Search

The large abundance of small open reading frames (smORFs) in prokaryotic and eukaryotic genomes and the plethora of smORF‐encoded small proteins became only apparent with the constant advancements in bioinformatic, genomic, proteomic, and biochemical tools. Small proteins are typically defined as proteins of < 50 amino acids in prokaryotes and of less than 100 amino acids in eukaryotes, and their importance for cell physiology and cellular adaptation is only beginning to emerge. In contrast to antimicrobial peptides, which are secreted by prokaryotic and eukaryotic cells for combatting pathogens and competitors, small proteins act within the producing cell mainly by stabilizing protein assemblies and by modifying the activity of larger proteins. Production of small proteins is frequently linked to stress conditions or environmental changes, and therefore, cells seem to use small proteins as intracellular modifiers for adjusting cell metabolism to different intra‐ and extracellular cues. However, the size of small proteins imposes a major challenge for the cellular machinery required for protein folding and intracellular trafficking and recent data indicate that small proteins can engage distinct trafficking pathways. In the current review, we describe the diversity of small proteins in prokaryotes and eukaryotes, highlight distinct and common features, and illustrate how they are handled by the protein trafficking machineries in prokaryotic and eukaryotic cells. Finally, we also discuss future topics of research on this fascinating but largely unexplored group of proteins. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The spatial and temporal coordination of protein transport is an essential cornerstone of the bacterial adaptation to different environmental conditions. By adjusting the protein composition of extra-cytosolic compartments, like the inner and outer membranes or the periplasmic space, protein transport mechanisms help shaping protein homeostasis in response to various metabolic cues. The universally conserved SecYEG translocon acts at the center of bacterial protein transport and mediates the translocation of newly synthesized proteins into and across the cytoplasmic membrane. The ability of the SecYEG translocon to transport an enormous variety of different substrates is in part determined by its ability to interact with multiple targeting factors, chaperones and accessory proteins. These interactions are crucial for the assisted passage of newly synthesized proteins from the cytosol into the different bacterial compartments. In this review, we summarize the current knowledge about SecYEG-mediated protein transport, primarily in the model organism Escherichia coli, and describe the dynamic interaction of the SecYEG translocon with its multiple partner proteins. We furthermore highlight how protein transport is regulated and explore recent developments in using the SecYEG translocon as an antimicrobial target.

About 30% of all bacterial proteins execute their function outside of the cytosol and have to be transported into or across the cytoplasmic membrane. Bacteria use multiple protein transport systems in parallel, but the majority of proteins engage two distinct targeting systems. One is the co-translational targeting by two universally conserved GTPases, the signal recognition particle (SRP) and its receptor FtsY, which deliver inner membrane proteins to either the SecYEG translocon or the YidC insertase for membrane insertion. The other targeting system depends on the ATPase SecA, which targets secretory proteins, i.e. periplasmic and outer membrane proteins, to SecYEG for their subsequent ATP-dependent translocation. While SRP selects its substrates already very early during their synthesis, the recognition of secretory proteins by SecA is believed to occur primarily after translation termination, i.e. post-translationally. In this review we highlight recent progress on how SRP recognizes its substrates at the ribosome and how the fidelity of the targeting reaction to SecYEG is maintained.We furthermore discuss similarities and differences in the SRP-dependent targeting to either SecYEG or YidC and summarize recent results that suggest that some membrane proteins are co-translationally targeted by SecA. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Signal-sequence-dependent protein targeting is essential for the spatiotemporal organization of eukaryotic and prokaryotic cells and is facilitated by dedicated protein targeting factors such as the signal recognition particle (SRP). However, targeting signals are not exclusively contained within proteins but can also be present within mRNAs. By in vivo and in vitro assays, we show that mRNA targeting is controlled by the nucleotide content and by secondary structures within mRNAs. mRNA binding to bacterial membranes occurs independently of soluble targeting factors but is dependent on the SecYEG translocon and YidC. Importantly, membrane insertion of proteins translated from membrane-bound mRNAs occurs independently of the SRP pathway, while the latter is strictly required for proteins translated from cytosolic mRNAs. In summary, our data indicate that mRNA targeting acts in parallel to the canonical SRP-dependent protein targeting and serves as an alternative strategy for safeguarding membrane protein insertion when the SRP pathway is compromised. [Display omitted] • Nucleotide composition and secondary structures determine mRNA targeting • The SecYEG translocon and the YidC insertase act as mRNA receptors in bacteria • mRNA targeting enables SRP-independent membrane protein insertion Protein targeting is generally believed to depend on targeting information that is retained within the protein itself. Sarmah et al. now show that mRNA targeting contributes to membrane protein insertion in bacteria and that it provides an alternative strategy when the canonical signal recognition particle-dependent protein-targeting pathway is saturated or inhibited. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The cell membrane has many indispensable functions for sustaining cell alive besides a role as merely outer envelope. The most of such functions are implemented by membrane embedded proteins that are emerged through the membrane integration machinery, SecYEG translocon. Here, we synthesized SecYEG by expressing the corresponding gene in vitro to study the process of functionalization of the cell membrane. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Different from eukaryotes, the bacterial signal recognition particle (SRP) receptor lacks a membrane-tethering SRP receptor (SR) β subunit and is composed of only the SRα homologue FtsY. FtsY is a modular protein composed of three domains. The N- and G-domains of FtsY are highly similar to the corresponding domains of Ffh/SRP54 and SRα and constitute the essential core of FtsY. In contrast, the weakly conserved N-terminal A-domain does not seem to be essential, and its exact function is unknown. Our data show that a 14-amino-acid-long positively charged region at the N-terminus of the A-domain is involved in stabilizing the FtsY–SecYEG interaction. Mutant analyses reveal that the positively charged residues are crucial for this function, and we propose that the 14-amino-acid region serves as a transient lipid anchor. In its absence, the activity of FtsY to support cotranslational integration is reduced to about 50%. Strikingly, in vivo, a truncated isoform of FtsY that lacks exactly these first 14 amino acids exists. Different from full-length FtsY, which primarily cofractionates with the membrane, the N-terminally truncated isoform is primarily present in the soluble fraction. Mutating the conserved glycine residue at position 14 prevents the formation of the truncated isoform and impairs the activity of FtsY in cotranslational targeting. These data suggest that membrane binding and function of FtsY are in part regulated by proteolytic cleavage of the conserved 14-amino-acid motif. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

