Angewandte Chemie International Edition
10.1002/anie.202011357
RESEARCH ARTICLE
enoylreduction catalysed by ER1/2, and one (Figure 1D) in which
the ER acts in trans upon the unsaturated tetraketide while it
remains tethered to the ACP of module 3. We therefore
inactivated ACP1/2 in the AzlA protein, by using site-directed
mutagenesis to replace the active site serine residue by alanine
In summary, this study revealed an unprecedented modular PKS
enoylreductase domain that is used in not only “switchable” but
also cross-module enoylreduction during polyketide chain
elongation, and provided evidence in favour of
a direct
intermodular interaction with the substrate anchored in the
downstream module, instead of a "stuttering" mechanism in which
the acyl chain is backtransferred for reduction. Our findings
provide the starting point for detailed structural and mechanistic
investigation of the factors favouring this mechanism, and add to
our growing appreciation of the plasticity of assembly-line
polyketide biosynthesis, and of the insights examples of non-
colinearity may provide into plausible pathways by which these
systems have evolved.[
(
Figure S25).[24] AzlA(ΔACP1/2) was purified from E. coli BAP1 and
supplied to the module 3 chain elongation reaction (Figure S16).
The result (Figure 3E) showed that the elongated product of
module 3 is reduced to the same extent as in the unmutated
control (Figure 3C), indicating that the intermediate does not
require back-transfer to ACP1/2 and likely remains tethered to
27]
ACP
results together, ER1/2 is recruited in trans by module 3 to catalyse
α,β-double bond reduction of the intermediate tethered onto ACP
3
for enoylreduction. Taking the above genetic and enzymatic
3
.
Acknowledgements
The factors that promote this - to our knowledge - unprecedented
cross-modular catalysis remain to be determined, but may include
a gatekeeping function of the KS domain of the downstream
module 4, which may be highly selective for recruitment of the
reduced tetraketide over the α,β-unsaturated tetraketide; and the
presence of ER1/2 on a separate protein may allow more flexibility
than if modules 1-3 were housed in the same multienzyme.
We were interested to determine whether the action of ER1/2
This work was supported by National Key R&D Program of China
(2018YFA0903203) and the Open Funding Project from State
Key Laboratory of Microbial Metabolism (MMLKF18-11). The
authors are grateful to J. Zheng at Shanghai Jiao Tong University
for helpful discussion.
on the neighbouring module would be seen with the isolated ER1/2
domain; or whether other domains might be involved. Based on
the known boundaries of PKS ER domains,[25,26] ER1/2 was
expressed as a recombinant protein, purified (Figure S16) and
used in the module 3 chain-elongation assay. No reduced product
was detected (Figure 3F). This result might reflect either incorrect
folding of the recombinant protein, or a need for the presence of
additional domains to provide protein:protein interactions
essential for the intermodular activity. As confirmed by the crystal
structure of the KR-ER didomain from the second module of the
spinosyn type I PKS, the ER domain is sandwiched between a
structural and a catalytic subdomain of the KR domain.[27] If the
same intimate contacts are maintained in the AZL ER1/2-KR1/2
didomain, it may promote proper folding of the ER1/2, allowing the
didomain to be active when the ER1/2 domain alone is not. The
effects of inclusion of other flanking domains are less predictable.
When recombinant subsets of module 1/2 containing additional
Keywords: natural products • biosynthesis • polyketide
synthases • enoylreductase domain • iterative domain
[
1]
T. Robbins, Y. C. Liu, D. E. Cane, C. Khosla, Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol.
2016, 41, 10–18.
[2]
J. Cortes, S. F. Haydock, G. A. Roberts, D. J. Bevitt, P. F. Leadlay,
Nature 1990, 348, 176–178.
[3]
[4]
[5]
S. Donadio, M. J. Staver, J. B. McAlpine, S. J. Swanson, L. Katz, Science
1
991, 252, 675–679.
Y. Q. Cheng, G. L. Tang, B. Shen, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2003, 100,
149–3154.
