Symmetry Recognizing Asymmetry

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Volume 11, Issue 8, Pages (August 2003)
Advertisements

Volume 6, Issue 1, Pages (January 1998)
Volume 8, Issue 12, Pages (December 2000)
Volume 9, Issue 7, Pages (July 2001)
Volume 13, Issue 6, Pages (March 2004)
Ross Alexander Robinson, Xin Lu, Edith Yvonne Jones, Christian Siebold 
Volume 9, Issue 2, Pages (February 2002)
Volume 105, Issue 4, Pages (May 2001)
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 
Transmembrane Signaling across the Ligand-Gated FhuA Receptor
Molecular Model of the Human 26S Proteasome
Crystal structure of mammalian purple acid phosphatase
Chaperone-Assisted Crystallography with DARPins
Decoy Strategies: The Structure of TL1A:DcR3 Complex
Tom Huxford, De-Bin Huang, Shiva Malek, Gourisankar Ghosh  Cell 
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 11, Issue 8, Pages (August 2003)
Volume 8, Issue 2, Pages (August 2001)
Yvonne Groemping, Karine Lapouge, Stephen J. Smerdon, Katrin Rittinger 
Volume 34, Issue 4, Pages (May 2009)
Volume 13, Issue 5, Pages (November 2000)
David R Buckler, Yuchen Zhou, Ann M Stock  Structure 
Crystal Structure of the MHC Class I Homolog MIC-A, a γδ T Cell Ligand
Volume 11, Issue 5, Pages (May 2003)
Ross Alexander Robinson, Xin Lu, Edith Yvonne Jones, Christian Siebold 
Volume 4, Issue 5, Pages (November 1999)
Volume 91, Issue 7, Pages (December 1997)
Site-specific recombination in plane view
Structure of the Yeast Hst2 Protein Deacetylase in Ternary Complex with 2′-O-Acetyl ADP Ribose and Histone Peptide  Kehao Zhao, Xiaomei Chai, Ronen Marmorstein 
Crystal Structure of the MazE/MazF Complex
Crystal Structure of the λ Repressor C-Terminal Domain Provides a Model for Cooperative Operator Binding  Charles E. Bell, Paolo Frescura, Ann Hochschild,
Structure of DDB1 in Complex with a Paramyxovirus V Protein: Viral Hijack of a Propeller Cluster in Ubiquitin Ligase  Ti Li, Xiujuan Chen, Kenneth C.
Moosa Mohammadi, Joseph Schlessinger, Stevan R Hubbard  Cell 
Crystal Structure of β-Arrestin at 1.9 Å
The Crystal Structure of the Costimulatory OX40-OX40L Complex
Structure of the Human IgE-Fc Cε3-Cε4 Reveals Conformational Flexibility in the Antibody Effector Domains  Beth A. Wurzburg, Scott C. Garman, Theodore.
Volume 9, Issue 8, Pages (August 2001)
Daniel Peisach, Patricia Gee, Claudia Kent, Zhaohui Xu  Structure 
Volume 16, Issue 4, Pages (April 2008)
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 91, Issue 5, Pages (November 1997)
Yi Mo, Benjamin Vaessen, Karen Johnston, Ronen Marmorstein 
Volume 6, Issue 6, Pages (December 2000)
The structure of an RNA dodecamer shows how tandem U–U base pairs increase the range of stable RNA structures and the diversity of recognition sites 
Volume 101, Issue 4, Pages (May 2000)
David Jeruzalmi, Mike O'Donnell, John Kuriyan  Cell 
A Putative Mechanism for Downregulation of the Catalytic Activity of the EGF Receptor via Direct Contact between Its Kinase and C-Terminal Domains  Meytal.
Volume 13, Issue 3, Pages (February 2004)
Meigang Gu, Kanagalaghatta R. Rajashankar, Christopher D. Lima 
Volume 15, Issue 6, Pages (December 2001)
Volume 6, Issue 1, Pages (January 1998)
David Jeruzalmi, Mike O'Donnell, John Kuriyan  Cell 
Jeffrey J. Wilson, Rhett A. Kovall  Cell 
Solution Structure of a TBP–TAFII230 Complex
Crystal Structure of the Human Myeloid Cell Activating Receptor TREM-1
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)
Volume 93, Issue 5, Pages (May 1998)
Volume 91, Issue 5, Pages (November 1997)
Jia-Wei Wu, Amy E. Cocina, Jijie Chai, Bruce A. Hay, Yigong Shi 
Volume 13, Issue 5, Pages (May 2005)
Volume 12, Issue 11, Pages (November 2004)
Pingwei Li, Gerry McDermott, Roland K. Strong  Immunity 
Kristopher Josephson, Naomi J. Logsdon, Mark R. Walter  Immunity 
Volume 13, Issue 5, Pages (May 2005)
The Structure of T. aquaticus DNA Polymerase III Is Distinct from Eukaryotic Replicative DNA Polymerases  Scott Bailey, Richard A. Wing, Thomas A. Steitz 
Crystal Structure of β-Arrestin at 1.9 Å
Volume 13, Issue 6, Pages (March 2004)
Volume 95, Issue 2, Pages (October 1998)
Presentation transcript:

