Volume 17, Issue 1, Pages (January 2009)

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Javed A. Khan, Ben M. Dunn, Liang Tong  Structure 
Advertisements

Structural Basis for Cooperativity in Recruitment of MAML Coactivators to Notch Transcription Complexes  Yunsun Nam, Piotr Sliz, Luyan Song, Jon C. Aster,
Volume 13, Issue 1, Pages (January 2005)
Volume 25, Issue 4, Pages e3 (April 2017)
Volume 13, Issue 1, Pages (January 2005)
Volume 20, Issue 11, Pages (November 2012)
Crystallographic Structure of SurA, a Molecular Chaperone that Facilitates Folding of Outer Membrane Porins  Eduard Bitto, David B. McKay  Structure 
Fulvia Bono, Judith Ebert, Esben Lorentzen, Elena Conti  Cell 
Volume 25, Issue 4, Pages e3 (April 2017)
Natalie Zeytuni, Raz Zarivach  Structure 
The Structure of the Cytoplasmic Domain of the Chloride Channel ClC-Ka Reveals a Conserved Interaction Interface  Sandra Markovic, Raimund Dutzler  Structure 
Volume 124, Issue 1, Pages (January 2006)
Volume 19, Issue 3, Pages (March 2011)
Volume 11, Issue 12, Pages (December 2003)
Crystal Structure of a Human Cleavage Factor CFIm25/CFIm68/RNA Complex Provides an Insight into Poly(A) Site Recognition and RNA Looping  Qin Yang, Molly.
Tom Huxford, De-Bin Huang, Shiva Malek, Gourisankar Ghosh  Cell 
Volume 18, Issue 3, Pages (April 2005)
Volume 23, Issue 7, Pages (July 2015)
Volume 19, Issue 11, Pages (November 2011)
Volume 11, Issue 11, Pages (November 2003)
Structures of Minimal Catalytic Fragments of Topoisomerase V Reveals Conformational Changes Relevant for DNA Binding  Rakhi Rajan, Bhupesh Taneja, Alfonso.
Crystal Structure of the Human High-Affinity IgE Receptor
Volume 11, Issue 5, Pages (May 2003)
Volume 25, Issue 6, Pages (March 2007)
Volume 4, Issue 5, Pages (November 1999)
Volume 84, Issue 2, Pages (February 2003)
Crystal Structure of the MazE/MazF Complex
Volume 5, Issue 3, Pages (March 2000)
Volume 12, Issue 11, Pages (November 2004)
The Monomeric dUTPase from Epstein-Barr Virus Mimics Trimeric dUTPases
Volume 124, Issue 5, Pages (March 2006)
Andrew H. Huber, W.James Nelson, William I. Weis  Cell 
Volume 90, Issue 1, Pages (July 1997)
Volume 37, Issue 2, Pages (January 2010)
Volume 20, Issue 7, Pages (July 2012)
Daniel Peisach, Patricia Gee, Claudia Kent, Zhaohui Xu  Structure 
Volume 14, Issue 5, Pages (May 2006)
Structure of Yeast OSBP-Related Protein Osh1 Reveals Key Determinants for Lipid Transport and Protein Targeting at the Nucleus-Vacuole Junction  Mohammad.
Crystal Structure of the p53 Core Domain Bound to a Full Consensus Site as a Self- Assembled Tetramer  Yongheng Chen, Raja Dey, Lin Chen  Structure  Volume.
Crystallographic Analysis of the Recognition of a Nuclear Localization Signal by the Nuclear Import Factor Karyopherin α  Elena Conti, Marc Uy, Lore Leighton,
Volume 25, Issue 20, Pages R1002-R1018 (October 2015)
Volume 10, Issue 6, Pages (June 2002)
Meigang Gu, Kanagalaghatta R. Rajashankar, Christopher D. Lima 
Volume 23, Issue 6, Pages (June 2015)
Tianjun Zhou, Liguang Sun, John Humphreys, Elizabeth J. Goldsmith 
Structural Basis of Rab Effector Specificity
Volume 29, Issue 6, Pages (March 2008)
Jeffrey J. Wilson, Rhett A. Kovall  Cell 
Volume 34, Issue 3, Pages (May 2009)
Solution Structure of a TBP–TAFII230 Complex
Structure of the Staphylococcus aureus AgrA LytTR Domain Bound to DNA Reveals a Beta Fold with an Unusual Mode of Binding  David J. Sidote, Christopher.
Volume 14, Issue 6, Pages (June 2006)
Robert S. Magin, Glen P. Liszczak, Ronen Marmorstein  Structure 
Ying Huang, Michael P. Myers, Rui-Ming Xu  Structure 
Crystal structures of Nova-1 and Nova-2 K-homology RNA-binding domains
Volume 25, Issue 20, Pages R1002-R1018 (October 2015)
The Crystal Structure of an Unusual Processivity Factor, Herpes Simplex Virus UL42, Bound to the C Terminus of Its Cognate Polymerase  Harmon J Zuccola,
Nina C. Leksa, Stephen G. Brohawn, Thomas U. Schwartz  Structure 
Volume 20, Issue 1, Pages (January 2012)
Volume 13, Issue 5, Pages (May 2005)
Volume 14, Issue 3, Pages (March 2006)
Structure of the Histone Acetyltransferase Hat1
Volume 27, Issue 1, Pages (July 2007)
The Mad2 Spindle Checkpoint Protein Undergoes Similar Major Conformational Changes Upon Binding to Either Mad1 or Cdc20  Xuelian Luo, Zhanyun Tang, Josep.
Structural Basis for Cooperativity in Recruitment of MAML Coactivators to Notch Transcription Complexes  Yunsun Nam, Piotr Sliz, Luyan Song, Jon C. Aster,
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 Escherichia coli RNase D, an Exoribonuclease Involved in Structured RNA Processing  Yuhong Zuo, Yong Wang, Arun Malhotra  Structure 
Volume 16, Issue 7, Pages (July 2008)
Robert S. Magin, Glen P. Liszczak, Ronen Marmorstein  Structure 
Volume 95, Issue 2, Pages (October 1998)
Presentation transcript:

