Structure of β2-bungarotoxin: potassium channel binding by Kunitz modules and targeted phospholipase action  Peter D Kwong, Neil Q McDonald, Paul B Sigler,

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Elena Conti, Nick P Franks, Peter Brick  Structure 
Advertisements

Volume 10, Issue 8, Pages (August 2002)
Structure of the Rho Family GTP-Binding Protein Cdc42 in Complex with the Multifunctional Regulator RhoGDI  Gregory R. Hoffman, Nicolas Nassar, Richard.
Volume 8, Issue 12, Pages (December 2000)
Crystal Structure of the Tandem Phosphatase Domains of RPTP LAR
The 1.4 Å Crystal Structure of Kumamolysin
Crystal structure of the chemotaxis receptor methyltransferase CheR suggests a conserved structural motif for binding S-adenosylmethionine  Snezana Djordjevic,
Volume 13, Issue 6, Pages (March 2004)
Volume 10, Issue 8, Pages (August 2002)
Structure and Protein Design of a Human Platelet Function Inhibitor
Crystallographic Structure of SurA, a Molecular Chaperone that Facilitates Folding of Outer Membrane Porins  Eduard Bitto, David B. McKay  Structure 
Kristopher Josephson, Naomi J. Logsdon, Mark R. Walter  Immunity 
Structure of an LDLR-RAP Complex Reveals a General Mode for Ligand Recognition by Lipoprotein Receptors  Carl Fisher, Natalia Beglova, Stephen C. Blacklow 
Volume 14, Issue 3, Pages (March 2001)
Volume 3, Issue 9, Pages (September 1995)
Volume 124, Issue 2, Pages (January 2006)
Chaperone-Assisted Crystallography with DARPins
Crystal Structure of the Soluble Form of Equinatoxin II, a Pore-Forming Toxin from the Sea Anemone Actinia equina  Alekos Athanasiadis, Gregor Anderluh,
Volume 108, Issue 6, Pages (March 2002)
Structure of RGS4 Bound to AlF4−-Activated Giα1: Stabilization of the Transition State for GTP Hydrolysis  John J.G. Tesmer, David M. Berman, Alfred G.
Volume 8, Issue 2, Pages (August 2001)
Volume 85, Issue 7, Pages (June 1996)
Mark Ultsch, Nathalie A Lokker, Paul J Godowski, Abraham M de Vos 
Volume 10, Issue 12, Pages (December 2002)
Volume 23, Issue 7, Pages (July 2015)
Volume 3, Issue 11, Pages (November 1995)
Volume 8, Issue 3, Pages (March 2000)
Volume 8, Issue 4, Pages (April 2001)
Catalytic Center Assembly of HPPK as Revealed by the Crystal Structure of a Ternary Complex at 1.25 Å Resolution  Jaroslaw Blaszczyk, Genbin Shi, Honggao.
A biosynthetic thiolase in complex with a reaction intermediate: the crystal structure provides new insights into the catalytic mechanism  Yorgo Modis,
Structure of mammalian ornithine decarboxylase at 1
Volume 4, Issue 5, Pages (November 1999)
Volume 16, Issue 10, Pages (October 2008)
Crystal Structure of the MazE/MazF Complex
Volume 3, Issue 2, Pages (February 1995)
Volume 5, Issue 3, Pages (March 2000)
Crystal Structure of Recombinant Human Interleukin-22
Structural Analysis of Ligand Stimulation of the Histidine Kinase NarX
Moosa Mohammadi, Joseph Schlessinger, Stevan R Hubbard  Cell 
Andrew H. Huber, W.James Nelson, William I. Weis  Cell 
Daniel Peisach, Patricia Gee, Claudia Kent, Zhaohui Xu  Structure 
Structure of the DNA-Bound T-Box Domain of Human TBX3, a Transcription Factor Responsible for Ulnar-Mammary Syndrome  Miquel Coll, Jonathan G Seidman,
Volume 2, Issue 8, Pages (August 1994)
Volume 91, Issue 5, Pages (November 1997)
Volume 5, Issue 2, Pages (February 1997)
Antonina Roll-Mecak, Chune Cao, Thomas E. Dever, Stephen K. Burley 
Crystallographic Analysis of the Recognition of a Nuclear Localization Signal by the Nuclear Import Factor Karyopherin α  Elena Conti, Marc Uy, Lore Leighton,
Volume 6, Issue 6, Pages (December 2000)
The basis for K-Ras4B binding specificity to protein farnesyl-transferase revealed by 2 Å resolution ternary complex structures  Stephen B Long, Patrick.
Volume 87, Issue 2, Pages (October 1996)
Transformation of MutL by ATP Binding and Hydrolysis
Volume 15, Issue 6, Pages (December 2001)
Elena Conti, Nick P Franks, Peter Brick  Structure 
Volume 3, Issue 3, Pages (March 1995)
Volume 11, Issue 2, Pages (February 2003)
Crystal Structure of Imidazole Glycerol Phosphate Synthase
Volume 85, Issue 5, Pages (May 1996)
Structure of a water soluble fragment of the ‘Rieske’ iron–sulfur protein of the bovine heart mitochondrial cytochrome bc1 complex determined by MAD phasing.
The Crystal Structure of an Unusual Processivity Factor, Herpes Simplex Virus UL42, Bound to the C Terminus of Its Cognate Polymerase  Harmon J Zuccola,
Crystal Structure of the Tyrosine Phosphatase SHP-2
Jia-Wei Wu, Amy E. Cocina, Jijie Chai, Bruce A. Hay, Yigong Shi 
Structure of the InlB Leucine-Rich Repeats, a Domain that Triggers Host Cell Invasion by the Bacterial Pathogen L. monocytogenes  Michael Marino, Laurence.
Structure of an IκBα/NF-κB Complex
Kristopher Josephson, Naomi J. Logsdon, Mark R. Walter  Immunity 
Structure of the Histone Acetyltransferase Hat1
Three protein kinase structures define a common motif
Volume 20, Issue 7, Pages (July 2012)
The 1.4 Å Crystal Structure of Kumamolysin
Structural Basis for Activation of ARF GTPase
Volume 13, Issue 6, Pages (March 2004)
Presentation transcript:

