Skip to main content
PLOS Pathogens logoLink to PLOS Pathogens
. 2020 Oct 2;16(10):e1008848. doi: 10.1371/journal.ppat.1008848

Chaperone-tip adhesin complex is vital for synergistic activation of CFA/I fimbriae biogenesis

Li-hui He 1, Hao Wang 2,3, Yang Liu 2,3, Mei Kang 4, Tao Li 1, Chang-cheng Li 1, Ai-ping Tong 1, Yi-bo Zhu 1, Ying-jie Song 1, Stephen J Savarino 3,5,¤, Michael G Prouty 3,*, Di Xia 6,*, Rui Bao 1,*
Editor: Olivera Francetic7
PMCID: PMC7531860  PMID: 33007034

Abstract

Colonization factor CFA/I defines the major adhesive fimbriae of enterotoxigenic Escherichia coli and mediates bacterial attachment to host intestinal epithelial cells. The CFA/I fimbria consists of a tip-localized minor adhesive subunit, CfaE, and thousands of copies of the major subunit CfaB polymerized into an ordered helical rod. Biosynthesis of CFA/I fimbriae requires the assistance of the periplasmic chaperone CfaA and outer membrane usher CfaC. Although the CfaE subunit is proposed to initiate the assembly of CFA/I fimbriae, how it performs this function remains elusive. Here, we report the establishment of an in vitro assay for CFA/I fimbria assembly and show that stabilized CfaA-CfaB and CfaA-CfaE binary complexes together with CfaC are sufficient to drive fimbria formation. The presence of both CfaA-CfaE and CfaC accelerates fimbria formation, while the absence of either component leads to linearized CfaB polymers in vitro. We further report the crystal structure of the stabilized CfaA-CfaE complex, revealing features unique for biogenesis of Class 5 fimbriae.

Author summary

Colonization factor antigen I (CFA/I) is a representative member of alternative chaperone-usher fimbriae in enterotoxigenic Escherichia coli, a major cause of travelers' diarrhea. During assembly, the tip-adhesive subunit CfaE might conceivably serve as an initiator, but the mechanism is not well understood. We demonstrate that the chaperone-tip adhesin complex CfaA-CfaE is essential in early fimbriae growth. The crystal structure of this complex reveals a specific chaperone-anchoring motif and a functional inter-domain loop in CfaE. Our findings suggest that the interaction of the CfaA-CfaE complex with CfaC is responsible for control of the usher plug domain movement and facilitates the binding of CfaE adhesin domain into the CfaC lumen. Collectively, our data demonstrate the crucial role of CfaA-CfaE in CFA/I fimbriae production, providing guidance for further development of novel agents targeting CFA/I fimbriae and against ETEC infection.

Introduction

Human-specific enterotoxigenic Escherichia coli (ETEC) is a major cause of debilitating diarrhea in children of resource-limited countries and travelers to those regions. ETEC infection is initiated by the attachment of bacteria to the intestinal epithelia, which is mediated by bacterial surface adhesive fimbriae or pili[1]. Among different types of adhesive fimbriae expressed on the surface of ETEC bacteria, the colonization factor antigen I or CFA/I is most prevalent in isolated ETEC field strains and is archetypal of the Class 5 family fimbriae[2, 3]. Class 5 fimbriae are among the simplest bacterial organelles, consisting of only two types of subunits. For the CFA/I fimbriae, one subunit is the single-copy, tip-locating adhesin CfaE and the other is the major pilin CfaB, polymerizing to form the helical shaft of a CFA/I fimbria[46]. The helical form gives CFA/I fimbriae a spring-like property, being able to unwind and re-wind[7, 8]. In addition, the tip CfaE adhesin displays shear force-enhanced receptor binding, which is similar to the catch bond used by FimH in Type-1 pili[7, 9, 10]. These properties allow persistent attachment to the intestinal epithelia.

In addition to the two structural subunits, biogenesis of CFA/I fimbriae requires the functions of two factors, the periplasmic chaperone CfaA and the outer membrane usher protein CfaC, which bear functional similarities to components required for fimbriae that are assembled by “the chaperone-usher” (CU) pathway[1119]. In the assembly process following a classic CU pathway, the chaperone captures an incompletely folded pilus subunit in the periplasm via the donor-strand complementation (DSC) mechanism, in which a β strand (G1 donor-strand) of the chaperone fits into the hydrophobic groove of a subunit, featuring 5 interaction sites (P1-P5 sites). This groove is the result of incomplete folding of the immunoglobulin (Ig)-like subunit due to the missing strand[20]. The DSC is facilitated by interactions between the subunit carboxyl terminus and a pair of basic residues from the chaperone[17, 18]. During assembly, the chaperone G1 strand complementing a subunit is replaced by the N-terminal extension (Nte, also called Gd strand) of the following subunit. This process, termed donor-strand exchange (DSE), takes place at the site of the outer-membrane usher[17, 18, 21].

Distinct from fimbriae assembled by the typical CU pathway, the major subunit CfaB of CFA/I fimbriae features a longer hydrophobic groove with an additional P0 site available for interaction with the chaperone. The chaperone CfaA also has a unique set of residues (N180 and Y182) in the cleft between its two lobes for CfaB C-terminal anchoring[22, 23]. Therefore, the CfaA chaperone has been grouped into a separate periplasmic FGA chaperone subfamily (chaperone F1-G1 loop Alternate) to distinguish it from the previously designated FGL (chaperone F1-G1 loop Long) and FGS (chaperone F1-G1 loop Short) subfamilies[23].

The tip-localized adhesins are required for the initiation of assembly for various fimbriae[2429], including the Class 5 fimbria assembly[30]. Presumably, it is the CfaA-CfaE heterodimer that initiates CFA/I fimbria assembly, because CfaE is unstable when expressed alone[31]. How the CfaA-CfaE dimer is recognized by the usher protein CfaC remains unclear, but the formation of the CfaE-CfaC complex is assumed to be required for the subsequent incorporation of thousands copies of the major pilin subunit CfaB to form a helical rod of CFA/I fimbriae.

Previous studies on CfaE have focused mainly on its structure, host cell-interaction and the mechanism of persistent binding[29, 32, 33]. The role played by CfaE in CFA/I fimbria assembly remains unclear. In this study, we sought to reconstitute CFA/I fimbriae in vitro to enable investigation of the assembly process. Toward that goal, we engineered a mutant CfaA variant to stabilize the CfaA-CfaE and CfaA-CfaB complexes, which allowed in vitro assembly of CFA/I fimbriae in the presence of isolated usher CfaC. The stabilized CfaA-CfaE heterodimer also permitted structure determination of the CfaA-CfaE complex and the structure allowed identification of a distinct chaperone-anchoring motif and a functional inter-domain loop in CfaE. Our work shows that CfaE is required for the efficient assembly of CFA/I fimbriae.

Results

In vitro assay of CFA/I assembly suggests essential functions for both chaperone-adhesin complex and usher

Like most known mono-adhesin CU fimbriae, the CfaE adhesin is composed of an adhesin domain and a pilin domain [29, 33, 34]. The N-terminal adhesin domain is responsible for host-cell receptor binding and the C-terminal pilin domain interacts with CfaA or CfaB. Thus, the pilin domain requires a donor strand from either chaperone CfaA or CfaB subunit to stabilize its incomplete Ig-like fold[17, 32]. We attempted to generate a binary complex of native CfaA and CfaE, but it was not stable in solution (S1 Fig), similar to what was observed for the native CfaA and CfaB complex[22]. Previous studies have shown that substitutions of residues in the G1 donor strand of the chaperone with small hydrophobic residues enhance stability of the chaperone-subunit heterodimer[22, 23, 35]. However, for CfaA, the single mutation T112I resulted in delayed fimbriation, a phenotype that can be rescued by the triple mutation T112I/L114I/V116I. The latter displays a similar behavior in fimbriation as the wild-type CfaA[22]. When compared to native CfaA, the mutant variant containing the triple residue substitution T112I/L114I/V116I on G1 strand (hitherto referred to as mtCfaA) formed significantly stabilized complexes with CfaE (Fig 1A), CfaB and CfaBntd (the CfaB variant lacking the N-terminal donor strand). These stabilized complexes were isolated and used in subsequent in vitro assays.

Fig 1. Purification of the stabilized CfaA-CfaE binary complex and in vitro reconstitutions of CFA/I fimbriae.

Fig 1

(A) SEC profile and SDS-PAGE of purified stabilized CfaA-CfaE complex. The stabilized CfaA-CfaE complex was eluted as a single peak in a SEC run. SDS-PAGE of the SEC peak resolved components of the CfaA variant at 25 kDa and the CfaE at 39 kDa. (B to E) In vitro reaction of the assembly of CFA/I fimbriae. (B) The reaction was followed by the disappearance of the CfaA-CfaB complex on AN-PAGE, the protein ladders resulted from aggregations of CfaA-CfaB (S3 Fig). (C) The quantifications of ladders on AN-PAGE in Fig 1B. (D) Electron micrographs showing the results of the in vitro fimbriae assembly assay under various conditions. Samples were taken after 24 hours of incubation. Representative CfaB polymers under various conditions are indicated by arrows. (E) The length distribution histograms of generated pili. The insert panels show the frequency with pili length of 1-250nm.

To reconstitute the CFA/I fimbriae in vitro, we incubated stabilized mtCfaA-CfaB alone (5 μM) at 25°C or in combination with the purified recombinant CfaC (S2 Fig) and/or the stabilized mtCfaA-CfaE at a concentration of 0.25 μM each. The assay mixtures were sampled at various incubation time points and polymerization was monitored by the disappearance of the input mtCfaA-CfaB binary complex using acidic-native PAGE (AN-PAGE, Fig 1B to 1C). Samples taken after 24h incubation were further analyzed using electron microscopy (EM) with negative staining (Fig 1D to 1E). Similar to the reconstitution experiment of Type 1 fimbriae[30], CfaB self-assembly was very slow in the absence of mtCfaA-CfaE or CfaC. No regular rod-like fimbriae were observed under negative-stain EM except for some short fragments that are probably the result of self-aggregation of mtCfaA-CfaB (S3 Fig). By contrast, only in the presence of both CfaC and mtCfaA-CfaE, did CfaB polymerization progress efficiently, forming typical fimbria rods. Without the tip-adhesin subunit, CfaC was able to prevent CfaB self-assembly into off-pathway trimer and to extend CfaB polymer, although at a much lower efficiency. A similar observation was made when mtCfaA-CfaB was incubated with mtCfaA-CfaE only. These results indicate that CfaB polymerization can be initiated by either usher or chaperone-adhesin complex, but correct and efficient fimbria assembly requires the synergy of both components.

Crystal structure of mtCfaA in complex with CfaE

With the functional, stabilized mtCfaA-CfaE purified, we proceeded to crystallize the complex as part of our effort to understand the underlying mechanism and the requirement of CfaE as an initiator of CFA/I assembly. The structure was determined by the molecular replacement method using native CfaA (PDB:4NCD) and CfaE (PDB:2HB0) as search models. There are two identical copies of the mtCfaA-CfaE complex in one crystallographic asymmetric unit. The structure was refined to 2.77Å resolution with Rwork of 22.5% and Rfree of 26.0% (Table 1). In the structural model of the complex, the loops containing residues 100–109 in mtCfaA and residues 311–320 in CfaE were not built because of poor electron density in those regions.

Table 1. Statistics on qualities of diffraction data set, phasing and refined atomic model.

Data Collection
    Wavelength (Å) 0.9778
    Space Group R 32
    Unit Cell parameters
    a, b, c (Å)
    α, β, γ (°)

a = 217.2, b = 217.2, c = 177.1
α = β = 90, γ = 120
    Resolution (Å) 29.52–2.774 (2.873–2.774)
    No. Unique reflections 40388
    Completeness (%) 99.53 (98)
    Redundancy 7.5 (5.1)
    Mean I/sigma (I) 12.29 (2.46)
Refinement statistics
    Rwork 0.2248 (0.3197)
    Rfree 0.2597 (0.3722)
    No. protein atom (no hydrogen) 8734
    No. no-protein atoms 1072
    Average B-factor (Å2) 52.3
    Rmsd for bond lengths (Å) 0.033
    Rmsd for bond angles (°) 1.6
Ramachandran plot
    Favored (%) 96.58
    Allowed (%)
    Dis-allowed (%)
3.13
0.28

a. Numbers in parentheses are statistics of the outer shell.

b. Rwork = |Fo-Fc|Fo where Fo and Fc are the observed and calculated structure factors respectively.

c. Rfree is calculated for a test set of reflections randomly excluded from refinement.

d. B-factors are given with contribution from TLS tensors included. Rmsd stereochemistry is the deviation from ideal values. Rmsd B-factors is deviation between bonded atoms.

