Chs kn:T:Ptet-fruBKA cells overexpressing the fruBKA operon on the PEP-dependent phosphorylation of fructose, mannitol, N-acetylglucosamine and galactitol by the wild type E. coli BW25113 overexpressing fruA or galP.

(DOCX)

S25 Table. Effect of overexpression of fruA on transphosphorylation of PTS sugars by the membranous fraction of recombinant triple mutant E. coli strain BW25113-fruBKA:kn-pMAL-fruA as compared to control strain BW25113-fruBKA:kn.

(DOCX)

S26 Table. Effect of purified FruB on transphosphorylation of PTS sugars by the recombinant triple mutant E. coli strain BW25113-fruBKA:kn-pMAL (TM-pMAL) and its fruA overexpressing strain BW25113-fruBKA:kn-pMAL-fruA (TM-pMAL-fruA).

(DOCX)

S27 Table. Strains and plasmids used in this study.

(DOCX)

S28 Table. Oligonucleotides used in this study.

(DOCX)

S1 Fig. Results from the use of a bacterial two hybrid system for testing interactions of FruA and FruB with other membrane proteins.

pKNT25-fruA (expression in low copy plasmid pKNT25) against pUT18-gatC, pUT18-nagE, pUT18-treB, pUT18-mtlA, and pUT18-fruB (expression in high copy plasmid pUT18); and pUT18-fruB against pKNT25-mtlA and pKNT25-nagE are presented. As reported by Babu et al., 2018, FruA interacts with other membrane proteins. In this study, the interactions of FruA could be confirmed for GatC, NagE, TreB and MtlA, and the interactions of FruB could be detected and reproduced for MtlA and NagE. The interactions of FruB, the soluble partner, with FruA can be considered as a positive control. Note that the interactions of FruB with MtlA and NagE appear to be substantially weaker than those with FruA.

(DOCX)

S2 Fig. SDS PAGE of the purified FruB preparation from the recombinant E. coli BW25113-fruBKA:kn-pMAL-fruB strain.

M, molecular weight markers; Lanes 1 and 2, two purified FruB preparations.

(DOCX)

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.

