We have presented a novel system to perform cryo-CLEM and targeted cryo-lamella preparation, which simplifies sample handling and reduces the risk of sample contamination by limiting the number of cryo-transfers. Furthermore, having a light microscope within the vacuum chamber provides an opportunity to verify that the target has not been lost while milling. Future developments will likely involve the introduction of optical sectioning and super-resolution imaging. Further, having the light microscope on the same stage as the FIB resolves the current status where each microscope comes with its own image format and no stage information can be directly imported from the LM to the FIB/SEM. This configuration provides the foundation required for automated CLEM to mill targeted cryo-lamellae, which will enable structural studies on rare cellular events.
Considering future software requirements, it is reasonable to expect setups which include automated segmentation of correlated images to define or guide the definition of the milling parameters with limited user intervention. When using the conventional suite of separated microscopes it is challenging to achieve such a target because each microscope has its own image format and no stage information can be directly imported from the LM to the FIB/SEM. In the PIE-scope, all images are acquired using the same stage and software (
Figure 3b
), and fluorescence images can be acquired in between milling steps (therefore providing additional information useful for a more precise correlation, such as the milled edges). Through the PIE-scope, it will be therefore possible to implement CLEM automation for targeted lamella preparation.
The illumination source is a four wavelength combiner with a single multimode fibre output (Toptica iCLE-50 405, 488, 561, 640 nm). The choice between a multi-band-pass dichroic (Chroma 89402 m) and a Thorlabs 10/90 (R/T) beam splitter allows for fluorescence or reflected light imaging. The maximum laser power used during imaging corresponded to 0.5 mW out of the fibre, which was further reduced to 0.2 mW at the back-focal plane of the objective, although there might be occasions where more laser power is required for imaging, we noted that these conditions have provided sufficient illumination on all tested samples. Currently, the camera used is a Basler acA1920-155um with USB3.0 interface. This camera is a heated CMOS detector with a quantum efficiency in the visible range of ~70%, it represents a cost-effective solution which comes with a dark noise of 6.6 e
-
. The major advantage of this component, beside its price, is that it does not require active cooling, making the system less susceptible to vibrations. If single-molecule imaging is required, or if the fluorescence signal is extremely dim, then cooled CMOS cameras such as the Hamamatsu Flash4.0 V3 should be used. In this case, in order to ensure that no vibration is introduced in the system, the camera cooling lines should be connected to the FIB/SEM water chiller. The feedthrough from the atmosphere to the high-vacuum is realised through a glass window (Thorlabs VPCH42-A). The optical path is steered using three axes mirror holders embedded in the custom build microscope body/flange visible in
Figure 2a
. The focus drive is a high-vacuum-compatible piezoelectric linear positioner (Smaract SLC-2445HV). The objectives tested were Olympus MPLFNL 10x/0.3, MPLFNL 20x/0.45, UPFLN 20x/0.8 and MPLAPON 50x/0.95.
The microscope body and the adapters were machined at the Monash University Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering Workshop. All atmosphere parts were made of Aluminium alloy 7075. All vacuum parts were machined from Stainless Steel 316 l. Mounting of the microscope body on the vacuum chamber of the FIB/SEM occurs directly on the middle front GIS port (GIS2 on ThermoFisher instruments). The only strict requirement of this design is that neither a gas injection system (GIS) nor detector can be mounted on the front GIS ports at the FIB side of the chamber, we resolved this issue by repositioning our GISs from the flanges GIS1 and GIS2 to the rear flanges (GIS4 and GIS5). Although this can be a limitation for highly equipped material science microscopes, on systems where biological imaging and lamella cryo-preparation is the major focus this will not result in a problem. Also, with the advent of multi-line-GISs offered by most instrument manufacturers, it is extremely unlikely that all GIS flanges will be required.
All custom components were designed using Autodesk Inventor Pro 2016 and Siemens NX. Parts were fabricated in the Mechanical and Aerospace engineering mechanical workshop at Monash University. Ray tracing was performed using Zemax OpticsStudio. The control software has been developed using National Instruments LabVIEW 2015, Python three with Numpy 1.15, Scipy 1.1.0 and ThermoFisher AutoScript 4.0. All drawings, latest Bill of Material (matched to the stable software released), a stable software release, list of dependencies and instructions are available at
https://www.demarco-lab.com/resources
.
All significant data are included in this manuscript. The mechanical drawings for all of the components, the bill of material, and the control software have been made available through the laboratory webpage (
https://www.demarco-lab.com/resources
) and through Zenodo (10.5281/zenodo.3260173).
In the interests of transparency, eLife includes the editorial decision letter and accompanying author responses. A lightly edited version of the letter sent to the authors after peer review is shown, indicating the most substantive concerns; minor comments are not usually included.
Thank you for submitting your article "PIE-scope: integrated cryo-correlative light and FIB/SEM microscopy" for consideration by
eLife
. Your article has been reviewed John Kuriyan as the Senior Editor, Sriram Subramaniam as Reviewing Editor, and three reviewers. The following individual involved in review of your submission have agreed to reveal their identity: Jürgen M Plitzko (Reviewer #1).
The reviewers have discussed the reviews with one another. You will see that all three reviewers find your work interesting but raise a number of concerns. Since each reviewer's concerns have a somewhat different flavor, we have chosen to send the individual reviews to you below without merging them. Your revised submission must satisfactorily address the major comments and concerns of the reviewers in order for the manuscript to be considered for publication in
eLife
.
Reviewer #1:
The manuscript "PIE-scope: integrated cryo-correlative light and FIB/SEM microscopy" corresponded by Alex de Marco describes a "triple-beam" instrument that includes photons, ions and electrons, referred to as a "PIE-scope" for the correlation and fabrication of cryo-FIB lamellae from frozen hydrated and high-pressure frozen samples for subsequent analysis by cryo-electron tomography (cryo-ET). The integration eliminates the multiple sample transfers that typically take place in the current cryo-ET workflow, which greatly simplifies its application. As a result, and through its retrofittable design, it can provide a way to make this workflow more accessible to other laboratories while increasing the overall throughput. The authors plausibly document their developments and achievements, and I regard this as important advance in this field. However, while the manuscript is direct and to the point, its writing appears somewhat rushed and misses details. In some places the writing is too technical (or jargon) and therefore it could be definitely improved to make it more accessible.
It is somewhat disappointing that there is no final TEM analysis showing that after correlation and sample preparation, cryo-ET can be successfully performed on the produced lamella from either of the two samples. The question is: Could this still be performed?
The paper by Gorelick et al., presents a new design for an integrated fluorescent and dual-beam microscope. This technological advance is a great addition to the correlative tools available for cellular cryo-electron tomography. The implementation described is simple and elegant and seems to work very well. In particular, the ability to target with a precision of ~500 nm is very encouraging.
I find the technology worthy of publishing, but I think that the manuscript requires significant revisions in order to target a wide readership, but more importantly more results need to be included to make sure it will be a useful tool for people interested in this technology. Besides needing many more details in the text, a manuscript like this should contain detailed supplementary data for the expert reader.
Reviewer #2:
1) Information necessary to reproduce the setup.a) The authors state that the software is constantly changing and can be made available from the authors. In order for anyone to implement this technology, they have to be sure that the work described here can be implemented outside of the authors' set up. Thus, a stable release of the software, with a detailed description of all the requirements, should be a necessary condition for publication.b) Along these lines, the drawings and all needed equipment for reproducing the set up should be available (can be upon request but needs to be explicitly stated).
2) The imaging is only done in 2D. The authors describe three positions in software: LM imaging, FIB imaging, and lamella preparation.a) How are the transformation of coordinates done for 2-D images between these imaging modes? Specifically, how is the fluorescence signal superimposed onto the tilted (FIB milling) position? Is the rotation simply done by a compression in the direction of the tilt?b) What is the SEM imaging position with respect to the others? A table, figure, or paragraph describing the relative distances and angles should be provided.c) When checking for the fluorescent signal at different stages of milling, is the sample tilted back so that it is orthogonal to the FIB beam, or is the tilted image used? Do the authors routinely use FIB imaging during milling, or is only the SEM used for this task?