CfaA interacts with CfaE in the canonical DSC manner via a pair of parallel β-strands: one from the CfaA G1 strand and the other from the CfaE F2 strand (Fig 2A). Although the N- (residues 20–126) and C- (residues 127–220) terminal domains of CfaA remain rigid during its coupling to different subunits (the overall RMSD is 0.781Å), inter-domain movement is detected by overlaying the CfaA N-terminal domains of the CfaB and CfaE complexes as well as the apo form (Fig 2B). Compared to the mtCfaA-CfaBntd structure, the mtCfaA-CfaE structure reveals a slightly more open cleft between the two domains of CfaA to accommodate the larger CfaE adhesin (Fig 2C).

Fig 2. Crystal structure of the CfaA-CfaE binary complex and comparison with CfaA-CfaBntd (PDB:4Y2O).

Fig 2

(A) Overall structure of the mtCfaA-CfaE binary complex in cartoon representation. The CfaE is colored in magenta and the CfaA is in blue. The disordered region in CfaA (residues 100–109) and CfaE (residues 311–320) are drawn as black dashed lines. The secondary structures of each protein are labelled following the convention of previous publications. The diagram was produced with PyMOL [69] (http://www.pymol.org). (B) Superposition of the structures of CfaA from mtCfaA-CfaBntd and mtCfaA-CfaE to the apo CfaA (PDB:4NCD) based on overlying N-terminal domains of CfaA. The apo CfaA is in light grey, the CfaA from mtCfaA-CfaE is in blue and that from mtCfaA-CfaBntd is in orange. The direction of the angular movement of the C-terminal domains of CfaA upon binding of CfaB and CfaE are indicated. (C) A different view of the superposition in (B) showing the angular movement of the two domains of CfaA opening up by binding to CfaB or CfaE. (D) Recording of changes in aromatic residue fluorescence at 320 nm as a function of concentration of GdnCl for mtCfaA-CfaBntd (white circular) and mtCfaA-CfaE (black triangle). The numbers 1 and 2 indicate the 2 inflection points in mtCfaA-CfaBntd (solid line) and mtCfaA-CfaE (dash line), respectively, and the thick lines are the fitted curves generated by GraphPad software Prism 7 (https://www.graphpad.com/). (E) Superposition of the three structures in (B) also brings the pilin domain of CfaE and CfaB into alignment, allowing structural comparison of the pilin domain of CfaE (magenta) from CfaA-CfaE with CfaB (green) of CfaA-CfaBntd. The G1-binding hydrophobic grooves of the two subunits are shown as molecular surfaces with filled G1 peptides in black, with labelled binding pockets. The critical residues forming the hydrophobic groove are shown as stick models.

Structural comparison between mtCfaA-CfaE and mtCfaA-CfaBntd

Expression of binary complexes of native CfaA-CfaB and CfaA-CfaE shows that both complexes are unstable[22]. Biochemically, the CfaA-CfaE heterodimer appeared to have a shorter life-span compared to that of the CfaA-CfaB complex in solution, because we failed to isolate any native CfaA-CfaE. To further verify the relative stability of the two complexes, we carried out a guanidine hydrochloride (GdnCl)-induced dissociation and denaturation experiment to compare the thermodynamic stability of the stabilized mtCfaA-CfaE and mtCfaA-CfaBntd complexes, where mtCfaA refers to the CfaA variant with triple residue substitution in the G1 strand. The experiment was performed by monitoring fluorescence changes in response to the exposure of buried aromatic residues at the interface between CfaA and CfaE (W207 and F353 of CfaE, Y92 and Y120 of CfaA) and that between CfaA and CfaB (Y92, Y120 of CfaA), as the concentration of GdnCl increases. The changes in fluorescence as a function of GdnCl concentration (Fig 2D) for both complexes illustrate two cooperative transitions, representing a dissociation-coupled unfolding process[36]. The calculated mid-point dissociation concentration of GdnCl for mtCfaA-CfaE (0.966 M) is lower than that for the mtCfaA-CfaBntd (1.415 M), supporting our observation that mtCfaA-CfaE is indeed thermodynamically less stable than mtCfaA-CfaBntd.

To further explore the difference in thermodynamic stability of these complexes, we next sought to compare the structures of the complexes. Structure-based sequence alignment of CfaB and pilin domain of CfaE shows a very low sequence identity of 13%, suggesting differences in coupling to CfaA between the CfaE and CfaB. The structure of the CfaA-CfaE allowed us to compare the interactions between adhesin and chaperone with those between pilin and chaperone, which identified two major interaction sites on the subunits for chaperone: the DSC grooves and the C-terminal anchorage.

The structures of CfaA-CfaE and CfaA-CfaB show that CfaE and CfaB accommodate the G1 donor-strand of CfaA in different ways (Fig 2E). For the P0, P1 and P5 sites of the DSC groove, residues L4, V126, L128, M130, Y20 in CfaB are replaced by the smaller I206, I349, I351, F353, L221 residues in CfaE. The differences in hydrophobic side chains of these residues in CfaE, especially for the residues F353 (M130 in CfaB) at P0 and Y20 (L221 in CfaB) at P5, lead to a shallower, narrower groove for binding to the CfaA G1 strand, which is consistent with weaker interactions between the adhesin and chaperone.

The second site of contact between the chaperone and subunit is in the cleft of the chaperone to accommodate the C-terminal residues of the subunit. This site has long been recognized to play an important role in fimbria assembly[17, 18, 37]. Structure-based sequence alignment of CfaB and the pilin domain of CfaE shows a C-terminal extension of three residues (358-QTL-360) for CfaE. In other words, there are four residues in CfaE likely to engage in CfaA interaction (Fig 3A). The main-chain and side-chain oxygen atoms of CfaE S357 form hydrogen bonds with the essential cleft residue pair N180’/Y182’ and the conserved residue E46’ (residues from CfaA are marked with’), while Q358, T359, and L360 interact with T43’, N180’, and N203’ through main-chain and side-chain hydrogen bonds. This C-terminal extension is present in all the adhesins of FGA fimbriae (Fig 3B), indicating a possible role of this sequence motif in the function or assembly of this fimbria family. Indeed, substitutions of any one of the last four C-terminal residues to alanine results in a complex pattern of effects on CFA/I fimbriation (Fig 4A, Table 2). While the S357A and Q358A mutations reduce fimbriation, mutations T359A and L360A seem to have no discernable impact on fimbriation. Given the reduced binding affinity between CfaA and CfaE compared to the CfaA-CfaB complex, this C-terminal sequence motif of CfaE is more likely a regulatory element than a structural one.

Fig 3. Unique features of mtCfaA-CfaE binary complex.

Fig 3

(A) The last four residues (magenta) of the C-terminus of CfaE (S357, Q358, T359, L360) interact with residues (blue) in the cleft region (T43’, N180’, Y182’ and N203’) of CfaA. The residues are shown as stick models. (B) Sequence alignment of C-terminal segments from different adhesin subunits of the Class 5 fimbriae. The four C-terminal residues unique to the class are shaded red. Sequences were aligned using the program ClustalX [70], and the alignment was made using the online ESPript 3.0 server [71] (http://espript.ibcp.fr/ESPript/ESPript/). (C) Interactions of R253 (magenta) in CfaE with CfaA (blue).

Fig 4. Effects of CfaE mutations on CFA/I fimbriae assembly and function.

Fig 4

(A) The amount of CFA/I fimbriae containing CfaE variants expressed on the bacterial surface was detected by bact-ELISA using a specific antibody against subunit CfaB after the induction of CFA/I operon. (B) Negative stain EM images of CFA/I on the surface of bacteria containing CfaE mutations. The scale of each EM picture is indicated. The white arrow heads in Panel A indicate CFA/I fimbriae. The scale bar is 500 nm.

Table 2. Effects of CfaE mutations at mtCfaA-CfaE interface.

Mutations MRHA Location Conservation Possible function
R253E - C2 Partial(5a) Interaction with chaperone
(R311-I320) A - D2-E2 Partial(5a,5b) Interaction with usher
S357Y - C-terminal Partial(5a,5c) Anchoring on chaperone
Q358A + (12) C-terminal Partial(5a) Function unknown
T359A + (24) C-terminal Partial(5a) Function unknown
L360A + (12) C-terminal Invariant Function unknown
ΔCfaE - - -
Wild type (induced) + (32) - -
Wild type (uninduced) - - -

a + and–signs indicate positive or negative MRHA at the highest bacterial concentration tested (A600 = 40).

b Numbers in parentheses indicate MRHA titers for the corresponding bacteria mutants. The values were the mean values performed at least in duplicate.

Nearby the adhesin subunit C-terminus, residue R253 of the C2’ strand of CfaE interacts with residues E48’ and Y92’ from CfaA, contributing to anchorage of the subunit to the cleft region (Fig 3C). This interaction is also observed for the CfaA-CfaB complex mediated by K48 of CfaB. These interactions involved in CfaE anchorage to the chaperone provide an additional feature differentiating the FGA family periplasmic chaperone from those of FGL and FGS fimbriae[23].

Structural difference between dsc- and dse-CfaE

In previous studies of self-complemented and Gd-strand complemented CfaE (dseCfaE) structures, the adhesin and pilin domains aligned head to tail with the angles formed between the adhesive domain and the pilin domain, which we previously referred to as the joint angle defined between the longest inertial vectors of each domain. This angle is at nearly 173° for dseCfaE (Table 3), resulting in an apparent rigid cylinder[29, 32]. Upon binding to CfaA, the dscCfaE has its two domains re-arranged with the joint angle measured at 161.4° (Fig 5A). This angled arrangement of the two domains appears to be necessary to avoid physical contacts with the A1 and G1 strands of CfaA and is reminiscent of the structure of a CfaE mutant (G168D) that exhibits tighter receptor binding at low shear force[33] (Table 3). Similar inter-domain rotation was also found in FimH of Type 1 fimbriae by comparing its chaperone-G1-strand-complemented and subunit-Gd-strand-bound forms[10, 18]. For Type 1 fimbriae, this angled domain arrangement not only provides an appropriate conformation for tip-adhesin to pass through the usher pore but may also preserve its folding energy for assembly initiation[38, 39]. Without energy input in the bacterial periplasm, CU fimbria systems depend on the subunit folding energy for its assembly, which is accomplished by the function of chaperones acting as subunit-folding regulators to trap the subunits in high-energy folding intermediates and to prevent self-polymerization of subunits in the periplasm[14, 40]. Thus, subsequent CfaB incorporation, membrane translocation and helical packing is driven by the energy from repeated DSE events[40, 41].

Table 3. Interdomain interface analysis as measured by interface area, joint and twisting angles between the adhesion domain (AD: Residues 23–200) and pilin domain (PD: Residues 201–360).

Subunits Interaction area Joint angle Twisting angle
mtCfaA-CfaE 339.6Å2 161.4° 145.0°
dseCfaE G168D 444.7Å2 163.8° 164.3°
dseCfaE 692.1Å2 172.7° 169.4°

a. The interface area is calculated using the PDBePISA server (http://www.ebi.ac.uk/msdsrv/prot_nt/pistart.html).

b. The joint angle between the AD and PD is defined between the longest inertial vectors of each domain.

c. The twisting angle between AD and PD is based on the transformation matrix obtained from structural alignment between domains via PDBeFold server (http://www.ebi.ac.uk/msd-srv/ssm/). The angle represents a rotation in polar space around an axis to bring two domains into superposition.

Fig 5. Inter-domain motions of CfaE.

Fig 5

(A) Superimposed cartoon models of the pilin domain of CfaE from mtCfaA-CfaE (magenta) and CfaB-CfaE (gray) (PDB:3F83). The Gd strand of CfaB is in black sticks and the G1 stand of CfaA is in blue. The disordered loop 301–321 in mtCfaA-CfaE is shown as dashed line. (B) Sequence alignment of the flexible loop region, shaded in orange, from different adhesin subunits. Besides FGA fimbrial adhesins, FimH from Type I pili, PapG from P-pili, SafA from Salmonella atypical fimbriae and PsaA from the pH 6 antigen on the surface of Yersinia pestis are also included in the alignment. (C) Superposing the pilin domain of CfaE of the mtCfaA-CfaE complex (magenta) with that of CfaB-CfaE complex (gray), the CfaE loop (residues 241–248) connecting β-strands B2 and C2 and shown in thicker lines involved in domain interactions.

