Effects of synthetic cohesin-containing scaffold protein architecture on binding dockerin-enzyme fusions on the surface of Lactococcus lactis
© Wieczorek and Martin; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2012
Received: 5 July 2012
Accepted: 5 December 2012
Published: 15 December 2012
The microbial synthesis of fuels, commodity chemicals, and bioactive compounds necessitates the assemblage of multiple enzyme activities to carry out sequential chemical reactions, often via substrate channeling by means of multi-domain or multi-enzyme complexes. Engineering the controlled incorporation of enzymes in recombinant protein complexes is therefore of interest. The cellulosome of Clostridium thermocellum is an extracellular enzyme complex that efficiently hydrolyzes crystalline cellulose. Enzymes interact with protein scaffolds via type 1 dockerin/cohesin interactions, while scaffolds in turn bind surface anchor proteins by means of type 2 dockerin/cohesin interactions, which demonstrate a different binding specificity than their type 1 counterparts. Recombinant chimeric scaffold proteins containing cohesins of different specificity allow binding of multiple enzymes to specific sites within an engineered complex.
We report the successful display of engineered chimeric scaffold proteins containing both type 1 and type 2 cohesins on the surface of Lactococcus lactis cells. The chimeric scaffold proteins were able to form complexes with the Escherichia coli β-glucuronidase fused to either type 1 or type 2 dockerin, and differences in binding efficiencies were correlated with scaffold architecture. We used E. coli β-galactosidase, also fused to type 1 or type 2 dockerins, to demonstrate the targeted incorporation of two enzymes into the complexes. The simultaneous binding of enzyme pairs each containing a different dockerin resulted in bi-enzymatic complexes tethered to the cell surface. The sequential binding of the two enzymes yielded insights into parameters affecting assembly of the complex such as protein size and position within the scaffold.
The spatial organization of enzymes into complexes is an important strategy for increasing the efficiency of biochemical pathways. In this study, chimeric protein scaffolds consisting of type 1 and type 2 cohesins anchored on the surface of L. lactis allowed for the controlled positioning of dockerin-fused reporter enzymes onto the scaffolds. By binding single enzymes or enzyme pairs to the scaffolds, our data also suggest that the size and relative positions of enzymes can affect the catalytic profiles of the resulting complexes. These insights will be of great value as we engineer more advanced scaffold-guided protein complexes to optimize biochemical pathways.
The spatial organization of enzymes through compartmentalization in organelles, co-localization on membranes or assembly in complexes using protein scaffolds or fusions plays an important role in controlling the flow of metabolites in a cell [1, 2]. Spatially organized multi-enzyme pathways can serve many functions such as substrate channeling to reduce the loss of intermediates to competing side reactions. Channeling can also be used to prevent the accumulation of toxic or unstable metabolites . Higher localized concentration of proteins and metabolites, dubbed molecular crowding, also decreases product/reactant diffusion and increases yields and rates of metabolite production . Spatial organization is also used to control the stoichiometry of the proteins that make up the complex and to protect proteins from degradation . Synergism between enzymes in a complex can also result in an activity that is higher than the sum of its parts, as demonstrated by cellulosomes . Inspired by nature and driven by the need to achieve high production yields in industrial microbes, metabolic engineers have started tinkering with the spatial organization of enzymes in cells using synthetic protein scaffolds and organelles [5–7].
Cellulosomes have been a significant source of inspiration for the engineering of extracellular protein scaffolds [8–11]. Cellulosomes are protein complexes comprised of a multitude of hydrolytic enzymes with varying catalytic properties that associate with a central scaffold protein to enhance synergy when degrading cellulose [12, 13]. In Clostridium thermocellum, the scaffold protein CipA is anchored to the cell surface via anchor proteins such as OlpB and SdbA [14, 15], yielding an extra level of synergy resulting from cellulose-enzyme-microbe (CEM) ternary complexes [16–23]. The assembly of the protein complex is mediated via interactions of non-catalytic dockerin and cohesin domains, where type 1 and type 2 domains exhibit distinctive binding specificities, as do dockerin and cohesin partners from different species . Cellulosomal enzymes carry type 1 dockerin (dock1) domains and interact with any of the nine type 1 cohesin (coh1) domains found on CipA , while CipA itself has a type 2 dockerin (dock2), which interacts with type 2 cohesins (coh2) on anchor proteins OlpB and SdbA [14, 15].
Recombinant mini-cellulosomes have been assembled in vitro from individual components produced separately in Escherichia coli and Bacillus subtilis[8, 9, 24–26]. The in vivo assembly of similar complexes has also been achieved in hosts such as Clostridium acetobutylicum and B. subtilis where proteins were targeted for secretion into the supernatant [10, 27, 28]. The successful anchoring of functional mini-cellulosomes on the surface of Saccharomyces cerevisiae has been described as well, for the purpose of converting cellulose to ethanol [11, 29–31]. In these studies, chimeric scaffolds were engineered by combining type 1 cohesins from different bacterial species, or with other non-cohesin ligand-binding domains.