Funding Statement

This work was supported by U.S. National Institutes of Health, MS - GM077402, https://www.nih.gov/. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Babu M, Bundalovic-Torma C, Calmettes C, Phanse S, Zhang Q, Jiang Y, et al. Global landscape of cell envelope protein complexes in Escherichia coli. Nat Biotechnol. 2018;36(1):103–12. Epub 2017/11/28. 10.1038/nbt.4024 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Lengeler JW. PTS 50: Past, Present and Future, or Diauxie Revisited. Journal of molecular microbiology and biotechnology. 2015;25(2–3):79–93. Epub 2015/07/15. 10.1159/000369809 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.McCoy JG, Levin EJ, Zhou M. Structural insight into the PTS sugar transporter EIIC. Biochimica et biophysica acta. 2015;1850(3):577–85. Epub 2014/03/25. 10.1016/j.bbagen.2014.03.013 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Clore GM, Venditti V. Structure, dynamics and biophysics of the cytoplasmic protein-protein complexes of the bacterial phosphoenolpyruvate: sugar phosphotransferase system. Trends Biochem Sci. 2013;38(10):515–30. Epub 2013/09/24. 10.1016/j.tibs.2013.08.003 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Bogdanov M, Aboulwafa M, Saier MH Jr., Subcellular localization and logistics of integral membrane protein biogenesis in Escherichia coli. Journal of molecular microbiology and biotechnology. 2013;23(1–2):24–34. Epub 2013/04/26. 10.1159/000346517 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Gabor E, Gohler AK, Kosfeld A, Staab A, Kremling A, Jahreis K. The phosphoenolpyruvate-dependent glucose-phosphotransferase system from Escherichia coli K-12 as the center of a network regulating carbohydrate flux in the cell. Eur J Cell Biol. 2011;90(9):711–20. Epub 2011/05/31. 10.1016/j.ejcb.2011.04.002 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Deutscher J, Francke C, Postma PW. How phosphotransferase system-related protein phosphorylation regulates carbohydrate metabolism in bacteria. Microbiol Mol Biol Rev. 2006;70(4):939–1031. Epub 2006/12/13. 10.1128/MMBR.00024-06 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Kotrba P, Inui M, Yukawa H. Bacterial phosphotransferase system (PTS) in carbohydrate uptake and control of carbon metabolism. J Biosci Bioeng. 2001;92(6):502–17. Epub 2005/10/20. 10.1263/jbb.92.502 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Saier MH Jr., Reizer J. The bacterial phosphotransferase system: new frontiers 30 years later. Mol Microbiol. 1994;13(5):755–64. Epub 1994/09/01. 10.1111/j.1365-2958.1994.tb00468.x . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Postma PW, Lengeler JW, Jacobson GR. Phosphoenolpyruvate:carbohydrate phosphotransferase systems of bacteria. Microbiol Rev. 1993;57(3):543–94. Epub 1993/09/01. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Tchieu JH, Norris V, Edwards JS, Saier MH Jr., The complete phosphotransferase system in Escherichia coli. Journal of molecular microbiology and biotechnology. 2001;3(3):329–46. Epub 2001/05/22. . [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Saier MH Jr., Reddy VS, Tsu BV, Ahmed MS, Li C, Moreno-Hagelsieb G. The Transporter Classification Database (TCDB): recent advances. Nucleic Acids Res. 2016;44(D1):D372–9. Epub 2015/11/08. 10.1093/nar/gkv1103 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Saier MH Jr., Reddy VS, Tamang DG, Vastermark A. The transporter classification database. Nucleic Acids Res. 2014;42(Database issue):D251–8. Epub 2013/11/15. 10.1093/nar/gkt1097 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Saier MH Jr., Yen MR, Noto K, Tamang DG, Elkan C. The Transporter Classification Database: recent advances. Nucleic Acids Res. 2009;37(Database issue):D274–8. Epub 2008/11/22. 10.1093/nar/gkn862 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Saier MH Jr., Tran CV, Barabote RD. TCDB: the Transporter Classification Database for membrane transport protein analyses and information. Nucleic Acids Res. 2006;34(Database issue):D181–6. Epub 2005/12/31. 10.1093/nar/gkj001 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Aboulwafa M, Saier M Jr, Soluble sugar permeases of the phosphotransferase system in Escherichia coli: evidence for two physically distinct forms of the proteins in vivo. Mol Microbiol. 2003;48(1):131–41. Epub 2003/03/27. 10.1046/j.1365-2958.2003.03394.x . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Saier MH Jr., Cox DF, Moczydlowski EG. Sugar phosphate:sugar transphosphorylation coupled to exchange group translocation catalyzed by the enzyme II complexes of the phosphoenolpyruvate:sugar phosphotransferase system in membrane vesicles of Escherichia coli. The Journal of biological chemistry. 1977;252(24):8908–16. Epub 1977/12/25. . [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Saier MH Jr., Feucht BU, Mora WK. Sugar phosphate: sugar transphosphorylation and exchange group translocation catalyzed by the enzyme 11 complexes of the bacterial phosphoenolpyruvate: sugar phosphotransferase system. The Journal of biological chemistry. 1977;252(24):8899–907. Epub 1977/12/25. . [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Saier MH Jr., Newman MJ. Direct transfer of the phosphoryl moiety of mannitol 1-phosphate to [14C]mannitol catalyzed by the enzyme II complexes of the phosphoenolpyruvate: mannitol phosphotransferase systems in Spirochaeta aurantia and Salmonella typhimurium. The Journal of biological chemistry. 1976;251(12):3834–7. Epub 1976/06/25. . [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Saier MH Jr., Grenier FC, Lee CA, Waygood EB. Evidence for the evolutionary relatedness of the proteins of the bacterial phosphoenolpyruvate:sugar phosphotransferase system. J Cell Biochem. 1985;27(1):43–56. Epub 1985/01/01. 10.1002/jcb.240270106 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Charbit A, Reizer J, Saier MH Jr., Function of the duplicated IIB domain and oligomeric structure of the fructose permease of Escherichia coli. The Journal of biological chemistry. 1996;271(17):9997–10003. Epub 1996/04/26. 10.1074/jbc.271.17.9997 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Saier MH, Hvorup RN, Barabote RD. Evolution of the bacterial phosphotransferase system: from carriers and enzymes to group translocators. Biochem Soc Trans. 2005;33(Pt 1):220–4. Epub 2005/01/26. 10.1042/BST0330220 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Chen JS, Reddy V, Chen JH, Shlykov MA, Zheng WH, Cho J, et al. Phylogenetic characterization of transport protein superfamilies: superiority of SuperfamilyTree programs over those based on multiple alignments. J Mol Microbiol Biotechnol. 2011;21(3–4):83–96. Epub 2012/01/31. 10.1159/000334611 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Hvorup R, Chang AB, Saier MH Jr., Bioinformatic analyses of the bacterial L-ascorbate phosphotransferase system permease family. Journal of molecular microbiology and biotechnology. 2003;6(3–4):191–205. Epub 2004/05/22. 10.1159/000077250 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Barabote RD, Saier MH Jr. Comparative genomic analyses of the bacterial phosphotransferase system. Microbiol Mol Biol Rev. 2005;69(4):608–34. Epub 2005/12/13. 10.1128/MMBR.69.4.608-634.2005 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Higgins MA, Hamilton AM, Boraston AB. Structural characterization of the PTS IIA and IIB proteins associated with pneumococcal fucose utilization. Proteins. 2017;85(5):963–8. Epub 2017/02/09. 10.1002/prot.25264 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Luo P, Yu X, Wang W, Fan S, Li X, Wang J. Crystal structure of a phosphorylation-coupled vitamin C transporter. Nat Struct Mol Biol. 2015;22(3):238–41. Epub 2015/02/17. 10.1038/nsmb.2975 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Park J, Kim MS, Joo K, Jhon GJ, Berry EA, Lee J, et al. Crystal Structure of Hypothetical Fructose-Specific EIIB from Escherichia coli. Mol Cells. 2016;39(6):495–500. Epub 2016/05/25. 10.14348/molcells.2016.0055 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Kalbermatter D, Jeckelmann JM, Chiu PL, Ucurum Z, Walz T, Fotiadis D. 2D and 3D crystallization of the wild-type IIC domain of the glucose PTS transporter from Escherichia coli. J Struct Biol. 2015;191(3):376–80. Epub 2015/08/12. 