Structure of β2-bungarotoxin: potassium channel binding by Kunitz modules and targeted phospholipase action  Peter D Kwong, Neil Q McDonald, Paul B Sigler, Wayne A Hendrickson  Structure  Volume 3, Issue 10, Pages 1109-1119 (October 1995) DOI: 10.1016/S0969-2126(01)00246-5

Figure 1 Backbone structure of β2-bungarotoxin. (a) Schematic displaying secondary structural elements. The smaller Kunitz subunit is shown at the top right connected through a disulfide bond to the larger phospholipase subunit. (Drawn with SETOR [75].) (b) Stereo plot of the Cα backbone of β2-bungarotoxin shown superimposed with toxic (notexin and α-dendrotoxin; dashed line), and non-toxic (Naja naja atra phospholipase and BPTI; thin line) homologs of each subunit. Superpositions were made using all C as that remained within 2.5 å of each other after least-squares alignment. Outliers are detailed in Figure 3. Spheres are drawn every 10 residues for reference. (Drawn with MOLSCRIPT [76].) Structure 1995 3, 1109-1119DOI: (10.1016/S0969-2126(01)00246-5)

Figure 1 Backbone structure of β2-bungarotoxin. (a) Schematic displaying secondary structural elements. The smaller Kunitz subunit is shown at the top right connected through a disulfide bond to the larger phospholipase subunit. (Drawn with SETOR [75].) (b) Stereo plot of the Cα backbone of β2-bungarotoxin shown superimposed with toxic (notexin and α-dendrotoxin; dashed line), and non-toxic (Naja naja atra phospholipase and BPTI; thin line) homologs of each subunit. Superpositions were made using all C as that remained within 2.5 å of each other after least-squares alignment. Outliers are detailed in Figure 3. Spheres are drawn every 10 residues for reference. (Drawn with MOLSCRIPT [76].) Structure 1995 3, 1109-1119DOI: (10.1016/S0969-2126(01)00246-5)

Figure 2 Stereo diagram of electron density produced by combining the MIR and the phospholipase molecular replacement phases. Density distributions were calculated with data from 10–2.9 å and contoured at 1.0σ. The region shown is homologous to the anti-protease loop in the Kunitz subunit and cannot be biased by phase information from the phospholipase model. Shown with it are the final β2-bungarotoxin refined model (light green) and a ribbon trace of the backbone and disulfides of EPTI (pink), superimposed as described in Figure 1. (Figure made with SETOR [75].) Structure 1995 3, 1109-1119DOI: (10.1016/S0969-2126(01)00246-5)

