Hostname: page-component-89b8bd64d-nlwjb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-07T19:01:42.755Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Titratable residues that drive RND efflux: Insights from molecular simulations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 2024

Robert Clark
Affiliation:
Department of Biochemistry, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
Kahlan E. Newman
Affiliation:
School of Chemistry, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK
Syma Khalid*
Affiliation:
Department of Biochemistry, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK School of Chemistry, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK
*
Corresponding author: Syma Khalid; Email: syma.khalid@bioch.ox.ac.uk
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The resistance–nodulation–division efflux machinery confers antimicrobial resistance to Gram-negative bacteria by actively pumping antibiotics out of the cell. The protein complex is powered by proton motive force; however, the proton transfer mechanism itself and indeed even its stoichiometry is still unclear. Here we review computational studies from the last decade that focus on elucidating the number of protons transferred per conformational cycle of the pump. Given the difficulties in studying proton movement using even state-of-the-art structural biology methods, the contributions from computational studies have been invaluable from a mechanistic perspective.

Information

Type
Perspective
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution and reproduction, provided the original article is properly cited.
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2024. Published by Cambridge University Press
Figure 0

Figure 1. AcrB forms part of the tripartite multidrug efflux pump, AcrAB-TolC. (a) Surface representation of AcrAB-TolC (PDB ID: 5O66; Du et al.,2014) and its situation within the cell envelope of Gram-negative bacteria. AcrB sits within the inner membrane; TolC sits within the outer membrane; and AcrA is the periplasmic adaptor protein. Substrates, such as certain classes of antibiotics, are thought to enter AcrB either in the periplasm near the inner membrane, or from the outer leaflet of the inner membrane directly. Protons enter AcrB from a different entry point, and transit through the TMD to the cytoplasm. The precise mechanism of the proton relay is unclear. TolC is coloured in purple, AcrA is coloured in orange, AcrB is coloured according to state. The Access state is coloured pink, the Binding state is coloured yellow, and the Extrusion state is coloured in blue. (b) Cartoon representation of AcrB (PDB ID: 4DX5; Eicher et al., 2012). AcrB has three main domains: the Docking domain which interacts with AcrA; the Porter domain contains the drug entry site; and the Transmembrane domain uses the proton motive force to induce drug extrusion. The titratable residues thought to orchestrate proton transfer are shown in stick representation and coloured according to element.

Figure 1

Figure 2. Cartoon schematic of functional rotation and substrate transport through inner membrane RND transporter proteins. (a) Side-view of the RND protein in the inner membrane. (b) Top-down (from the periplasm) view of the porter domain. For visual clarity, protonation and drug extrusion are considered for a single protomer only. Substrates enter the proximal binding pocket of the Access protomer from the periplasm/periplasmic leaflet of the inner membrane. Substrate binding induces a conformational change in the protomer to the Binding state, and the substrate moves to the distal binding pocket. Protonation then occurs in the relay in the transmembrane domain, inducing a conformational change to the Extrusion state. The periplasmic cleft closes and the exit gate opens, allowing the substrate to exit into the periplasmic adaptor protein (not shown).

Figure 2

Figure 3. AcrB undergoes a conformational cycle that functionally connects the movement of protons through the protein to drug extrusion. (a) Porter domains of AcrB viewed from the periplasm, showing the different conformational changes that correspond to drug access, binding and extrusion. The Access state is coloured pink, the Binding state is coloured yellow, and the Extrusion state is coloured in blue. Adapted from Matsunaga et al. (2018). (b) Drugs are thought to move through the proximal binding pocket (purple) in the Access state, bind to the distal pocket (dark blue) in the Binding state, and leave through the exit gate (cyan) in the Extrusion state. A drug (minocycline), is shown moving through these different regions. The drug was placed manually in the Access and Extrusion states for illustrative purposes, but the position of the drug in the binding state comes from PDB ID:4DX5 (Eicher et al., 2012). The definition of the different regions comes from Vargiu and Nikaido (2012).

Figure 3

Figure 4. The titratable residues of AcrB adopt different configurations in different states. (a) Close-up view of key residues of the proton relay. Each image is rotated, so viewed from the same orientation. In the Access and Binding states the relay network is considered ‘engaged’, and in the Extrusion states the network is considered ‘disengaged’. Adapted from Matsunaga et al. (2018). (b) Inter-residue distances for residues in the proton relay network of Gram-negative bacterial RND protein structures deposited in the PDB (raw data and relevant references available in the Supplementary material). Distances were calculated as the shortest distance between side chain oxygen/nitrogen atoms, except for G403 where the backbone carbonyl oxygen was used. (c) Conformational transition from the Binding to the Extrusion state is proposed to proceed via one protonation event (D407/D408H) or two (D407H/D408H). Structures shown in (a) and (c) are of PDB ID: 4DX5.

Figure 4

Table 1. Varied pKa values were calculated for D407, D408 and K940 in the studies presented in the text

Supplementary material: File

Clark et al. supplementary material

Clark et al. supplementary material
Download Clark et al. supplementary material(File)
File 40 KB

Author comment: Titratable residues that drive RND efflux: Insights from molecular simulations — R0/PR1

Comments

Dear Editors,

Please find attached, a perspective/review on the insights gained from computational studies on the role of the ionisation states of titratable residues in bacterial RND efflux pumps. While the mechanism of action of these pumps has been investigated using many experimental and simulation methods over the years- we feel for this special edition of QRB Discovery, the aspect we have chosen is particularly pertinent as the calculations have provided insights that really would not have been possible with other methods.

Thank you for considering our manuscript.

Yours faithfully,

Syma Khalid

Oxford

Decision: Titratable residues that drive RND efflux: Insights from molecular simulations — R0/PR2

Comments

Minor revisions

Author comment: Titratable residues that drive RND efflux: Insights from molecular simulations — R1/PR3

Comments

We thank the reviewers for their constructive comments. We have modified the manuscript in accordance with their suggestions, and below we have responded directly to each point they raised.

Reviewer: 1

Comments to the Author

The manuscript provides an insightful review and commentary on the topic of protonation linked with drug transport in the RND family of transmembrane transporters. The focus is mostly on the AcrB homotrimer, for which structural data and simulation results are most advanced. This work presents a very nice overview of the most relevant computational research papers and development in the field. The paper is generally well written and structured and would be of interest to people in the community and the wider field.

There are only a few minor points which will hopefully be useful for the authors to consider:

Minor comments

1. Lines 103-15: “predicted that in the E state, D408 would be protonated 100% of the time and D407 90%”. Can it be briefly explained how this was devised from the simulations in the cited paper?

A brief description of the methodology used has been added (lines 100 to 106).

2. Lines 159-161: Please paraphrase instead of directly quoting (not very common for scientific papers).

We have changed the wording of this section to paraphrase the results rather than quoting the paper.

3. Overall, the content and information is nicely summarized. One minor consideration would be the writing style preference in some sections. The authors addressed frequently the findings from the papers by “e.g. line 117 their findings’’, “e.g. Line 161 the authors’’ , “the authors noted”. It may be worth rephrasing some of these in passive third voice as it will read easier.

We have changed the wording to the passive third voice in the majority of these instances.

Not a critical point, but something for the authors to reflect on is the puzzle of the apparent broad substrates recognition of the AcrB system, although it does seem to have preferences. Could this be something that simulation might explain in the future? Is there a process like recognition in a transport transition state that might be linked with proton movement?

We thank the reviewer for this thought-provoking comment. We note that there have been studies that support the idea that protonation and substrate presence/recognition are linked in some way. For example, the study of MtrD (Fairweather et al, 2021) showed that coordinated substrate binding (in two protomers) and protonation at the relay site were required for the conformation to change towards an asymmetric state. Additionally, Wang, Weng, and Wang (2015) presented simulations that suggest substrate presence accelerates the conformational cycling process. While it is not currently clear exactly how substrate recognition and protonation are linked, simulation studies have shown that there is some dependence between the two. An additional comment has been made in the conclusions to address this point (lines 342-346).

_____________________________________________________________________________________

Reviewer: 2

Comments to the Author

The mini-review by Clark, Newman, and Khalid summarizes several past studies applying molecular simulations to establish a mechanistic connection between proton transfer and conformational cycling in the AcrB efflux pump. The authors mostly focus on proton stoichiometry, critically reviewing studies that favor either a one-proton or two-proton pathway, and highlighting the former is better but not conclusively supported by the reports.

The article is well-written and reasonably comprehensive within its defined scope. My only major complaint concerns the somewhat scarce figures, leaving much of the mechanical discussion unvisualized, and perhaps hard to digest for a reader with little experience with the system in question.

Below I’m listing specific issues or questions for the Authors:

- The proximal/distal binding pockets, as well as the exit gate, should be visualized or labeled if the discussion of the mechanism is to give the reader a proper structural context.

We thank the reviewer for their feedback on the figures. In response, we have split up existing figures, generated additional panels, and added a new figure. What is now Figure 3 addresses this particular point. Panel B displays a single protomer of AcrB, with the residues lining the two pockets and the exit gate shown to add context to discussion around domain motions, binding pockets, and functional rotation.

- The notation D408H/D407H in Fig 2 should be revised so as not to be confused with aspartate-histidine mutations.

The notation in this figure (now Figure 4, panel C) has been changed: the H that indicates protonation is now superscript.

- For the comparison of pKas predicted by PROPKA v3.5 for 2DHH and 4DX5, it would be interesting to know the sensitivity of the prediction to equilibrium fluctuations, i.e. whether the two numbers reasonably correspond to samples from the same equilibrium ensemble, or indicate some meaningful structural difference between the experimentally resolved states.

In the conclusion we have made additional comments to address these points (lines 334-336, 338-341). 2DHH and 4DX5 did use different crystallisation conditions and have different ligands present, and the resolution of the two structures is different. We also note that pKa estimation approaches discussed in this review, including PROPKA and electrostatics-based methods, are prone to inaccuracies; it is challenging to know exactly from where the differences originate.

- When the phrase “functional rotation” is introduced, some background, perhaps visual, should be first given on how the conformational transitions entail a (partial) rotation of the subunits; this is to avoid readers thinking about truly rotating elements in the complex.

We have added an additional figure (now Figure 2) to summarise the functional rotation mechanism in cartoon form, with protomers labelled to make it clear that each individual protomer cycles the A, B, and E states rather than the whole complex rotating.

- When mentioning “restraints on collective variables”, given how unphysiologically high the reported free energy difference is, it would be interesting to briefly mention which CVs were constrained (rotamers? distances?).

We have added a brief summary of the collective variables selected in that paper on lines 304 to 306.

- Overall, it would be nice to include a separate figure with a summary of proposed mechanisms, perhaps accommodating all above requests for additional visualizations or labels.

As discussed, addressing the above comments, we have added an additional figure and panels to existing figures. Figure 3B displays the binding pockets and exit gates for drug extrusion. Figure 2 summarises the functional rotation mechanism in cartoon form, with proton transfer indicated for the protomer of interest. Figure 4C displays the proposed protonation states.

Decision: Titratable residues that drive RND efflux: Insights from molecular simulations — R1/PR4

Comments

No accompanying comment.