10.1016/j.jsb.2015.08.003 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Orriss GL, Erni B, Schirmer T. Crystal structure of the IIB(Sor) domain of the sorbose permease from Klebsiella pneumoniae solved to 1.75A resolution. J Mol Biol. 2003;327(5):1111–9. Epub 2003/03/29. 10.1016/s0022-2836(03)00215-8 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Woronowicz K, Sha D, Frese RN, Sturgis JN, Nanda V, Niederman RA. The effects of protein crowding in bacterial photosynthetic membranes on the flow of quinone redox species between the photochemical reaction center and the ubiquinol-cytochrome c2 oxidoreductase. Metallomics. 2011;3(8):765–74. Epub 2011/06/22. 10.1039/c1mt00034a . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Ramadurai S, Holt A, Krasnikov V, van den Bogaart G, Killian JA, Poolman B. Lateral diffusion of membrane proteins. J Am Chem Soc. 2009;131(35):12650–6. Epub 2009/08/14. 10.1021/ja902853g . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Schneider D, Pohl T, Walter J, Dorner K, Kohlstadt M, Berger A, et al. Assembly of the Escherichia coli NADH:ubiquinone oxidoreductase (complex I). Biochim Biophys Acta. 2008;1777(7–8):735–9. Epub 2008/04/09. 10.1016/j.bbabio.2008.03.003 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Shepherd VA. The cytomatrix as a cooperative system of macromolecular and water networks. Curr Top Dev Biol. 2006;75:171–223. Epub 2006/09/21. 10.1016/S0070-2153(06)75006-2 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Rodionova IA, Zhang Z, Mehla J, Goodacre N, Babu M, Emili A, et al. The phosphocarrier protein HPr of the bacterial phosphotransferase system globally regulates energy metabolism by directly interacting with multiple enzymes in Escherichia coli. The Journal of biological chemistry. 2017;292(34):14250–7. Epub 2017/06/22. 10.1074/jbc.M117.795294 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Rodionova IA, Goodacre N, Babu M, Emili A, Uetz P, Saier MH Jr. The Nitrogen Regulatory PII Protein (GlnB) and N-Acetylglucosamine 6-Phosphate Epimerase (NanE) Allosterically Activate Glucosamine 6-Phosphate Deaminase (NagB) in Escherichia coli. Journal of bacteriology. 2018;200(5). Epub 2017/12/13. 10.1128/JB.00691-17 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Saier MH Jr., Newman MJ, Rephaeli AW. Properties of a phosphoenolpyruvate: mannitol phosphotransferase system in Spirochaeta aurantia. J Biol Chem. 1977;252(24):8890–8. Epub 1977/12/25. . [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Somavanshi R, Ghosh B, Sourjik V. Sugar Influx Sensing by the Phosphotransferase System of Escherichia coli. PLoS Biol. 2016;14(8):e2000074 Epub 2016/08/25. 10.1371/journal.pbio.2000074 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Lux R, Jahreis K, Bettenbrock K, Parkinson JS, Lengeler JW. Coupling the phosphotransferase system and the methyl-accepting chemotaxis protein-dependent chemotaxis signaling pathways of Escherichia coli. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1995;92(25):11583–7. Epub 1995/12/05. 10.1073/pnas.92.25.11583 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Neumann S, Grosse K, Sourjik V. Chemotactic signaling via carbohydrate phosphotransferase systems in Escherichia coli. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2012;109(30):12159–64. Epub 2012/07/11. 10.1073/pnas.1205307109 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Garrity LF, Schiel SL, Merrill R, Reizer J, Saier MH Jr., Ordal GW. Unique regulation of carbohydrate chemotaxis in Bacillus subtilis by the phosphoenolpyruvate-dependent phosphotransferase system and the methyl-accepting chemotaxis protein McpC. Journal of bacteriology. 1998;180(17):4475–80. Epub 1998/08/29. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Yoo W, Kim D, Yoon H, Ryu S. Enzyme IIA(Ntr) Regulates Salmonella Invasion Via 1,2-Propanediol And Propionate Catabolism. Sci Rep. 2017;7:44827 Epub 2017/03/24. 10.1038/srep44827 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Shimizu K. Regulation Systems of Bacteria such as Escherichia coli in Response to Nutrient Limitation and Environmental Stresses. Metabolites. 2013;4(1):1–35. Epub 2013/01/01. 10.3390/metabo4010001 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Saier MH Jr. Regulatory interactions involving the proteins of the phosphotransferase system in enteric bacteria. J Cell Biochem. 1993;51(1):62–8. Epub 1993/01/01. 10.1002/jcb.240510112 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Feucht BU, Saier MH Jr. Fine control of adenylate cyclase by the phosphoenolpyruvate:sugar phosphotransferase systems in Escherichia coli and Salmonella typhimurium. Journal of bacteriology. 1980;141(2):603–10. Epub 1980/02/01. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Postma PW. Defective enzyme II-BGlc of the phosphoenolpyruvate:sugar phosphotransferase system leading to uncoupling of transport and phosphorylation in Salmonella typhimurium. Journal of bacteriology. 1981;147(2):382–9. Epub 1981/08/01. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Manayan R, Tenn G, Yee HB, Desai JD, Yamada M, Saier MH Jr., Genetic analyses of the mannitol permease of Escherichia coli: isolation and characterization of a transport-deficient mutant which retains phosphorylation activity. Journal of bacteriology. 1988;170(3):1290–6. Epub 1988/03/01. 10.1128/jb.170.3.1290-1296.1988 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Rephaeli AW, Saier MH Jr. Kinetic analyses of the sugar phosphate:sugar transphosphorylation reaction catalyzed by the glucose enzyme II complex of the bacterial phosphotransferase system. The Journal of biological chemistry. 1978;253(21):7595–7. Epub 1978/11/10. . [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Saier MH Jr., Chauvaux S, Cook GM, Deutscher J, Paulsen IT, Reizer J, et al. Catabolite repression and inducer control in Gram-positive bacteria. Microbiology (Reading, England). 1996;142 (Pt 2):217–30. Epub 1996/02/01. 10.1099/13500872-142-2-217 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Saier MH Jr. Protein phosphorylation and allosteric control of inducer exclusion and catabolite repression by the bacterial phosphoenolpyruvate: sugar phosphotransferase system. Microbiol Rev. 1989;53(1):109–20. Epub 1989/03/01. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Wu LF, Tomich JM, Saier MH Jr. Structure and evolution of a multidomain multiphosphoryl transfer protein. Nucleotide sequence of the fruB(HI) gene in Rhodobacter capsulatus and comparisons with homologous genes from other organisms. J Mol Biol. 1990;213(4):687–703. Epub 1990/06/20. 10.1016/S0022-2836(05)80256-6 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Datsenko KA, Wanner BL. One-step inactivation of chromosomal genes in Escherichia coli K-12 using PCR products. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2000;97(12):6640–5. Epub 2000/06/01. 10.1073/pnas.120163297 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Klumpp S, Zhang Z, Hwa T. Growth rate-dependent global effects on gene expression in bacteria. Cell. 2009;139(7):1366–75. Epub 2010/01/13. 10.1016/j.cell.2009.12.001 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Aboulwafa M, Saier MH Jr. Biophysical studies of the membrane-embedded and cytoplasmic forms of the glucose-specific Enzyme II of the E. coli phosphotransferase system (PTS). PloS one. 2011;6(9):e24088 Epub 2011/09/22. 10.1371/journal.pone.0024088 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Tian Z, Oda Y, Zhang Y, Yang M, Li H. Use of a new enzyme extraction system to improve the sensitivity of SOS/umu test and application to environmental samples. Bull Environ Contam Toxicol. 2015;94(3):370–5. Epub 2014/12/30. 10.1007/s00128-014-1445-9 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.JH M. Experiments in Molecular Genetics. Cold Spring Harbor Lab Press, Plainview, NY: 1972. [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Aboulwafa M, Saier MH Jr. Dependency of sugar transport and phosphorylation by the phosphoenolpyruvate-dependent phosphotransferase system on membranous phosphatidyl glycerol in Escherichia coli: studies with a pgsA mutant lacking phosphatidyl glycerophosphate synthase. Res Microbiol. 2002;153(10):667–77. 10.1016/s0923-2508(02)01376-1 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Hernâni Gerós