Comparing dscCfaE with dseCfaE also reveals large structural differences at the interfaces between adhesin and pilin domains. In dscCfaE, the loop (residues 304–321) connecting strands D2” and E2 is disordered, whereas in dseCfaE, this loop is ordered, wrapping around the joint and interacting with both adhesin and pilin domains (Fig 5A). Considering different lengths and compositions in corresponding regions of FGA and other fimbria adhesins[4, 9, 22, 28, 4249] (Fig 5B), this motif may represent a unique functional site in FGA fimbriae. Indeed, mutations introduced into this loop have a dramatic impact on the fimbria biogenesis (see below).

Another loop (residues 241–248) connecting β-strands B2 and C2 undergoes a large conformational change, with the β-strands extended and wedged between the two domains (Fig 5C), which could cause or be a consequence of the angled arrangement of these domains.

Impact of CfaE mutations on CFA/I fimbriation

In order to validate the roles of the residues identified in the structural analysis, we investigated the impact of mutations to these residues on CFA/I fimbriation. Toward that goal, we used the vector pMAM2, which encodes the entire CFA/I operon, and generated site-directed mutations in CfaE. We evaluated the effects of these mutations on extracellular CFA/I fimbriation of the bacteria by competitive anti-CFA/I ELISA (bact-ELISA), by negative-stain EM, and by mannose-resistant hemagglutination (MRHA). Mutations were designed to specifically test the role of CfaE in fimbria biogenesis on the basis of our structural analysis, including mutating the whole CfaE (△CfaE), alteration to the chaperone anchorage and changes to the loops that displayed altered conformations in dse- and dsc-CfaE.

The △CfaE mutant had no extracellular CFA/I fimbriae by EM of negatively stained fimbria, had a negative MRHA phenotype, and no signal in bact-ELISA, validating the indispensable role of CfaE in initiating CFA/I fimbria assembly (Fig 4 and Table 2). To study the two sites for chaperone anchorage, we first mutated the C-terminal extension (SQTL) (S1 Table). When S357 was mutated to a tyrosine, the CFA/I fimbriae production was reduced to the uninduced levels, and no MRHA was observed, indicating the critical importance of a precise fit of S357 in the chaperone cleft in order to maintain the hydrogen bonding network. Mutations of the three C-terminal residues, Q358A, T359A or L360A, resulted in varying degrees of alteration in CFA/I fimbriation (Fig 4 and Table 2). The second site for CfaE anchorage unique to FGA chaperones is R253, which appears to interact strongly with the E48’ and Y92’ of CfaA. Indeed, a single R253E substitution in CfaE led to loss of CFA/I fimbriation by negative-stain EM and to negative MRHA, confirming its importance in anchoring CfaE to the chaperone cleft (Fig 4 and Table 2).

The structure of dscCfaE revealed interesting conformational changes compared to dseCfaE. These changes are concentrated at the interface between the adhesin and pilin domains. One loop that connects strands D2” and E2 (residues 304–321) becomes disordered in dscCfaE. We made alanine substitutions to a portion of this loop from R311 to I320 and observed no fimbriation on the cell surface by EM, which corroborated the results of bact-ELISA and MRHA (Fig 4 and Table 2). Since the loop is only flexible in dscCfaE, one possibility is that it interacts with the usher CfaC during CFA/I biogenesis.

Discussion

An in vitro system to study CFA/I fimbriae assembly

In this work, we established an in vitro system capable of producing native-like CFA/I fimbriae using isolated components, facilitating our investigation into the assembly process of CFA/I fimbriae. Central to this system is the engineered mutant chaperone mtCfaA that bears three mutations (T112I/L114I/V116I). This mutant variant is able to stabilize interactions with adhesin CfaE and the major pilin subunit CfaB, making possible their purification as heterodimeric complexes, structure determination of the CfaA-CfaE complex, and investigation into the assembly process.

As demonstrated previously[22, 23], mutations in the G1 strand of the CfaA chaperone often reduce the rate of CFA/I fimbria assembly. Our in vitro system nevertheless captures the assembly process within a manageable time frame, allowing detection of the assembled pili and byproducts by various methods such as EM and AN-PAGE. In particular, our preliminary experiments recapitulated the important role of CfaA-CfaE binary complex as an initiator of the CFA/I assembly. Conceivably, this in vitro system will facilitate future investigation into the CFA/I fimbria assembly process by site-directed perturbations of each individual component.

Roles of the CfaA chaperone in CFA/I fimbria assembly

One observation reported in studies of chaperone CfaA is the apparent unstable interactions of the chaperone with subunits CfaB and CfaE when purified. Previous study of the CfaA-CfaB complex concluded that CfaA mainly functions in preventing CfaB from going into off-pathway assembly[22]. In this work, we showed by co-expression and by GdnCl-induced dissociation and unfolding experiments that the CfaA-CfaE heterodimeric complex is even more unstable than the CfaA-CfaB complex (Fig 2D). This lower stability of the CfaA-CfaE binary complex seems consistent with the notion that CfaA traps CfaE in a higher energy state that makes dissociation easier, as manifested by the wider opening of the two lobes of CfaA (Fig 2B) and by the angled arrangement of the two domains of CfaE (Fig 5A). The fact that CfaA has a lower affinity toward CfaE, as compared to that for CfaB, seems to further suggest that (1) correct initiation of the fimbria assembly may need a suitable conformation on the part of CfaE, which is obtained by associating with CfaA, and (2) once fimbria assembly is initiated, elongation ensues very rapidly.

The CfaA-CfaE structure suggest functional roles for unique features in CfaE including the extended C-terminal motif for CfaA cleft anchoring and the interactions with the CfaA N-terminus by the flexible elbow of CfaE (310–320). While mutations in these CfaE elements did not impair binding to CfaA, they affected assembly (Table 2). Therefore, the additional interactions may help to guide the conformation of CfaE and not necessarily to increase the binding strength.

It is well known that multiple CU fimbria species are co-expressed in a single bacterial cell, each with its own cognate chaperone and usher for assembly[1]. Thus, chaperones appear to play an additional role by providing a safeguard against interference from components of other fimbria species. The structure of the CfaA-CfaE complex shows that, using a similar mechanism, the chaperone interacts with both CfaE and CfaB subunits through the extended DSC groove and a conserved serine residue (S357, corresponding to the S134 in CfaB), which are hallmark structural features distinguishing FGA fimbriae[22, 23].

Implications for the CFA/I assembly mechanism

Unlike multi-subunit fimbriae for which the order of subunit incorporation into a growing pilus was shown to be pre-determined by specific interactions between different N-terminal extensions (Gd strands) and subunits[50, 51], the CFA/I system has only one type of Gd strand from CfaB. The initiation of fimbria assembly and subsequent pilus extension is conceivably determined by the characteristics of the CfaA-CfaE complex and its interaction with the CfaC usher. The most prominent difference between the structure of CfaA-CfaE and that of CfaA-CfaB is the adhesin domain of CfaE, which presumably is the first to bind the usher CfaC and to go across the usher pore, as seen in the structure of the initiation complex of Type 1 fimbriae[38].

Synergistic cooperation between CfaA-CfaE and CfaC appears essential for pilin subunits to polymerize into correct helical rods. This interaction may involve the R311-I320 loop of CfaE. Considering that many poly-adhesive fimbriae such as the Psa fimbriae of Y. pestis do not require an extra two-domain tip-subunit to initiate fimbriae assembly[42], this pilin loop region (Fig 5B) possibly represents a recognition site and a regulatory motif for the usher. Further studies are needed to determine whether this motif is responsible for control of the usher plug domain movement.

Based on available biochemical and structural analysis of Class 5 fimbriae and studies of usher proteins in the literature[18, 34, 38, 39, 44, 5255], we propose a scheme of synergistic chaperone-adhesin/usher-catalyzed CFA/I fimbria assembly (Fig 6). In this model, the interaction of the CfaA-CfaB complex with CfaC could not form functional CFA/I fimbriae. Instead this interaction leads to unproductive off-pathway polymerization of CfaB subunits. In addition, structural studies on Type 1 fimbria initiation complex (FimD-FimC-FimH) and elongation complex (FimD-FimC-FimF-FimG-FimH) as well as PapC C-terminal domain show that the domain binds more tightly to the usher pore in the initiation complex compared to the elongation complex[38, 39, 56]. Based on those observations, we hypothesize that the interaction of the CfaA-CfaE complex with CfaC leads to the displacement of the plug domain of CfaC and facilitates the binding of CfaE adhesin domain into the CfaC lumen. This mechanism seems to be energetically demanding and fits the energetic profile of the Type 1 fimbria assembly[39].

Fig 6. A model of chaperone-adhesin/usher controlled CFA/I fimbriae assembly.

Fig 6

(A) Top panel: interaction of T245 and S246 in the flexible loop of FimH with N277 and Q265 of the plug domain of FimD revealed in the crystal structure of the quaternary complex of FimD, FimC and FimH (PDB:3RFZ)[38]. FimD, FimC and FimH are in light gray, light green and bright red, respectively. Bottom panel: model of the CfaA (blue)-CfaE(magenta)-CfaC (grey) quaternary complex based on PDB 3RFZ. The functional loops (residues R311-I320 in CfaE, residues L239-S246 in FimH) are in black. (B) Proposed scheme of the synergistic chaperone-adhesin/usher catalyzed CFA/I fimbria assembly. Two pathways are depicted. Assembly pathway A is a productive pathway, representing a faster, successful CFA/I fimbria biosynthesis. Because CfaA-CfaE has specific interactions with CfaC, the CfaER311-I320 loop could make contact with the CfaC domain (indicated by red star), allowing the CfaB and CfaE subunits to cross the usher pore. The pathway B represents “off-pathway” assembly in the absence of CfaA-CfaE, in which release of the usher plug domain cannot be accomplished. Therefore, CfaB subunits cannot form a spiral architecture and be transported to cell surface.

Implications for overcoming the antibiotic resistance of pathogenic bacteria

The growing antibiotic resistance of gram-negative pathogenic bacteria has become a major clinical problem worldwide, compounded by the downward trend in the development of new antimicrobial drugs over the past few decades[57]. One issue is the lack of novel approaches to the problem. Our work could lead to alternative strategies for controlling bacterial infections by blocking bacterial attachment to host cells. Indeed, recent studies on uropathogenic Escherichia coli (UPEC) infection have shown that UPEC could be successfully controlled by inhibiting Fim fimbriae adhesin, providing a potential treatment for bacterial infection[5861]. A similar approach could be used to curb ETEC infection by small molecule intervention and/or by vaccines against the ETEC adhesin[3]. Toward that goal, our in vitro assembly system and atomic-resolution structures of the CfaA-CfaE complexes can be utilized to aid the discovery of novel agents targeting CFA/I fimbriae.

Methods and materials

Cloning, mutagenesis and CFA/I fimbria expression

The coding sequences of CfaA (residues 20–238) with a C-terminal Strep-tag (WSHPQFEK), N-terminal hexa-histidine-tagged CfaE (residues 23–360), CfaB (residues 24–170) and C-terminal hexa-histidine-tagged CfaC were inserted into commercial expression vectors to generate pETDuet-1-CfaA(Strep), pCDFDuet-1-(His)6-CfaE, pCDFDuet-1-(His)6-CfaB, pET24-CfaC(His)6, respectively. The plasmid pMAM2 encoding the entire CFA/I operon (CfaABCE) has been described previously[29]. Mutations or deletions were introduced into the pETDuet-1-CfaA(Strep) and pMAM2 using the site-directed mutagenesis kit (QuikChange II XL, Agilent Technologies) to yield the following mutants: pETDuet-1-mtCfaA(Strep), which contains the triple mutations T112I/L114I/V116I, pMAM2-CfaE/R253E, pMAM2-CfaE/(R311-I320) to A, pMAM2-CfaE/S357Y, pMAM2-CfaE/Q358A, pMAM2-CfaE/T359A, pMAM2-CfaE/L360A, pMAM2-CfaE/Δ358–360, and pMAM2-ΔCfaE (a full-length deletion of CfaE). The primers used in the mutagenesis are shown in S1 Table. The mutations and deletions were confirmed by DNA sequencing.

The pMAM2 plasmids containing CfaE mutations were individually transformed into the E. coli host strain BL21-AI (Invitrogen), which placed the CFA/I fimbrial operon under control of the arabinose-inducible T7 promoter. BL21-AI (pMAM2) and its derivative strains with CfaE mutations were grown in Luria Bertani (LB) medium containing 50 μg mL-1 of kanamycin at 37°C. When the culture density reached OD600 of 1.0, CFA/I fimbrial expression was induced with addition of arabinose to a final concentration of 0.2%. After induction at 37°C for 90 minutes, cells were collected by centrifugation at 4°C. Meanwhile, non-induced pMAM2 culture was used as a negative control.

