The Solution Structure of the Lantibiotic Immunity Protein NisI and Its Interactions with Nisin
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many Gram-positive bacteria produce lantibiotics, genetically encoded and posttranslationally modified peptide antibiotics, which inhibit the growth of other Gram-positive bacteria. To protect themselves against their own lantibiotics these bacteria express a variety of immunity proteins including the LanI lipoproteins. The structural and mechanistic basis for LanI-mediated lantibiotic immunity is not yet understood. Lactococcus lactis produces the lantibiotic nisin, which is widely used as a food preservative. Its LanI protein NisI provides immunity against nisin but not against structurally very similar lantibiotics from other species such as subtilin from Bacillus subtilis. To understand the structural basis for LanI-mediated immunity and their specificity we investigated the structure of NisI. We found that NisI is a two-domain protein. Surprisingly, each of the two NisI domains has the same structure as the LanI protein from B. subtilis, SpaI, despite the lack of significant sequence homology. The two NisI domains and SpaI differ strongly in their surface properties and function. Additionally, SpaI-mediated lantibiotic immunity depends on the presence of a basic unstructured N-terminal region that tethers SpaI to the membrane. Such a region is absent from NisI. Instead, the N-terminal domain of NisI interacts with membranes but not with nisin. In contrast, the C-terminal domain specifically binds nisin and modulates the membrane affinity of the N-terminal domain. Thus, our results reveal an unexpected structural relationship between NisI and SpaI and shed light on the structural basis for LanI mediated lantibiotic immunity.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".