10 Sep 2019

PONE-D-19-16979

Protein:Protein Interactions in the Cytoplasmic Membrane Influencing Sugar Transport and Phosphorylation Activities of the E. coli Phosphotransferase System.

PLOS ONE

Dear Prof. Saier Jr.,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. We invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. You may confirm that the comments of the panel of reviewers are very complete, positive and constructive. In general,  their opinion, and mine, is that the manuscript is technically complete, well written, and that the topic is highly relevant. In any case, one reviewer suggested major revision, while the two remaining suggested a minor revision, but I agree that most of their major concerns can be addressed without further experiments. However, there is at least one experiment that should be performed before publication. The steady state levels of key proteins of your study should measured in crude extracts or membrane pellets, as suggested by the reviewers, to fully support important conclusions of your manuscript.

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Oct 25 2019 11:59PM. When you are ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Hernâni Gerós, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. We note that you have included the phrase “data not shown” in your manuscript. Unfortunately, this does not meet our data sharing requirements. PLOS does not permit references to inaccessible data. We require that authors provide all relevant data within the paper, Supporting Information files, or in an acceptable, public repository. Please add a citation to support this phrase or upload the data that corresponds with these findings to a stable repository (such as Figshare or Dryad) and provide and URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers that may be used to access these data. Or, if the data are not a core part of the research being presented in your study, we ask that you remove the phrase that refers to these data.

3. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information.

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: N/A

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The present manuscript presents experiments that show that modification of protein expression of the fructose-specific phosphotransferase transport (PTS) system has a positive or negative effect on the apparent activity of other sugar-specific PTS systems in Escherichia coli. Based on previously published global interactome data, which show that soluble and integral membrane elements of multicomponent PTS systems interact with each other, with the the fructose PTS FruA and FruB components forming the most extensive PTS interactome network, they further analyze the basis of this phenomenon.

They use different physiological conditions related to induction of the fructose specific PTS and different strains of E. coli, genetically deleted for FruA or/and FurB, as well as, plasmid-driven overexpression of the Fur components, to investigate how other PTS systems are affected. The authors use basically two functional methods to draw their conclusions; in vivo measurements of radiolabeled sugar accumulation in intact cells, and in vitro enzymatic assays measuring sugar-specific transphosphorylation apparent activities. They additionally use β-galactosidase transcriptional fusions to test whether the de novo synthesis of the affected PTS components is altered in a FurA/B PTS-dependent manner. Based on these assays they conclude that the observed positive or negative effect of FurA/B PTS expression on the activity of other sugar-specific PTS systems take places via protein-protein interaction within the PM, and go on speculating that this is a physiologically meaningful cellular mechanism by which prokaryotes finely regulate PTS-dependent sugar uptake in complex and constantly changing environments.

Main conclusion

This is a very interesting scientific story, which happens to be familiar to me, as in my laboratory we have also come across phenomena of dominant negative or positive effects related to apparent transport activities, caused by the overexpression or absence of a specific transporter. Our observations concern fungal transporters, which makes the whole story broader and probably concern the fine and dynamic balancing of PM transporter composition in all kinds of cells. So, the findings described worth publication in PlosOne, but only after some important issues are clarified, conclusion partly modified and some extra experiments are made. In conclusion the text/figures should be partly re-written, conclusions modified, and a western blot analysis performed. Please see details below.

Points to addressed

1. The tile of the manuscript is not justified by the results presented. (Protein:Protein Interactions in the Cytoplasmic Membrane Influencing Sugar Transport and Phosphorylation Activities of the E. coli Phosphotransferase System). Protein-protein interactions are apparently the reason of the dominant negative or positive effects observed but this is not formally shown.

2. Introduce a cartoon showing the components of different PTS systems in the introduction. The existing figure is not friendly to the reader. Please use full names when abbreviations appear for first time in the text. What is PEP for example?

3. The first two paragraphs of Results introduction recapitulate published results from the same group. It can be significantly reduced with reference in Table 2 or entirely deleted.

4. Confirmation of the interactome results using a bacterial two hybrid system: I cannot see any figure related to this, except S2. It is not clear whether the 2-hybrid system is partly performed here or partly previous publication? Why S2 appears before S1?

5. Having the figure legends interrupting the text in annoying. Either you need both figure/figure legends within the text, or both at the end.

6. In Table S1 explain better what WT and WT-Fr means. I guess the latter means induction by fructose while the former stand for non0induced conditions. One also guess that each experiment is carried out twice, as for each substrate two values are given in all cases, no?

Please, explain abbreviations in all figure legends.

7. Uptakes shown describe ‘apparent’ transporter activity or better ‘apparent accumulation of radiolabelled substrate’, not transport activities per se. Moreover, they are carried out for 5-10 min which definitively describes steady state accumulation and not rate of uptake, despite the results given per min. To my knowledge uptake rates are liner of much shorter times than 5-10 min.,

8. The accumulation of some sugars (e.g. Trehalose and Galactinol) increases significantly (up to 9-fold) in the TM compared to WT upon fructose addition (Table S3). However, the addition of fructose makes a 2-fold difference (Table 2). Please explain this point better in the text.

9. There are some significant deviations in different experiments (S1-S3). Please comment on those.

10. Why S Tables are labelled S4, S5 and S4’, S5’, and not simply with consequent numbers?

11. Most of the data appear in 26 supplementary tables! This makes the manuscript difficult to read and little elegant. I suggest that more clear and composite main figures (with several panels) should highlight the most important results. These should appear in the main text. I am in general against very long supplementary material. The main article should be read without the need for supplements, which are only there to reinforce main findings.

12. A main experiment missing is a western for measuring steady state levels of all components that are affected. Modification of o expression in specific PTS could have an effect on the translocation of PTS in the PM via the translocon complex or in the stability of PTS due to displacement in non-physiological PM microdomains. These possibilities should be discussed.

13. The in vitro PEP-dependent phosphorylation assays are not convincing as they do not lead to a general conclusion. Moreover, I cannot see how crude extracts of membrane proteins can have an effect. My doubts are further enhanced by the fact sugar-P:sugar transphosphorylation assays had no effect by fruA overexpression or purified fruB.

14. “The effects appear to be on the transport and PEP-dependent phosphorylation

activities of these enzyme transporters, not on their syntheses or sugar-P:sugar

transphosphorylation activities” No.

The effect is on apparent activities which is most easily explained by imbalances in protein-protein interactions, including modification in translocation in the PM, stability and/or localization in specific PM microdomains.

15. The first part of the discussion should be deleted, is a repetition of the introduction and results. Also lines 478-507 should be deleted, as they are a repetition of information given ealrler.