Protein expression and purification

To express Strep-tagged CfaA in complex with hexahistidine-tagged CfaE or CfaB, the strep-tagged pETDuet-1-CfaAT112I/L114I/V116I (pETDuet-1-mtCfaA) and pCDFDuet-1-(His)6-CfaE or pCDFDuet-1-(His)6-CfaB were co-transformed into E.coli BL21 (DE3) cells. The bacterial culture was grown in LB in the presence of 100 μg mL-1 ampicillin and 50 μg mL-1 streptomycin (ZhiChu, Shanghai) shaking at 37°C until the OD600 reached 0.8. The culture was cooled to 16°C then induced with 0.1 mM isopropyl β-D-1-thiogalactopyranoside (IPTG) for 16 hours. Following induction, the bacteria were collected and resuspended in lysis buffer consisting of 50 mM Tris–HCl, pH 7.5, 150 mM NaCl, 5% glycerol and 1 mM phenylmethanesulfonyl fluoride (Sigma-Aldrich) and lysed by sonication. The lysate was cleared by centrifugation at 15,000 xg for 45 minutes and then the supernatant was loaded onto a column containing Ni-NTA resin (Qiagen, Germany) for CfaE/CfaB (His6) or Strep-Tactin superflow plus resin (Qiagen, Germany) for mtCfaA (Strep) pre-equilibrated with a binding buffer (20 mM Tris-HCl, pH 7.5 and 100 mM NaCl). Columns were washed with the binding buffer supplemented with 30 mM imidazole in 10 column volumes, and protein sample on the Ni-NTA resin was eluted with the binding buffer with 300 mM imidazole. Protein samples on the Strep-Tactin column were eluted with binding buffer supplemented with 2.5 mM D-desthiobiotin. Affinity purified samples were subjected to size exclusion chromatography (SEC) using an ENrich SEC 650 10 x 300 column (Bio-Rad Laboratories, Inc.). Fractions containing mtCfaA-CfaE/CfaB were pooled and concentrated to a concentration of approximately 8–10 mg mL-1 using a Centricon filter (10 kDa cutoff, Millipore, Billerica) and stored at -80°C.

To express hexahistidine-tagged CfaC, plasmid pET24-CfaC (His)6 was transformed into E. coli BL21strain (DE3). The protein was expressed in the same manner as mentioned above. The lysate was cleared by centrifugation at 6,000 xg for 25 minutes to remove the cell debris. Then the membrane fractions were collected by ultracentrifugation at 100,000xg for 20min. The inner membranes were solubilized in 25 mM Tris–HCl, pH 7.5, 300 mM NaCl containing 0.5% sodium lauroyl sarcosinate for 30 minutes at 4°C and removed by centrifugation at 100,000 xg for 20 minutes. The precipitate containing outer membranes was resuspended in 25 mM Tris–HCl, pH 7.5, 300 mM NaCl, 5% glycerol and stored at 4°C prior to further purification. Next, crude CfaC was dissolved in 1% (w/v) n-dodecyl-β-D-maltoside (DDM, Anatrace) and 0.1% cholesteryl hemisuccinate (CHS, Anatrace). Insoluble materials were removed by ultracentrifugation at 18,000 xg for 60 minutes. The supernatant was mixed with Ni-NTA resin (Qiagen, Germany) equilibrated with a buffer containing 25 mM Tris–HCl, pH 7.5, 300 mM NaCl, 20 mM imidazole, and 0.02% DDM, and gently stirred at 4°C for 60 minutes. The affinity columns were washed with 10 column volumes of the binding buffer supplemented with 30 mM imidazole, and protein sample was eluted with the binding buffer supplemented with 300 mM imidazole, and then the eluent was concentrated and further purified by SEC (Superdex 200, GE Healthcare) in a buffer containing 25 mM Tris–HCl, pH7.5, 300 mM NaCl 0.02% DDM. The fractions were determined by SDS-PAGE.

Crystallization and data collection

Protein crystallization was carried out by the vapor-diffusion method at 20°C, mixing 1 μL protein with 1 μL well solution. The purified protein was subjected to a high-throughput crystallization screening using a Mosquito crystallization robot (TTP Labtech, UK) and commercially available 96-well kits: Xtal Quest (BioXtal), Wizard (Rigaku), Crystal Screen (Hampton Research) and Index HT (Hampton Research).

Crystals appeared after several days. mtCfaA -CfaE was crystallized using a well solution containing 2% PEG8000, 0.1 M imidazole malate, 1.04 M Lithium Sulfate and 0.001 M GSSG-GSH. All crystals were flash-cooled in liquid nitrogen in the presence of 20–30% glycerol. Diffraction data sets were collected at the SER-CAT ID22 beamline at the Advanced Photon Source (APS), Argonne National Laboratory (ANL) with a MAR300 CCD detector.

Structure determination and modelling

Diffraction images were indexed and diffraction spots were integrated and scaled using the HKL2000 software package[62]. Structures were solved by molecular replacement with the program suite PHENIX[63]. Subsequent cycles of manual model rebuilding with COOT[64] and refinement with PHENIX improved the quality of the structural models, which were validated using Molprobity[65] before being deposited to the Protein Data Bank.

The model of the CfaC translocation domain was generated by I-TASSER[66]. Template-based complex building was carried out by overlaying the CfaC translocation domain model and CfaE adhesive domain on the corresponding homologous FimH in the FimD-FimC-FimH complex (PDB code 3RFZ).

Extraction and evaluation of CFA/I fimbria expression

Each gram of cell pastes was suspended in 1 mL phosphate buffered saline (PBS), pH 7.4. After incubation at 65°C for 20 minutes, cells were removed by centrifugation at 6,000 xg for 30 minutes. The supernatants were collected to evaluate the level of heat-extracted fimbriae from the cell surface by indirect ELISA. Briefly, each well of a 96-well Maxisorp plate (Nunc, Denmark) was coated with 100 μL of samples in triplicate and incubated in 37°C for 1 hour. Then the plates were washed three times with PBS. After blocking with 200 μL of PBS with 5% fetal bovine serum in 37°C for 1 hour, wells were washed three times with PBST (PBS containing 0.05% Tween-20). Each well was incubated with 100 μL of primary mouse polyclonal antiserum (1:10,000 dilution) against CFA/I for 1 hour followed by washing five times with PBST. After incubation for 1 hour with 100 μL of a goat anti-mouse horseradish peroxidase (HRP)-conjugated secondary antibody (Jackson ImmounoResearch), the wells were washed again three times with PBST. Finally, the OPD substrate (1 mg mL-1 o-phenylenediamine (Sigma) in sodium citrate buffer (Sigma), pH 4.5 containing 0.4 μL mL-1 of hydrogen peroxide) was added to each well. After incubation for 10 minutes at room temperature, absorbance at 450 nm was recorded for each well using synergy HTX plate reader (Bio-Tek Instruments).

Acidic Native-PAGE

Acidic Native PAGE (AN-PAGE) was performed according to a previous reported method[67] with modifications. A 10% stacking gel was prepared in 1.5 M acetate-KOH pH 4.3, 50% glycerol, 30% acrylamide, 0.8% methylene bis acrylamide containing TEMED and ammonium persulfate. The 10% resolving gel was prepared in 0.25 M acetate-KOH, pH 6.8. The other components were prepared in the same way as the stacking gel without glycerol. The electrode buffer was 0.14 M acetic acid containing 0.35 M β-alanine, pH 2.9. The loading buffer contained 50% glycerol, 0.25 M acetate-KOH, pH 6.8 and methyl green. The concentrations of purified mtCfaA-CfaE, mtCfaA-CfaB and CfaC were 0.25 μM, 5 μM and 0.25 μM, respectively. Samples were individually incubated for 0, 16, 24, or 36 hours at 25°C. Electrophoresis was performed at 4°C at 120V for 10 hours. The gels were stained with Coomassie blue (0.4% dye made in 50% methanol and 10% acetic acid). Destaining was carried out in a 15% methanol and 10% acetic acid solution.

Transmission electron microscopy (TEM)

Using TEM to observe the reconstruction of fimbriae in vitro, the concentrations of purified mtCfaA-CfaE, mtCfaA-CfaB and CfaC are 0.25 μM, 5 μM and 0.25 μM, respectively, each sample was incubated at 25°C for 24 hours in a buffer containing 10 mM Tris-HCl, pH 7.5 and 20 mM NaCl, negatively stained with 2% (w/v) uranyl acetate for 1 min and imaged using FEI Tecnai G2 F20 S-TWIN microscope. The micrographs were recorded at an accelerating voltage of 200 kV and a magnification of 20,000. To illustrate the effect of different mutations of CfaE on CFA/I fimbriation by TEM, sample cell pastes were resuspended in PBS, pH 7.4 to a density of 107–108 cells mL-1. Formvar/carbon coated 300 mesh copper grids were prepared by adsorbing 2–5 μL bacterial suspensions for 5 minutes. The grids were then negatively stained with 2% uranyl acetate for 1–2 minutes and imaged using a FEI Tecnai G2 F20 S-TWIN transmission electron microscope. Micrographs were recorded at an accelerating voltage of 200 kV.

Determining the stability of the complex

Fluorescence emission spectra of purified complex were recorded using an Agilent Cary Eclipse spectrophotometer (Varian, Australia) at 25°C to acquire the equilibrium tryptophan fluorescence spectrum. All experiments were performed in PBS buffer. Spectra were recorded on 1 cm path length cuvettes with an excitation and emission slit width of 2.5 nm. Samples were excited at 295 nm and emission spectra were collected from 300 to 450 nm. Recording for changes in aromatic residue fluorescence at 320 nm began prior to mixing and continued for every 20 ms after mixing (dead time 1s). Different concentrations of GdnCl were used to confirm the stability of the complex. The final concentration of mtCfaA-CfaB or mtCfaA-CfaE was 3.5 μM, the GdnCl concentration was adjusted from 0 M to 6 M and experiments were performed at 0.1 M intervals. Midpoints of dissociation and denaturation phases were obtained by fitting curves to a two-state unimolecular model[68]. The data sets were fitted using GraphPad software Prism 7 (https://www.graphpad.com/).

MRHA for BL21-AI (pMAM2) and its derivatives with CfaE mutations

Cell pastes of each sample were resuspended in PBS with 0.5% D-mannose (PBSM) to a final OD600 of 40. A two-fold dilution series was performed using PBSM as the diluent, and the dilution series was assayed for mannose-resistant hemagglutination (MRHA). In a 12-well ceramic tile plate, to each well was added 25 μL of the bacterial suspension and 50 μL of a 1.5% bovine erythrocyte suspension, and the plates were incubated on ice with rocking for 20 minutes. Positive MRHA was determined visually by observation of any degree of erythrocyte clumping. The highest bacterial dilution yielding a positive MRHA result was recorded as the MRHA titer. Each experiment was performed in duplicate. Positive and negative control bacteria included BL21-AI (pMAM2) and E. coli DH5α, respectively, as well as BL21-AI (pMAM2) without induction.

Accession numbers

Atomic coordinates of the refined structures have been deposited in the Protein Data Bank (www.pdb.org) with the PDB code 6K73.

Supporting information

S1 Fig. SEC profile (Superdex 75, GEHealthcare) and SDS-PAGE of native CfaA-CfaE complex after Ni-NTA purification.

The fraction number is indicated at the top of SDS-PAGE. The results show that the native CfaA-CfaE is not stable and tends to dissociate in solution.

(TIF)

S2 Fig. The SDS-PAGE of purified CfaC.

(TIF)

S3 Fig. The mass spectrometry results verified that the protein ladder bands on AN-PAGE were CfaA-CfaB.

(TIF)

S1 Table. Primers used to introduce mutations in pMAM2 in this work.

(DOCX)

Acknowledgments

The authors thank the beam line staff of the SER-CAT at APS, ANL for assistance in data collection, George Leiman for editorial assistance, Edward Asafo-Adjei in Division of Pathology at Walter Reed Army Institute of Research for the negative stain electron microscopy of bacteria harboring CfaE mutations, and Guiping Yuan of the Analytical & Testing Center of Sichuan University for transmission electron microscopy for TEM imaging. We thank Public Health and Preventive Medicine Provincial Experiment Teaching Center at Sichuan University and Food Safety Monitoring and Risk Assessment Key Laboratory of Sichuan Province. We thank Professor Yongxing He of Lanzhou University for mass spectrometry identification and analysis. This work was prepared as part of the official duty of S.J.S. and M.G.P. The opinions expressed in this paper are those of the authors and do not reflect the official policy of the Department of the Navy, Department of Defense, or the U.S. Government.