Volume 17, Issue 1, Pages 105-116 (January 2009) The Crystal Structure of the N-Terminal Region of BUB1 Provides Insight into the Mechanism of BUB1 Recruitment to Kinetochores  Victor M. Bolanos-Garcia, Tomomi Kiyomitsu, Sheena D'Arcy, Dimitri Y. Chirgadze, J. Günter Grossmann, Dijana Matak-Vinkovic, Ashok R. Venkitaraman, Mitsuhiro Yanagida, Carol V. Robinson, Tom L. Blundell  Structure  Volume 17, Issue 1, Pages 105-116 (January 2009) DOI: 10.1016/j.str.2008.10.015 Copyright © 2009 Elsevier Ltd Terms and Conditions

Figure 1 Model Showing the Functions of BUB1 and BUBR1 in the Mitotic Spindle Checkpoint during Mitotic Progression (A) In prometaphase, the nuclear envelope breaks down and microtubules emanating from opposite poles attach to the kinetochores of individual sister chromatids. Core checkpoint components BUB1, BUBR1, BUB3, MAD1, and MAD2 are recruited to unattached kinetochores in SAC-activated cells. Kinetochore localization of BUB1 and BUBR1 is mediated by the mitotic kinetochore protein Blinkin. The latter also establishes physical interaction with the MIS12 and NDC80 complexes. Cytosolic BUBR1, BUB3, MAD2, and CDC20 associate to form mitotic checkpoint complexes, which interact with the anaphase promoter complex/cyclosome (APC/C) to render it inactive. (B) In metaphase, the bipolar attachment and alignment of all chromosomes at the center of the cell is reached and APC/C-CDC20 inhibition released by silencing of the SAC. This is followed by the onset of anaphase, in which sister chromatids separate and are pulled toward opposite poles of the cell. When the checkpoint is silenced, securing can be ubiquitinated by APC/C and degraded. This results in the release and activation of separase, which leads to the cleavage of mitotic cohesions at centromeres and chromosome arms to cause chromosome separation and mitotic progression from M-phase to interphase. Structure 2009 17, 105-116DOI: (10.1016/j.str.2008.10.015) Copyright © 2009 Elsevier Ltd Terms and Conditions

Figure 2 Sequence Conservation of the N-Terminal Domain of BUB1 and BUBR1 (A) The ten α helices seen in the structure of Sc-BUB1(29-230) are indicated above the alignment by solid ribbons. Fully conserved residues in BUB1 and BUBR1 that are located in loop regions are highlighted in dark gray. Sc, Saccharomyces cerevisiae; Hs, Homo sapiens; Sp, Schizosaccharomyces pombe; Mm, Mus musculus; Dm, Drosophila melanogaster; Xl, Xenopus laevis; Gg, Gallus gallus. Six representative BUB1 sequences and five of BUBR1 were aligned using ClustalW (Thompson et al., 1994). The inverted triangles above the alignment (▾) show the trypsin cleavage sites identified after limited proteolysis and proteomics analysis. (B) Nano-ES mass spectrum of 45 μM sample (+15 to +12), in the m/z range 3000 and 4500. A single charge state distribution was observed centered on charge +14 at m/z 3510. These values correspond to a molecular weight of 49,313 Da, consistent with a dimer (Mw of monomeric and dimeric Sc-BUB1[29-230] calculated from the amino acid sequence is 24,226 Da and 48,452 Da, respectively). (C) Comparison of the distance distribution [p(r)] function of Sc-BUB1(29-230) (blue) against that of Sc-BUB1(1-230) (red) provides evidence for conformational heterogeneity due to structural flexibility of the region encompassing residues 1–28. (D) The SAXS scattering profile simulation (continuous lines) based on the dimer observed in the crystal structure demonstrates that the overall conformation of Sc-BUB1(1-230) (red) and Sc-BUB1(29-230) (blue) is essentially conserved in solution. Structure 2009 17, 105-116DOI: (10.1016/j.str.2008.10.015) Copyright © 2009 Elsevier Ltd Terms and Conditions