Reviewer #2: The manuscript of Aboulwafa et al. addresses the biochemical and physiological significance of interactions of the fructose PTS transporter, consisting of FruA and FruB, with other PTS transporters, including glucose, mannitol, N-acetylglucosamine, galactitol and trehalose transporters. The authors show that: 1) the previous interactome results of FruA and FruB (Nat Biotechnol. 2018; 36:103-112) can be reproduced using a bacterial two-hybrid system, 2) through FruA and FruB, fructose stimulates transport of glucose, mannitol, and N-acetylglucosamine but inhibits transport of galactitol and trehalose, 3) overproduction of FruA and/or FruB (in the absence of fructose) also enhances transport activities of glucose, mannitol, and N-acetylglucosamine (but does not affect significantly those of galactitol and treharose), 4) either induction with fructose or overexpression of FruAB increases the PEP-dependent phosphorylation activities of mannitol and N-acetylglucosamine but decreases that activity of galactiol, and 5) such conditions do not affect transcription of the mannitol, galactitol, and mannose operons. On the basis of the present and previous results, the authors conclude that the fructose PTS transporter regulates the activities of several different PTS transporters through protein-protein interactions. Although mechanistic aspects remain for the future, the findings presented here provide a new perspective on the regulation of sugar transport in bacteria. Overall, this manuscript is clearly written and presents good experimental data to support the major claims of this study. However, I make some minor comments and questions that the authors will address the following issues, and suggest additional experiments, which will hopefully improve the manuscript.

1. Although the authors often describe about mannose transport activity (Lines 33, 251, and 280), the data is not presented anywhere.

2. Add sugar substrate(s) of each transport system in Table 1. This would be helpful for readers.

3. Why does overproduction of FruA and/or FruB not decrease treharose and galactitol transport activities? This is incompatible with the result obtained from mutational analysis of fruA and/or fruB (Fig. 1).

4. Lines 350-351, “FruB activation is not due to the activity of the FPr domain of FruB”. I do not agree with this claim because the authors do not analyze effect of this domain on sugar phosphorylations.

5. Line 372, galP. Add a brief description of galP.

6. Lines 41-42, “the rates of synthesis and protein levels in the membrane of the target PTS permeases were not altered”, Line 288, “the enzyme II activities and not their synthesis”, or Line 475, “only on the activities, not the synthesis or turnover”. To rule out the possibility that the fructose system affects synthesis or turnover of the target PTS proteins, the authors should check expression levels of one or more of these proteins in crude extracts and membrane pellets used for in vitro experiments as well as bacterial culture used for in vivo experiments. Only testing transcriptional activities (Table 3) is insufficient to support the authors’ claim.

Reviewer #3: In their manuscript “protein:protein interactions in the cytoplasmatic membrane influencing sugar transport and phosphorylation activities of the E. coli phosphotransferase system” the authors carefully investigate new roles of FruA and FruB, which are components of the PTS for fructose uptake and phosphorylation. In a previous study among many other results potential interactions of FruA and FruB with further EII-proteins for uptake of other sugars were observed. In this manuscript the authors now follow up and carefully investigate by various approaches the role of FruA and FruB for the control of PTS mediated transport and phosphorylation of sugars via the previously identified potentially interacting EII proteins. The authors here demonstrate that the EII permeases for glucose, mannose, mannitol, and N-acetylglucosamine show a FruA and FruB dependent enhancement of transport activity, while for trehalose and galacitol EII-protein FruA and FruB mediated transport inhibition is observed. The here observed novel effects on the PTS mediated uptake of sugars are shown to exclusively depended on the presence of FruA and FruB and do not depend on fructose transport itself. The authors demonstrate that the positive effects by FruA and FruB on mannitol, galacitol, and mannose uptake are neither based on increased of transcription of the operons encoding the EII components for the uptake of these sugars nor altered transphosphorylation activities, but a stimulation of PEP-dependent phosphorylating activity mediated via protein:protein interactions. Taken together, the authors in this article provide novel insights into a new mode for the control of sugar uptake via the PTS in E. coli and thereby provide further good indications, that this control occurs via protein:protein interactions. The authors finally discuss based on these additional role of FruA and FruB the evolution of PTS systems in bacteria.

The article is very interesting and well written, the experiments fully support the conclusions by the authors. Just some minor concerns might be addressed before publication.

Line 41: change to fructose

Line 58: Maybe instead of putting this scheme in the text an additional graph would be usefull, as some legend might be helpful. Thereby also the situation and names of genes/proteins for the uptake of the other PTS substrates investigated in this manuscript e.g. trehalose can be introduced, facilitationg the understanding of names e.g. used in table 2.

Line 189/Table 2: why not include the results from the bacterial 2 hybrid assay now presented in the supplementary data file also in table 2?

Table S1 and S2: For some sugars 2 and for galactose 3 series of measurements are provided. For the latter the uptake rates between the first two and the third series a highly different – maybe some explanation would be helpful.

Table S1 – S5: Addition of Fructose is abbreviated by writing e.g. “WT-Fru”, I suggest to replace this by “LB + Fru” (and accordingly for the control by “LB”).

Fig S2 (page 31 of supplementary data file) change “mtlA” to “MtlA” and “nagE” to “NagE”

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files to be viewed.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Review for PlosOne.docx

PLoS One. 2019 Nov 21;14(11):e0219332. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0219332.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


4 Oct 2019

Reviewer #1 (R1)

We were pleased to read that R1 has observed similar phenomena with fungal transport activities, particularly because there is no PTS in fungi. We have since come to the same conclusion with respect to secondary carriers in E. coli (see Discussion section). As noted by R1, “Our observations concern fungal transporters, which makes the whole story broader and probably concern the fine and dynamic balancing of PM transporter composition in all kinds of cells. So the findings described [are] worth publication in PlosOne…”

Points to address:

1. We have inserted the word “Apparently” into the title as suggested. Similar changes have been made throughout the manuscript.

2. We have read through the entire manuscript to ensure that all abbreviations are defined when first used. The scheme shown on pg. 1 of the Introduction has been clarified by additional explanations in the text, both in the Abstract and the Introduction.

3. Table 2 and the first two paragraphs of the Results section summarize results published by Babu et al., 2018 (Ref. 1), as noted by R1, but the relevant observations were not presented concisely or explained in that paper as we have done here for the first time. Therefore, we feel this material should not be omitted from this manuscript. It would be difficult for the reader to find this information in Ref. 1. We also checked for redundancies with the Introduction and feel that most of the information presented is relevant and important; it reinforces the suggestions stated in the Introduction. However, the long section on PTS evolution in the Discussion section that overlapped with the Introduction has been deleted. Thus, although we have eliminated unnecessary details, as well as this major section, we feel that some of this information should be retained.