Data Availability

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

Funding Statement

This work was supported in part by the National Key Research and Development Plan (Grant 2016YFA0502700), by National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 81501787, 81670008 and 81871615), by Ministry of Science and Technology of the People's Republic of China (No.2018ZX09201018-005), and National Mega-project for Innovative Drugs (2019ZX09721001-001-001). It is partially supported by the United States Army Infectious Disease Research Program Work Unit A1207 and the Henry M. Jackson Foundation for the Advancement of Military Medicine (to M.G.P.). This research was also supported in part by the Intramural Research Program of the NIH, National Cancer Institute, Center for Cancer Research. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Reference

  • 1.Gaastra W, Svennerholm A-M. Colonization factors of human enterotoxigenic Escherichia coli (ETEC). Trends in microbiology. 1996;4(11):444–52. 10.1016/0966-842x(96)10068-8 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Wolf MK. Occurrence, distribution, and associations of O and H serogroups, colonization factor antigens, and toxins of enterotoxigenic Escherichia coli. Clinical microbiology reviews. 1997;10(4):569–84. 10.1128/CMR.10.4.569-584.1997 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Anantha RP, McVeigh AL, Lee LH, Agnew MK, Cassels FJ, Scott DA, et al. Evolutionary and functional relationships of colonization factor antigen i and other class 5 adhesive fimbriae of enterotoxigenic Escherichia coli. Infection and immunity. 2004;72(12):7190–201. 10.1128/IAI.72.12.7190-7201.2004 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Sakellaris H, Balding DP, Scott JR. Assembly proteins of CS1 pili of enterotoxigenic Escherichia coli. Molecular microbiology. 1996;21(3):529–41. 10.1111/j.1365-2958.1996.tb02562.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Froehlich BJ, Karakashian A, Meisen LR, Wakefield JC, Scott JR. CooC and CooD are required for assembly of CS1 pili. Molecular microbiology. 1994;12(3):387–401. 10.1111/j.1365-2958.1994.tb01028.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Sakellaris H, Scott JR. New tools in an old trade: CS1 pilus morphogenesis. Molecular microbiology. 1998;30(4):681–7. 10.1046/j.1365-2958.1998.01088.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Mu X-Q, Savarino SJ, Bullitt E. The three-dimensional structure of CFA/I adhesion pili: traveler’s diarrhea bacteria hang on by a spring. Journal of molecular biology. 2008;376(3):614–20. 10.1016/j.jmb.2007.10.067 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Andersson M, Björnham O, Svantesson M, Badahdah A, Uhlin BE, Bullitt E. A structural basis for sustained bacterial adhesion: biomechanical properties of CFA/I pili. Journal of molecular biology. 2012;415(5):918–28. 10.1016/j.jmb.2011.12.006 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Sauer MM, Jakob RP, Eras J, Baday S, Eriş D, Navarra G, et al. Catch-bond mechanism of the bacterial adhesin FimH. Nature communications. 2016;7(1):1–13. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Le Trong I, Aprikian P, Kidd BA, Forero-Shelton M, Tchesnokova V, Rajagopal P, et al. Structural basis for mechanical force regulation of the adhesin FimH via finger trap-like β sheet twisting. Cell. 2010;141(4):645–55. 10.1016/j.cell.2010.03.038 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Busch A, Waksman G. Chaperone–usher pathways: diversity and pilus assembly mechanism. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. 2012;367(1592):1112–22. 10.1098/rstb.2011.0206 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Nishiyama M, Horst R, Eidam O, Herrmann T, Ignatov O, Vetsch M, et al. Structural basis of chaperone–subunit complex recognition by the type 1 pilus assembly platform FimD. The EMBO journal. 2005;24(12):2075–86. 10.1038/sj.emboj.7600693 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Waksman G, Hultgren SJ. Structural biology of the chaperone–usher pathway of pilus biogenesis. Nature Reviews Microbiology. 2009;7(11):765–74. 10.1038/nrmicro2220 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Zavialov AV, Berglund J, Pudney AF, Fooks LJ, Ibrahim TM, MacIntyre S, et al. Structure and biogenesis of the capsular F1 antigen from Yersinia pestis: preserved folding energy drives fiber formation. Cell. 2003;113(5):587–96. 10.1016/s0092-8674(03)00351-9 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Remaut H, Tang C, Henderson NS, Pinkner JS, Wang T, Hultgren SJ, et al. Fiber formation across the bacterial outer membrane by the chaperone/usher pathway. Cell. 2008;133(4):640–52. 10.1016/j.cell.2008.03.033 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Pakharukova N, Garnett JA, Tuittila M, Paavilainen S, Diallo M, Xu Y, et al. Structural insight into archaic and alternative chaperone-usher pathways reveals a novel mechanism of pilus biogenesis. PLoS pathogens. 2015;11(11). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Sauer FG, Fütterer K, Pinkner JS, Dodson KW, Hultgren SJ, Waksman G. Structural basis of chaperone function and pilus biogenesis. Science. 1999;285(5430):1058–61. 10.1126/science.285.5430.1058 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Choudhury D, Thompson A, Stojanoff V, Langermann S, Pinkner J, Hultgren SJ, et al. X-ray structure of the FimC-FimH chaperone-adhesin complex from uropathogenic Escherichia coli. Science. 1999;285(5430):1061–6. 10.1126/science.285.5430.1061 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Thanassi DG, Saulino ET, Lombardo M-J, Roth R, Heuser J, Hultgren SJ. The PapC usher forms an oligomeric channel: implications for pilus biogenesis across the outer membrane. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 1998;95(6):3146–51. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Hofer U. Structural Biology: A close-up of the chaperone–usher pilus. Nature Reviews Microbiology. 2016;14(2):65. [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Sauer FG, Pinkner JS, Waksman G, Hultgren SJ. Chaperone priming of pilus subunits facilitates a topological transition that drives fiber formation. Cell. 2002;111(4):543–51. 10.1016/s0092-8674(02)01050-4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Bao R, Liu Y, Savarino SJ, Xia D. Off-pathway assembly of fimbria subunits is prevented by chaperone CfaA of CFA/I fimbriae from enterotoxigenic E. coli. Molecular microbiology. 2016;102(6):975–91. 10.1111/mmi.13530 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Bao R, Fordyce A, Chen Y-X, McVeigh A, Savarino SJ, Xia D. Structure of CfaA suggests a new family of chaperones essential for assembly of class 5 fimbriae. PLoS pathogens. 2014;10(8):e1004316 10.1371/journal.ppat.1004316 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Sakellaris H, Munson GP, Scott JR. A conserved residue in the tip proteins of CS1 and CFA/I pili of enterotoxigenic Escherichia coli that is essential for adherence. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 1999;96(22):12828–32. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Schembri MA, Pallesen L, Connell H, Hasty DL, Klemm P. Linker insertion analysis of the FimH adhesin of type 1 fimbriae in an Escherichia coli fimH-null background. FEMS microbiology letters. 1996;137(2–3):257–63. 10.1111/j.1574-6968.1996.tb08115.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Anderson KL, Billington J, Pettigrew D, Cota E, Simpson P, Roversi P, et al. An atomic resolution model for assembly, architecture, and function of the Dr adhesins. Molecular cell. 2004;15(4):647–57. 10.1016/j.molcel.2004.08.003 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Dodson KW, Pinkner JS, Rose T, Magnusson G, Hultgren SJ, Waksman G. Structural basis of the interaction of the pyelonephritic E. coli adhesin to its human kidney receptor. Cell. 2001;105(6):733–43. 10.1016/s0092-8674(01)00388-9 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Hultgren SJ, Lindberg F, Magnusson G, Kihlberg J, Tennent JM, Normark S. The PapG adhesin of uropathogenic Escherichia coli contains separate regions for receptor binding and for the incorporation into the pilus. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 1989;86(12):4357–61. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Li Y-F, Poole S, Rasulova F, McVeigh AL, Savarino SJ, Xia D. A receptor-binding site as revealed by the crystal structure of CfaE, the colonization factor antigen I fimbrial adhesin of enterotoxigenic Escherichia coli. Journal of Biological Chemistry. 2007;282(33):23970–80. 10.1074/jbc.M700921200 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Nishiyama M, Ishikawa T, Rechsteiner H, Glockshuber RJS. Reconstitution of pilus assembly reveals a bacterial outer membrane catalyst. Science. 2008;320(5874):376–9. 10.1126/science.1154994 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Poole ST, McVeigh AL, Anantha RP, Lee LH, Akay YM, Pontzer EA, et al. Donor strand complementation governs intersubunit interaction of fimbriae of the alternate chaperone pathway. Molecular microbiology. 2007;63(5):1372–84. 10.1111/j.1365-2958.2007.05612.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Li Y-F, Poole S, Nishio K, Jang K, Rasulova F, McVeigh A, et al. Structure of CFA/I fimbriae from enterotoxigenic Escherichia coli. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2009;106(26):10793–8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Liu Y, Esser L, Interlandi G, Kisiela DI, Tchesnokova V, Thomas WE, et al. Tight conformational coupling between the domains of the enterotoxigenic Escherichia coli fimbrial adhesin CfaE regulates binding state transition. Journal of Biological Chemistry. 2013;288(14):9993–10001. 10.1074/jbc.M112.413534 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Ford B, Verger D, Dodson K, Volkan E, Kostakioti M, Elam J, et al. The structure of the PapD-PapGII pilin complex reveals an open and flexible P5 pocket. Journal of bacteriology. 2012;194(23):6390–7. 10.1128/JB.06651-11 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Di Yu X, Fooks LJ, Moslehi-Mohebi E, Tischenko VM, Askarieh G, Knight SD, et al. Large is fast, small is tight: determinants of speed and affinity in subunit capture by a periplasmic chaperone. Journal of molecular biology. 2012;417(4):294–308. 10.1016/j.jmb.2012.01.020 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Talbott M, Hare M, Nyarko A, Hays TS, Barbar E. Folding is coupled to dimerization of Tctex-1 dynein light chain. Biochemistry. 2006;45(22):6793–800. 10.1021/bi0600345 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Kuehn MJ, Ogg DJ, Kihlberg J, Slonim LN, Flemmer K, Bergfors T, et al. Structural basis of pilus subunit recognition by the PapD chaperone. Science. 1993;262(5137):1234–41. 10.1126/science.7901913 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Phan G, Remaut H, Wang T, Allen WJ, Pirker KF, Lebedev A, et al. Crystal structure of the FimD usher bound to its cognate FimC–FimH substrate. Nature. 2011;474(7349):49 10.1038/nature10109 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Geibel S, Procko E, Hultgren SJ, Baker D, Waksman G. Structural and energetic basis of folded-protein transport by the FimD usher. Nature. 2013;496(7444):243–6. 10.1038/nature12007 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Jacob-Dubuisson F, Striker R, Hultgren SJ. Chaperone-assisted self-assembly of pili independent of cellular energy. Journal of Biological Chemistry. 1994;269(17):12447–55. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Zavialov AV, Tischenko VM, Fooks LJ, Brandsdal BO, Åqvist J, Zav'yalov VP, et al. Resolving the energy paradox of chaperone/usher-mediated fibre assembly. Biochemical Journal. 2005;389(3):685–94. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Bao R, Nair MK, Tang W-k, Esser L, Sadhukhan A, Holland RL, et al. Structural basis for the specific recognition of dual receptors by the homopolymeric pH 6 antigen (Psa) fimbriae of Yersinia pestis. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2013;110(3):1065–70. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Remaut H, Rose RJ, Hannan TJ, Hultgren SJ, Radford SE, Ashcroft AE, et al. Donor-strand exchange in chaperone-assisted pilus assembly proceeds through a concerted β strand displacement mechanism. Molecular cell. 2006;22(6):831–42. 10.1016/j.molcel.2006.05.033 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Du M, Yuan Z, Yu H, Henderson N, Sarowar S, Zhao G, et al. Handover mechanism of the growing pilus by the bacterial outer-membrane usher FimD. Nature. 2018;562(7727):444–7. 10.1038/s41586-018-0587-z [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Sakellaris H, Penumalli VR, Scott JR. The level of expression of the minor pilin subunit, CooD, determines the number of CS1 pili assembled on the cell surface of Escherichia coli. Journal of bacteriology. 1999;181(5):1694–7. 10.1128/JB.181.5.1694-1697.1999 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Leclerc J-M, Quevillon E-L, Houde Y, Paranjape K, Dozois CM, Daigle F. Regulation and production of Tcf, a cable-like fimbriae from Salmonella enterica serovar Typhi. Microbiology. 2016;162(5):777–88. 10.1099/mic.0.000270 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Sajjan US, Xie H, Lefebre MD, Valvano MA, Forstner JF. Identification and molecular analysis of cable pilus biosynthesis genes in Burkholderia cepacia. Microbiology. 2003;149(4):961–71. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Zavialov A, Berglund J, Knight SD. Overexpression, purification, crystallization and preliminary X-ray diffraction analysis of the F1 antigen Caf1M–Caf1 chaperone–subunit pre-assembly complex from Yersinia pestis. Acta Crystallographica Section D: Biological Crystallography. 2003;59(2):359–62. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Salih O, Remaut H, Waksman G, Orlova EV. Structural analysis of the Saf pilus by electron microscopy and image processing. Journal of molecular biology. 2008;379(1):174–87. 10.1016/j.jmb.2008.03.056 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Rose RJ, Verger D, Daviter T, Remaut H, Paci E, Waksman G, et al. Unraveling the molecular basis of subunit specificity in P pilus assembly by mass spectrometry. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2008;105(35):12873–8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Puorger C, Eidam O, Capitani G, Erilov D, Grütter MG, Glockshuber R. Infinite kinetic stability against dissociation of supramolecular protein complexes through donor strand complementation. Structure. 2008;16(4):631–42. 10.1016/j.str.2008.01.013 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Ford B, Verger D, Dodson K, Volkan E, Kostakioti M, Elam J, et al. Structure of the PapD-PapGII pilin complex reveals an open and flexible P5 pocket. Journal of bacteriology. 2012:JB 06651–11. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Hospenthal MK, Zyla D, Costa TR, Redzej A, Giese C, Lillington J, et al. The cryoelectron microscopy structure of the type 1 chaperone-usher pilus rod. Structure. 2017;25(12):1829–38. e4. 10.1016/j.str.2017.10.004 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Pellecchia M, Güntert P, Glockshuber R, Wüthrich K. NMR solution structure of the periplasmic chaperone FimC. Nature Structural and Molecular Biology. 1998;5(10):885. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Omattage NS, Deng Z, Pinkner JS, Dodson KW, Almqvist F, Yuan P, et al. Structural basis for usher activation and intramolecular subunit transfer in P pilus biogenesis in Escherichia coli. Nature microbiology. 2018;3(12):1362–8. 10.1038/s41564-018-0255-y [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Ford B, Rêgo AT, Ragan TJ, Pinkner J, Dodson K, Driscoll PC, et al. Structural homology between the C-terminal domain of the PapC usher and its plug. Journal of bacteriology. 2010;192(7):1824–31. 10.1128/JB.01677-09 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Viale P, Giannella M, Tedeschi S, Lewis R. Treatment of MDR-Gram negative infections in the 21st century: a never ending threat for clinicians. Current opinion in pharmacology. 2015;24:30–7. 10.1016/j.coph.2015.07.001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Kalas V, Hibbing ME, Maddirala AR, Chugani R, Pinkner JS, Mydock-McGrane LK, et al. Structure-based discovery of glycomimetic FmlH ligands as inhibitors of bacterial adhesion during urinary tract infection. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2018;115(12):E2819–E28. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Spaulding CN, Klein RD, Ruer S, Kau AL, Schreiber HL, Cusumano ZT, et al. Selective depletion of uropathogenic E. coli from the gut by a FimH antagonist. Nature. 2017;546(7659):528 10.1038/nature22972 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Chahales P, Hoffman PS, Thanassi DG. Nitazoxanide inhibits pilus biogenesis by interfering with folding of the usher protein in the outer membrane. Antimicrobial agents and chemotherapy. 2016:AAC 02221–15. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Alonso-Caballero A, Schönfelder J, Poly S, Corsetti F, De Sancho D, Artacho E, et al. Mechanical architecture and folding of E. coli type 1 pilus domains. Nature communications. 2018;9(1):2758 10.1038/s41467-018-05107-6 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Otwinowski Z, Minor W. [20] Processing of X-ray diffraction data collected in oscillation mode. Methods in enzymology. 276: Elsevier; 1997. p. 307–26. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Adams PD, Afonine PV, Bunkóczi G, Chen VB, Davis IW, Echols N, et al. PHENIX: a comprehensive Python-based system for macromolecular structure solution. Acta Crystallographica Section D: Biological Crystallography. 2010;66(2):213–21. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Emsley P, Cowtan K. Coot: model-building tools for molecular graphics. Acta Crystallographica Section D: Biological Crystallography. 2004;60(12):2126–32. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 65.Chen VB, Arendall WB, Headd JJ, Keedy DA, Immormino RM, Kapral GJ, et al. MolProbity: all-atom structure validation for macromolecular crystallography. Acta Crystallographica Section D: Biological Crystallography. 2010;66(1):12–21. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 66.Zhang Y. I-TASSER server for protein 3D structure prediction. BMC bioinformatics. 2008;9(1):40. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 67.Reisfeld R, Lewis U, Williams D. Disk electrophoresis of basic proteins and peptides on polyacrylamide gels by formaldehyde fixation. Anal Biochem. 1962;107:21–4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 68.Chemes LB, Noval MG, Sánchez IE, de Prat-Gay G. Folding of a cyclin box: linking multitarget binding to marginal stability, oligomerization and aggregation of the retinoblastoma tumor suppressor AB pocket domain. Journal of Biological Chemistry. 2013:18923–38. 10.1074/jbc.M113.467316 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 69.DeLano WL. Pymol: An open-source molecular graphics tool. CCP4 Newsletter On Protein Crystallography. 2002;40:82–92. [Google Scholar]
  • 70.Larkin MA, Blackshields G, Brown N, Chenna R, McGettigan PA, McWilliam H, et al. Clustal W and Clustal X version 2.0. bioinformatics. 2007;23(21):2947–8. 10.1093/bioinformatics/btm404 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 71.Gouet P, Robert X, Courcelle E. ESPript/ENDscript: extracting and rendering sequence and 3D information from atomic structures of proteins. Nucleic acids research. 2003;31(13):3320–3. 10.1093/nar/gkg556 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Guy Tran Van Nhieu, Olivera Francetic

