title: Deletion of the HAMP domains from the histidine kinase CaNik1p of Candida albicans or treatment with fungicides activates the MAP kinase Hog1p in S. cerevisiae transformants.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  Microorganisms use two-component signal transduction (TCST) systems to regulate the response of the organism to changes of environmental conditions. Such systems are absent from mammalian cells and are thus of interest as drug targets. Fungal TCST systems are usually composed of a hybrid histidine kinase, comprising the histidine kinase (HisKA) domain and a receiver domain, a histidine phosphotransfer protein and a response regulator. Among the 11 groups of fungal histidine kinases, group III histidine kinases are of particular relevance as they are essential for the activity of different groups of fungicides. A characteristic feature is the N-terminal amino acid repeat domain comprising multiple HAMP domains, of which the function is still largely unknown. In Candida albicans, a fungal human pathogen, three histidine kinases were identified, of which CaNik1p is a group III histidine kinase. Heterologous expression of this protein in Sacchromyces cerevisiae conferred susceptibility to different fungicides. Fungicide activity was associated with phosphorylation of the mitogen activated protein kinase Hog1p.
  
  
  RESULTS
  We have constructed mutated versions of CaNik1p, from which either all HAMP domains were deleted (CaNik1pΔHAMP) or in which the histidine kinase or the receiver domains were not-functional. Expression of CaNIK1ΔHAMP in S. cerevisiae led to severe growth inhibition. Normal growth could be restored by either replacing the phosphate-accepting histidine residue in CaNik1pΔHAMP or by expressing CaNIK1ΔHAMP in S. cerevisiae mutants, in which single genes encoding several components of the HOG pathway were deleted. Expression of proteins with non-functional histidine kinase or receiver domains resulted in complete loss of susceptibility to antifungals, such as fludioxonil. Conditions leading to growth inhibition of transformants also led to phosphorylation of the MAP kinase Hog1p.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Our results show that functional histidine kinase and receiver domains of CaNik1p were essential for antifungal susceptibility and for activation of the Hog1p. Moreover, for the first time we show that deletion of all HAMP domains from CaNik1p led to activation of Hog1p without an external stimulus. This phenotype was similar to the effects obtained upon treatment with fungicides, as in both cases growth inhibition correlated with Hog1p activation and was dependent on the functionality of the conserved phosphate-accepting histidine residue.
authors.affiliation: AG Biological Systems Analysis, Helmholtz Centre for Infection Research (HZI), Inhoffenstr, 7, 38124 Braunschweig, Germany. ursula.bilitewski@helmholtz-hzi.de.
authors.forename: Mohammed
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: El-Mowafy
authors.forename: Mahmoud M
authors.initials: MM
authors.lastname: Bahgat
authors.forename: Ursula
authors.initials: U
authors.lastname: Bilitewski
mesh_terms: D000935:Antifungal Agents / Q000378:metabolism*; D002176:Candida albicans / Q000187:drug effects / Q000201:enzymology* / Q000235:genetics; D000071677:Histidine Kinase; D020928:Mitogen-Activated Protein Kinases / Q000096:biosynthesis*; D050505:Mutant Proteins / Q000235:genetics / Q000378:metabolism; D011494:Protein Kinases / Q000235:genetics / Q000378:metabolism*; D011994:Recombinant Proteins / Q000235:genetics / Q000378:metabolism; D012441:Saccharomyces cerevisiae / Q000187:drug effects / Q000201:enzymology* / Q000235:genetics; D029701:Saccharomyces cerevisiae Proteins / Q000096:biosynthesis*; D017384:Sequence Deletion
chemical_list: D000935:Antifungal Agents; D050505:Mutant Proteins; D011994:Recombinant Proteins; D029701:Saccharomyces cerevisiae Proteins; D011494:Protein Kinases; C088589:HOG1 protein, S cerevisiae; D020928:Mitogen-Activated Protein Kinases; D000071677:Histidine Kinase
