Skip to main content
  • ASM
    • Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
    • Applied and Environmental Microbiology
    • Clinical Microbiology Reviews
    • Clinical and Vaccine Immunology
    • EcoSal Plus
    • Eukaryotic Cell
    • Infection and Immunity
    • Journal of Bacteriology
    • Journal of Clinical Microbiology
    • Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education
    • Journal of Virology
    • mBio
    • Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews
    • Microbiology Resource Announcements
    • Microbiology Spectrum
    • Molecular and Cellular Biology
    • mSphere
    • mSystems
  • Log in
  • My alerts
  • My Cart

Main menu

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Latest Articles
    • COVID-19 Special Collection
    • Archive
    • Minireviews
  • Topics
    • Applied and Environmental Science
    • Clinical Science and Epidemiology
    • Ecological and Evolutionary Science
    • Host-Microbe Biology
    • Molecular Biology and Physiology
    • Therapeutics and Prevention
  • For Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Scope
    • Editorial Policy
    • Submission, Review, & Publication Processes
    • Organization and Format
    • Errata, Author Corrections, Retractions
    • Illustrations and Tables
    • Nomenclature
    • Abbreviations and Conventions
    • Publication Fees
    • Ethics Resources and Policies
  • About the Journal
    • About mBio
    • Editor in Chief
    • Board of Editors
    • AAM Fellows
    • For Reviewers
    • For the Media
    • For Librarians
    • For Advertisers
    • Alerts
    • RSS
    • FAQ
  • ASM
    • Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
    • Applied and Environmental Microbiology
    • Clinical Microbiology Reviews
    • Clinical and Vaccine Immunology
    • EcoSal Plus
    • Eukaryotic Cell
    • Infection and Immunity
    • Journal of Bacteriology
    • Journal of Clinical Microbiology
    • Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education
    • Journal of Virology
    • mBio
    • Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews
    • Microbiology Resource Announcements
    • Microbiology Spectrum
    • Molecular and Cellular Biology
    • mSphere
    • mSystems

User menu

  • Log in
  • My alerts
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
mBio
publisher-logosite-logo

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Latest Articles
    • COVID-19 Special Collection
    • Archive
    • Minireviews
  • Topics
    • Applied and Environmental Science
    • Clinical Science and Epidemiology
    • Ecological and Evolutionary Science
    • Host-Microbe Biology
    • Molecular Biology and Physiology
    • Therapeutics and Prevention
  • For Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Scope
    • Editorial Policy
    • Submission, Review, & Publication Processes
    • Organization and Format
    • Errata, Author Corrections, Retractions
    • Illustrations and Tables
    • Nomenclature
    • Abbreviations and Conventions
    • Publication Fees
    • Ethics Resources and Policies
  • About the Journal
    • About mBio
    • Editor in Chief
    • Board of Editors
    • AAM Fellows
    • For Reviewers
    • For the Media
    • For Librarians
    • For Advertisers
    • Alerts
    • RSS
    • FAQ
Research Article | Molecular Biology and Physiology

Functional Differences between E. coli and ESKAPE Pathogen GroES/GroEL

Jared Sivinski, Andrew J. Ambrose, Iliya Panfilenko, Christopher J. Zerio, Jason M. Machulis, Niloufar Mollasalehi, Lynn K. Kaneko, Mckayla Stevens, Anne-Marie Ray, Yangshin Park, Chunxiang Wu, Quyen Q. Hoang, Steven M. Johnson, Eli Chapman
Robert A. Bonomo, Editor
Jared Sivinski
aDepartment of Pharmacology and Toxicology, College of Pharmacy, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Andrew J. Ambrose
aDepartment of Pharmacology and Toxicology, College of Pharmacy, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Iliya Panfilenko
aDepartment of Pharmacology and Toxicology, College of Pharmacy, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Christopher J. Zerio
aDepartment of Pharmacology and Toxicology, College of Pharmacy, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Jason M. Machulis
aDepartment of Pharmacology and Toxicology, College of Pharmacy, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Niloufar Mollasalehi
bDepartment of Chemistry and Biochemistry, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, USA
cCenter for Innovation in Brain Science, Tucson, Arizona, USA
dDepartment of Pharmacology, College of Medicine, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Lynn K. Kaneko
aDepartment of Pharmacology and Toxicology, College of Pharmacy, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Mckayla Stevens
eDepartment of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Indiana, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Anne-Marie Ray
eDepartment of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Indiana, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Yangshin Park
eDepartment of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Indiana, USA
fStark Neurosciences Research Institute, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Indiana, USA
gDepartment of Neurology, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Indiana, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Chunxiang Wu
eDepartment of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Indiana, USA
fStark Neurosciences Research Institute, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Indiana, USA
gDepartment of Neurology, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Indiana, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Quyen Q. Hoang
eDepartment of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Indiana, USA
fStark Neurosciences Research Institute, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Indiana, USA
gDepartment of Neurology, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Indiana, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Steven M. Johnson
eDepartment of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Indiana, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Eli Chapman
aDepartment of Pharmacology and Toxicology, College of Pharmacy, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Eli Chapman
Robert A. Bonomo
Louis Stokes Veterans Affairs Medical Center
Roles: Editor
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
DOI: 10.1128/mBio.02167-20
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Article Figures & Data

Figures

  • Supplemental Material
  • FIG 1
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    FIG 1

    E. coli GroES/GroEL shares high amino acid identity and similarity with ESKAPE pathogens GroES/GroEL. Percentages of GroES/GroEL protein identity and similarity were generated from EMBOSS Needle protein alignment of E. coli GroES/GroEL and ESKAPE pathogen GroESL. (A) E. coli GroEL protein identity compared to ESKAPE GroEL. (B) E. coli GroEL protein similarity compared to ESKAPE GroEL. (C) E. coli GroES protein identity compared to ESKAPE GroES. (D) E. coli GroES protein similarity compared to ESKAPE GroES. EF, E. faecium; SA, S. aureus; KP, K. pneumoniae; AB, A. baumannii; PA, P. aeruginosa; EC, E. cloacae.

  • FIG 2
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    FIG 2

    Only K. pneumoniae, A. baumannii, and E. cloacae GroES/GroEL rescue GroES/GroEL-deficient E. coli. Shown is the LG6 colony number from antibiotic selection plate reported after transformation with individual ESKAPE pBAD-promoted groESL (Kmr) plasmid, E. coli pBAD groESL (Kmr) plasmid, or pBAD (Kmr) empty vector. LG6 (Cmr) did not grow on kanamycin plates. (A) With 0.2% arabinose/kanamycin. (B) With kanamycin only. (C) With 0.5% dextrose–kanamycin. (D) With 500 μM IPTG–0.2% arabinose–kanamycin. (E) With 500 μM IPTG–0.5% dextrose–kanamycin. (F) With 500 μM IPTG–kanamycin. Data represent at least three independent experiments and are reported as mean with standard deviation (SD). EF, E. faecium; SA, S. aureus; KP, K. pneumoniae; AB, A. baumannii; PA, P. aeruginosa; EC, E. cloacae; Coli, E. coli; EV, empty vector.

  • FIG 3
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    FIG 3

    All pBAD groESL plasmids from Gram-negative ESKAPE pathogens rescue transformed AI90 after the sacB pACYC E. coli groESL plasmid is counterselected. (A) Scheme of ESKAPE groESL plasmid shuffle into the E. coli groEL-null background AI90 strain. (B) AI90 colony number from 5% sucrose–0.2% arabinose–ampicillin selection plate reported after transformation with individual ESKAPE pBAD groESL (Ampr) plasmid, E. coli pBAD groESL (Ampr) plasmid, or pBAD (Ampr) empty vector. The symbol “#” indicates colonies were visualized on these plates but retained mutant sacB groEL plasmid. Results represent three independent experiments and are reported as mean with SD. (C) All Gram-negative ESKAPE pathogens rescued groEL-deficient AI90 after sacB pACYC groEL (Cmr) plasmid shuffle. Plasmids from surviving colonies after shuffle were isolated and run on 0.5% DNA gel. Ladder, DNA ladder; sacB, sacB pACYC E. coli groESL plasmid; Coli, pBAD E. coli groESL; EC, pBAD E. cloacae groESL; AB, pBAD A. baumannii groESL; KP, pBAD K. pneumoniae groESL plasmid; PA, pBAD P. aeruginosa groESL plasmid.

  • FIG 4
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    FIG 4

    Viable ESKAPE groESL knock-ins were generated by λ-red recombineering in MG1655. (A) Due to high sequence identity between ESKAPE pathogens and E. coli groESL, only MGΔgroESL::EF groESL (Camr) could be obtained from knock-in (lower groESL sequence homology compared to Gram-negative pathogens). From this knock-in, K. pneumoniae, A. baumannii, P. aeruginosa, and E. cloacae groESL knock-ins were generated. Full S. aureus groESL knock-in could not be obtained. (B) PCR products for MG1655 and knock-ins for all ESKAPE pathogens using primers flanking the groESL gene visualized on agarose gel. Coli, E. coli MG1655 WT groESL; EF, MGΔgroESL::EF groESL (Camr); SA, MGΔgroESL::SA groESL (Camr) partial knock-in; KP, MGΔgroESL::KP groESL (Camr); AB, MGΔgroESL::AB groESL (Camr); PA, MGΔgroESL::PA groESL (Camr); EC, MGΔgroESL::EC groESL (Camr).

  • FIG 5
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    FIG 5

    Coexpression of GroELESKAPE and E. coli GroELD473C/532Δ forms nonfunctional-tetradecameric GroEL hetero-oligomers. (A) GroELESKAPE was expressed in its respective knock-in strain (Fig. 4), purified by Q Sepharose FF (FFQ), and incubated with thiopropyl Sepharose (TPS) resin, but does not bind to resin. (B) GroELD473C/532Δ (cysteine and truncation mutant) was expressed in BL21, purified by FFQ, captured on TPS resin, and then eluted with increasing concentrations of DTT. (C) GroELESKAPE was coexpressed with GroELD473C/532Δ in BL21, purified by FFQ, captured on TPS resin, and then eluted with increasing concentrations of DTT. (D) GroELD473C/532Δ runs at a lower molecular weight than GroELESKAPE by SDS-PAGE. Captured hetero-oligomer DTT elution fractions, made up of GroELESKAPE and GroELD473C/532Δ displays two bands, representing a mixed-GroEL ring. (E) Denatured (DTT, heat, and SDS treated) or nondenatured samples were run on a 4 to 10% native gradient gel and visualized by Coomassie brilliant blue staining. The fractions analyzed were non-DTT fraction GroELP. aeruginosa (PA), DTT fraction GroELD473C/532Δ (532Δ), and DTT fraction GroELP. aeruginosa/D473C/532Δ mixed complex (PA/Δ). (F) Denatured (DTT, heat, and SDS treated) or native samples were run on a 4 to 10% native gradient gel and visualized by Coomassie brilliant blue staining. The fractions analyzed were non-DTT fraction GroELE. faecium (EF), DTT fraction GroELD473C/532Δ (532Δ), and DTT fraction GroELE. faecium/D473C/532Δ mixed complex (EF/Δ). (G) Malachite green ATPase assay using 50 nM GroEL and 100 μM ATP measured at 660 nm over time. Black, GroELD473C/532Δ; red, GroELP. aeruginosa; blue, GroELE. faecium; pink, GroELP. aeruginosa/D473C/532Δ; green, GroELE. faecium/D473C/532Δ; gold, ATP only (spontaneous ATP hydrolysis).

  • FIG 6
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    FIG 6

    ESKAPE GroEL domain replacement by E. coli GroEL domains produces functional chimeras capable of rescuing GroES/GroEL-deficient E. coli. Chimeras were tested for their ability to rescue LG6 in cases where ESKAPE GroEL formed a dominant-negative phenotype. All plasmids contain E. coli groES upstream of the groEL chimera. (A) E. coli GroEL tetradecamers and monomer (PDB 1SX3) with labeled apical (gray), intermediate (teal), and equatorial (forest green) domains. (B) Outline of GroEL domains from N to C terminus. Equatorial (EQ; forest green), intermediate (I; teal), and apical (A; gray) domains. (C) Replacing the P. aeruginosa (PA) equatorial domain with the E. coli (Coli) equatorial domain and replacing the E. faecium (EF) equatorial and apical domains with E. coli equatorial and apical domains produced viable (green checkmark) LG6 colonies when these chimeras were expressed from pBAD-promoted plasmids. All other chimeras could not rescue LG6 (red X mark).

  • FIG 7
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    FIG 7

    ESKAPE groESL knock-ins present with an elongated phenotype. MGΔgroESL::ESKAPEgroESL (Cmr) cells show an elongated phenotype at various temperatures compared to the parent strain, MG1655, between 24 and 42°C. The 400× images were captured for each strain after growth to mid-log phase in LB medium without antibiotic at stated temperatures. Coli, E. coli MG1655 at 24°C (left) and 42°C (right); EF, MGΔgroESL::EF groESL at 24°C (left) and 42°C (right); KP, MGΔgroESL::KP groESL at 24°C (left) and 42°C (right); AB, MGΔgroESL::AB groESL at 24°C (left) and 42°C (right); PA, MGΔgroESL::PA groESL at 24°C (left) and 42°C (right); EC, MGΔgroESL::EC groESL at 24°C (left) and 42°C (right). The scale bar represents 80.5 μm.

  • FIG 8
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    FIG 8

    ESKAPE groESL knock-ins display similar growth kinetics and GroES/GroEL induction at various temperatures compared to the parent strain. MG1655ΔgroESL::ESKAPE groESL (Cmr) shows similar growth kinetics and GroEL/ES induction compared to the parent strain, MG1655, between 24 and 42°C. In three independent experiments and reported as mean with SD, growth in LB medium without antibiotic at the stated temperature was measured by OD600 over time to determine growth rate of each individual strain. (A) Growth at 24°C. (B) Growth at 30°C. (C) Growth at 37°C. (D) Growth at 42°C. Black, MG1655; red, MGΔgroESL::EF groESL (Cmr); blue, MGΔgroESL::AB groESL (Cmr); green, MGΔgroESL::KP groESL (Cmr); pink, MGΔgroESL::PA groESL (Cmr); open/white, MGΔgroESL::EC groESL (Cmr). (E) Whole-cell lysates from E. coli and ESKAPE pathogens from MG1655 or knock-in strains expressing the respective GroES/GroEL were analyzed via SDS-PAGE. The black arrows indicate the positions of GroEL (upper) and GroES (lower). The lane numbers 24 and 42 represent 24 and 42°C for 5 min, respectively. Coli, E. coli; EF, MGΔgroESL::EF groESL; KP, MGΔgroESL::KP groESL; AB, MGΔgroESL::AB groESL; PA, MGΔgroESL::PA groESL; EC, MGΔgroESL::EC groESL.

  • FIG 9
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    FIG 9

    Dominant-negative phenotypes were observed either from hetero-oligomeric E. coli/ESKAPE GroEL or hetero-oligomeric GroES and GroEL, but complete replacement of E. coli groESL with ESKAPE groESL restored the organism’s viability and resulted in an elongated phenotype. The overall model is presented, including GroES/GroEL (PDB 1PCQ) showing E. coli GroES/GroEL (teal/forest green), ESKAPE GroES/GroEL (brick red/gray), and hetero-oligomeric GroES/GroEL (teal and brick red, forest green and gray) and viable (blue) or nonviable (red) E. coli cells with a normal or elongated phenotype.

Supplemental Material

  • Figures
  • TABLE S1

    E. coli shares high amino acid similarity with ESKAPE pathogensa. aGroESL protein similarity (%) generated from EMBOSS Needle protein alignment of E. coli GroESL and ESKAPE pathogens. (A) GroESL protein similarity (%). (B) GroES protein similarity (%). (C) GroEL protein similarity (%). Color gradient demonstrates highest similarity highlighted in red and lowest similarity in white. Download Table S1, PDF file, 0.1 MB.

    Copyright © 2021 Sivinski et al.

    This content is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license.

  • FIG S1

    Comparisons of the GroEL sequences from E. coli and the ESKAPE pathogens. The respective panels show GroEL sequence comparisons between E. coli 4pko.1.B with E. faecium (EF), S. aureus (SA), K. pneumoniae (KP), A. baumannii (AB), P. aeruginosa (PA), and E. cloacae (EC). Identical residues are shown in green, similar residues are shown in purple, and different residues are shown in red. Download FIG S1, PDF file, 0.4 MB.

    Copyright © 2021 Sivinski et al.

    This content is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license.

  • TABLE S2

    ESKAPE pathogen GroES/GroEL is predicted to be structurally similar with comparable net charge in their respective cellular environments compared to MG1655 GroES/GroELa. aIsoelectric point and molecular weight data were generated using the ExPASy Computer pI/MW data tool. Gram-positive bacteria (E. faecium and S. aureus) have overall fewer residues and a lower isoelectric point and lack the C-terminal GGM repeat compared to Gram-negative bacteria (K. pneumonia, A. baumannii, P. aeruginosa, E. cloacae, and E. coli). Download Table S2, PDF file, 0.05 MB.

    Copyright © 2021 Sivinski et al.

    This content is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license.

  • TABLE S3

    ESKAPE pathogen GroES/GroEL require less than 3% E. coli rare codons. CAIcal codon usage per 1,000 bp of ESKAPE and E. coli groESL. E. coli rare codons are highlighted in red, with relative codon usage per 1,000 bp quantified in blue. EF, E. faecium; SA, S. aureus; KP, K. pneumoniae; AB, A. baumannii; PA, P. aeruginosa; EC, E. cloacae; Coli, E. coli. Download Table S3, PDF file, 0.3 MB.

    Copyright © 2021 Sivinski et al.

    This content is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license.

PreviousNext
Back to top
Download PDF
Citation Tools
Functional Differences between E. coli and ESKAPE Pathogen GroES/GroEL
Jared Sivinski, Andrew J. Ambrose, Iliya Panfilenko, Christopher J. Zerio, Jason M. Machulis, Niloufar Mollasalehi, Lynn K. Kaneko, Mckayla Stevens, Anne-Marie Ray, Yangshin Park, Chunxiang Wu, Quyen Q. Hoang, Steven M. Johnson, Eli Chapman
mBio Jan 2021, 12 (1) e02167-20; DOI: 10.1128/mBio.02167-20

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Print

Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email

Thank you for sharing this mBio article.

NOTE: We request your email address only to inform the recipient that it was you who recommended this article, and that it is not junk mail. We do not retain these email addresses.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Functional Differences between E. coli and ESKAPE Pathogen GroES/GroEL
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from mBio
(Your Name) thought you would be interested in this article in mBio.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Share
Functional Differences between E. coli and ESKAPE Pathogen GroES/GroEL
Jared Sivinski, Andrew J. Ambrose, Iliya Panfilenko, Christopher J. Zerio, Jason M. Machulis, Niloufar Mollasalehi, Lynn K. Kaneko, Mckayla Stevens, Anne-Marie Ray, Yangshin Park, Chunxiang Wu, Quyen Q. Hoang, Steven M. Johnson, Eli Chapman
mBio Jan 2021, 12 (1) e02167-20; DOI: 10.1128/mBio.02167-20
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Top
  • Article
    • ABSTRACT
    • INTRODUCTION
    • RESULTS
    • DISCUSSION
    • MATERIALS AND METHODS
    • ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
    • FOOTNOTES
    • REFERENCES
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

KEYWORDS

antibiotic
antimicrobial
chaperone
chaperonin
ESKAPE
GroEL
GroES
HSP10
HSP60

Related Articles

Cited By...

About

  • About mBio
  • Editor in Chief
  • Board of Editors
  • AAM Fellows
  • Policies
  • For Reviewers
  • For the Media
  • For Librarians
  • For Advertisers
  • Alerts
  • RSS
  • FAQ
  • Permissions
  • Journal Announcements

Authors

  • ASM Author Center
  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Author Warranty
  • Article Types
  • Ethics
  • Contact Us

Follow #mBio

@ASMicrobiology

       

ASM Journals

ASM journals are the most prominent publications in the field, delivering up-to-date and authoritative coverage of both basic and clinical microbiology.

About ASM | Contact Us | Press Room

 

ASM is a member of

Scientific Society Publisher Alliance

 

American Society for Microbiology
1752 N St. NW
Washington, DC 20036
Phone: (202) 737-3600

Copyright © 2021 American Society for Microbiology | Privacy Policy | Website feedback

Online ISSN: 2150-7511