Bacterial sensors define intracellular free energies for correct enzyme metalation.

There is a challenge for metalloenzymes to acquire their correct metals because some inorganic elements form more stable complexes with proteins than do others. These preferences can be overcome provided some metals are more available than others. However, while the total amount of cellular metal can be readily measured, the available levels of each metal have been more difficult to define. Metal-sensing transcriptional regulators are tuned to the intracellular availabilities of their cognate ions. Here we have determined the standard free energy for metal complex formation to which each sensor, in a set of bacterial metal sensors, is attuned: the less competitive the metal, the less favorable the free energy and hence the greater availability to which the cognate allosteric mechanism is tuned. Comparing these free energies with values derived from the metal affinities of a metalloprotein reveals the mechanism of correct metalation exemplified here by a cobalt chelatase for vitamin B12.

The Effectors and Sensory Sites of Formaldehyde-responsive Regulator FrmR and Metal-sensing Variant.

The DUF156 family of DNA-binding transcriptional regulators includes metal sensors that respond to cobalt and/or nickel (RcnR, InrS) or copper (CsoR) plus CstR, which responds to persulfide, and formaldehyde-responsive FrmR. Unexpectedly, the allosteric mechanism of FrmR from Salmonella enterica serovar Typhimurium is triggered by metals in vitro, and variant FrmR(E64H) gains responsiveness to Zn(II) and cobalt in vivo Here we establish that the allosteric mechanism of FrmR is triggered directly by formaldehyde in vitro Sensitivity to formaldehyde requires a cysteine (Cys(35) in FrmR) conserved in all DUF156 proteins. A crystal structure of metal- and formaldehyde-sensing FrmR(E64H) reveals that an FrmR-specific amino-terminal Pro(2) is proximal to Cys(35), and these residues form the deduced formaldehyde-sensing site. Evidence is presented that implies that residues spatially close to the conserved cysteine tune the sensitivities of DUF156 proteins above or below critical thresholds for different effectors, generating the semblance of specificity within cells. Relative to FrmR, RcnR is less responsive to formaldehyde in vitro, and RcnR does not sense formaldehyde in vivo, but reciprocal mutations FrmR(P2S) and RcnR(S2P), respectively, impair and enhance formaldehyde reactivity in vitro Formaldehyde detoxification by FrmA requires S-(hydroxymethyl)glutathione, yet glutathione inhibits formaldehyde detection by FrmR in vivo and in vitro Quantifying the number of FrmR molecules per cell and modeling formaldehyde modification as a function of [formaldehyde] demonstrates that FrmR reactivity is optimized such that FrmR is modified and frmRA is derepressed at lower [formaldehyde] than required to generate S-(hydroxymethyl)glutathione. Expression of FrmA is thereby coordinated with the accumulation of its substrate.

Generating a Metal-responsive Transcriptional Regulator to Test What Confers Metal Sensing in Cells.

FrmR from Salmonella enterica serovar typhimurium (a CsoR/RcnR-like transcriptional de-repressor) is shown to repress the frmRA operator-promoter, and repression is alleviated by formaldehyde but not manganese, iron, cobalt, nickel, copper, or Zn(II) within cells. In contrast, repression by a mutant FrmRE64H (which gains an RcnR metal ligand) is alleviated by cobalt and Zn(II). Unexpectedly, FrmR was found to already bind Co(II), Zn(II), and Cu(I), and moreover metals, as well as formaldehyde, trigger an allosteric response that weakens DNA affinity. However, the sensory metal sites of the cells' endogenous metal sensors (RcnR, ZntR, Zur, and CueR) are all tighter than FrmR for their cognate metals. Furthermore, the endogenous metal sensors are shown to out-compete FrmR. The metal-sensing FrmRE64H mutant has tighter metal affinities than FrmR by approximately 1 order of magnitude. Gain of cobalt sensing by FrmRE64H remains enigmatic because the cobalt affinity of FrmRE64H is substantially weaker than that of the endogenous cobalt sensor. Cobalt sensing requires glutathione, which may assist cobalt access, conferring a kinetic advantage. For Zn(II), the metal affinity of FrmRE64H approaches the metal affinities of cognate Zn(II) sensors. Counter-intuitively, the allosteric coupling free energy for Zn(II) is smaller in metal-sensing FrmRE64H compared with nonsensing FrmR. By determining the copies of FrmR and FrmRE64H tetramers per cell, then estimating promoter occupancy as a function of intracellular Zn(II) concentration, we show how a modest tightening of Zn(II) affinity, plus weakened DNA affinity of the apoprotein, conspires to make the relative properties of FrmRE64H (compared with ZntR and Zur) sufficient to sense Zn(II) inside cells.