Figure 2 Stereo diagram of electron density produced by combining the MIR and the phospholipase molecular replacement phases. Density distributions were calculated with data from 10–2.9 å and contoured at 1.0σ. The region shown is homologous to the anti-protease loop in the Kunitz subunit and cannot be biased by phase information from the phospholipase model. Shown with it are the final β2-bungarotoxin refined model (light green) and a ribbon trace of the backbone and disulfides of EPTI (pink), superimposed as described in Figure 1. (Figure made with SETOR [75].) Structure 1995 3, 1109-1119DOI: (10.1016/S0969-2126(01)00246-5)

Figure 3 Sequence of β2-bungarotoxin aligned with subunit homologs. The sequence of β2-bungarotoxin was redetermined. It is shown aligned with toxic and non-toxic homologs of each subunit: phospholipase subunit (notexin and Naja naja atra phospholipase) and Kunitz subunit (α-dendrotoxin [αDTX] and BPTI). These sequences have been aligned based on the superposition of their crystal structures (Figure 1). Also shown for the Kunitz subunit are the sequences of two ion channel toxins, mast cell degranulating peptide (MCDP) and calcicludine (CaC), although less structural detail is available for them. Yellow, sequence conserved only among Kunitz toxins; blue, sequence conserved between all Kunitz toxins and BPTI; green, side chains within 2 å of the surface as defined by the substrate acyl chains (see the Materials and methods section); ∗, catalytic residues in the phospholipase; #, reactive-site lysine or arginine residue of Kunitz serine protease inhibitors; Δ, intermolecular half-cystines and residues with >25% of their solvent-accessible surface buried in the subunit interface; •, buried amino acid side chains of the Kunitz subunit of β2-bungarotoxin with solvent accessibilities <15%; boxed, residues which differ from β2-bungarotoxin by more than 2.5 å after alignment as detailed in Figure 1. Structure 1995 3, 1109-1119DOI: (10.1016/S0969-2126(01)00246-5)

Figure 4 β2-bungarotoxin subunit interface. Interface residues depicted here have >25% of their surface buried in the interface or are involved in intersubunit hydrogen bonds. All other residues are represented by a backbone worm: Kunitz subunit (yellow), phospholipase subunit (cyan). Side chains of interface residues are colored by atom type: nitrogen (blue), oxygen (red), carbon (white) and sulfur (green). The two water molecules that mediate intersubunit hydrogen bonds are represented by red CPK spheres. Hydrogen bonds are shown as thin green lines. (Inset) For reference, a reduced picture of β2-bungarotoxin in the same orientation. (Figure made with GRASP [56].) Structure 1995 3, 1109-1119DOI: (10.1016/S0969-2126(01)00246-5)

Figure 5 Analysis of the molecular recognition surface of the Kunitz module. (a) β2-bungarotoxin surface colored according to the sequence similarity of the underlying residues. The color scheme is similar to that of Figure 3: conserved only among Kunitz toxins (yellow), conserved between all Kunitz toxins and BPTI (blue), and non-conserved (purple). In addition, structurally diverse regions (where the backbone differed by >2.5 å as detailed in Figure 3, and the phospholipase) are colored red. The yellow patch towards the center of the Kunitz subunit corresponds to Phe23. Clustered below it are Lys30 and Arg54. Two views of the toxin are shown related by a 180° rotation about a vertical axis. (b) Surface of BPTI colored with an analogous scheme (see the Materials and methods section for details). Residues are colored according to whether they are conserved only among protease inhibitor (yellow), conserved between protease inhibitors and β2-bungarotoxin (blue), or not conserved (purple). The scale and orientation of BPTI here is analogous to that shown for the Kunitz subunit of β2-bungarotoxin. Two views of BPTI are shown. (c) Protease inhibitor loop of BPTI: residues 12–16 (BPTI numbering) are shown in pink, all other residues in gray. (Figure made with GRASP [56].) Structure 1995 3, 1109-1119DOI: (10.1016/S0969-2126(01)00246-5)