20 Jan 2020

Dear Professor bao,

Thank you very much for submitting your manuscript "Chaperone-tip Adhesin Complex Is Vital for Synergistic Activation of CFA/I fimbriae biogenesis" for consideration at PLOS Pathogens. As with all papers reviewed by the journal, your manuscript was reviewed by members of the editorial board and by several independent reviewers. In light of the reviews (below this email), we would like to invite the resubmission of a significantly-revised version that takes into account the reviewers' comments.

Dear Dr Bao,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript "Chaperone-tip Adhesin Complex Is Vital for Synergistic Activation of CFA/I fimbriae biogenesis" to PLoS Pathogens. Your paper has been evaluated by three expert reviewers, whose reports are attached below. As you will see, the reports from the reviewers are quite mixed, and one of the reviewers regards the work not suitable for PLoS Pathogens. I have therefore read your study carefully and inspected the related literature. In view of this assessment and of the positive comments of two reviewers, I decided to offer you the possibility to submit a revised version of your manuscript if you are able to address the reviewers' comments.

Reviewers #1 and #3 have raised multiple issues with the data presentation and interpretation and I recommend that you address their comments in full. Cartoons showing protein structures should be improved for visibility and clear annotations, as indicated by Reviewer #1. Points 4-6 raised by Reviewer #3 require that you undertake additional experiments to satisfy their concerns on the data quantification and reproducibility. In this regard, please refer to the data availability policy of PLoS Pathogens: https://journals.plos.org/plospathogens/s/data-availability. Raw data used to produce graphs and uncropped gel images should be made available as supplementary information or via DOI in public repositories.

Please address Reviewers' #1 and #3 concerns on the quality of EM images, notably in Figure 1C, which at the present level of resolution do not support the claims on different pilus states - coiled versus extended. Please provide higher quality images and insets with higher magnification to clearly demonstrate the dimensions/diameters of different pili and show any differences between them. Pilus length measurements similar to those performed in Nishiyama et al 2008 would provide insight into pilus polymerization defects. Please indicate clearly the correspondence between samples in Figure 1B and 1C. It is unclear what the designation "uncatalyzed" refers to in your study.

In the EM analysis of bacteria with mutations in CFA/I components, please indicate clearly which appendages correspond to CFA/I fimbriae and which ones are other pili/flagella. Please revise the model in Figure 6 following Reviewers #1 and #3 comments to summarize data described in the present study. Kinetic constants are not part of this research. Also, in the "off" pathway model, what is the reason that polymerization of CfaB fails to produce a coiled rod polymer in vitro? Are not all determinants of its molecular spring behaviour present in the major subunit (e.g. Spaudling et al eLife 2018 )? Finally, may I request that you cite the appropriate original literature, notably reports obtained from related CU pili studies that set the paradigms for assembly mechanism, role of adhesin in pilus assembly initiation, usher dynamics, pilus rod spring-like properties etc.

If you can respond to all of the referees’ points - by making the requested changes or by providing a compelling argument why a change cannot or should not be made - then I encourage you to submit a revised manuscript. In light of the further experimental work requested by reviewer #3, I am handling this as a Major Revision with the understanding that the revised manuscript will be subject to a full review by these same (and possibly new) referees. Please note that acceptance of your revised manuscript is not guaranteed. In general, revised manuscripts should be returned within three months. If you anticipate that significantly more time will be needed, please let me know.

We cannot make any decision about publication until we have seen the revised manuscript and your response to the reviewers' comments. Your revised manuscript is also likely to be sent to reviewers for further evaluation.

When you are ready to resubmit, please upload the following:

[1] A letter containing a detailed list of your responses to the review comments and a description of the changes you have made in the 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.

[2] Two versions of the revised manuscript: one with either highlights or tracked changes denoting where the text has been changed; the other a clean version (uploaded as the manuscript file).

Important additional instructions are given below your reviewer comments.

Please prepare and submit your revised manuscript within 60 days. If you anticipate any delay, please let us know the expected resubmission date by replying to this email. Please note that revised manuscripts received after the 60-day due date may require evaluation and peer review similar to newly submitted manuscripts.

Thank you again for your submission. We hope that our editorial process has been constructive so far, and we welcome your feedback at any time. Please don't hesitate to contact us if you have any questions or comments.

Sincerely,

Olivera Francetic, PhD

Guest Editor

PLOS Pathogens

Guy Tran Van Nhieu

Section Editor

PLOS Pathogens

Kasturi Haldar

Editor-in-Chief

PLOS Pathogens

orcid.org/0000-0001-5065-158X

Michael Malim

Editor-in-Chief

PLOS Pathogens

orcid.org/0000-0002-7699-2064

***********************

Dear Dr Bao,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript "Chaperone-tip Adhesin Complex Is Vital for Synergistic Activation of CFA/I fimbriae biogenesis" to PLoS Pathogens. Your paper has been evaluated by three expert reviewers, whose reports are attached below. As you will see, the reports from the reviewers are quite mixed, and one of the reviewers regards the work not suitable for PLoS Pathogens. I have therefore read your study carefully and inspected the related literature. In view of this assessment and of the positive comments of two reviewers, I decided to offer you the possibility to submit a revised version of your manuscript if you are able to address the reviewers' comments.

Reviewers #1 and #3 have raised multiple issues with the data presentation and interpretation and I recommend that you address their comments in full. Cartoons showing protein structures should be improved for visibility and clear annotations, as indicated by Reviewer #1. Points 4-6 raised by Reviewer #3 require that you undertake additional experiments to satisfy their concerns on the data quantification and reproducibility. In this regard, please refer to the data availability policy of PLoS Pathogens: https://journals.plos.org/plospathogens/s/data-availability. Raw data used to produce graphs and uncropped gel images should be made available as supplementary information or via DOI in public repositories.

Please address Reviewers' #1 and #3 concerns on the quality of EM images, notably in Figure 1C, which at the present level of resolution do not support the claims on different pilus states - coiled versus extended. Please provide higher quality images and insets with higher magnification to clearly demonstrate the dimensions/diameters of different pili and show any differences between them. Pilus length measurements similar to those performed in Nishiyama et al 2008 would provide insight into pilus polymerization defects. Please indicate clearly the correspondence between samples in Figure 1B and 1C. It is unclear what the designation "uncatalyzed" refers to in your study.

In the EM analysis of bacteria with mutations in CFA/I components, please indicate clearly which appendages correspond to CFA/I fimbriae and which ones are other pili/flagella. Please revise the model in Figure 6 following Reviewers #1 and #3 comments to summarize data described in the present study. Kinetic constants are not part of this research. Also, in the "off" pathway model, what is the reason that polymerization of CfaB fails to produce a coiled rod polymer in vitro? Are not all determinants of its molecular spring behaviour present in the major subunit (e.g. Spaudling et al eLife 2018 )? Finally, may I request that you cite the appropriate original literature, notably reports obtained from related CU pili studies that set the paradigms for assembly mechanism, role of adhesin in pilus assembly initiation, usher dynamics, pilus rod spring-like properties etc.

If you can respond to all of the referees’ points - by making the requested changes or by providing a compelling argument why a change cannot or should not be made - then I encourage you to submit a revised manuscript. In light of the further experimental work requested by reviewer #3, I am handling this as a Major Revision with the understanding that the revised manuscript will be subject to a full review by these same (and possibly new) referees. Please note that acceptance of your revised manuscript is not guaranteed. In general, revised manuscripts should be returned within three months. If you anticipate that significantly more time will be needed, please let me know.

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Part I - Summary

Please use this section to discuss strengths/weaknesses of study, novelty/significance, general execution and scholarship.

Reviewer #1: This manuscript is an important contribution to the field of bacterial adhesion and in the longer term, use of fimbriae in vaccine development. The authors provide new data, rigorously obtained, that advance our understanding of ETEC adhesion, which is essential for advancing efforts to prevent diarrheal diseases.

However, the authors discuss kinetics of assembly as if they are presenting kinetic data, which do not appear to be part of this research. The distinction between data-supported statements and speculation on their part needs to be better delineated.

Reviewer #2: The paper " Chaperone-tip Adhesin Complex Is Vital for Synergistic Activation of CFA/I fimbriae biogenesis" by Li-hui He and colleagues describes an in vitro assay to form CFA/I fimbria assembly and provide insight to the process that drives fimbria formation. The scope of this work is indeed very important for the fimbriae community, and I find the conclusions exciting and novel. Overall, the work is described clearly in the manuscript, and the results are strongly supported by data, and the authors' methods are sound and strong.

Reviewer #3: The manuscript by He et al. examines the assembly mechanism of CFA/I fimbriae expressed by enterotoxigenic E. coli. CFA/I fimbriae are major colonization factors and are assembled by the chaperone-usher (CU) pathway. The authors extend previous structure-function analyses of these fimbriae by mutating the CfaA chaperone to allow for purification of stable chaperone-subunit complexes with CfaB (major subunit protein) and CfaE (tip-localized adhesin subunit). Using this system, the authors establish an in vitro assay to monitor fimbrial polymerization and they generate a crystal structure of the CfaB-CfaE complex. Overall, while the authors present important new findings for the CFA/I fimbriae, the manuscript is not well organized or presented, the data seem preliminary and insufficient to support the conclusions, and the results need to be placed in better context of what is known from structural/functional analyses of other CU systems. Additional comments on the manuscript are listed below.

**********

Part II – Major Issues: Key Experiments Required for Acceptance

Please use this section to detail the key new experiments or modifications of existing experiments that should be absolutely required to validate study conclusions.

Generally, there should be no more than 3 such required experiments or major modifications for a "Major Revision" recommendation. If more than 3 experiments are necessary to validate the study conclusions, then you are encouraged to recommend "Reject".

Reviewer #1: While no key experiments are required for acceptance, it is essential that the authors clarify their statements on the kinetics of fimbria assembly - what data support their analysis, and what is speculation?

Reviewer #2: I find the experiments performed in this study strong!

Reviewer #3: 1. The manuscript text and figures need significant improvements for organization, presentation and clarity. Improvements are also needed for better citation of references and to correct errors throughout.

2. Many of the conclusions are not sufficiently supported by the data and are excessively speculative in nature, including the model presented in Fig. 6. The authors do not sufficiently incorporate or acknowledge the extensive prior structural and functional work done on CU pathways.

3. Better description is needed for what was previously known regarding the triple CfaA mutant chaperone used to stabilize the CfaA-B and CfaA-E complexes in this study. Has this specific mutant chaperone been demonstrated to be functional for assembly of CFA/I fimbriae in bacteria? More information is also needed regarding the CfaA-B crystal structure used in this study for comparison with the CfaA-E structure. Is the crystal structure of the CfaA-B complex from reference 10 (Bao et al, 2016)? That structure uses CfaA with a single mutation (T112I) rather than a triple mutation (correct?). If the chaperones are different, then this complicates the direct comparisons made in the current study.

4. More data is needed to support the in vitro fimbrial polymerization assay. The gel and EM images are of poor quality and the differences in fimbrial fibers stated in the text (length of fibers and extended vs. helical forms) are not apparent in the EM images. Also, more time points are needed to look between the 0 and 16 h reaction times and quantitative analysis is needed of the reaction to support the authors’ conclusions.

5. The denaturation/fluorescence data used to probe thermodynamic stability of the CfaA-B and CfaA-E complexes are difficult to interpret and not convincing (and the data should be moved to the main text rather than in the supplemental information). These data are insufficient to support the authors’ conclusions regarding relative stabilities of the complexes.

6. The analyses of the CfaE mutants – agglutination, ELISA, EM – also need improvements, including sufficient biological replicates to allow for statistical analyses and better EM images.

**********

Part III – Minor Issues: Editorial and Data Presentation Modifications

Please use this section for editorial suggestions as well as relatively minor modifications of existing data that would enhance clarity.

Reviewer #1: More minor points include figures that are difficult to interpret - most drawings of the models have lines that are too thin to be easily followed, and the point being made in the text is sometimes not clearly shown in the figure. Specific examples are shown below, but the authors should also look at all the figures and try to make them easier to understand without significant zooming.

The authors state “CFA/I fimbriae exhibit a spring-like property, also

71 known as catch-bond, that allows persistent attachment to the intestinal

72 epithelia even under the conditions of shear stress[4].”

Catch-bonds are not ‘spring-like’, so this sentence appears to be incorrect.

The authors state “the chaperone captures an unfolded pilus subunit in the

79 periplasm via the donor-strand complementation (DSC) mechanism”

Is the subunit really unfolded before attaching to the chaperone? Is this known?

L150-152 is awkward. It would be easier to read if it said ‘only in the presence of both’ rather than simply ‘both’

Table 1 ‘Unit Cell’ Numbers in parentheses are not explained.

Fig 2C - I cannot determine what the authors are trying to show. Is this a perspective view rather than orthographic?

The very thin lines of this figure are difficult to see

L271-272. Unclear where the C-term of the chaperone is. Having just a closeup in fig 3 does not help orient the reader

Fig 4A does not show about which axis the domains are rotated. The lines are too thin to be visible, and the yellow has very little contrast.

L337 please clarify ‘preserves its folding energy for assembly initiation’ .

This appears to be the authors’ speculation, not a result.

L 339-343 needs a figure to visualize this change.

Fig 4C is not understandable. First, where are the beta strands that are discussed in the text? How is the looped ‘wedged between’? Second, is ‘gray’ the tan or the blue? Whichever it is, what is the other color? The atoms shown in blue/red are confusing, because then it is difficult to tell whether they are from the magenta or tan subunit.

The whole figure could be re-thought. Perhaps have them displayed separately and then together?

Table 3 - terminal is mis-spelled

L404 ‘and’ should be ‘or’

L405 it is unclear what the authors mean by saying these residues ‘may play a regulatory role in interacting with the chaperone’. In addition, this statement belongs in the discussion, not results.

L418 should be Table 3

Fig 5 please state the scale bar size in the legend — it is not legible even at 3x zoom

Are the thicker filaments bundled pili, or do these bacteria have flagella?!

Fig 1C and Fig 5 - The electron micrographs shown are acceptable with respect to showing the data they are said to show, but they are of poor quality and detract slightly from the manuscript.

L459-463 why would it be paradoxical that the less stable is also less stable as a heterodimer?

L463-467 I don’t see the logic that leads the authors to conclude that a subunit with more ‘strain’ would be less stable.

L 477 It is not supported that assembly beginning with CfaE is due to the reasons stated, that ‘correct initiation may need more input energy and that elongation is rapid after initiation. Indeed, the fact that there is no assembly without CfaE means that ‘correct initiation’ is always the case, and there are no data in the manuscript regarding the kinetics of assembly.

L 495-499 clarifies statements made earlier in the manuscript, so perhaps should move there (L 377; see above).

L504 what does ‘insufficient’ mean in this context?

L508-509 ‘fits the energy profile of the CfaA-CfaE complex’. What energy profile? Are there data to support this statement?

Fig 6 - red star is not visible except after significant zoom.

L783-784 please state what structure (which proteins) was deposited as pdb 6K73. If it is CfaA/CfaE as stated in the abstract, then what is shown in Fig 6B? Please include the pdbs of all the structures shown in Fig 2B-2D

Fig 3 it is confusing to have the subunits be blue and magenta, and then the atoms be colored as blue and red, irrespective of which subunit they are from.

Fig S2 the x-axis is mislabeled - it should be GdnCl. Also, there should be vertical lines marking the positions of the 2 inflection points discussed in the text.

Reviewer #2: I found the following mistake in the introduction on page 4, row 70-73: “CFA/I fimbriae exhibit a spring-like property, also known as catch-bond, that allows persistent attachment to the intestinal epithelia even under the conditions of shear stress[4].”

A catch-bond does not give rise to spring-like properties! The spring-like properties of CFA/I, that is the ability to unwind and rewind the shaft subunits, was shown in Prof. Bullitt’s work in 2012, A Structural Basis for Sustained Bacterial Adhesion: Biomechanical Properties of CFA/I Pili. Journal of Molecular Biology, 415(5), 918–928. A catch-bond modulaters the bond-receptor interaction since they can dynamically change the bond-strength when exposed to a tensile force. A catch-bond behaves, therefore, more like a finger-trap, the more load that is applied to the bond, the life-time of the bond-receptor complex will increase, up to the threshold break force.

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

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: Esther Bullitt

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

Figure Files:

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. 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.

Data Requirements:

Please note that, as a condition of publication, PLOS' data policy requires that you make available all data used to draw the conclusions outlined in your manuscript. Data must be deposited in an appropriate repository, included within the body of the manuscript, or uploaded as supporting information. This includes all numerical values that were used to generate graphs, histograms etc.. For an example see here on PLOS Biology: http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.1001908#s5.

Reproducibility:

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, PLOS recommends that you deposit 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/plospathogens/s/submission-guidelines#loc-materials-and-methods

Decision Letter 1

Guy Tran Van Nhieu, Olivera Francetic

15 Jul 2020

Dear Professor bao,

Thank you very much for submitting your manuscript "Chaperone-tip Adhesin Complex Is Vital for Synergistic Activation of CFA/I fimbriae biogenesis" for consideration at PLOS Pathogens. As with all papers reviewed by the journal, your manuscript was reviewed by members of the editorial board and by independent reviewers. The reviewers appreciated the attention to an important topic and agree that the manuscript has been substantially improved, by addressing the comments of the three initial reviewers. However, there are multiple issues related to writing and data presentation that need to be addressed before the paper can be accepted for publication.

One of these issues concerns the figures, which have now been split into multiple panels. I will ask you to kindly follow the guidelines for the authors and to submit one original file for each figure, with each panel labeled to facilitate reference to the panels in the main text. In the case of Figure 1, which has been substantially modified, I suggest that you keep a similar mode of organisation as in the original submission, with the 4 figures showing the same type of in vitro assay data for four different protein samples grouped into one panel: SDS-PAGE data in Panel B, quantifications in Panel C, microcopy in D and measurements in E. Alternatively, you may choose to group the assay data and quantifications into a single panel and the EM images and quantifications in another. The figure legends should be modified accordingly and they should explain all the parts of the figures (this is not the case in the current version). For example, in the bottom panel of Fig 1B-1E, it is unclear why there is an inset in each panel with the quantification on a different scale. Are these different representations of the same data ? Figure legends should provide more details on these graphs. Please refer to the figures by "Fig 1A" instead of "Figure. 1A" etc. throughout the text. Also, please follow the same order of figures as that of the analyses presented in the main text. Thus, I suggest that the order of figures 4 and 5 be inverted, since you first refer to the data presented in Fig 5 in the main text, followed by those shown in Fig 4.

Finally, please make the necessary changes in the text as detailed below in the editor's comments and as suggested by Reviewer #1.

Please prepare and submit your revised manuscript within 30 days. If you anticipate any delay, please let us know the expected resubmission date by replying to this email. 

When you are ready to resubmit, please upload the following:

[1] A letter containing a detailed list of your responses to all review comments, and a description of the changes you have made in the 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

[2] Two versions of the revised manuscript: one with either highlights or tracked changes denoting where the text has been changed; the other a clean version (uploaded as the manuscript file).

Important additional instructions are given below your reviewer comments.

Thank you again for your submission to our journal. We hope that our editorial process has been constructive so far, and we welcome your feedback at any time. Please don't hesitate to contact us if you have any questions or comments.