4. We have included the bacterial 2-hybrid-documented interaction results for FruA and FruB only in Figure S2 because this is only confirmatory of the results already published in Ref. 1 (although using a different method). It is therefore of secondary importance and does not represent novel information; hence we prefer to keep this information in the supplementary materials section.

5. We agree with R1; interrupting text paragraphs is not optimal. In our original submission, we tried to put figures and tables between paragraphs, and also tried to keep the tables or figures together with their legends. We have made sure that this was done in the revised manuscript.

6. Yes, R1 is correct: WT-Fru was meant to mean WT grown with Fructose. This has been changed to WT+Fru as suggested also by another reviewer. This has also been more clearly explained in the figure legends and text.

7. Uptake or transport activities have been changed to “apparent uptake or transport activities” in relevant places in the manuscript and Tables. Please refer to Aboulwafa et al., 2004 (Arch Microbiol (2004) 181 : 26-34, DOI 10.1007/s00203-003-0623-7) and Aboulwafa and Saier, 2002 (Research in Microbiology 153 (2002) 667-677) to see that apparent transport rate can often be determined within the time range 5-10 min for several of the tested substrates. Please note: “accumulation” is applicable for non-metabolizable compounds only, while rate of uptake plus metabolism is appropriate for other sugars.

8. The high ratios of accumulation of Tre and Gat by TM/WT is due to the lower activities of the WT after growth in the presence of fructose, not to a change in uptake by the TM. The results are fully consistent with our interpretation of the data.

R1 notes an apparent discrepancy between Tables S3 and 2. I assume R1 means Table S2 instead of Table 2? Table 2 only presents relevant interaction scores from Ref. 1.

In Table S2, only the TM strain is examined, and with this strain, there is no fructose PTS; hence, fructose has no effect on uptake. However, in Table S3, WT uptake activity is low, compared to the TM because of the inhibition of Gat and Tre uptakes by IIFru, and hence the ratio of TM+Fru (no effect)/WT+Fru (strong inhibition) is large. This is because only the fructose-induced WT shows inhibition by high levels of FruA on Gat and Tre uptakes. These experiments also establish that FruAB is responsible for the activation/inhibition of the other PTS transporters.

9. The reviewer is correct; there are significant deviations between experiments compared to the standard deviations for any one experiment conducted with the same cells, but we still attribute these to experimental error. This has been noted in the text.

10. As noted above, the S’ tables are controls for the corresponding S tables.

11. The supplementary tables provide the raw data upon which the figures and tables in the main manuscript are based. The relevant S tables for each text table are given in the text table legends. To include S tables in the text would introduce substantial redundancy and could confuse the reader as this would introduce a different style of presentation.

12. These possibilities are now discussed in the Discussion section as suggested.

13. We believe that the PEP-dependent in vitro phosphorylation results are significant. They confirm previous studies showing that cell disruption seems to (at least partially) uncouple sugar transport from phosphorylation. Values reported are much greater than the standard error of the measurements, and they show that in some cases, the in vitro effects observed are in the same direction as the in vivo effects although smaller in magnitude, possibly because cell disruption also disrupts protein-protein interactions. This has also been considered in the Discussion section of the revised manuscript.

14. We have qualified this statement (which we still believe to be essentially true) by mentioning the possibility of an effect on stability of the target transporters, although as noted above, and now stated in the revised manuscript, this seems less likely. Thus, the transphosphorylation reactions were not affected, suggesting that the target EIIs are stable. Moreover, it is known that EIIs are very stable in cell membranes (for days at RT and up to ~80oC for short time periods). This argument and these facts have now been presented in the revised text.

15. It is true that the first two paragraphs in the Discussion section in part paraphrase parts of the Introduction, but we believe this helps the reader to view the results in a fully comprehensive picture. We therefore prefer to retain this information. However, if acceptance for publication depends on its removal, we will certainly do so. Also, we have substantially shortened the Discussion section concerning PTS evolution because of the overlap with the Introduction.

Reviewer #2 (R2)

1. When we discuss mannose transport, we are talking about the results obtained with the non-metabolizable mannose analog, 2DG, which is a good substrate only of the mannose system. This point is now clarified in the revised manuscript (in lines 251 and 280 of the original manuscript) by noting that 2DG accumulation reflects the activity of the mannose PTS. This has also been clarified by putting the primary substrates into Table 1, as suggested.

2. Yes, we agree, and this has been done.

3. This is an interesting point. We believe that while induction by including fructose in the growth medium led to a full complement of regulatory effects, artificial overproduction of proteins from the gene(s) encoded on a synthetic plasmid did not. It caused the activating effects but did not reproduce the inhibitory effects on the Gat and Tre systems. We assume that this latter observation was due to the abnormal condition resulting from the presence of an overexpression plasmid, from which transcription/translation must occur. Possibly, these conditions (partially) prevent formation of the necessary association between FruA/FruB and the inhibited systems. This is mere speculation, but we have mentioned it in the Results section. This suggestion is also supported by studies on adenylate cyclase activation by the PTS which is easily demonstrable in whole cells and even toluenized cells, but never in a fully in vitro assay system.

4. Lines 350-351: We believe this statement is justified because the homologous HPr and FPr catalyze the same reaction, using the same mechanism, with the same specificity. If FPr were responsible for the activation, an excess of HPr should have had the same activating effect, but it did not. It had little or none; this is now more clearly pointed out.

5. Line 372, galP: a brief description of GalP has been added (as suggested) to the figure 2 legend.

6. Lines 41-42: R2 is correct, that we have only shown that synthesis (gene expression) is not affected, but turnover was not tested rigorously. This has been noted in the text as mentioned above and the statement in the abstract has also been accordingly modified. However, please note that the transphosphorylation results and other evidence now cited in the manuscript argue against the possibility that turnover plays a role.

Reviewer #3 (R3)

We thank R3 for the positive comments, particularly: “The authors of this article provide novel insights into a new mode of control” and “The experiments fully support the conclusions…”

Minor concerns:

Line 41: Thank you for catching this Typo! It has been corrected.

Line 58: As noted above, we have provided substantially more description in the text regarding this scheme and feel that these additions render it much more easily understandable. Similar schemes have been published in numerous publications concerning the PTS in the past.

Line 189/Table 2: This was addressed above. Since these results merely confirm the previously published results (Babu et al., 2017; Ref. 1) and do not represent an important conclusion with respect to the substance of this paper, we believe this figure optimally belongs in supplementary materials. The results now appear in S2 Figure.