Figure 5 Analysis of the molecular recognition surface of the Kunitz module. (a) β2-bungarotoxin surface colored according to the sequence similarity of the underlying residues. The color scheme is similar to that of Figure 3: conserved only among Kunitz toxins (yellow), conserved between all Kunitz toxins and BPTI (blue), and non-conserved (purple). In addition, structurally diverse regions (where the backbone differed by >2.5 å as detailed in Figure 3, and the phospholipase) are colored red. The yellow patch towards the center of the Kunitz subunit corresponds to Phe23. Clustered below it are Lys30 and Arg54. Two views of the toxin are shown related by a 180° rotation about a vertical axis. (b) Surface of BPTI colored with an analogous scheme (see the Materials and methods section for details). Residues are colored according to whether they are conserved only among protease inhibitor (yellow), conserved between protease inhibitors and β2-bungarotoxin (blue), or not conserved (purple). The scale and orientation of BPTI here is analogous to that shown for the Kunitz subunit of β2-bungarotoxin. Two views of BPTI are shown. (c) Protease inhibitor loop of BPTI: residues 12–16 (BPTI numbering) are shown in pink, all other residues in gray. (Figure made with GRASP [56].) Structure 1995 3, 1109-1119DOI: (10.1016/S0969-2126(01)00246-5)

Figure 5 Analysis of the molecular recognition surface of the Kunitz module. (a) β2-bungarotoxin surface colored according to the sequence similarity of the underlying residues. The color scheme is similar to that of Figure 3: conserved only among Kunitz toxins (yellow), conserved between all Kunitz toxins and BPTI (blue), and non-conserved (purple). In addition, structurally diverse regions (where the backbone differed by >2.5 å as detailed in Figure 3, and the phospholipase) are colored red. The yellow patch towards the center of the Kunitz subunit corresponds to Phe23. Clustered below it are Lys30 and Arg54. Two views of the toxin are shown related by a 180° rotation about a vertical axis. (b) Surface of BPTI colored with an analogous scheme (see the Materials and methods section for details). Residues are colored according to whether they are conserved only among protease inhibitor (yellow), conserved between protease inhibitors and β2-bungarotoxin (blue), or not conserved (purple). The scale and orientation of BPTI here is analogous to that shown for the Kunitz subunit of β2-bungarotoxin. Two views of BPTI are shown. (c) Protease inhibitor loop of BPTI: residues 12–16 (BPTI numbering) are shown in pink, all other residues in gray. (Figure made with GRASP [56].) Structure 1995 3, 1109-1119DOI: (10.1016/S0969-2126(01)00246-5)

Figure 6 Electrostatic potential at the molecular surface of β2-bungarotoxin. Blue represents positive potential, red negative, and white neutral. The positions of selected features are highlighted. (Computed with GRASP [56] at neutral pH.) Structure 1995 3, 1109-1119DOI: (10.1016/S0969-2126(01)00246-5)

Figure 7 Chemical and physical properties of the phospholipase surface proximal to the substrate-binding region. (a) Hydrophobic area and proximal area of the surface within 7.5 å of the substrate acyl chains. Shown are (•) toxic phospholipases, (○) non-toxic phospholipases from structures without substrate, and (□) non-toxic phospholipases from structures of substrate complexes. ‘N’ and ‘B’ label notexin and β2-bungarotoxin respectively. (b) Phospholipase molecular surface colored by the physical properties of the underlying atoms: hydrophobic (green); charged (purple); polar (white). Portions of the surface that are >7.5 å from the substrate acyl chairs are colored orange. The surfaces depicted are (from left to right) β2-bungarotoxin, notexin, and the phospholipases from cobra (Naja naja atra class I), rattlesnake (Crotalus atrox class II) and honeybee (Apis mellifera insect). (Figure made with GRASP [56].) Structure 1995 3, 1109-1119DOI: (10.1016/S0969-2126(01)00246-5)

Figure 7 Chemical and physical properties of the phospholipase surface proximal to the substrate-binding region. (a) Hydrophobic area and proximal area of the surface within 7.5 å of the substrate acyl chains. Shown are (•) toxic phospholipases, (○) non-toxic phospholipases from structures without substrate, and (□) non-toxic phospholipases from structures of substrate complexes. ‘N’ and ‘B’ label notexin and β2-bungarotoxin respectively. (b) Phospholipase molecular surface colored by the physical properties of the underlying atoms: hydrophobic (green); charged (purple); polar (white). Portions of the surface that are >7.5 å from the substrate acyl chairs are colored orange. The surfaces depicted are (from left to right) β2-bungarotoxin, notexin, and the phospholipases from cobra (Naja naja atra class I), rattlesnake (Crotalus atrox class II) and honeybee (Apis mellifera insect). (Figure made with GRASP [56].) Structure 1995 3, 1109-1119DOI: (10.1016/S0969-2126(01)00246-5)