It is clear from the recent work on the Osp and IpaH T3SS effector proteins of
Shigella that these proteins play a pivotal role in manipulating host cell signaling and the innate immune response (
Okuda et al., 2005;
Kim et al., 2005;
Zurawski et al., 2006;
Arbibe et al., 2007,
Rohde et al., 2007). OspB can now be added to a growing number of T3SS effectors from
Shigella and other Gram-negative bacteria species that target the host cell nucleus and modulate the host inflammatory response. However, it is important to recognize that while these T3SS effectors are involved in dampening host inflammation during infection, most Gram-negative pathogens still induce a significant inflammatory response which contributes to damage and/or disease in the host. In the case of
Shigella, the recruitment of neutrophils is a hallmark of its virulence, and the host inflammatory response contributes to increased invasion and dysentery. However, by reducing inflammation with a combination of the Osp and IpaH proteins,
Shigella may prevent premature clearance from the host and prolong its proliferation.
OspB is highly conserved between
Shigella species, and
Salmonella and
Vibrio species also have OspB homologues. It is interesting that the human host-specific
S. Typhi and
S. Paratyphi (as opposed to
S. Typhimurium) share a T3SS effector with another human host-specific pathogen such as
Shigella because it suggests these pathogens evolved a unique effector specific for their human host. In light of recent evidence that
V. parahaemalyticus, and non-O1 strains of
Vibrio cholerae have functional T3SS (
Kodama et al., 2007;
Tam et al., 2007), it is not surprising that an
ospB homologue is shared between other T3SS containing Gram-negative bacteria that also reside in the human intestine (
Brown et al., 2006). Future studies of
S. Typhi,
S. Paratyphi,
V. parahaemalyticus, and other non-O1 strains of
Vibrio cholerae may reveal that the OspB homologues contribute to the pathogenesis of these Gram-negative organisms.
Like OspF and OspC1 (
Zurawski et al., 2006), OspB also localized in the nucleus of host cells during infection with
S. flexneri or when transfected cells expressed the GFP-OspB fusions. No obvious NLS was detected, but it is clear that a sequence in the N-terminal half of the molecule is required for the nuclear localization because the C-terminal GFP fusion did not localize in the nucleus (). Nuclear targeting is a common trait shared by the IpaH and Osp proteins of
Shigella (
Toyotome et al., 2001;
Zurawski et al., 2006;
Zurawski et al., 2008). One can envision that
Shigella requires a wide array of effectors in order to efficiently target the numerous genes in the nucleus involved in the innate immune response to completely down-regulate their transcription. Microarray data confirms that the transcription of >100 host genes in the nucleus are altered by
Shigella infection, and MxiE-regulated genes such as
ospB and
ospF are required for this process (
Pédron et al., 2003;
Arbibe et al., 2007;
Sperandio et al., 2008; Faherty and Maurelli unpublished results).
The GFP-OspB signal also localized in the cytoplasm with early endosomes, and this result is similar to the other Osp proteins which have separate cytoplasmic localizations apart from nuclear localization (
Zurawski et al., 2006;
Zurawski et al., 2008). We are still trying to determine the significance of the co-localization with Rab5, but there is a correlation between host signaling pathways and endosomes. Endosomes have been shown to serve as a scaffold concentrating the proteins of signaling pathways and enhancing their activity (
von Zastrow and Sorkin, 2007), and this includes members of the MEK/ERK pathway (
Anderson 2006).
The activation of the MEK/ERK pathway is required for cPLA
2 activation and the production of hepoxilinA
3 which ultimately results in PMN migration (
Kohler et al., 2002;
Mumy et al., 2008). Therefore,
osp mutants that display a deficiency in MEK/ERK activation are linked to their deficiency to induce the PMN migration phenotype, and this relationship may also explain the delay in the inflammatory response observed in the Serény test with the double mutants. What is clear however is that OspF binding to Rb is not a requisite for induction of PMN migration since OspF
MutRb complemented the Δ
ospF mutant similar to wild type OspF. The importance of Rb binding lies elsewhere as discussed below. The exact mechanism of how OspF and OspB activate the MEK/ERK pathway remains to be elucidated and several candidate proteins upstream of the pathway with cytoplasmic localization are under investigation (Zurawski and Maurelli, unpublished results).
In a separate and opposite phenotype, both OspB and OspF reduce the amount of IL-8 secreted during
Shigella infection (). While this result appears counter-intuitive, it is important to stress that IL-8 is secreted only basolaterally by epithelial cells and is responsible for attracting neutrophils from the bloodstream and not across the epithelial barrier (
McCormick 2007). Hepoxilin A
3 is a neutrophil attractant secreted only apically, and in the case of Gram-negative bacterial infections, it is required to attract PMN across the epithelial barrier (
McCormick 2007;
Mumy et al., 2008). Therefore, these processes are not linked and underscore the dual role for T3SS effectors OspB and OspF in
Shigella pathogenesis, one in the cytoplasm and one in the nucleus. Further support of this model for OspF can be found in the increased levels of IL-8 released from cells infected with
Shigella expressing the Rb binding site mutant form of OspF (OspF
MutRb) as compared to a strain expressing the wild type OspF. This result suggests that loss of the Rb binding site restricts the ability of OspF to reduce IL-8 message
in vivo and is consistent with our model that Rb is required to recruit factors that repress IL-8 transcript in the nucleus.
The localization of OspF could be a crucial step with regard to its lyase activity. Two pieces of evidence substantiate this hypothesis. First, immunofluorescence with anti-phospho ERK1/2 antibody showed that dephosphorylation occurs only in the nucleus of
Shigella-infected cells (
Arbibe et al., 2007). Second, when MEK and OspF were mixed at equimolar concentrations
in vitro, the presence of MEK prevented ERK2 from being dephosphorylated by OspF (
Fig. S2). It was not until higher concentrations of OspF (> the MEK concentration) were added that OspF dephosphorylated ERK2 in the presence of MEK (
Fig. S2). These results imply that even though OspF lyase activity is irreversible (
Li et al., 2007), the OspF concentration
in vivo must be higher than MEK to out compete the endogenous MEK kinase activity. In support of this model, the activation of the
Salmonella OspF homologue, SpvC, is only detected in infected cells when SpvC is overexpressed (
Mazurkiewicz et al., 2008). Therefore, the localization of OspF to a different subcellular compartment from the cytoplasm would allow OspF-mediated dephosphorylation in the absence of a competing MEK kinase activity. One subcellular compartment where MEK may not be as concentrated as OspF is the nucleus because MEK is actively exported via a nuclear export signal (
Jaaro et al., 1997) and OspF is actively transported to the nucleus (
Zurawski et al., 2006;
Arbibe et al., 2007). We hypothesize that the lyase activity of OspF would be more effective in the nucleus where the concentration of MEK is substantially lower than in the cytoplasm.
The localization of OspF in the nucleus would also promote the chromatin remodeling activity which reduces IL-8 transcript (
Arbibe et al. 2007). It is possible that OspB uses a similar mechanism to reduce IL-8 given the localization of OspB in the nucleus and given an interaction with Rb. The reduction of IL-8 is also consistent with the results of the Serény test where hyper-inflammation was observed two days after infection with the Δ
ospBF mutant.
Our results suggest that OspF is the first example of a secreted bacterial protein that interacts with Rb via the pocket binding domain (LXCXE), but there are many examples of other pathogens that interact with this binding site and exploit Rb function. Viruses encode proteins which bind to the Rb pocket to promote its degradation and stimulate the cell-cycle (
Du and Pogoriler, 2006;
Felsani et al., 2006;
White and Khalini, 2006). Degradation of Rb does not occur during
Shigella infection as we have found the total amount of Rb is unchanged over six hours of infection (Zurawski and Maurelli, unpublished results). However, Rb has another function which is to recruit histone deacetylases (HDACs), histone methyltransferases, and other factors which are required for chromatin remodeling and transcription repression (
Du and Pogoriler, 2006;
Macaluso et al., 2006). Since
Shigella infection instigates histone modification, and this phenotype requires OspF (
Arbibe et al., 2007), we speculate that
Shigella secretes OspF to interact with Rb to recruit the other host proteins required for
Shigella-induced histone modification. The interaction of OspF and Rb appears to be mediated by the Rb binding site (IMCLE) based on our site-directed mutagenesis and truncation studies (). Based on the structure of the SpvC homologue (
Zhu et al. 2007), the IMCLE sequence would be found in alpha-helix 4 (α4), exposed on the surface of OspF, and adjacent to the MAPK binding site. It should be noted that Rb also interacts with all of the MAPK, including ERK1/2, but only in the active state (
Chauhan et al., 1999;
Wang et al., 1999;
Guo et al., 2005). Therefore, it is possible that all of these proteins are in a complex, and after OspF cleaves the MAPK phosphate group with lyase activity, the MAPK disassociates from Rb leaving OspF to promote a repressive activity rather than an activating one (
Wang et al., 1999;
Guo et al., 2005) (). It is also important to note that OspF appears to only influence p38 MAPK and ERK1/2 phosphorylation
in vivo, but not JNK (
Arbibe et al., 2007;
Kramer et al., 2007). This point is also significant with respect to Rb since JNK signaling through Rb leads to a different outcome than p38 signaling through Rb (
Wang et al., 1999).
Further investigation is needed to determine the nature of the interaction between OspB and Rb. OspB does not have the LXCLE pocket binding site so the lack of an interaction in vitro with the C-terminus of Rb was not surprising. Nonetheless, the results of the OspB/Rb binding experiments () suggest that OspB either interacts with the N-terminus of Rb or that another host protein acts as an intermediary between OspB and Rb ().
Future studies will focus on determining how Rb is modified to induce transcriptional repression via the OspF/Rb and OspB/Rb interactions. Because Rb plays a role in activating IL-8 transcription and inducing PMN transepithelial migration (
Zhang et al., 2000), modification of Rb by
Shigella T3SS effectors could just as easily result in the reverse outcome, i.e. repression of IL-8 transcription. It is clear that OspB and OspF are required for
Shigella pathogenesis, and the interaction with Rb suggests that Rb is yet another host factor exploited by
Shigella to repress host transcription. Future research will determine the distinct activities of OspF and OspB in different compartments of the host cell (cytoplasm vs. nucleus), and the other proteins that interact with these Osp proteins. Understanding how OspB and OspF manipulate host cell signaling and transcription in separate host compartments could serve as a paradigm for how Gram-negative bacteria modulate the host innate immune system.