Fine control of metal concentrations is necessary for cells to discern zinc from cobalt.

Bacteria possess transcription factors whose DNA-binding activity is altered upon binding to specific metals, but metal binding is not specific in vitro. Here we show that tight regulation of buffered intracellular metal concentrations is a prerequisite for metal specificity of Zur, ZntR, RcnR and FrmR in Salmonella Typhimurium. In cells, at non-inhibitory elevated concentrations, Zur and ZntR, only respond to Zn(II), RcnR to cobalt and FrmR to formaldehyde. However, in vitro all these sensors bind non-cognate metals, which alters DNA binding. We model the responses of these sensors to intracellular-buffered concentrations of Co(II) and Zn(II) based upon determined abundances, metal affinities and DNA affinities of each apo- and metalated sensor. The cognate sensors are modelled to respond at the lowest concentrations of their cognate metal, explaining specificity. However, other sensors are modelled to respond at concentrations only slightly higher, and cobalt or Zn(II) shock triggers mal-responses that match these predictions. Thus, perfect metal specificity is fine-tuned to a narrow range of buffered intracellular metal concentrations.

Unique Responses are Observed in Transient Receptor Potential Ankyrin 1 and Vanilloid 1 (TRPA1 and TRPV1) Co-Expressing Cells.

Transient receptor potential (TRP) ankyrin 1 (TRPA1) and vanilloid 1 (TRPV1) receptors are implicated in modulation of cough and nociception. In vivo, TRPA1 and TRPV1 are often co-expressed in neurons and TRPA1V1 hetero-tetramer formation is noted in cells co-transfected with the respective expression plasmids. In order to understand the impact of TRP receptor interaction on activity, we created stable cell lines expressing the TRPA1, TRPV1 and co-expressing the TRPA1 and TRPV1 (TRPA1V1) receptors. Among the 600 compounds screened against these receptors, we observed a number of compounds that activated the TRPA1, TRPV1 and TRPA1V1 receptors; compounds that activated TRPA1 and TRPA1V1; compounds that activated TRPV1 and TRPA1V1; compounds in which TRPA1V1 response was modulated by either TRPA1 or TRPV1; and compounds that activated only TRPV1 or TRPA1 or TRPA1V1; and one compound that activated TRPA1 and TRPV1, but not TRPA1V1. These results suggest that co-expression of TRPA1 and TRPV1 receptors imparts unique activation profiles different from that of cells expressing only TRPA1 or TRPV1.

Trace analysis of bromate in potato snacks using high-performance liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry.

A simple, sensitive, and selective high-performance liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (HPLC-MS/MS) method in the negative-ion electrospray ionization (ESI(-)) mode was validated for the quantitation of bromate (BrO(3)(-)) in potato snacks. Ground snack specimens ( approximately 0.5 g/sample) are spiked with Br(18)O(3)(-), stable-isotope labeled bromate internal standard (IS), and vortexed with a mixture of distilled/deionized water (dd water) and heptane. Subsequently, the specimens are centrifuged, and a small portion of the aqueous extract is isolated, diluted with dd water (1:4), and analyzed by HPLC-MS/MS. The methodology has a quantitation range of 10-1000 ppb, an accuracy of 1.5-7.5%, and a precision of 5.2-13.4% across the concentration range.