3
T. A. Nguyen, K. Ishida, H. Jenke-Kodama, E. Dittmann, C. Gurgui, T.
Hochmuth, S. Taudien, M. Platzer, C. Hertweck, J. Piel, Nat. Biotechnol.
2008, 26, 225–233.
[6]
B. D. Ames, C. Nguyen, J. Bruegger, P. Smith, W. Xu, S. Ma, E. Wong,
S. Wong, X. Xie, J. W.-H. Li, et al., Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2012, 109,
11144–11149.
[
7]
8]
B. Wilkinson, G. Foster, B. A. M. Rudd, N. L. Taylor, A. P. Blackaby, P.
J. Sidebottom, D. J. Cooper, M. J. Dawson, A. D. Buss, S. Gaisser, et al.,
Chem. Biol. 2000, 7, 111–117.
domains (ER1/2-KR1/2, DH1/2-ER1/2-KR1/2 and DH1/2-ER1/2-KR1/2
-
ACP1/2) were assayed (Figure S16), the LC-ESI-HRMS results
showed that they all supported inter-modular enoylreduction
[
N. Gaitatzis, B. Silakowski, B. Kunze, G. Nordsiek, H. Blöcker, G. Höfle,
R. Müller, J. Biol. Chem. 2002, 277, 13082–13090.
(
Figures 3G-3I). Notably, the presence of the KR1/2 domain seems
[9]
a) J. He, C. Hertweck, ChemBioChem 2005, 6, 908–912; b) Y. Sugimoto,
K. Ishida, C. Hertweck, Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2014, 53, 1560–1564; c)
H. Peng, K. Ishida, C. Hertweck, Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2019, 58,
necessary for the in-trans ER1/2 activity on the substrate analogue
tethered to module 3. But the inactivation of KR1/2 domain has no
detectable effect on ER1/2 domain catalysing the cross-module
enoylreduction, which suggest that KR1/2 domain is important in
preserving contacts with ER1/2 and stabilising the ER1/2 in its
native conformation (Figure S26). Also, the ER1/2 can interact with
its substrate tethered to module 3 even in the absence of specific
ACP-KS contacts (Figure 3H); although the extent of reduction is
greater when the ACP1/2 domain is present (Figure 3I). The
phylogenetic analysis and the 3D modelling revealed no obvious
feature in which ER1/2 differs structurally from typical PKS ER
domains (Figures S27-S29). Further structural and functional
experimentation will be required to identify the exact
protein:protein interactions that contribute to this enhancement.
18252–18256.
[
[
[
10] C. Olano, B. Wilkinson, S. J. Moss, A. F. Braña, C. Méndez, P. F. Leadlay,
J. A. Salas, Chem. Commun. 2003, 22, 2780–2782.
11] H. Hong, Y. Sun, Y. Zhou, E. Stephens, M. Samborskyy, P. F. Leadlay,
Beilstein J. Org. Chem. 2016, 12, 2164–2172.
12] O. Bilyk, M. Samborskyy, P. F. Leadlay, PLoS One 2019, 14, e0215958.
[13] Y. Xue, D. H. Sherman, Nature 2000, 403, 571–575.
[14] C. J. Rowe, I. U. Böhm, I. P. Thomas, B. Wilkinson, B. A. M. Rudd, G.
Foster, A. P. Blackaby, P. J. Sidebottom, Y. Roddis, A. D. Buss, et al.,
Chem. Biol. 2001, 8, 475–485.
[
[
[
[
15] L. Tang, S. Ward, L. Chung, J. R. Carney, Y. Li, R. Reid, L. Katz, J. Am.
Chem. Soc. 2007, 126, 46–47.
16] B. Zhang, Z. Xu, Q. Teng, G. Pan, M. Ma, B. Shen, Angew. Chem. Int.
Ed. 2017, 56, 7247–7251 (2017).
17] W. D. Fiers, G. J. Dodge, D. H. Sherman, J. L. Smith, C. C. Aldrich, J.
Am. Chem. Soc. 2016, 138, 16024–16036.
18] M. Otsuka, K. Ichinose, I. Fujii, Y. Ebizuka, Antimicrob. Agents Chemother.
Conclusion
2004, 48, 3468–3476.
4
This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.