Tables S1 and S2: This has also been addressed above. Please note that different strains and conditions were used for these and Tables S3 etc., accounting for the differences, excluding experimental error.

Tables S1-S5: We agree and have changed WT-Fru or WT-Fr to “WT + Fru”. The same has been done for other tables.

Figure S2 (pg. 31): The evidence for several relevant interactions is presented.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 1

Hernâni Gerós

14 Oct 2019

Protein:Protein Interactions in the Cytoplasmic Membrane Apparently Influencing Sugar Transport and Phosphorylation Activities of the E. coli Phosphotransferase System.

PONE-D-19-16979R1

Dear Dr. Saier Jr.,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it complies with all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you will receive an e-mail containing information on the amendments required prior to publication. When all required modifications have been addressed, you will receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will proceed to our production department and be scheduled for publication.

Shortly after the formal acceptance letter is sent, an invoice for payment will follow. To ensure an efficient production and billing process, please log into Editorial Manager at https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the "Update My Information" link at the top of the page, and update your user information. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, you must inform our press team as soon as possible and no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

With kind regards,

Hernâni Gerós, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: N/A

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: All my points were satisfactorily addressed and the revised manuscript can be accepted fro publication

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: George Diallinas

Reviewer #3: No

Acceptance letter

Hernâni Gerós

5 Nov 2019

PONE-D-19-16979R1

Protein:Protein Interactions in the Cytoplasmic Membrane Apparently Influencing Sugar Transport and Phosphorylation Activities of the E. coli Phosphotransferase System.

Dear Dr. Saier Jr.:

I am pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper at this point, to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

For any other questions or concerns, please email plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE.

With kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Hernâni Gerós

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Table. Effect of induction with fructose on the uptake of radioactive compounds as indicated below by the wild type E. coli strain BW25113 (WT).

    E. coli WT was grown in LB or LB plus 0.2% fructose with 5 mM MgSO4 in both media. All [14C]substrates were used at 20 μM, final concentration, each of 5 μCi/μmole except for [3H]galactitol which was used at 30 μCi/μmole (see Experimental Procedures). Many values reported here and in subsequent tables have been rounded off.

    (DOCX)

    S2 Table. Effect of growth with fructose on the uptake of radioactive substrates as indicated below by the triple mutant E. coli strain BW25113-fruBKA:kn (TM).

    The E. coli TM was grown in LB or LB plus 0.2% fructose with 5 mM MgSO4 in both media. All radioactive substrates were used at 20 μM, each containing 5 μCi/μmole 14C except for [3H]galactitol which was used at 30 μCi/μmole. These concentrations and specific activities were used throughout these studies for transport assays (see Experimental Procedures).

    (DOCX)

    S3 Table

    A. Effect of growth with fructose on the uptake of [14C]substrates as indicated below except for [3H]galactitol by the triple mutant E. coli strain BW25113-fruBKA:kn (TM) as compared to the wild type strain BW25113 (WT). E. coli strains were grown in LB plus 0.2% fructose and 5 mM MgSO4. B. Effect of mutations in the fruBKA operon on the uptake of [14C]compounds by the triple mutant E. coli strain BW25113-fruBKA:kn (TM) as compared to the wild type strain BW25113 (WT), both grown in LB medium.

    (DOCX)

    S4 Table

    A. Effect of deletion of fruA on the uptake of [14C]compounds by the E. coli strain BW25113ΔfruA (WTΔfruA) as compared to the wild type strain BW25113 (WT). E. coli strains were grown in LB/0.2% fructose/5 mM MgSO4. B. Effect of deletion of fruA on the uptake of [14C]compounds by the E. coli strain BW25113ΔfruA (WTΔfruA) as compared to the wild type strain BW25113 (WT), both grown in LB medium.

    (DOCX)

    S5 Table

    A. Effect of deletion of fruB on the uptake of [14C]compounds by the E. coli strain BW25113ΔfruB (WTΔfruB) as compared to the wild type strain BW25113 (WT), both grown in LB medium plus 0.2% fructose/5 mM MgSO4. B. Effect of deletion of fruB on the uptake of [14C]compounds by the E. coli strain BW25113ΔfruB (WTΔfruB) as compared to the wild type strain BW25113 (WT), both grown in LB medium.

    (DOCX)

    S6 Table. Effect of overexpression of fruA on the uptake of [14C]compounds by the recombinant triple mutant E. coli strain BW25113-fruBKA:kn-pMAL-FruA (TM-pMAL-fruA) as compared to the BW25113-fruBKA:kn-pML (TM-pMAL) strain.

    (DOCX)

    S7 Table. Effect of overexpression of fruA on the uptake of [14C]compounds by the recombinant E. coli strain BW25113-pMAL-fruA (WT-pMAL-fruA), as compared to the BW25113-pMAL (WT-pMAL) strain, both grown in LB medium.

    (DOCX)

    S8 Table. Effect of overexpression of fruB on the uptake of [14C]compounds by the recombinant triple mutant E. coli strain BW25113-fruBKA:kn-pMAL-fruB (TM-pMAL-fruA) as compared to the BW25113-fruBKA:kn-pML (TM-pMAL) strain, both grown in LB medium.

    (DOCX)

    S9 Table. Effect of overexpression of fruB on the uptake of [14C]compounds by the recombinant E. coli strain BW25113-pMAL-fruB (WT-pMAL-fruB), as compared to the BW25113-pMAL (WT-pMAL) strain, both grown in LB medium.

    (DOCX)

    S10 Table. Effect of co-overexpression of fruA and fruB carried on two separate compatible plasmids on the uptake of [14C]compounds by the recombinant triple mutant E. coli strain BW25113-fruBKA:kn-pMAL-fruA-pZA31-PtetM2-fruB (TM-pMAL-fruA-pZA31-PtetM2-fruB) as compared to the BW25113-fruBKA:kn-pMAL-pZA31-PtetM2-GFM (TM-pMAL-pZA31-PtetM2-GFM) strain, both grown in LB medium.

    (DOCX)

    S11 Table. Effect of co-overexpression of fruA and fruB carried on two separate compatible plasmids on the uptake of [14C]compounds by the recombinant E. coli strain BW25113-pMAL-fruA-pZA31-PtetM2-fruB (WT-pMAL-fruA-pZA31-PtetM2-fruB) as compared to the BW25113-pMAL-pZA31-PtetM2-GFM (WT-pMAL-pZA31-PtetM2-GFM) strain, both grown in LB medium.