UidA-dock1 binds to coh2O2-coh1C3 chimeric proteins displayed on L. Lactis
To test the functionality of the coh2O2 domain within the chimeric scaffolds, similar binding assays were carried out using UidA fused to a type 2 dockerin domain isolated from CipA (UidA-dock2). It has been previously demonstrated that OlpB is surface displayed on C. thermocellum and successfully binds the dock2 domain of CipA [15, 47]. Surprisingly, the chimeric scaffolds containing the coh2O2 domain did not bind UidA-dock2 (Figure 2, white bars). All scaffolds lacking coh2O2 failed to bind UidA-dock2 as well. From these results, we hypothesized that either coh2O2 or dock2 were incapable of folding into their functional form when fused with CBD (alone or fused to coh1C3) or UidA, respectively. Since all tri-modular chimeric proteins did successfully bind UidA-dock1, we concluded that the lack of interaction of UidA-dock2 with the scaffolds was not due to lack of expression and secretion of the chimeric scaffold proteins, although fusion with coh2O2 did result in a two-fold reduction in successful scaffold secretion and anchoring. Background β-glucuronidase activity was slightly higher when using UidA-dock2 than when using UidA-dock1 (Figure 2). This residual β-glucuronidase activity can be attributed to a slightly higher non-specific adherence of UidA-dock2 to cells since binding of the fusion protein to the plasmid-free L. lactis strain showed similar levels of activity (data not shown). Based on these results, we sought to test if substitution of the type 2 cohesin domain in the chimeric scaffold would result in successful binding to UidA-dock2.
CBD-coh1C3-coh2S1 chimeric scaffold binds UidA-dockerin fusion proteins
CBD-coh1C3-coh2S1 chimeric scaffold binds LacZ-dockerin fusion proteins
Simultaneous binding of UidA- and LacZ-dockerin fusions to chimeric protein scaffolds
The incubation of cells displaying the CBD-coh1C3-coh2S1 scaffold with an enzyme mixture consisting of equimolar amounts of both UidA-dock1 and LacZ-dock2 resulted in the successful assembly of a two-enzyme complex tethered to the surface of L. lactis. These results demonstrated that the architecture of the synthetic scaffold could accommodate both enzymes at the respective coh1C3 and coh2S1 sites. Comparisons in activity were made when each enzyme was targeted to the displayed scaffold independently, or when the two enzymes were bound simultaneously. Binding UidA-dock1 to the coh1C3 domain on the scaffold resulted in increased activity when compared with UidA-dock2 binding to the coh2S1 domain (Figure 4A, C), and this result was also observed when binding LacZ-dock1 and LacZ-dock2 to these same cohesin domains (Figure 4B, D). Since in our construct, coh1C3 is closer to the N-terminus of the protein, whereas coh2S1 is adjacent to the C-terminal cwa, it is possible that a greater protruding length of the scaffold exposing coh1C3 may have improved binding at this cohesin domain. The simultaneous binding of both UidA-dock1 and LacZ-dock2 resulted in a fivefold decrease in UidA activity compared to complexes containing UidA-dock1 alone (Figure 4A). In contrast, complexes containing both enzymes showed no significant (p>0.05, student’s T-test) decrease in LacZ activity when compared to complexes containing LacZ-dock2 alone (Figure 4B). To gain insight into the drop in enzyme activity observed for the two-enzyme complex, cells expressing the same scaffold were incubated with equimolar amounts of LacZ-dock1 and UidA-dock2, targeting the same enzymes to opposite cohesins. As observed previously, the simultaneous docking of both enzymes resulted in a decrease (two-fold) in UidA activity compared to the scaffolds to which only UidA-dock2 was bound (Figure 4C). Once more, no significant (p>0.05, student’s T-test) decrease in LacZ activity was observed for complexes containing both enzymes when compared with complexes containing LacZ-dock1 alone (Figure 4D).
Sequential binding of UidA- and LacZ-dockerin fusions to chimeric protein scaffolds
In a previous study, we reported on strains of L. lactis that successfully displayed type 1 cohesins on their surface, and demonstrated their ability to bind the β-glucuronidase-dockerin fusion protein UidA-dock1 . In this study, chimeric scaffold proteins consisting of cohesins from CipA and OlpB or SdbA were successfully displayed on the surface of L. lactis, however only CipA-SdbA chimeric scaffolds were capable of binding both UidA-dock1 and UidA-dock2, suggesting that either improper folding or inaccessibility of coh2O2 may have prevented its association with UidA-dock2. Previous studies have demonstrated that scaffold proteins derived from bacteria that anchor their cellulosome to the cell surface such as C. thermocellum, Ruminococcus flavifaciens, and Acetivibrio cellulolyticus, contain long inter-cohesin linkers (50–550 residues) compared to cellulosomes from organisms which do not anchor their cellulosomes such as Clostridium cellulolyticum (10 residues) [12, 48, 49]. It has also been proposed that linkers joining cohesins within CipA may increase the protein’s conformational flexibility . With the goal of improving coh2O2 accessibility for dockerin binding, scaffold-derived linkers were engineered in our synthetic scaffolds (Figure 1A), however no significant difference in enzyme binding at either cohesin was observed (Figure 2). Since the scaffolds were successfully displayed on the cell surface, we hypothesize that either improper folding of the scaffold protein may have resulted from unfavorable ionic interactions among amino acid residues, or that the coh2O2 domain remained buried within protein aggregates, ultimately inhibiting this cohesin’s ability to bind corresponding dockerin [51, 52]. In addition, deletion of the HtrA housekeeping protease in our strain may account for the misfolded proteins remaining associated with the cell surface . It has also been previously demonstrated that targeting recombinant fusion proteins to the cell wall of L. lactis can cause problems with secretion, anchoring, and/or folding .
Since the inclusion of linkers exterior to the coh2O2 domain did not result in binding of UidA-dock2 to the chimeric scaffolds, we replaced coh2O2 with coh2S1 and found that the resulting scaffold could bind UidA-dock1 and UidA-dock2 demonstrating that both cohesin domains were accessible and functional. SdbA differs from OlpB in that it contains one rather than four cohesins, as well as a lysine-rich region downstream of coh2S1 that shares a high degree of homology to a similar lysine-rich region of streptococcal M proteins located in our cwaM6, just upstream of the LPXTG sequence . We postulate that incorporating coh2S1 adjacent to the anchor motif of streptococcal M6 protein may emulate some structural characteristics found in the native SdbA anchor protein of the C. thermocellum cellulosome, resulting in improved accessibility for UidA-dock2 binding. A total of four variant scaffolds (Figure 1B) containing both a type 1 and type 2 cohesin (CBD-coh1C3-coh2S1), only a type 1 cohesin (CBD-coh1C3), only a type 2 cohesin (CBD-coh2S1) or no cohesin (CBD alone) were tested for their ability to bind UidA-dock1 and/or UidA-dock2. Cells displaying CBD-coh1C3 were successful in binding UidA-dock1 but failed to bind UidA-dock2, while cells displaying CBD-coh2S1 successfully bound UidA-dock2 but failed to bind UidA-dock1, demonstrating the specificity of the interaction (Figure 3). Cells displaying the larger trimodular scaffold CBD-coh1C3-coh2S1 were capable of binding both UidA-dock1 and UidA-dock2. Interestingly, in the case of these larger scaffolds, the amounts of UidA-dock1 and UidA-dock2 molecules bound was greater when compared with cells displaying the smaller scaffolds CBD-coh1C3 and CBD-coh2S1, respectively (Figure 3). One possible explanation is that CBD-coh1C3-coh2S1 is secreted or displayed with increased efficiency, as in a previous study, we also demonstrated that increased scaffold protein size did not reduce the efficiency of scaffold display or functionality . It also remains possible that better folding of each respective cohesin domain within CBD-coh1C3-coh2S1, when compared with the other constructs, may account for its ability to bind more UidA-dockerin fusion proteins.
Having determined the number of each UidA-dockerin fusion bound to displayed scaffold CBD-coh1C3-coh2S1, we analyzed their relative abundance within the assembled complexes, since protein ratios can ultimately have an effect on enzyme synergy and substrate-channeling [6, 26]. Assuming a 1:1 cohesin to dockerin binding ratio, it would be expected that CBD-coh1C3-coh2S1 should bind equimolar amounts of UidA-dock1 and UidA-dock2. The resulting ratio deviated from this prediction, since the UidA-dock1 / UidA-dock2 ratio approached 4:1 (Figure 3). In a previous study, the assembly of chimeric scaffold-derived enzyme complexes on the surface of Saccharomyces cerevisiae also resulted in deviations from expected ratios of enzymes, as cellobiohydrolase CBHII associated with scaffolds at lower levels than other enzymes . We therefore suggest that variability in the proper folding and/or accessibility of individual cohesin domains within a chimeric scaffold may affect binding of the enzymes to the scaffold.
To gain further insight into factors affecting protein binding to our synthetic scaffold proteins, we “docked” individual enzymes simultaneously or sequentially onto the chimeric CBD-coh1C3-coh2S1 protein. When simultaneously binding UidA-dock1 and LacZ-dock2 to the scaffold, an approximate five-fold decrease in UidA activity was observed compared to the binding of UidA-dock1 alone whereas no significant decrease in LacZ activity was observed in these assays (Figure 4). We hypothesize that the different effects on UidA and LacZ binding and/or activity may be due to either the location of the cohesin within the scaffold, to the size of each enzyme relative to the other, or differences in binding affinities between the two recombinant cohesin-dockerin interactions. Therefore, a similar binding assay was performed where the location of the cohesins on the scaffold protein was reversed. Similarly, UidA activity was two-fold lower when incorporated in the presence of LacZ-dock1, and once again, no significant change in LacZ activity was observed when incorporated in the presence of UidA-dock2 (Figure 4). Since LacZ is significantly larger than UidA (480 kDa vs 280 kDa), this suggests that enzyme size may result in steric factors inhibiting the binding of one enzyme partner, and that the relative location of each enzyme did not seem to play a role in the resulting activities when enzymes were incorporated simultaneously.
Sequential enzyme binding assays gave similar results as simultaneous binding assays where more than a two-fold decrease in UidA activity resulted when LacZ-dock2 was bound to the scaffold prior to UidA-dock1 addition. Contrarily, although LacZ activity decreased significantly when UidA-dock1 was bound to the scaffold protein prior to LacZ-dock2, reversing this order resulted in the same LacZ activity as when LacZ-dock2 alone was targeted to the scaffold (Figure 5). To verify if enzyme location also affected the overall resulting activity of the complex, the location of each enzyme partner was reversed. UidA activity decreased when LacZ-dock1 was incorporated prior to UidA-dock2, and this activity was only partially regained when the order of assembly was reversed (Figure 5C). LacZ activity was not affected by the order in which LacZ-dock1 and UidA-dock2 were bound into such complexes (Figure 5D). In addition, when UidA-dock1 was targeted to the coh1C3 cohesin (Figure 5A), the order in which LacZ was targeted to coh2S1 also had less of an effect on resulting UidA activity compared to when UidA-dock2 was targeted to coh2S1 (Figure 5C). From these results, it appears that when a fusion enzyme is targeted to the outermost position on the scaffold, distal to the cell surface, its binding to the scaffold may be less affected by enzyme partners, compared to when it is targeted to the innermost position, proximal to the cell surface.
We describe the first successful display of engineered chimeric scaffolds containing type 1 and type 2 cohesins on the surface of L. lactis, and the ability for the scaffolds to support the assembly of multi-enzyme complexes. Traditional modes of enzyme display in lactic acid bacteria were generally limited to fusing a single enzyme with an appropriate anchor [38–41, 55–62]. In this study, we expand this capacity to two enzymes with the simultaneous or sequential incorporation of the two enzymes resulting in differences in the enzymatic profile of the assembled complexes. These results suggest that the size and location of each enzyme within each complex should be carefully taken into consideration when further developing this system of enzyme display. We envision that this system could have potentially broad implications in a number of complex bioconversion processes including the degradation of complex polymers, and the synthesis of complex molecules.
Bacterial strains and plasmids
Strains and plasmids used in this study
Genotype / Description
L. lactis htrA NZ9000
Mutant MG1363 derivative (nisRK genes on the chromosome) lacking htrA
E. coli TG1
supE thi-1 Δ(lac-proAB) Δ(mcrB-hsdSM)5 (rK– mK–) [F′ traD36 proAB lacI qZ ΔM15]
E. coli BL21 (DE3)
F – ompT gal dcm lon hsdS B (r B - m B - ) λ(DE3 [lacI lacUV5-T7 gene 1 ind1 sam7 nin5])
Cmr, Ampr; pBS::pIL252::t trpA ::P nisA ::rbs nisA ::spUsp45- CBD-coh1C3-cwaM6-tlt2
Cmr, Ampr; pBS::pIL252::t trpA ::P nisA ::rbs nisA ::spUsp45-CBD-cwaM6-tlt2
Cmr, Ampr; pBS::pIL252::t trpA ::P nisA ::rbs nisA ::spUsp45-CBD-coh2O2-cwaM6-tlt2
Cmr, Ampr; pBS::pIL252::t trpA ::P nisA ::rbs nisA ::spUsp45-CBD-Lk-coh2O2-cwaM6-tlt2
Cmr, Ampr; pBS::pIL252::t trpA ::P nisA ::rbs nisA ::spUsp45-CBD-coh2O2-Lk-cwaM6-tlt2
Cmr, Ampr; pBS::pIL252::t trpA ::P nisA ::rbs nisA ::spUsp45-CBD-Lk-coh2O2-Lk-cwaM6-tlt2
Cmr, Ampr; pBS::pIL252::t trpA ::P nisA ::rbs nisA ::spUsp45-CBD-coh1C3-coh2O2-cwaM6-tlt2
Cmr, Ampr; pBS::pIL252::t trpA ::P nisA ::rbs nisA ::spUsp45-CBD-coh1C3-Lk-coh2O2-cwaM6-tlt2
Cmr, Ampr; pBS::pIL252::t trpA ::P nisA ::rbs nisA ::spUsp45-CBD-coh1C3-coh2O2-Lk-cwaM6-tlt2
Cmr, Ampr; pBS::pIL252::t trpA ::P nisA ::rbs nisA ::spUsp45-CBD-coh1C3-Lk-coh2O2-Lk-cwaM6-tlt2
Cmr, Ampr; pBS::pIL252::t trpA ::P nisA ::rbs nisA ::spUsp45-CBD-coh2S1-cwaM6-tlt2
Cmr, Ampr; pBS::pIL252::t trpA ::P nisA ::rbs nisA ::spUsp45-CBD-coh1C3-coh2S1-cwaM6-tlt2
Knr; pET28(b)::with cloned dock1 from celS
Knr; pET28(b)::with cloned dock2 from cipA
Assembly of chimeric scaffolds expression cassettes
Primers used in this study. Restriction enzyme cut sites are in bold
Sequence (5’ – 3’)
Type 2 cohesin coh2S1 of anchor protein SdbA was PCR-amplified using primers e and f, purified using a PCR purification kit (Qiagen), digested with Not I and Eco RV, and ligated to similarly cut pAW528 and pAW531, yielding pAW576 (CBD-coh1C3-coh2S1) and pAW579 (CBD-coh2S1), respectively (Table 1).
Assembly of dockerin-fused UidA and LacZ expression cassettes
E. coli β-glucuronidase (UidA, GenBank accession no. ZP_03034971.1) was previously engineered to contain a C-terminal dock1 domain for binding of the enzyme to type 1 cohesins . In this study, UidA was fused with a dock2 domain from CipA for binding to type 2 cohesins, as well as an N-terminal 6 x His-tag for protein purification. For assembly of the hisX6-uidA-dock2 cassette, the dock2 sequence of the cipA gene was amplified from C. thermocellum genomic DNA using primers g and h (Table 2). The PCR product was digested with Eco RI-Not I and ligated to similarly-digested pET28(b), yielding pETdock2. To create the UidA-dock2 fusion, pETUdock1 was digested with Nhe I-Eco RI to isolate the uidA gene, which was gel-purified, and ligated to similarly cut pETdock2, yielding pETUdock2. In order to create LacZ-dockerin fusion proteins, DNA encoding the E. coli β-galactosidase LacZ (GenBank accession no. EGT70540.1) was PCR amplified from genomic DNA of E. coli MG1655 using primers i and j. The resulting PCR product was digested with Nhe I-Mfe I and ligated into Nhe I-Eco RI-digested pETU, pETUdock1 and pETUdock2, yielding pETL, pETLdock1 and pETLdock2, respectively (Table 1). All pET vectors described above express cassettes encoding enzymes and enzyme-dockerin fusions with an N-terminal 6XHis tag for purification.
Expression and purification of dockerin-fused UidA and LacZ
All His-tagged enzymes were expressed in E. coli BL21(DE3) as previously described . The UidA and LacZ-containing elution fractions were identified by the appearance of a yellow color in a liquid β-glucuronidase and β-galactosidase assay, respectively. Liquid β-glucuronidase assay conditions are previously described . For liquid β-galactosidase assay, 50 μL of each elution fraction were added to 450 μL of Z buffer containing 100 mM phosphate buffer pH7, 5 mM KCl, 1 mM MgSO4, 0.28% (v/v) β-mercaptoethanol. Samples were heated for 1 min, after which p-nitrophenyl-β-D-glucuronide was added to a final concentration of 4 mg/mL . The purity of the elution fractions exhibiting UidA and LacZ activity was assessed by SDS-PAGE (12%, w/v). Proteins were stained using Coomasie Blue Reagent (BioRad) and fractions containing the highest purity of enzyme were pooled. The specific activities of UidA-dock1 and UidA-dock2 were determined by colorimetric assays in a thermostated UV–vis spectrophotometer (Cary 50 WinUv) at 405 nm, using a 1 cm (L) cuvette, and the molar extinction coefficient of p-nitrophenyl (PNP) being 18 000 M-1 cm-1. A Bradford protein assay kit (Pierce) and BSA as a standard were used in order to quantify net protein amounts, and specific activities were used to evaluate the amount of enzyme bound to cells in the in vivo binding assay described below. For simultaneous or sequential binding assays, overall enzymatic activities/cell were calculated by measuring colorimetric changes using p- nitrophenyl-β-D-glucuronide as substrate and 405 nm wavelength for UidA activity, and O-nitrophenyl-β-galactoside as substrate and 420 nm wavelength for LacZ activity.
Quantitation of UidA-dockerin binding to L. Lactis-expressed scaffold proteins
L. lactis htrA NZ9000 was transformed with the expression plasmids encoding permutations of chimeric scaffolds (Figure 1). The strain is deficient in the HtrA extracellular protease and contains chromosomal copies of the nisR and nisK genes, which participate in the regulation of expression cassettes under control of the nisA promoter . L. lactis cells harboring the plasmids were grown overnight in GM17 medium and diluted 1/50 in 5 mL of fresh media and grown for an additional 4 hrs (OD600 ≈0.3) after which cells were induced with 10 ng nisin/mL for scaffold expression . After 20 hrs growth, 1 mL of cells were washed in phosphate buffer (50 mM, pH 6.0) containing 300 mM NaCl and suspended in 100 μL of purified UidA-dock1 or UidA-dock2 at a concentration of 100 μg/mL. Binding assay conditions and enzyme quantification methods used to determine the amount of enzyme associated with L. lactis cells are previously described . The specific activities of UidA-dock1 and UidA-dock2 were determined to be 25 μmol PNP mg-1 min-1 and 13 μmol PNP mg-1 min-1, respectively. Using the calculated molecular weights of UidA-dock1 and UidA-dock2 and the known amount of cells present in each sample, the average number of enzyme units bound per cell was estimated. Experiments were performed in triplicate using true biological replicates (independent colonies and cultures).
Simultaneous or sequential binding of UidA- and LacZ-dockerin to cells displaying chimeric protein scaffolds
Enzyme combinations consisting of equimolar amounts of UidA-dock1 and LacZ-dock2 or UidA-dock2 and LacZ-dock1 were mixed to a final enzyme concentration of 100 μg/mL. Cells were incubated in 100 μL of the enzyme mixture, washed 6 times in phosphate buffer (50 mM, pH 6) containing 300 mM NaCl, re-suspended in 100 μL of the same buffer, and analyzed using both the β-glucuronidase assay  and β-galactosidase assay. For sequential binding assays, cells were incubated with a first test enzyme at a concentration of 100 μg/mL, or no enzyme. After 5 hours of incubation at 4°C, cells were harvested by centrifugation and suspended in 100 μL phosphate buffer (50 mM, pH 6) containing 300 mM NaCl and an equimolar amount of the second enzyme or no enzyme. After an additional 5 hours of incubation, cells were harvested, washed 6 times in phosphate buffer (50 mM, pH 6) containing 300 mM NaCl, suspended in 100 μL of the same buffer, and tested for both β-glucuronidase and β-galactosidase activity.
Ethical approval and consent
No human or animal subjects were used in this study. All experimental procedures have been carried out in compliance with the ethical standards of Concordia University's Office of Research.
This work was supported by research grants from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) (grant numbers 312357–06 and 330781–06) the Canada Foundation for Innovation (grant number 202359) and a Canada Research Chair to V.J.J.M. A.S.W is the recipient of graduate scholarships from both NSERC and the Fonds Québécois de la Recherche sur la Nature et les Technologies.
- Conrado RJ, Varner JD, DeLisa MP: Engineering the spatial organization of metabolic enzymes: mimicking nature's synergy. Curr Opin Biotechnol. 2008, 19: 492-499. 10.1016/j.copbio.2008.07.006View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Lee H, Deloache WC, Dueber JE: Spatial organization of enzymes for metabolic engineering. Metab Eng. 2011, 14: 242-251.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Sampson EM, Bobik TA: Microcompartments for B12-dependent 1, 2-propanediol degradation provide protection from DNA and cellular damage by a reactive metabolic intermediate. J Bacteriol. 2008, 190: 2966-2971. 10.1128/JB.01925-07View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Bayer EA, Belaich JP, Shoham Y, Lamed R: The cellulosomes: multienzyme machines for degradation of plant cell wall polysaccharides. Annu Rev Microbiol. 2004, 58: 521-554. 10.1146/annurev.micro.57.030502.091022View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Delebecque CJ, Lindner AB, Silver PA, Aldaye FA: Organization of intracellular reactions with rationally designed RNA assemblies. Science. 2011, 333: 470-474. 10.1126/science.1206938View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Dueber JE, Wu GC, Malmirchegini GR, Moon TS, Petzold CJ, Ullal AV, Prather KL, Keasling JD: Synthetic protein scaffolds provide modular control over metabolic flux. Nat Biotechnol. 2009, 27: 753-759. 10.1038/nbt.1557View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Farhi M, Marhevka E, Masci T, Marcos E, Eyal Y, Ovadis M, Abeliovich H, Vainstein A: Harnessing yeast subcellular compartments for the production of plant terpenoids. Metab Eng. 2011, 13: 474-481. 10.1016/j.ymben.2011.05.001View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Fierobe HP, Mingardon F, Mechaly A, Belaich A, Rincon MT, Pages S, Lamed R, Tardif C, Belaich JP, Bayer EA: Action of designer cellulosomes on homogeneous versus complex substrates: controlled incorporation of three distinct enzymes into a defined trifunctional scaffoldin. J Biol Chem. 2005, 280: 16325-16334. 10.1074/jbc.M414449200View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Mingardon F, Chanal A, Tardif C, Bayer EA, Fierobe HP: Exploration of new geometries in cellulosome-like chimeras. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2007, 73: 7138-7149. 10.1128/AEM.01306-07View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Perret S, Casalot L, Fierobe HP, Tardif C, Sabathe F, Belaich JP, Belaich A: Production of heterologous and chimeric scaffoldins by Clostridium acetobutylicum ATCC 824. J Bacteriol. 2004, 186: 253-257. 10.1128/JB.186.1.253-257.2004View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Wen F, Sun J, Zhao H: Yeast surface display of trifunctional minicellulosomes for simultaneous saccharification and fermentation of cellulose to ethanol. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2010, 76: 1251-1260. 10.1128/AEM.01687-09View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Gerngross UT, Romaniec MP, Kobayashi T, Huskisson NS, Demain AL: Sequencing of a Clostridium thermocellum gene (cipA) encoding the cellulosomal SL-protein reveals an unusual degree of internal homology. Mol Microbiol. 1993, 8: 325-334.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Kruus K, Lua AC, Demain AL, Wu JH: The anchorage function of CipA (CelL), a scaffolding protein of the Clostridium thermocellum cellulosome. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1995, 92: 9254-9258. 10.1073/pnas.92.20.9254View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Leibovitz E, Beguin P: A new type of cohesin domain that specifically binds the dockerin domain of the Clostridium thermocellum cellulosome-integrating protein CipA. J Bacteriol. 1996, 178: 3077-3084.Google Scholar
- Lemaire M, Ohayon H, Gounon P, Fujino T, Beguin P: OlpB, a new outer layer protein of Clostridium thermocellum, and binding of its S-layer-like domains to components of the cell envelope. J Bacteriol. 1995, 177: 2451-2459.Google Scholar
- Zverlov VV, Klupp M, Krauss J, Schwarz WH: Mutations in the scaffoldin gene, cipA, of Clostridium thermocellum with impaired cellulosome formation and cellulose hydrolysis: insertions of a new transposable element, IS1447, and implications for cellulase synergism on crystalline cellulose. J Bacteriol. 2008, 190: 4321-4327. 10.1128/JB.00097-08View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Lynd LR, van Zyl WH, McBride JE, Laser M: Consolidated bioprocessing of cellulosic biomass: an update. Curr Opin Biotechnol. 2005, 16: 577-583. 10.1016/j.copbio.2005.08.009View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Lynd LR, Weimer PJ, van Zyl WH, Pretorius IS: Microbial cellulose utilization: fundamentals and biotechnology. Microbiol Mol Biol Rev. 2002, 66: 506-577. table of contents,, 10.1128/MMBR.66.3.506-577.2002View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Lu Y, Zhang YH, Lynd LR: Enzyme-microbe synergy during cellulose hydrolysis by Clostridium thermocellum. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2006, 103: 16165-16169. 10.1073/pnas.0605381103View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Miron J, Ben-Ghedalia D, Morrison M: Invited review: adhesion mechanisms of rumen cellulolytic bacteria. J Dairy Sci. 2001, 84: 1294-1309. 10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(01)70159-2View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Schwarz WH: The cellulosome and cellulose degradation by anaerobic bacteria. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol. 2001, 56: 634-649. 10.1007/s002530100710View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Bayer EA, Kenig R, Lamed R: Adherence of Clostridium thermocellum to cellulose. J Bacteriol. 1983, 156: 818-827.Google Scholar
- Ng TK, Weimer TK, Zeikus JG: Cellulolytic and physiological properties of Clostridium thermocellum. Arch Microbiol. 1977, 114: 1-7. 10.1007/BF00429622View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Fierobe HP, Bayer EA, Tardif C, Czjzek M, Mechaly A, Belaich A, Lamed R, Shoham Y, Belaich JP: Degradation of cellulose substrates by cellulosome chimeras Substrate targeting versus proximity of enzyme components. J Biol Chem. 2002, 277: 49621-49630. 10.1074/jbc.M207672200View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Fierobe HP, Mechaly A, Tardif C, Belaich A, Lamed R, Shoham Y, Belaich JP, Bayer EA: Design and production of active cellulosome chimeras Selective incorporation of dockerin-containing enzymes into defined functional complexes. J Biol Chem. 2001, 276: 21257-21261. 10.1074/jbc.M102082200View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Murashima K, Kosugi A, Doi RH: Synergistic effects on crystalline cellulose degradation between cellulosomal cellulases from Clostridium cellulovorans. J Bacteriol. 2002, 184: 5088-5095. 10.1128/JB.184.18.5088-5095.2002View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Sabathe F, Soucaille P: Characterization of the CipA scaffolding protein and in vivo production of a minicellulosome in Clostridium acetobutylicum. J Bacteriol. 2003, 185: 1092-1096. 10.1128/JB.185.3.1092-1096.2003View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Arai T, Matsuoka S, Cho HY, Yukawa H, Inui M, Wong SL, Doi RH: Synthesis of Clostridium cellulovorans minicellulosomes by intercellular complementation. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2007, 104: 1456-1460. 10.1073/pnas.0610740104View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Ito J, Kosugi A, Tanaka T, Kuroda K, Shibasaki S, Ogino C, Ueda M, Fukuda H, Doi RH, Kondo A: Regulation of the display ratio of enzymes on the Saccharomyces cerevisiae cell surface by the immunoglobulin G and cellulosomal enzyme binding domains. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2009, 75: 4149-4154. 10.1128/AEM.00318-09View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Tsai SL, Oh J, Singh S, Chen R, Chen W: Functional assembly of minicellulosomes on the Saccharomyces cerevisiae cell surface for cellulose hydrolysis and ethanol production. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2009, 75: 6087-6093. 10.1128/AEM.01538-09View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Lilly M, Fierobe HP, van Zyl WH, Volschenk H: Heterologous expression of a Clostridium minicellulosome in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. FEMS Yeast Res. 2009, 9: 1236-1249. 10.1111/j.1567-1364.2009.00564.xView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Petrov K, Urshev Z, Petrova P: L+−lactic acid production from starch by a novel amylolytic Lactococcus lactis subsp. lactis B84. Food Microbiol. 2008, 25: 550-557. 10.1016/j.fm.2008.02.005View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Hernandez I, Molenaar D, Beekwilder J, Bouwmeester H, van Hylckama Vlieg JE: Expression of plant flavor genes in Lactococcus lactis. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2007, 73: 1544-1552. 10.1128/AEM.01870-06View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Drouault S, Corthier G, Ehrlich SD, Renault P: Expression of the Staphylococcus hyicus lipase in Lactococcus lactis. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2000, 66: 588-598. 10.1128/AEM.66.2.588-598.2000View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Ustun O, Ongen G: Production and separation of dipeptidyl peptidase IV from Lactococcus lactis: scale up for industrial production. Bioprocess Biosyst Eng. 2012, 35: 1417-1427. 10.1007/s00449-012-0730-4View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Gaeng S, Scherer S, Neve H, Loessner MJ: Gene cloning and expression and secretion of Listeria monocytogenes bacteriophage-lytic enzymes in Lactococcus lactis. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2000, 66: 2951-2958. 10.1128/AEM.66.7.2951-2958.2000View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Huibregtse IL, Zaat SA, Kapsenberg ML, da Silva MA S, Peppelenbosch MP, van Deventer SJ, Braat H: Genetically Modified Lactococcus lactis for Delivery of Human Interleukin-10 to Dendritic Cells. Gastroenterol Res Pract. 2012, 2012: 639291-View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Cortes-Perez NG, Azevedo V, Alcocer-Gonzalez JM, Rodriguez-Padilla C, Tamez-Guerra RS, Corthier G, Gruss A, Langella P, Bermudez-Humaran LG: Cell-surface display of E7 antigen from human papillomavirus type-16 in Lactococcus lactis and in Lactobacillus plantarum using a new cell-wall anchor from lactobacilli. J Drug Target. 2005, 13: 89-98. 10.1080/10611860400024219View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Dieye Y, Hoekman AJ, Clier F, Juillard V, Boot HJ, Piard JC: Ability of Lactococcus lactis to export viral capsid antigens: a crucial step for development of live vaccines. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2003, 69: 7281-7288. 10.1128/AEM.69.12.7281-7288.2003View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Ramasamy R, Yasawardena S, Zomer A, Venema G, Kok J, Leenhouts K: Immunogenicity of a malaria parasite antigen displayed by Lactococcus lactis in oral immunisations. Vaccine. 2006, 24: 3900-3908. 10.1016/j.vaccine.2006.02.040View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Ribeiro LA, Azevedo V, Le Loir Y, Oliveira SC, Dieye Y, Piard JC, Gruss A, Langella P: Production and targeting of the Brucella abortus antigen L7/L12 in Lactococcus lactis: a first step towards food-grade live vaccines against brucellosis. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2002, 68: 910-916. 10.1128/AEM.68.2.910-916.2002View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Wieczorek AS, Martin VJ: Engineering the cell surface display of cohesins for assembly of cellulosome-inspired enzyme complexes on Lactococcus lactis. Microb Cell Fact. 2010, 9: 69-, 10.1186/1475-2859-9-69View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- van Asseldonk M, Rutten G, Oteman M, Siezen RJ, de Vos WM, Simons G: Cloning of usp45, a gene encoding a secreted protein from Lactococcus lactis subsp. lactis MG1363. Gene. 1990, 95: 155-160. 10.1016/0378-1119(90)90428-TView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Kuipers OP, Beerthuyzen MM, Siezen RJ, De Vos WM: Characterization of the nisin gene cluster nisABTCIPR of Lactococcus lactis Requirement of expression of the nisA and nisI genes for development of immunity. Eur J Biochem. 1993, 216: 281-291. 10.1111/j.1432-1033.1993.tb18143.xView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Mierau I, Kleerebezem M: 10 years of the nisin-controlled gene expression system (NICE) in Lactococcus lactis. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol. 2005, 68: 705-717. 10.1007/s00253-005-0107-6View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Lytle B, Myers C, Kruus K, Wu JH: Interactions of the CelS binding ligand with various receptor domains of the Clostridium thermocellum cellulosomal scaffolding protein. CipA. J Bacteriol. 1996, 178: 1200-1203.Google Scholar
- Xu J, Smith JC: Probing the mechanism of cellulosome attachment to the Clostridium thermocellum cell surface: computer simulation of the Type II cohesin-dockerin complex and its variants. Protein Eng Des Sel. 2010, 23: 759-768. 10.1093/protein/gzq049View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Rincon MT, Ding SY, McCrae SI, Martin JC, Aurilia V, Lamed R, Shoham Y, Bayer EA, Flint HJ: Novel organization and divergent dockerin specificities in the cellulosome system of Ruminococcus flavefaciens. J Bacteriol. 2003, 185: 703-713. 10.1128/JB.185.3.703-713.2003View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Xu Q, Gao W, Ding SY, Kenig R, Shoham Y, Bayer EA, Lamed R: The cellulosome system of Acetivibrio cellulolyticus includes a novel type of adaptor protein and a cell surface anchoring protein. J Bacteriol. 2003, 185: 4548-4557. 10.1128/JB.185.15.4548-4557.2003View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Hammel M, Fierobe HP, Czjzek M, Kurkal V, Smith JC, Bayer EA, Finet S, Receveur-Brechot V: Structural basis of cellulosome efficiency explored by small angle X-ray scattering. J Biol Chem. 2005, 280: 38562-38568. 10.1074/jbc.M503168200View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Miot M, Betton JM: Protein quality control in the bacterial periplasm. Microb Cell Fact. 2004, 3: 4-, 10.1186/1475-2859-3-4View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Vallejo LF, Rinas U: Strategies for the recovery of active proteins through refolding of bacterial inclusion body proteins. Microb Cell Fact. 2004, 3: 11-, 10.1186/1475-2859-3-11View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Poquet I, Saint V, Seznec E, Simoes N, Bolotin A, Gruss A: HtrA is the unique surface housekeeping protease in Lactococcus lactis and is required for natural protein processing. Mol Microbiol. 2000, 35: 1042-1051. 10.1046/j.1365-2958.2000.01757.xView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Linares DM, Geertsma ER, Poolman B: Evolved Lactococcus lactis strains for enhanced expression of recombinant membrane proteins. J Mol Biol. 2010, 401: 45-55. 10.1016/j.jmb.2010.06.002View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Avall-Jaaskelainen S, Lindholm A, Palva A: Surface display of the receptor-binding region of the Lactobacillus brevis S-layer protein in Lactococcus lactis provides nonadhesive lactococci with the ability to adhere to intestinal epithelial cells. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2003, 69: 2230-2236. 10.1128/AEM.69.4.2230-2236.2003View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Dieye Y, Usai S, Clier F, Gruss A, Piard JC: Design of a protein-targeting system for lactic acid bacteria. J Bacteriol. 2001, 183: 4157-4166. 10.1128/JB.183.14.4157-4166.2001View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Leenhouts K, Buist G, Kok J: Anchoring of proteins to lactic acid bacteria. Antonie Van Leeuwenhoek. 1999, 76: 367-376. 10.1023/A:1002095802571View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Lindholm A, Smeds A, Palva A: Receptor binding domain of Escherichia coli F18 fimbrial adhesin FedF can be both efficiently secreted and surface displayed in a functional form in Lactococcus lactis. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2004, 70: 2061-2071. 10.1128/AEM.70.4.2061-2071.2004View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Narita J, Okano K, Kitao T, Ishida S, Sewaki T, Sung MH, Fukuda H, Kondo A: Display of alpha-amylase on the surface of Lactobacillus casei cells by use of the PgsA anchor protein, and production of lactic acid from starch. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2006, 72: 269-275. 10.1128/AEM.72.1.269-275.2006View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Piard JC, Hautefort I, Fischetti VA, Ehrlich SD, Fons M, Gruss A: Cell wall anchoring of the Streptococcus pyogenes M6 protein in various lactic acid bacteria. J Bacteriol. 1997, 179: 3068-3072.Google Scholar
- Raha AR, Varma NR, Yusoff K, Ross E, Foo HL: Cell surface display system for Lactococcus lactis: a novel development for oral vaccine. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol. 2005, 68: 75-81. 10.1007/s00253-004-1851-8View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Yang Z, Liu Q, Wang Q, Zhang Y: Novel bacterial surface display systems based on outer membrane anchoring elements from the marine bacterium Vibrio anguillarum. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2008, 74: 4359-4365. 10.1128/AEM.02499-07View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Terzaghi BE, Sandine WE: Improved medium for lactic streptococci and their bacteriophages. Appl Microbiol. 1975, 29: 807-813.Google Scholar
- Holo H, Nes IF: High-Frequency Transformation, by Electroporation, of Lactococcus lactis subsp. cremoris Grown with Glycine in Osmotically Stabilized Media. Appl Environ Microbiol. 1989, 55: 3119-3123.Google Scholar
- Wang WK, Wu JH: Structural features of the Clostridium thermocellum cellulase SS gene. Appl Biochem Biotechnol. 1993, 39–40: 149-158.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Sambrook J, Russell DW: Molecular cloning: a laboratory manual. 2001, Cold Spring Harbor, NY: Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, 3,Google Scholar
- Axelsson L, Lindstad G, Naterstad K: Development of an inducible gene expression system for Lactobacillus sakei. Lett Appl Microbiol. 2003, 37: 115-120. 10.1046/j.1472-765X.2003.01360.xView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Miyoshi A, Poquet I, Azevedo V, Commissaire J, Bermudez-Humaran L, Domakova E, Le Loir Y, Oliveira SC, Gruss A, Langella P: Controlled production of stable heterologous proteins in Lactococcus lactis. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2002, 68: 3141-3146. 10.1128/AEM.68.6.3141-3146.2002View ArticleGoogle Scholar
This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.