Identification and characterization of the biochemical function of Agrobacterium T-complex-recruiting protein Atu5117

The Divergent Key Residues of Two Agrobacterium fabrum (tumefaciens) CheY Paralogs Play a Key Role in Distinguishing Their Functions

The chemotactic response regulator CheY, when phosphorylated by the phosphoryl group from phosphorylated CheA, can bind to the motor switch complex to control the flagellar motor rotation. Agrobacterium fabrum (previous name: Agrobacterium tumefaciens), a phytopathogen, carries two paralogous cheY genes, cheY1 and cheY2. The functional difference of two paralogous CheYs remains unclear. Three cheY-deletion mutants were constructed to test the effects of two CheYs on the chemotaxis of A.fabrum. Phenotypes of three cheY-deletion mutants show that deletion of each cheY significantly affects the chemotactic response, but cheY2-deletion possesses more prominent effects on the chemotactic migration and swimming pattern of A. fabrum than does cheY1-deletion. CheA-dependent cellular localization of two CheY paralogs and in vitro pull-down of two CheY paralogs by FliM demonstrate that the distinct roles of two CheY paralogs arise mainly from the differentiation of their binding affinities for the motor switch component FliM, agreeing with the divergence of the key residues on the motor-binding surface involved in the interaction with FliM. The single respective replacements of key residues R93 and A109 on the motor-binding surface of CheY2 by alanine (A) and valine (V), the corresponding residues of CheY1, significantly enhanced the function of CheY2 in regulating the chemotactic response of A. fabrum CheY-deficient mutant Δy to nutrient substances and host attractants. These results conclude that the divergence of the key residues in the functional subdomain is the decisive factor of functional differentiation of these two CheY homologs and protein function may be improved by the substitution of the divergent key residues in the functional domain for the corresponding residues of its paralogs. This finding will help us to better understand how paralogous proteins sub-functionalize. In addition, the acquirement of two CheY2 variants, whose chemotactic response functions are significantly improved, will be very useful for us to further explore the mechanism of CheY to bind and regulate the flagellar motor and the role of chemotaxis in the pathogenicity of A. fabrum.

Agrobacterium-mediated horizontal gene transfer: Mechanism, biotechnological application, potential risk and forestalling strategy

The extraordinary capacity of Agrobacterium to transfer its genetic material to host cell makes it evolve from phytopathogen to a powerful transgenic vector. Agrobacterium-mediated stable transformation is widely used as the preferred method to create transgenic plants for molecular plant biology research and crop breeding. Recent years, both mechanism and application of Agrobacterium-mediated horizontal gene transfer have made significant progresses, especially Agrobacterium-mediated transient transformation was developed for plant biotechnology industry to produce recombinant proteins. Agrobacterium strains are almost used and saved not only by each of microbiology and molecular plant labs, but also by many of plant biotechnology manufacturers. Agrobacterium is able to transfer its genetic material to a broad range of hosts, including plant and non-plant hosts. As a consequence, the concern of environmental risk associated with the accidental release of genetically modified Agrobacterium arises. In this article, we outline the recent progress in the molecular mechanism of Agrobacterium-meditated gene transfer, focus on the application of Agrobacterium-mediated horizontal gene transfer, and review the potential risk associated with Agrobacterium-meditated gene transfer. Based on the comparison between the infecting process of Agrobacterium as a pathogen and the transgenic process of Agrobacterium as a transgenic vector, we realize that chemotaxis is the distinct difference between these two biological processes and thus discuss the possible role of chemotaxis in forestalling the potential risk of Agrobacterium-meditated horizontal gene transfer to non-target plant species.

Two Agrobacterium tumefaciens CheW Proteins Are Incorporated into One Chemosensory Pathway with Different Efficiencies

Agrobacterium tumefaciens is the agent that causes crown gall tumor disease on more than 140 species of dicotyledonous plants. Chemotaxis of A. tumefaciens toward the wound sites of the host plant is the first step to recognize the host. CheW is a coupling protein that bridges the histidine kinase CheA and the chemoreceptors to form the chemotaxis core signaling complex and plays a crucial role in the assembly and function of the large chemosensory array. Unlike all previously reported chemotaxis systems, A. tumefaciens has only one major che operon but two cheW homologs (atu2075 as cheW₁ and atu2617 as cheW₂) on unlinked loci. The in-frame deletion of either cheW gene significantly affects A. tumefaciens chemotaxis but does not abolish the chemotaxis, unless both cheW genes were deleted. The effect of cheW₂ deletion on the chemotaxis is more severe than that of cheW₁ deletion. Either CheW can interact with CheA and couple it to the cell poles. The promoter activity of cheW₂ is always higher than that of cheW₁ under all of the tested conditions. When two cheW genes were adjusted to the same expression level by using the identical promoter, the difference between the effects of two CheW proteins on the chemotaxis still existed. Therefore, we envision that both the different molecular ratio of two CheW proteins in cell and the different affinities of two CheW proteins with CheA and chemoreceptors result in the efficiency difference of two CheW proteins in functioning in the large chemosensory array.

Is there any crosstalk between the chemotaxis and virulence induction signaling in Agrobacterium tumefaciens?

Agrobacterium tumefaciens, a soil-born phytopathogenic bacterium, is well known as a nature's engineer due to its ability to genetically transform the host by transferring a DNA fragment (called T-DNA) from its Ti plasmid to host-cell genome. To combat the harsh soil environment and seek the appropriate host, A. tumefaciens can sense and be attracted by a large number of chemical compounds released by wounded host. As a member of α-proteobacterium, A. tumefaciens has a chemotaxis system different from that found in Escherichia coli, since many chemoattractants for A. tumefaciens chemotaxis are virulence (vir) inducers. However, advances in the study of the chemotaxis paradigm, E. coli chemotaxis system, have provided enough information to analyze the A. tumefaciens chemotaxis. At low concentration, chemoattractants elicit A. tumefaciens chemotaxis and attract the species to the wound sites of the host. At high concentration, chemoattractants induce the expression of virulence genes and trigger T-DNA transfer. Recent studies on the VirA and ChvE of the vir-induction system provide some evidences to support the crosstalk between chemotaxis and vir-induction. This review compares the core components of chemotaxis signaling system of A. tumefaciens with those observed in other species, discusses the connection between chemotaxis and vir-induction in A. tumefaciens, and proposes a model depicting the signaling crosstalk between chemotaxis and vir-induction.

Expression of Agrobacterium Homolog Genes Encoding T-complex Recruiting Protein under Virulence Induction Conditions

The proteins encoded by three Agrobacterial genes, atu5117, atu4860, and atu4856, are highly homologous to each other in amino acid sequence. All three proteins can bind to VirD2 and are named VBP1, VBP2, and VBP3 (VirD2-binding protein), respectively. VBP is involved in T-DNA transfer by recruiting the T-complex from the cytosol to the polar transport apparatus T4SS (type IVsecretion system) and is defined as the “T-complex recruiting protein.” However, it remains unknown how these three homologous genes co-exist in a relatively small prokaryotic genome. To understand whether these three homologous genes are expressed differentially under virulence induction conditions, we examined the effects of virulence induction conditions, including various pH values, temperatures and acetosyringone (AS, an effective virulence inducer to Agrobacterium tumefaciens) concentrations, on the expression of the three VBP-encoding genes. Our data showed that vbp1 (atu5117) and vbp3 (atu4856) maintained constant expression under the tested induction conditions, whereas the expression of vbp2 (atu4860) was affected by the conditions. Culture conditions favorable to the expression of vbp2 differed from the reported induction conditions for other virulence proteins. In particular, the pH value was a crucial factor for the expression of vbp2. In addition, the deletion of vbp1 affected the expression of vbp2. Taken together, these results suggest that the mechanisms regulating the expression of these three homologous genes are different from the virulence induction mechanism and that VBP homologs are presumably involved in other biological processes in addition to T-complex recruitment.