    (DOCX)

    S12 Table. Effect of overexpression of the fruBKA operon under Ptet promoter control on the uptake of [14C]compounds by the recombinant E. coli strain BW25113-Chs kn:T:Ptet-fruBKA (WT-Ptet-fruBKA) as compared to the BW25113 (WT) strain, both grown in LB medium.

    (DOCX)

    S13 Table. Effect of fruBKA operon induction with fructose on the expression of certain PTS transporters in E. coli using lacZ transcriptional fusions.

    Values in the last column were calculated relative to the control without induction. A negative sign indicates a decrease in apparent expression level. All values are within experiment error.

    (DOCX)

    S14 Table. Effect of overexpression of the fructose transporter (FruA) gene (fruA) and the gene of its soluble partner FruB (fruB) on the expression of certain PTS transporters in E. coli using lacZ transcriptional fusions.

    Values in the last column were calculated relative to the control without induction. A negative sign indicates a decrease in expression level.

    (DOCX)

    S15 Table. Effect of overexpression of some membrane transporter genes on the expression of other PTS transporters in E. coli using lacZ transcriptional fusions. Values in the last column were calculated relative to the control without induction. A negative sign indicates a decrease in expression level.

    (DOCX)

    S16 Table. Effect of induction by fructose on PEP-dependent phosphorylation of some PTS sugars by the crude extract preparations of the wild type E. coli BW25113 (WT) and its triple mutant BW25113-fruBKA:kn (TM).

    Induction was conducted with 0.2% fructose in LB medium; ND, not determined.

    (DOCX)

    S17 Table. Effect of overexpression of fruA on phosphorylation of fructose, mannitol, N-acetylglucosamine and galactitol by the membranous fractions of the wild type E. coli BW25113 strain (WT). A 30 μl aliquot of an 8 h HSS of the WT strain was used as a source of the soluble PTS enzymes.

    (DOCX)

    S18 Table. Effect of overexpression of fruA or fruB on PEP-dependent phosphorylation of PTS sugars by crude extracts of the recombinant wild type E. coli strains BW25113-pMAL-fruA and BW25113-pMAL-fruB as compared to the control strain BW25113-pMAL.

    (DOCX)

    S19 Table. Effect of separate overexpression of fruA or fruB on the PEP-dependent phosphorylation of PTS sugars by the crude extracts of recombinant triple mutant E. coli strains BW25113-fruBKA:kn-pMAL-fruA and BW25113-fruBKA:kn-pMAL-fruB as compared to the control strain BW25113-fruBKA:kn-pMAL.

    (DOCX)

    S20 Table. Effect of simultaneous overexpression of fruA and fruB (carried on two separate compatible plasmids in the wild type E. coli BW25113 strain or its triple mutant BW25113-fruBKA:kn) on the PEP-dependent phosphorylation of some PTS sugars by crude extracts of strains BW25113-pMAL-pZA31-PtetM2-GFM (WT control), BW25113-pMAL-fruA-pZA31-PtetM2-fruB (WT O.E. fruA-fruB), BW25113-fruBKA:kn-pMAL-pZA31-PtetM2-GFM (TM-control) and BW25113-fruBKA:kn-pMAL-fruA-pZA31-PtetM2-fruB (TM-O.E fruA.fruB).

    (DOCX)

    S21 Table. Effect of overexpression of the fruBKA operon by changing its native promoter to Ptet on the PEP-dependent phosphorylation of mannitol, N-acetylglucosamine and galactitol by the membranous fraction of the wild type E. coli BW25113.

    (DOCX)

    S22 Table. Testing PEP-dependent phosphorylation of mannitol by a crude extract of an E. coli strain with an inactivated (BW25113-mtlA:kn strain) or deleted (BW25113ΔmtlA strain) mtlA gene.

    A crude extract of E. coli strain BW25113-mtlA:kn or BW25113ΔmtlA grown in LB + 0.2% fructose was prepared and used for testing the mannitol phosphorylation by FruA.

    (DOCX)

    S23 Table. Effect of purified FruB on the PEP-dependent phosphorylation of PTS sugars by the crude extracts of recombinant triple mutant E. coli strain BW25113-fruBKA:kn-pMAL-fruA (Triple Mutant; TM-pMAL-fruA) and BW25113-fruBKA:kn-pMAL (TM-pMAL) strain.

    (DOCX)

    S24 Table. Effect of using a HSS of lysed E. coli BW25113 Chs kn:T:Ptet-fruBKA cells overexpressing the fruBKA operon on the PEP-dependent phosphorylation of fructose, mannitol, N-acetylglucosamine and galactitol by the wild type E. coli BW25113 overexpressing fruA or galP.

    (DOCX)

    S25 Table. Effect of overexpression of fruA on transphosphorylation of PTS sugars by the membranous fraction of recombinant triple mutant E. coli strain BW25113-fruBKA:kn-pMAL-fruA as compared to control strain BW25113-fruBKA:kn.

    (DOCX)

    S26 Table. Effect of purified FruB on transphosphorylation of PTS sugars by the recombinant triple mutant E. coli strain BW25113-fruBKA:kn-pMAL (TM-pMAL) and its fruA overexpressing strain BW25113-fruBKA:kn-pMAL-fruA (TM-pMAL-fruA).

    (DOCX)

    S27 Table. Strains and plasmids used in this study.

    (DOCX)

    S28 Table. Oligonucleotides used in this study.

    (DOCX)

    S1 Fig. Results from the use of a bacterial two hybrid system for testing interactions of FruA and FruB with other membrane proteins.

    pKNT25-fruA (expression in low copy plasmid pKNT25) against pUT18-gatC, pUT18-nagE, pUT18-treB, pUT18-mtlA, and pUT18-fruB (expression in high copy plasmid pUT18); and pUT18-fruB against pKNT25-mtlA and pKNT25-nagE are presented. As reported by Babu et al., 2018, FruA interacts with other membrane proteins. In this study, the interactions of FruA could be confirmed for GatC, NagE, TreB and MtlA, and the interactions of FruB could be detected and reproduced for MtlA and NagE. The interactions of FruB, the soluble partner, with FruA can be considered as a positive control. Note that the interactions of FruB with MtlA and NagE appear to be substantially weaker than those with FruA.

    (DOCX)

    S2 Fig. SDS PAGE of the purified FruB preparation from the recombinant E. coli BW25113-fruBKA:kn-pMAL-fruB strain.

    M, molecular weight markers; Lanes 1 and 2, two purified FruB preparations.

    (DOCX)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Review for PlosOne.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES