Back

The cytoplasmic C-terminal domain of the MmpL11 lipid transporter is required for interaction with its co-cistronic partner MSMEG_0240 in Mycobacterium smegmatis

Lecher, S.; Jaisinghani, N.; Previti, M.; Lacoste, A.-S.; Saliou, J.-M.; Seeliger, J. C.; Veyron-Churlet, R.

2026-01-19 microbiology
10.64898/2026.01.19.699910 bioRxiv
Show abstract

MmpL proteins play an important role in the various mechanisms associated with mycobacterial virulence. Identification of interacting protein partners required for a detailed understanding of their role remains hampered because of their large size (> 100 kDa) and the presence of twelve transmembrane domains by classical methods. In this study, we used two independent biotin proximity labelling assays (APEX2 and BioID) to define the proxisome of MmpL11 in M. smegmatis. Indeed, these techniques are performed directly in the organism of interest, allowing the detection of potentially transient or weak interactions in multiprotein complexes and preserving the subcellular structures and the presence of cofactors or post-translational modifications that can also impact protein-protein interactions. BioID leads to the biotinylation of lysine residues, whereas APEX2 leads to the biotinylation of mainly tyrosine residues; they have also been shown to have different effective labelling radii. On one hand, an interaction was detected between the cytoplasmic C-terminal domain of MmpL11 and MSMEG_0240, a protein of unknown function, using BioID. This interaction was confirmed using both MmpL11 and MSMEG_0240 as fusions with BirA and was corroborated by AlphaFold3 prediction. On the other hand, APEX2 failed to detect an interaction between MmpL11 and MSMEG_0240, probably due to the absence of accessible tyrosines. However, both approaches identified MSMEG_0940 as an additional interactant with MmpL11 that also depends on the C-terminal domain. Overall, this study demonstrates that APEX2 and BioID as complementary tools for defining the proxisome of mycobacterial proteins.

Matching journals

The top 9 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 5%
10.5%
2
mSphere
281 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
8.5%
3
Molecular Microbiology
66 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
6.4%
4
Microbiology Spectrum
435 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
6.4%
5
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 34%
4.3%
6
Microbial Genomics
204 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
4.0%
7
mSystems
361 papers in training set
Top 3%
3.6%
8
Frontiers in Microbiology
375 papers in training set
Top 3%
3.6%
9
Frontiers in Cellular and Infection Microbiology
98 papers in training set
Top 1%
3.1%
50% of probability mass above
10
Microbiology
57 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
2.9%
11
mBio
750 papers in training set
Top 6%
2.6%
12
PLOS Pathogens
721 papers in training set
Top 5%
1.8%
13
Peer Community Journal
254 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.7%
14
Frontiers in Immunology
586 papers in training set
Top 5%
1.5%
15
Cellular Microbiology
18 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.3%
16
Microorganisms
101 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.3%
17
International Journal of Molecular Sciences
453 papers in training set
Top 9%
1.3%
18
FEBS Letters
42 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.3%
19
BMC Biology
248 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.3%
20
Journal of Biological Chemistry
641 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.2%
21
Virulence
21 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.2%
22
Nature Communications
4913 papers in training set
Top 58%
1.0%
23
Nucleic Acids Research
1128 papers in training set
Top 15%
1.0%
24
Journal of Bacteriology
190 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.9%
25
Communications Biology
886 papers in training set
Top 18%
0.9%
26
Journal of Microbiological Methods
11 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.9%
27
Computational and Structural Biotechnology Journal
216 papers in training set
Top 8%
0.8%
28
MicrobiologyOpen
18 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
0.8%
29
Environmental Microbiology
119 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.8%
30
Open Biology
95 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.8%