references.citation: Cell. 1996 Sep 20;86(6):865-75
references.pmid: 8808622
references.citation: J Bacteriol. 2003 Jan;185(1):89-97
references.pmid: 12486044
references.citation: Haematologica. 2006 Feb;91(2):287-8
references.pmid: 16461328
references.citation: Cell. 1996 Sep 20;86(6):845-8
references.pmid: 8808618
references.citation: Infect Immun. 2008 Nov;76(11):4795-803
references.pmid: 18765727
references.citation: Curr Genet. 2005 May;47(5):298-306
references.pmid: 15776234
references.citation: J Biol Chem. 2010 Apr 16;285(16):12121-32
references.pmid: 20164185
references.citation: Eukaryot Cell. 2003 Dec;2(6):1151-61
references.pmid: 14665450
references.citation: Microbiology (Reading). 1998 Oct;144 ( Pt 10):2715-2729
references.pmid: 9802013
references.citation: FEBS Lett. 2012 Jul 30;586(16):2417-22
references.pmid: 22687241
references.citation: Yeast. 1998 Jan 30;14(2):115-32
references.pmid: 9483801
references.citation: Biochemistry. 2007 Dec 4;46(48):13684-95
references.pmid: 17994770
references.citation: Biosci Biotechnol Biochem. 2002 Oct;66(10):2209-15
references.pmid: 12450134
references.citation: Curr Drug Targets. 2006 Apr;7(4):495-504
references.pmid: 16611037
references.citation: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1998 Jun 9;95(12):7069-73
references.pmid: 9618540
references.citation: Lancet Infect Dis. 2011 Feb;11(2):142-51
references.pmid: 21272794
references.citation: Appl Environ Microbiol. 2009 Jan;75(1):127-34
references.pmid: 19011080
references.citation: Cell. 2006 Sep 8;126(5):929-40
references.pmid: 16959572
references.citation: FEMS Yeast Res. 2006 Mar;6(2):149-59
references.pmid: 16487338
references.citation: Mol Cell Biol. 1997 Mar;17(3):1289-97
references.pmid: 9032256
references.citation: Microbiol Mol Biol Rev. 1998 Dec;62(4):1264-300
references.pmid: 9841672
references.citation: J Antibiot (Tokyo). 2000 Oct;53(10):1182-90
references.pmid: 11132965
references.citation: Eukaryot Cell. 2008 Dec;7(12):2017-36
references.pmid: 18952900
references.citation: Structure. 2010 Mar 14;18(4):436-48
references.pmid: 20399181
references.citation: FEMS Microbiol Lett. 1999 Jul 1;176(1):111-6
references.pmid: 10418137
references.citation: J Biol Chem. 2006 Feb 24;281(8):4638-45
references.pmid: 16371351
references.citation: Fungal Genet Biol. 2005 Mar;42(3):200-12
references.pmid: 15707841
references.citation: Mol Microbiol. 2002 Jan;43(2):459-73
references.pmid: 11985722
references.citation: J Mol Biol. 2010 Apr 16;397(5):1156-74
references.pmid: 20184894
references.citation: Med Mycol. 2004 Dec;42(6):485-98
references.pmid: 15682636
references.citation: J Bacteriol. 1999 Dec;181(23):7243-7
references.pmid: 10572127
references.citation: EMBO J. 1998 Mar 2;17(5):1385-94
references.pmid: 9482735
references.citation: Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2007 Oct;51(10):3734-6
references.pmid: 17698623
references.citation: Nature. 1994 May 19;369(6477):242-5
references.pmid: 8183345
references.citation: Pest Manag Sci. 2001 May;57(5):437-42
references.pmid: 11374161
references.citation: Anal Biochem. 1985 Oct;150(1):76-85
references.pmid: 3843705
references.citation: Clin Infect Dis. 2009 Jun 15;48(12):1695-703
references.pmid: 19441981
references.citation: Science. 2006 Apr 28;312(5773):583-8
references.pmid: 16645097
references.citation: Science. 1999 Aug 6;285(5429):901-6
references.pmid: 10436161
references.citation: Int J Microbiol. 2012;2012:713687
references.pmid: 22187560
references.citation: Cell. 1983 Apr;32(4):1279-86
references.pmid: 6301690
references.citation: J Biotechnol. 2012 Jan;157(1):268-77
references.pmid: 21963586
references.citation: Eukaryot Cell. 2005 Nov;4(11):1820-8
references.pmid: 16278449
references.citation: Mol Cell Biol. 2008 Sep;28(17):5172-83
references.pmid: 18573873
references.citation: Eukaryot Cell. 2011 Oct;10(10):1370-4
references.pmid: 21841121
references.citation: Microbiology (Reading). 1998 Feb;144 ( Pt 2):425-432
references.pmid: 9493379
references.citation: J Biol Chem. 1996 Jan 19;271(3):1424-9
references.pmid: 8576133