New Insights into the Lpt Machinery for Lipopolysaccharide Transport to the Cell Surface: LptA-LptC Interaction and LptA Stability as Sensors of a Properly Assembled Transenvelope Complex▿

Lipopolysaccharide (LPS) is a major glycolipid present in the outer membrane (OM) of Gram-negative bacteria. The peculiar permeability barrier of the OM is due to the presence of LPS at the outer leaflet of this membrane that prevents many toxic compounds from entering the cell. In Escherichia coli LPS synthesized inside the cell is first translocated over the inner membrane (IM) by the essential MsbA flippase; then, seven essential Lpt proteins located in the IM (LptBCDF), in the periplasm (LptA), and in the OM (LptDE) are responsible for LPS transport across the periplasmic space and its assembly at the cell surface. The Lpt proteins constitute a transenvelope complex spanning IM and OM that appears to operate as a single device. We show here that in vivo LptA and LptC physically interact, forming a stable complex and, based on the analysis of loss-of-function mutations in LptC, we suggest that the C-terminal region of LptC is implicated in LptA binding. Moreover, we show that defects in Lpt components of either IM or OM result in LptA degradation; thus, LptA abundance in the cell appears to be a marker of properly bridged IM and OM. Collectively, our data support the recently proposed transenvelope model for LPS transport

What Protein Charging (and Supercharging) Reveal about the Mechanism of Electrospray Ionization

Understanding the charging mechanism of electrospray ionization is central to overcoming shortcomings such as ion suppression or limited dynamic range and explaining phenomena such as supercharging. Towards that end, we explore what accumulated observations reveal about the mechanism of electrospray. We introduce the idea of an intermediate region for electrospray ionization (and other ionization methods) to account for the facts that solution charge state distributions (CSDs) do not correlate to those observed by ESI– MS (the latter bear more charge) and that gas phase reactions can reduce, but not increase the extent of charging. This region incorporates properties, e.g., basicities, intermediate between solution and gas phase. Assuming that droplet species polarize within the high electric field leads to equations describing ion emission resembling those from the equilibrium partitioning model. The equations predict many trends successfully, including CSD shifts to higher m/z for concentrated analytes and shifts to lower m/z for sprays employing smaller emitter opening diameters. From this view, a single mechanism can be formulated to explain how reagents that promote analyte charging (“supercharging”) such as m–NBA, sulfolane, and 3–nitrobenzonitrile increase analyte charge from “denaturing” and “native” solvent systems. It is suggested that additives’ Brønsted basicities are inversely correlated to their ability to shift CSDs to lower m/z in positive ESI, as are Brønsted acidities for negative ESI. Because supercharging agents reduce an analyte's solution ionization, excess spray charge is bestowed on evaporating ions carryingfewer opposing charges. Brønsted basicity (or acidity) determines how much ESI charge is lost to the agent (unavailable to evaporating analyte)