3) In describing the sample preparation, the authors are not very explicit. A notable example is the lack of details in the brain sample. Was it high-pressure frozen? If it was plunge frozen, there is no chance that this sample will be vitrified. While the authors may argue that for the purposes of this manuscript this is not relevant, it should then be clearly stated.
4) The biggest gap in the manuscript is the characterization of the quality of the lamellae for cryo-ET. Each of the points are essential for the work to be useful:a) While the authors did not alter the cryo-stage, the authors should test and report on whether there are any alterations to the stability of the system in any way. Are there any new vibration or other issues that were introduced?b) Are there any added contamination rates from the introduction of the fluorescence set up? Without subsequent cryo-TEM images, it is hard to gauge the quality of the finished lamella.c) In fact, the finished lamella seems thick and cracked, and the thickness is not reported. Even if one would consider this work not to be about lamellae production, the detectability of the fluorescent signal for very thin lamellae should be demonstrated.d) A major issue with fluorescence imaging at cryogenic temperatures is the potential for devitrification. If the authors do not think this is a concern due to the low power of the illumination used, they should provide clear arguments. otherwise, they should show the vitrification of the lamella in the TEM after preparation in the PIE scope.
5) In their letter, the authors claim that this is a non-expensive set up ($50K). I think that as part of supplementary data they should provide a list of materials required and their approximate cost, which is customary when describing a new set up. For instance, what is the cost of ThermoFishder Autoscirpt?
Reviewer #3:
General assessment:
Very well written. Clearly described what has been reached and how the system provides a significant addition to the set of tools available for cell biological studies that require morphological/structural information of molecular structures in their cellular context.
The capability to perform the preparation of cryo-lamella using a focused ion beam SEM with an integrated light microscopy is very exciting as it can be used to ensure that the feature of interest is present in the lamella. This approach will improve possibilities to perform cell biological experiments in which targeted cryo electron tomography of fluorescently tagged structures are an essential ingredient.
It is very exciting that a proof-of-principle is provided on larvae of
C. elegans
on which the technological solution is evaluated. It is also exciting that the instrumentation is principle retrofittable and the software to make all this work for CLEM operation is open source.
Major concerns:
A major concern I have with the manuscript is that though it describes overall features and possibilities of the instrumentation with sufficient detail to illustrate the potential of its capabilities with the proof-of-principle, but that it lacks a discussion on some of the remaining technological bottlenecks of 3D CLEM on frozen hydrated specimen. In my view the steps that still need to be taken to meet the requirements to make the system applicable for a more wider audience are not mentioned with sufficient detail.
Subsection “Characterizing the system” summarizes the specifications of the system very nicely. Bottlenecks are the accurate 2D positioning of the lamella around a target (~200-400 nm, though is claimed that it could be ~~100 nm), the reduction in imaging quality due to drift (optical astigmatism due to drift, how large is the drift and can limitation be solved?) as well as the outlook for 3 D correlation to achieve an accuracy that would be sufficient for targeted FIB-milling (~500 nm, the need for deconvolution to improve the z-resolution can this indeed be improved, and to what accuracy?)
It would strengthen the paper considerably, if additional discussion/argumentation was giving detailing the possibility of a more accurate performance on next-generation systems.
Reviewer #1:
The manuscript "PIE-scope: integrated cryo-correlative light and FIB/SEM microscopy" corresponded by Alex de Marco describes a "triple-beam" instrument that includes photons, ions and electrons, referred to as a "PIE-scope" for the correlation and fabrication of cryo-FIB lamellae from frozen hydrated and high-pressure frozen samples for subsequent analysis by cryo-electron tomography (cryo-ET). The integration eliminates the multiple sample transfers that typically take place in the current cryo-ET workflow, which greatly simplifies its application. As a result, and through its retrofittable design, it can provide a way to make this workflow more accessible to other laboratories while increasing the overall throughput. The authors plausibly document their developments and achievements, and I regard this as important advance in this field. However, while the manuscript is direct and to the point, its writing appears somewhat rushed and misses details. In some places the writing is too technical (or jargon) and therefore it could be definitely improved to make it more accessible.
We re-worded multiple parts of the manuscript in order to make it more accessible. Please refer to the text changes in the re-submitted document.
It is somewhat disappointing that there is no final TEM analysis showing that after correlation and sample preparation, cryo-ET can be successfully performed on the produced lamella from either of the two samples. The question is: Could this still be performed?
The analysis could not be performed on the samples presented in the first version of the manuscript because neither sample are available. As pointed out by the reviewer in the minor comments the size can be considered on the extreme side. We therefore decided to add a figure where we used yeast cells with live cell imaging compatible nuclear staining. Here we show that the sample is still vitreous after imaging with the light microscope and that successful targeted cryo-ET can be performed (Figure 7 and Video 2).
Reviewer #2:
The paper by Gorelick et al., presents a new design for an integrated fluorescent and dual-beam microscope. This technological advance is a great addition to the correlative tools available for cellular cryo-electron tomography. The implementation described is simple and elegant and seems to work very well. In particular, the ability to target with a precision of ~500 nm is very encouraging.
I find the technology worthy of publishing, but I think that the manuscript requires significant revisions in order to target a wide readership, but more importantly more results need to be included to make sure it will be a useful tool for people interested in this technology. Besides needing many more details in the text, a manuscript like this should contain detailed supplementary data for the expert reader.
1) Information necessary to reproduce the setup.a) The authors state that the software is constantly changing and can be made available from the authors. In order for anyone to implement this technology, they have to be sure that the work described here can be implemented outside of the authors' set up. Thus, a stable release of the software, with a detailed description of all the requirements, should be a necessary condition for publication.b) Along these lines, the drawings and all needed equipment for reproducing the set up should be available (can be upon request but needs to be explicitly stated).
We added supplementary files including a link to the lab resource webpage (https://www.demarco-lab.com/resources) with the stable release of the control software with the installation requirements, a bill of material comprising the required and optional (configuration specific) components and the drawings of the custom components. The drawing provided include only the custom components because the FIB-SEM chamber is proprietary intellectual property of ThermoFisher. Upon written request of the model to ThermoFisher and upon written confirmation from ThermoFisher that disclosure is acceptable the authors will be able to disclose the full assembly should this be required.
2) The imaging is only done in 2D. The authors describe three positions in software: LM imaging, FIB imaging, and lamella preparation.a) How are the transformation of coordinates done for 2-D images between these imaging modes? Specifically, how is the fluorescence signal superimposed onto the tilted (FIB milling) position? Is the rotation simply done by a compression in the direction of the tilt?
We agree that although the focus on the paper is on the hardware rather than the image correlation, a more detailed description of the correlation procedure is beneficial to help the readers. Accordingly, we added a paragraph to detail the correlation procedure, further in the Video 1 the correlation procedure is shown.
In short, we provide a tool to perform the 2D correlation which is embedded in the PIE-scope control software, which is based on calculation of the rigid-body transformation between the imaging modalities. If 3D correlation is required users can call external CLEM software such as 3DCT (We decided against including this package in PIE-scope is due to the impossibility for us to support it). The Video 1 shows the correlation procedure.
b) What is the SEM imaging position with respect to the others? A table, figure, or paragraph describing the relative distances and angles should be provided.
We modified Figure 1 to include the information about the relative position and orientation between imaging all modalities.
c) When checking for the fluorescent signal at different stages of milling, is the sample tilted back so that it is orthogonal to the FIB beam, or is the tilted image used? Do the authors routinely use FIB imaging during milling, or is only the SEM used for this task?
For fluorescence imaging the sample must be orthogonal to the FIB in order to access the sample with the short working distance of the LM objective. The FIB is used for imaging only the milling pattern must be placed. In both Figure 5 and Figure 6 all images were acquired using the SEM.
3) In describing the sample preparation, the authors are not very explicit. A notable example is the lack of details in the brain sample. Was it high-pressure frozen? If it was plunge frozen, there is no chance that this sample will be vitrified. While the authors may argue that for the purposes of this manuscript this is not relevant, it should then be clearly stated.
We extended the description of the sample preparation and included detail on the vitrification.
4) The biggest gap in the manuscript is the characterization of the quality of the lamellae for cryo-ET. Each of the points are essential for the work to be useful:a. While the authors did not alter the cryo-stage, the authors should test and report on whether there are any alterations to the stability of the system in any way. Are there any new vibration or other issues that were introduced?
The introduction of the light microscope in its current configuration has no effects on vibrations because the laser combiner is fibre coupled to the instrument and the lasers are solid state diodes which can be passively cooled. The camera is a heated detector, therefore no vibration due to cooling is introduced. The cryo-stage we have on the FIB/SEM has a drift speed limit of 60 nm / min. When first installed it demonstrated to drift 20-30 nm / min depending on the environmental conditions (room temperature fluctuations, multiple people around the instrument, etc.). Since the installation of PIE-scope we have never experienced a drift rate greater than 30 nm / min. Accordingly, a discussion has been added.
b) Are there any added contamination rates from the introduction of the fluorescence set up? Without subsequent cryo-TEM images, it is hard to gauge the quality of the finished lamella.
We have not measured any change in the contamination rate due to the installation of the light microscope. The reason is linked to the fact that the vacuum parameters do not change as a consequence of the installation. All feedthroughs used are high vacuum compatible and their performance is measured in respect to the best obtainable vacuum in the FIB/SEM before and after installation of PIE-scope. Since the LM objective is not designed for operation under high vacuum the degassing is slower than the other components. We added a paragraph to discuss this point, explaining that cryo-experiments should not be conducted if the vacuum chamber has not been pumped for at least 20 hours. The contamination rate is increased as consequence of slow degassing. Once the ideal vacuum conditions have been reached (which can be easily measured through the vacuum gauge on the FIB/SEM or through a residual gas analyser (if available) the experiments can start.
c) In fact, the finished lamella seems thick and cracked, and the thickness is not reported. Even if one would consider this work not to be about lamellae production, the detectability of the fluorescent signal for very thin lamellae should be demonstrated.
In order to address this point, we added a figure (Figure 7) which shows the fluorescence detection on a thin lamella. The thickness is demonstrated also through cryo-TEM. We also added a small discussion about the challenges presented when imaging a thinned lamella. We also added a short discussion relative to this.
d) A major issue with fluorescence imaging at cryogenic temperatures is the potential for devitrification. If the authors do not think this is a concern due to the low power of the illumination used, they should provide clear arguments. otherwise, they should show the vitrification of the lamella in the TEM after preparation in the PIE scope.
We agree with the reviewer that this is a major point to consider. We have provided additional data that include the cryoTEM after preparation using the PIE-scope. We further added the measurement of the total laser power used during imaging in the Materials and methods section.
5) In their letter, the authors claim that this is a non-expensive set up ($50K). I think that as part of supplementary data they should provide a list of materials required and their approximate cost, which is customary when describing a new set up. For instance, what is the cost of ThermoFishder Autoscirpt?
The cost of the hardware, including the lasers (which represent the vast majority if the cost) is below 50K USD (as described in the supplementary bill of material). It is worth mentioning that the cost can be reduced by ~20K USD if one choses to use a LED combiner or a mercury lamp with filters instead of the lasers (e.g. we identified the LED4D254 led combiner from Thorlabs as a good replacement, which including the driver module and light-guide will cost 5700 USD). Similarly, the cost can increase by 30K USD by integrating a more flexible laser combiner (such as the Coherent Galaxy) and a more sensitive camera such as the Hamamatsu Flash 4.0 V3. The integration using AutoScript is not mandatory, although it provides better control of the instrument, making the process smoother and the correlation faster. The average price of AutoScript is ~ 20K USD.
A license of LabVIEW is advisable (most universities have a site license) as it allows for further customization and development of the software, but it is not required for basic use. We provide both the source code and the compiled version of the stable release which only requires downloading of the LabVIEW runtime (which is free).
Reviewer #3:
General assessment:
Very well written. Clearly described what has been reached and how the system provides a significant addition to the set of tools available for cell biological studies that require morphological/structural information of molecular structures in their cellular context.
The capability to perform the preparation of cryo-lamella using a focused ion beam SEM with an integrated light microscopy is very exciting as it can be used to ensure that the feature of interest is present in the lamella. This approach will improve possibilities to perform cell biological experiments in which targeted cryo electron tomography of fluorescently tagged structures are an essential ingredient.
It is very exciting that a proof-of-principle is provided on larvae of C. elegans on which the technological solution is evaluated. It is also exciting that the instrumentation is principle retrofittable and the software to make all this work for CLEM operation is open source.
Major concerns:
A major concern I have with the manuscript is that though it describes overall features and possibilities of the instrumentation with sufficient detail to illustrate the potential of its capabilities with the proof-of-principle, but that it lacks a discussion on some of the remaining technological bottlenecks of 3D CLEM on frozen hydrated specimen. In my view the steps that still need to be taken to meet the requirements to make the system applicable for a more wider audience are not mentioned with sufficient detail.
Subsection “Characterizing the system” summarizes the specifications of the system very nicely. Bottlenecks are the accurate 2D positioning of the lamella around a target (~200-400 nm, though is claimed that it could be ~~100 nm), the reduction in imaging quality due to drift (optical astigmatism due to drift, how large is the drift and can limitation be solved?) as well as the outlook for 3 D correlation to achieve an accuracy that would be sufficient for targeted FIB-milling (~500 nm, the need for deconvolution to improve the z-resolution can this indeed be improved, and to what accuracy?)
It would strengthen the paper considerably, if additional discussion/argumentation was giving detailing the possibility of a more accurate performance on next-generation systems.
The effect of astigmatism due to thermal drift, as described by the reviewer can become a major limitation and can result in a loss of resolution up to 9% relative to the expected diffraction limit of the optical setup. Accordingly, we improved the mechanical design of the microscope (the drawings provided in the supplementary material are the latest and include the improvements) and therefore increased stability of the atmospheric section of the light microscope. The changes in the astigmatism over time detected previously are not measurable anymore.
We modified the Discussion section to match the current latest design, added a description of the best alignment performance of the optical path. We added the discussion of the improvements that could lead to better 3D correlation.
ARC Centre of Excellence in Advanced Molecular Imaging, Monash University, Clayton, Australia
Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Biomedicine Discovery Institute, Monash University, Clayton, Australia
Contribution
Data curation, Software, Formal analysis, Validation, Investigation, Writing—review and editing, Collected and analysed the data, coded the control software, conceived and built the setup
Competing interests
No competing interests declared
ARC Centre of Excellence in Advanced Molecular Imaging, Monash University, Clayton, Australia
Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Biomedicine Discovery Institute, Monash University, Clayton, Australia
Contribution
Software, Visualization, Methodology, Writing—review and editing, Coded the control software
Competing interests
No competing interests declared
Department of Anatomy and Developmental Biology, Biomedicine Discovery Institute, Monash University, Clayton, Australia
Contribution
Investigation, Writing—review and editing, Prepared the samples
Competing interests
No competing interests declared
ARC Centre of Excellence in Advanced Molecular Imaging, Monash University, Clayton, Australia
Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Biomedicine Discovery Institute, Monash University, Clayton, Australia
Contribution
Investigation, Prepared the samples
Competing interests
No competing interests declared
ARC Centre of Excellence in Advanced Molecular Imaging, Monash University, Clayton, Australia
Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Biomedicine Discovery Institute, Monash University, Clayton, Australia
University of Warwick, Coventry, United Kingdom
EMBL Australia, Clayton, Australia
Contribution
Funding acquisition, Writing—review and editing
Competing interests
No competing interests declared
Department of Anatomy and Developmental Biology, Biomedicine Discovery Institute, Monash University, Clayton, Australia
Contribution
Formal analysis, Investigation, Writing—review and editing
Competing interests
No competing interests declared
ARC Centre of Excellence in Advanced Molecular Imaging, Monash University, Clayton, Australia
Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Biomedicine Discovery Institute, Monash University, Clayton, Australia
University of Warwick, Coventry, United Kingdom
Contribution
Conceptualization, Supervision, Funding acquisition, Writing—original draft, Project administration, Collected and analysed the data, conceived and built the setup
For correspondence
[email protected]
Competing interests
No competing interests declared
Received: February 8, 2019
Accepted: June 26, 2019
Accepted Manuscript published:
July 1, 2019 (version 1)
Version of Record published:
July 4, 2019 (version 2)
A two-part list of links to download the article, or parts of the article, in various formats.
Downloads
(link to download the article as PDF)
The transcriptional regulator SsrB acts as a switch between virulent and biofilm lifestyles of non-typhoidal
Salmonella enterica
serovar Typhimurium. During infection, phosphorylated SsrB activates genes on
Salmonella
Pathogenicity Island-2 (SPI-2) essential for survival and replication within the macrophage. Low pH inside the vacuole is a key inducer of expression and SsrB activation. Previous studies demonstrated an increase in SsrB protein levels and DNA-binding affinity at low pH; the molecular basis was unknown (Liew et al., 2019). This study elucidates its underlying mechanism and in vivo significance. Employing single-molecule and transcriptional assays, we report that the SsrB DNA binding domain alone (SsrBc) is insufficient to induce acid pH-sensitivity. Instead, His12, a conserved residue in the receiver domain, confers pH sensitivity to SsrB allosterically. Acid-dependent DNA binding was highly cooperative, suggesting a new configuration of SsrB oligomers at SPI-2-dependent promoters. His12 also plays a role in SsrB phosphorylation; substituting His12 reduced phosphorylation at neutral pH and abolished pH-dependent differences. Failure to flip the switch in SsrB renders
Salmonella
avirulent and represents a potential means of controlling virulence.
Ca
2+
/calmodulin-dependent protein kinase II (CaMKII) is essential for long-term potentiation (LTP) of excitatory synapses that is linked to learning and memory. In this study, we focused on understanding how interactions between CaMKIIα and the actin-crosslinking protein α-actinin-2 underlie long-lasting changes in dendritic spine architecture. We found that association of the two proteins was unexpectedly elevated within 2 minutes of NMDA receptor stimulation that triggers structural LTP in primary hippocampal neurons. Furthermore, disruption of interactions between the two proteins prevented the accumulation of enlarged mushroom-type dendritic spines following NMDA receptor activation. α-Actinin-2 binds to the regulatory segment of CaMKII. Calorimetry experiments, and a crystal structure of α-actinin-2 EF hands 3 and 4 in complex with the CaMKII regulatory segment, indicate that the regulatory segment of autoinhibited CaMKII is not fully accessible to α-actinin-2. Pull-down experiments show that occupation of the CaMKII substrate-binding groove by GluN2B markedly increases α-actinin-2 access to the CaMKII regulatory segment. Furthermore, in situ labelling experiments are consistent with the notion that recruitment of CaMKII to NMDA receptors contributes to elevated interactions between the kinase and α-actinin-2 during structural LTP. Overall, our study provides new mechanistic insight into the molecular basis of structural LTP and reveals an added layer of sophistication to the function of CaMKII.
eLife is a non-profit organisation inspired by research funders and led by scientists. Our mission is to help scientists accelerate discovery by operating a platform for research communication that encourages and recognises the most responsible behaviours in science.
eLife Sciences Publications, Ltd is a limited liability non-profit non-stock corporation incorporated in the State of Delaware, USA, with company number 5030732, and is registered in the UK with company number FC030576 and branch number BR015634 at the address:
eLife Sciences Publications, Ltd
Westbrook Centre, Milton Road
Cambridge CB4 1YG