Figure 3 Overall Structure of the N-Terminal Domain of BUB1 (A) The two molecules observed in the crystal asymmetric unit associate to form a dimer with noncrystallographic two-fold symmetry. (B) The structure viewed 90° rotated along the minor axis. (C) Electron density for α helices H5, H6, H7, and H9 and the connecting loop (after density modification) contoured at 1.4 σ. The final, refined model is shown using a ball-and-stick representation. The α helices, loops, and side chains are clearly visible in the initial map. Water molecules are shown as red spheres. (D) Ribbon diagram showing that this domain consists of ten α helices with a core arrangement of a triple repeat of the TPR motif (TPR1 orange; TPR2 magenta; TPR3 cyan). (E,F) Superposition of the three TPRs of Sc-BUB1(29-230). Each molecule representation was generated with Pymol (DeLano, 2002). Structure 2009 17, 105-116DOI: (10.1016/j.str.2008.10.015) Copyright © 2009 Elsevier Ltd Terms and Conditions

Figure 4 Projection of Conserved Regions onto the Protein Surface (A) Residue conservation is shown according to the sequence-conservation score of ProSkin (Deprez et al., 2005). Blue and white denote conserved and variable regions, respectively. Conserved residues of the GN/DD and GIG motifs are shown in blue, two of the residues that define the hydrophobic pocket are shown in green, and the CHES molecule is shown using a ball-stick representation. (B) Electrostatic surface potential computed with GRASP (Nicholls et al., 1991). The electrostatic potential is contoured at the 10 kT/e level, with red denoting negative potential and blue denoting positive potential. Note the prominent acidic loop defined by the conserved residues E52 to D56 and that defined by the less conserved residues E167, E171, E188, E193, E198, D205, and E208. The structure is view rotated 90° along the vertical axis from that in (A). (C) The loops encompassing residues D53-D56 and G137-I-G139 (red) show conformations unique among TPRs of high local-structure similarity (Hs-PEX TPR is gray, Hs-HOP TPR2 is cyan, and Hs-PP5 TPR is yellow). Structure 2009 17, 105-116DOI: (10.1016/j.str.2008.10.015) Copyright © 2009 Elsevier Ltd Terms and Conditions

Figure 5 Analysis of the Hs-BUB1-Blinkin Interaction (A) Yeast two-hybrid analysis of diverse Hs-BUB1 mutants. The effect of the mutant P23G could not be established as it showed self-activation. (B) Projection of residues important for binding Blinkin onto the protein surface (salmon color). Residues whose mutation did not compromise the binding with Blinkin are shown in blue. (C) Mapping of Hs-BUB1 mutations associated with cancer. Residues absent in the deletion mutant Δ76–141 are shown in green and residues E36D, A130S, and H151D in brown. Structure 2009 17, 105-116DOI: (10.1016/j.str.2008.10.015) Copyright © 2009 Elsevier Ltd Terms and Conditions

Figure 6 Mechanistic Implications (A) The two Sc-BUB1(29-230) protomers (show in yellow and magenta, respectively) form a groove that binds the C-terminal residues I215-S230 of a symmetry-related molecule (green). Several of the conserved residues that define an acidic cluster (orange color) are shown in the yellow protomer. Residues of the other protomer (magenta) that interact with residues I215-S230 of a symmetry-related molecule are shown in blue. (B) Superposition of TPR-containing domains of Sc-BUB1, Hs-PP5, Hs-HOP, and Hs-PEX5 shows that they form a similar concave face. Hs-PP5 and Hs-HOP bind the same pentapeptide sequence MEEVD (Hsp90, blue and red, respectively) in a different mode. Peroxisomal targeting signal-1 peptide (PTS-1, brown) binds Hs-PEX5 in a manner that resembles that of Hsp90-HOP. In Hs-BUB1, residues of the Blinkin-binding region map onto α helices equivalent to those of Hs-PP5, Hs-HOP, and Hs-PEX5 engage in peptide binding, suggesting a similar binding mode. In Sc-BUB1(29-230) various residues of these helices (H2 and H4) are involved in the interaction with one CHES molecule (salmon) and others with the C-terminal region of a symmetry-related Sc-BUB1 molecule (green), suggesting that other residues participate in additional protein-protein interactions. (C) The TPR-containing domain of Hs-BUB1 and Hs-BUBR1 bind to the N-terminal region of Blinkin, whereas the physical interaction of BUB3 with BUB1 and BUBR1 involves the GLEBS motif. Putative MAD1 and MAD2 binding sites can be identified in the region preceding the kinase domain. The different affinity of Blinkin for Hs-BUB1 and Hs-BUBR1 might permit the simultaneous control of the recruitment of these proteins to the kinetochore. (D) Close-up view of the interaction between CHES and the hydrophobic pocket of Sc-BUB1(29-230). One CHES molecule is located inside the small hydrophobic pocket constituted by residues L62, M65, I66, S69, L84, M88, I110, W113, and L117 (brown area). Structure 2009 17, 105-116DOI: (10.1016/j.str.2008.10.015) Copyright © 2009 Elsevier Ltd Terms and Conditions