The spatial and temporal coordination of protein transport is an essential cornerstone of the bacterial adaptation to different environmental conditions. By adjusting the protein composition of extra-cytosolic compartments, like the inner and outer membranes or the periplasmic space, protein transport mechanisms help shaping protein homeostasis in response to various metabolic cues. The universally conserved SecYEG translocon acts at the center of bacterial protein transport and mediates the translocation of newly synthesized proteins into and across the cytoplasmic membrane. The ability of the SecYEG translocon to transport an enormous variety of different substrates is in part determined by its ability to interact with multiple targeting factors, chaperones and accessory proteins. These interactions are crucial for the assisted passage of newly synthesized proteins from the cytosol into the different bacterial compartments. In this review, we summarize the current knowledge about SecYEG-mediated protein transport, primarily in the model organism Escherichia coli , and describe the dynamic interaction of the SecYEG translocon with its multiple partner proteins. We furthermore highlight how protein transport is regulated and explore recent developments in using the SecYEG translocon as an antimicrobial target., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2021 Oswald, Njenga, Natriashvili, Sarmah and Koch.)

The SecYEG translocon constitutes the major protein transport channel in bacteria and transfers an enormous variety of different secretory and inner-membrane proteins. The minimal core of the SecYEG translocon consists of three inner-membrane proteins, SecY, SecE, and SecG, which, together with appropriate targeting factors, are sufficient for protein transport in vitro However, in vivo the SecYEG translocon has been shown to associate with multiple partner proteins, likely allowing the SecYEG translocon to process its diverse substrates. To obtain a global view on SecYEG plasticity in Escherichia coli , here we performed a quantitative interaction proteomic analysis, which identified several known SecYEG-interacting proteins, verified the interaction of SecYEG with quality-control proteins, and revealed several previously unknown putative SecYEG-interacting proteins. Surprisingly, we found that the chaperone complex PpiD/YfgM is the most prominent interaction partner of SecYEG. Detailed analyses of the PpiD-SecY interaction by site-directed cross-linking revealed that PpiD and the established SecY partner protein YidC use almost completely-overlapping binding sites on SecY. Both PpiD and YidC contacted the lateral gate, the plug domain, and the periplasmic cavity of SecY. However, quantitative MS and cross-linking analyses revealed that despite having almost identical binding sites, their binding to SecY is noncompetitive. This observation suggests that the SecYEG translocon forms different substrate-independent subassemblies in which SecYEG either associates with YidC or with the PpiD/YfgM complex. In summary, the results of this study indicate that the PpiD/YfgM chaperone complex is a primary interaction partner of the SecYEG translocon., (© 2019 Jauss et al.)

Protein secretion in Gram-negative bacteria is essential for both cell viability and pathogenesis. The vast majority of secreted proteins exit the cytoplasm through a transmembrane conduit called the Sec translocon in a process that is facilitated by ancillary modules, such as SecA, SecDF-YajC, YidC, and PpiD. In this study we have characterized YfgM, a protein with no annotated function. We found it to be a novel ancillary subunit of the Sec translocon as it co-purifies with both PpiD and the SecYEG translocon after immunoprecipitation and blue native/SDS-PAGE. Phenotypic analyses of strains lacking yfgM suggest that its physiological role in the cell overlaps with the periplasmic chaperones SurA and Skp. We, therefore, propose a role for YfgM in mediating the trafficking of proteins from the Sec translocon to the periplasmic chaperone network that contains SurA, Skp, DegP, PpiD, and FkpA., (© 2014 by The American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Inc.)