Sincerely,

Olivera Francetic, PhD

Guest Editor

PLOS Pathogens

Guy Tran Van Nhieu

Section Editor

PLOS Pathogens

Kasturi Haldar

Editor-in-Chief

PLOS Pathogens

orcid.org/0000-0001-5065-158X

Michael Malim

Editor-in-Chief

PLOS Pathogens

orcid.org/0000-0002-7699-2064

***********************

Minor editor's comments:

Line 63. We demonstrate

Line 64. Replace “play indispensable roles” with “is essential for “

Line 65. “The crystal structure of this complex reveals…”

Line 67. Remove “moreover” – Our findings suggest…

Line 69. …facilitates…

Line 70. …lumen. Collectively, our data demonstrate the critical role…

Line 117. “..tip-localized adhesins are required for initiation of assembly of various fimbriae…(24-29), including the Class 5 fimbriae (30)”

Line 131. “…mutant CfaA variant to stabilize…”

Line 137. Our work shows that CfaE is required for…

Line 157-160. When compared to native CfaA, the mutant variant containing the triple residue substitution T112I/L114I/V116I on the G1 strand (hitherto referred to as mtCfaA) formed significantly stabilized complexes with CfaE (Fig 1A), CfaB, and CfaBntd (the CfaB variant lacking the N-terminal donor strand).

Line 162. , 164 etc. (Fig S2) please correct all references to figures in this manner.

Line 168. (Fig 1B to Fig 1E top two panels) – referring to the figure in this way is confusing. Please show the data as a single figure file, with panels regrouped and labeled. The data from the current panels 1B to 1E should be regrouped.

Line 178 …was able to prevent…

Table 1: Unit cell parameters

Line 213. … more open cleft…

Line 219. …shorter life-span compared to that of the CfaA-CfaB complex in solution.

Line 225. CfaA variant with triple residue substitution in the G1 strand (redundant as it has been introduced above)

Line 241. … allowed us to compare…

Line 260. … likely to engage in CfaA interaction (Fig 3A)

Also, please replace “C-terminal” by “C-terminus” in the figure 3A.

Line 269. Figure 5A data are described in the main text before Figure 4. The order of these figures should be inverted.

Line 381. Remove “the establishment” from the title and replace by "An in vitro system… etc"

Line 386. This mutant variant is able to…

Line 417. … suitable confirmation…

Line 419 …very rapidly…

Line 423. While mutations in these CfaE elements did not impair binding to CfeA, they affected assembly.

Line 425. …and not necessarily …

Line 452 ...do not require…

Line 455 …for the usher…

Line 456. … whether this motif is responsible….

Line 466 … show that the….

Line 467. … domain binds more tightly to the usher pore in the initiation complex compared to the elongation complex…

Line 468. Based on those….

Line 471. ....and facilitates binding of the CfaE adhesin domain to the CfaC lumen

line 623. concentrations ... were 0.25 etc.

line 647. …different mutations...

line 668. .. performed at 0.1M intervals

Line 686. modify the figure and the legend in the new version. Please explain the purpose of the two different scales and insets of the graphs on the bottom panels?

Line 691. ...ladders resulted from aggregation of...

Line 695... representative CfaB polymers...

Line 714. ... (dashed line) ... fitted curves generated by GraphPad...

Line 733. should be: "Superimposed cartoon models of the pilin domain CfaE from...

Line 737. The disordered loop 301-321 in mtCfaA-CfaE is shown as dashed line

Line 743. ... involved in domain interactions

Line 751. Remove the statement about the zoom.

Line 761. Two pathways are depicted.

Reviewer Comments (if any, and for reference):

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Part I - Summary

Please use this section to discuss strengths/weaknesses of study, novelty/significance, general execution and scholarship.

Reviewer #1: The authors have successfully addressed all comments from the initial review, and the manuscript is acceptable for publication.

**********

Part II – Major Issues: Key Experiments Required for Acceptance

Please use this section to detail the key new experiments or modifications of existing experiments that should be absolutely required to validate study conclusions.

Generally, there should be no more than 3 such required experiments or major modifications for a "Major Revision" recommendation. If more than 3 experiments are necessary to validate the study conclusions, then you are encouraged to recommend "Reject".

Reviewer #1: none.

**********

Part III – Minor Issues: Editorial and Data Presentation Modifications

Please use this section for editorial suggestions as well as relatively minor modifications of existing data that would enhance clarity.

Reviewer #1: L 63 demonstrate

L 64 plays

L 65 reveals

L 69 facilitates

L 140 functions

L 158 Figure

L 171 delete 'Fim'

L 178-179 I think you mean prevent self-assembly into off-pathway trimers -- it is 'self'assembing' (polymerizing) into short fimbria

L346-347 it is not negative-stain EM, but EM of negatively stained fimbria

L468 Based

L471 lumen

L 751 It is not clear what is meant by 'the zoom is 10,000x'. Was the image as sent to the journal zoomed 10kx? Since how it will be viewed or printed is not known, this is not useful information. If the authors would like to include something more than the scale bar, they can include the magnification at which the images were recorded.

**********

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: Esther Bullitt

Figure Files:

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. 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.

Data Requirements:

Please note that, as a condition of publication, PLOS' data policy requires that you make available all data used to draw the conclusions outlined in your manuscript. Data must be deposited in an appropriate repository, included within the body of the manuscript, or uploaded as supporting information. This includes all numerical values that were used to generate graphs, histograms etc.. For an example see here: http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.1001908#s5.

Reproducibility:

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, PLOS recommends that you deposit 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/plospathogens/s/submission-guidelines#loc-materials-and-methods

Decision Letter 2

Guy Tran Van Nhieu, Olivera Francetic

24 Jul 2020

Dear Professor bao,

Thank you very much for submitting the revised version of your manuscript "Chaperone-tip Adhesin Complex Is Vital for Synergistic Activation of CFA/I fimbriae biogenesis" for consideration at PLOS Pathogens.

Before we ca proceed with the final acceptance of your paper, there are still a few issues remaining. At this stage, it is important to follow the journal guidelines for manuscript formatting. In particular, I will kindly ask you to submit also all the other figures (Fig. 2 to Fig. 5) as single .tiff files and not as individual panels, just as you had done already for Figure 1. Also please submit all the Tables as separate files, and please follow the journal guidelines in terms of format, font, resolution etc.

PLOS Pathogens does not provide a copy editor service, therefore it is the authors' and editor’s responsibility to ensure that the final version is published free or errors, to avoid subsequent corrections and errata.

In this regard, the following corrections remain to be made:

Line 70. « lumen » instead of « luman »

Line 117. “Localized” instead of “locatized”

Line 177. "…and to extend CfaB polymer…”

Line 196. Table 1. “Unit cell” instead of “unite cell…” and average B factor (Ų) instead of (Å2)

Line 223. Change to: “…variant with triple residue substitution in the G1…”

Line 257. Please replace “C-terminus” with “C-terminal” here in the text, going back to the previous version. The label “C-terminal” should have been replaced by “C-terminus” in the Figure 3A itself, not in the text.

Please ensure that the figure 3, panel is modified accordingly this time.

Line 344. "The ΔCfaE mutant had no…"

Line 345. “…had a negative MRHA phenotype”

Line 357. “.. production was reduced to the uninduced levels…”

Line 360. “Mutations of the three C-terminal residues…”

Line 364-365. “Indeed, a single R253E substitution in CfaE led to the loss of CFA/I fimbriation by negative-stain EM and to negative MRHA…”

Line 373-374. “… which corroborated the results of bact-ELISA…”

Line 380. Remove the italics for “system”

Line 476. “development” instead of “devolvement”

Please verify the completeness of these modifications so as to avoid new rounds of revision. Thank you for your understanding.

Please prepare and submit your revised manuscript within 30 days. If you anticipate any delay, please let us know the expected resubmission date by replying to this email. 

When you are ready to resubmit, please upload the following:

[1] A letter containing a detailed list of your responses to all review comments, and a description of the changes you have made in the 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

[2] Two versions of the revised manuscript: one with either highlights or tracked changes denoting where the text has been changed; the other a clean version (uploaded as the manuscript file).

Important additional instructions are given below your reviewer comments.

Thank you again for your submission to our journal. We hope that our editorial process has been constructive so far, and we welcome your feedback at any time. Please don't hesitate to contact us if you have any questions or comments.

Sincerely,

Olivera Francetic, PhD

Guest Editor

PLOS Pathogens

Guy Tran Van Nhieu

Section Editor

PLOS Pathogens

Kasturi Haldar

Editor-in-Chief

PLOS Pathogens

orcid.org/0000-0001-5065-158X

Michael Malim

Editor-in-Chief

PLOS Pathogens

orcid.org/0000-0002-7699-2064

***********************

Figure Files:

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. 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.

Data Requirements:

Please note that, as a condition of publication, PLOS' data policy requires that you make available all data used to draw the conclusions outlined in your manuscript. Data must be deposited in an appropriate repository, included within the body of the manuscript, or uploaded as supporting information. This includes all numerical values that were used to generate graphs, histograms etc.. For an example see here: http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.1001908#s5.

Reproducibility:

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, PLOS recommends that you deposit 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/plospathogens/s/submission-guidelines#loc-materials-and-methods

Decision Letter 3

Guy Tran Van Nhieu, Olivera Francetic

30 Jul 2020

Dear Professor bao,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript 'Chaperone-tip Adhesin Complex Is Vital for Synergistic Activation of CFA/I fimbriae biogenesis' has been provisionally accepted for publication in PLOS Pathogens.

Before your manuscript can be formally accepted you will need to complete some formatting changes, which you will receive in a follow up email. A member of our team will be in touch with a set of requests.

Please note that your manuscript will not be scheduled for publication until you have made the required changes, so a swift response is appreciated.

IMPORTANT: The editorial review process is now complete. PLOS will only permit corrections to spelling, formatting or significant scientific errors from this point onwards. Requests for major changes, or any which affect the scientific understanding of your work, will cause delays to the publication date of your manuscript.

Should you, your institution's press office or the journal office choose to press release your paper, you will automatically be opted out of early publication. We ask that you notify us now if you or your institution is planning to press release the article. All press must be co-ordinated with PLOS.

Thank you again for supporting Open Access publishing; we are looking forward to publishing your work in PLOS Pathogens.

Best regards,

Olivera Francetic, PhD

Guest Editor

PLOS Pathogens

Guy Tran Van Nhieu

Section Editor

PLOS Pathogens

Kasturi Haldar

Editor-in-Chief

PLOS Pathogens

orcid.org/0000-0001-5065-158X

Michael Malim

Editor-in-Chief

PLOS Pathogens

orcid.org/0000-0002-7699-2064

***********************************************************

Reviewer Comments (if any, and for reference):

Acceptance letter

Guy Tran Van Nhieu, Olivera Francetic

4 Sep 2020

Dear Professor Bao,

We are delighted to inform you that your manuscript, "Chaperone-tip Adhesin Complex Is Vital for Synergistic Activation of CFA/I fimbriae biogenesis," has been formally accepted for publication in PLOS Pathogens.

We have now passed your article onto the PLOS Production Department who will complete the rest of the pre-publication process. All authors will receive a confirmation email upon publication.

The corresponding author will soon be receiving a typeset proof for review, to ensure errors have not been introduced during production. Please review the PDF proof of your manuscript carefully, as this is the last chance to correct any scientific or type-setting errors. Please note that major changes, or those which affect the scientific understanding of the work, will likely cause delays to the publication date of your manuscript. Note: Proofs for Front Matter articles (Pearls, Reviews, Opinions, etc...) are generated on a different schedule and may not be made available as quickly.

Soon after your final files are uploaded, the early version of your manuscript, if you opted to have an early version of your article, will be published online. The date of the early version will be your article's publication date. The final article will be published to the same URL, and all versions of the paper will be accessible to readers.

Thank you again for supporting open-access publishing; we are looking forward to publishing your work in PLOS Pathogens.

Best regards,

Kasturi Haldar

Editor-in-Chief

PLOS Pathogens

orcid.org/0000-0001-5065-158X

Michael Malim

Editor-in-Chief

PLOS Pathogens

orcid.org/0000-0002-7699-2064

Associated Data

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

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Fig. SEC profile (Superdex 75, GEHealthcare) and SDS-PAGE of native CfaA-CfaE complex after Ni-NTA purification.

    The fraction number is indicated at the top of SDS-PAGE. The results show that the native CfaA-CfaE is not stable and tends to dissociate in solution.

    (TIF)

    S2 Fig. The SDS-PAGE of purified CfaC.

    (TIF)

    S3 Fig. The mass spectrometry results verified that the protein ladder bands on AN-PAGE were CfaA-CfaB.

    (TIF)

    S1 Table. Primers used to introduce mutations in pMAM2 in this work.

    (DOCX)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: response-letter.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: response letter-revision 2.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: revison response letter-4.docx

    Data Availability Statement

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


    Articles from PLoS Pathogens are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES