Conformational cycle and ion-coupling mechanism of the Na+/hydantoin transporter Mhp1

Ion-dependent transporters of the LeuT-fold couple the uptake of physiologically essential molecules to transmembrane ion gradients. Defined by a conserved 5-helix inverted repeat that encodes common principles of ion and substrate binding, the LeuT-fold has been captured in outward-facing, occluded, and inward-facing conformations. However, fundamental questions relating to the structural basis of alternating access and coupling to ion gradients remain unanswered. Here, we used distance measurements between pairs of spin labels to define the conformational cycle of the Na⁺-coupled hydantoin symporter Mhp1 from Microbacterium liquefaciens. Our results reveal that the inward-facing and outward-facing Mhp1 crystal structures represent sampled intermediate states in solution. Here, we provide a mechanistic context for these structures, mapping them into a model of transport based on ion- and substrate-dependent conformational equilibria. In contrast to the Na⁺/leucine transporter LeuT, our results suggest that Na⁺ binding at the conserved second Na⁺ binding site does not change the energetics of the inward- and outward-facing conformations of Mhp1. Comparative analysis of ligand-dependent alternating access in LeuT and Mhp1 lead us to propose that different coupling schemes to ion gradients may define distinct conformational mechanisms within the LeuT-fold class.Secondary active transporters harness the energy of ion gradients to power the uphill movement of solutes across membranes. Mitchell (1) and others (2, 3) proposed and elaborated “alternating access” mechanisms wherein the transporter transitions between two conformational states that alternately expose the substrate binding site to the two sides of the membrane. The LeuT class of ion-coupled symporters consists of functionally distinct transporters that share a conserved scaffold of two sets of five transmembrane helices related by twofold symmetry around an axis nearly parallel to the membrane (4). Ions and substrates are bound near the middle of the membrane stabilized by electrostatic interactions with unwound regions of transmembrane helix (TM) 1 and often TM6 (4). The recurrence of this fold in transporters that play critical roles in fundamental physiological processes (5, 6) has spurred intense interest in defining the principles of alternating access.Despite rapid progress in structure determination of ion-coupled LeuT-fold transporters (7–11), extrapolation of these static snapshots to a set of conformational steps underlying alternating access (4, 7, 9–12) remains incomplete, often hindered by uncertainties in the mechanistic identities of crystal structures. Typically, transporter crystal structures are classified as inward-facing, outward-facing, or occluded on the basis of the accessibility of the substrate binding site (7–11). In a recent spectroscopic analysis of LeuT, we demonstrated that detergent selection and mutations of conserved residues appeared to stabilize conformations that were not detected in the wild-type (WT) LeuT and concurrently inhibited movement of structural elements involved in ligand-dependent alternating access (13). Therefore, although crystal structures define the structural context and identify plausible pathways of substrate binding and release, development of transport models requires confirming or assigning the mechanistic identity of these structures and framing them into ligand-dependent equilibria (14).Mhp1, an Na⁺-coupled symporter of benzyl-hydantoin (BH) from Microbacterium liquefaciens, was the first LeuT-fold member to be characterized by crystal structures purported to represent outward-facing, inward-facing, and outward-facing/occluded conformations of an alternating access cycle (8, 15). In these structures, solvent access to ligand-binding sites is defined by the relative orientation between a 4-helix bundle motif and a 4-helix scaffold motif (8). In Mhp1, alternating access between inward- and outward-facing conformations, was predicted from a computational analysis based on the inverted repeat symmetry of the LeuT fold and is referred to as the rocking-bundle model (16). The conservation of the inverted symmetry prompted proposal of the rocking-bundle mechanism as a general model for LeuT-fold transporters (16). Subsequent crystal structures of other LeuT-fold transporters (7, 9, 10) tempered this prediction because the diversity of the structural rearrangements implicit in these structures is seemingly inconsistent with a conserved conformational cycle.Another outstanding question pertains to the ion-coupling mechanism and the driving force of conformational changes. The implied ion-to-substrate stoichiometry varies across LeuT-fold ion-coupled transporters. For instance, LeuT (17) and BetP (18) require two Na⁺ ions that bind at two distinct sites referred to as Na1 and Na2 whereas Mhp1 (15) and vSGLT (19) appear to possess only the conserved Na2 site. Molecular dynamics (MD) simulations (20, 21) and electron paramagnetic resonance (EPR) analysis (13, 22) of LeuT demonstrated that Na⁺ binding favors an outward-facing conformation although it is unclear which Na⁺ site (or both) is responsible for triggering this conformational transition. Similarly, a role for Na⁺ in conformational switching has been uncovered in putative human LeuT-fold transporters, including hSGLT (23). In Mhp1, the sole Na2 site has been shown to modulate substrate affinity (15); however, its proposed involvement in gating of the intracellular side (12, 21) lacks experimental validation.Here, we used site-directed spin labeling (SDSL) (24) and double electron-electron resonance (DEER) spectroscopy (25) to elucidate the conformational changes underlying alternating access in Mhp1 and define the role of ion and substrate binding in driving transition between conformations. This methodology has been successfully applied to define coupled conformational cycles for a number of transporter classes (13, 26–32). We find that patterns of distance distributions between pairs of spin labels monitoring the intra- and extracellular sides of Mhp1 are consistent with isomerization between the crystallographic inward- and outward-facing conformations. A major finding is that this transition is driven by substrate but not Na⁺ binding. Although the amplitudes of the observed distance changes are in overall agreement with the rocking-bundle model deduced from the crystal structures of Mhp1 (8, 15) and predicted computationally (16), we present evidence that relative movement of bundle and scaffold deviate from strict rigid body. Comparative analysis of LeuT and Mhp1 alternating access reveal how the conserved LeuT fold harnesses the energy of the Na⁺ gradient through two distinct coupling mechanisms and supports divergent conformational cycles to effect substrate binding and release.