Symmetry Recognizing Asymmetry Benjamin J. McFarland, Tanja Kortemme, Shuyuarn F. Yu, David Baker, Roland K. Strong  Structure  Volume 11, Issue 4, Pages 411-422 (April 2003) DOI: 10.1016/S0969-2126(03)00047-9

Figure 1 Structures of NKG2D-Ligand Complexes Top: views of three NKG2D-ligand complex structures are shown, with each complex shown in paired views; one view of the side of the complex (above), with the protein backbones shown in a ribbon representation; the other view (below), looking down onto the top of the ligand from the perspective of the receptor-bearing cell, with the receptor represented as a backbone ribbon and the ligand as a CPK model. Secondary structure elements are portrayed as β strands, arrows; α helices, coils in the ribbon representations. Proteins are colored by domain: MHC class I-like ligands are colored as α1, yellow; α2, orange; and α3 (when present), red; the receptor domain over the ligand α1 domain is colored blue and the domain over the α2 domain is colored purple. Arrows indicate the stirrup loops of NKG2D in the various complexes. Buried solvent-accessible surface areas (Å2) and shape complementarity (Sc) values are also shown. Figures were generated with SwissPDB-Viewer [47] and rendered with POV-RAY3 (http://mac.povray.org). Bottom: in order to generate schematic representations of the binding interfaces, complexes are split open, with the domains oriented looking down onto the contact surfaces. The proteins are then outlined and the contact surface is displayed as a colored patch. On the right, CPK representations of superpositions (based on the NKG2D monomer from each half-site) of the contact residues from all of the three complex structures are shown, with NKG2D surfaces in the upper frames and ligand surfaces shown in the lower frames as indicated. This demonstrates the relative structural conservation of atoms in the receptor binding sites and the structural diversity of atoms comprising the receptor-contacting residues in the ligands. Structure 2003 11, 411-422DOI: (10.1016/S0969-2126(03)00047-9)

Figure 2 Schematized Contact Maps of NKG2D-Ligand Complexes Top: contact residues have been mapped onto schematized representations of the three complex structure interfaces. Binding surfaces are displayed as colored patches. Each residue is labeled, and its corresponding tag (squares for ligand residues, circles for receptor residues) is colored by the type of interaction it makes with its cognate contact on the opposite surface, as indicated. Receptors are shown across the top and ligands across the bottom of the frame. Ligand-contacting residues in the stirrup loops of the receptors are represented by crosshatched areas, and MIC-A residues in the disordered loop are represented by a checkerboard area. The conserved positions of the NKG2Dbinding site core residues are labeled in blue, and ligand-contacting residues in the receptors that vary in sequence between the human and murine proteins have tags highlighted with red borders. Sequence substitutions between ligand loci/alleles/isoforms are indicated by dashed arrows, with conservative substitutions labeled in green and nonconservative substitutions or deletions labeled in red. Bottom: the complex interfaces are represented as above, except that the size of each residue label has been scaled by the energetic contribution the corresponding residue makes to the interaction; interactions with values less than 1.0 kcal/mol are not considered to constitute binding site hotspots and are not shown. NKG2D hotspots are predicted to lie within 7.4 to 1.1 kcal/mol when complexed with MIC-A; 4.6 to 1.3 kcal/mol when complexed with ULBP3; and 5.2 to 1.1 kcal/mol when complexed with RAE-1β. Ligand hotspots are predicted to lie within 5.0 to 1.0 kcal/mol for MIC-A; 5.2 to 1.0 kcal/mol for ULBP3; and 5.9 to 1.3 kcal/mol for RAE-1β. Structure 2003 11, 411-422DOI: (10.1016/S0969-2126(03)00047-9)

Figure 3 Tabulation of NKG2D-Ligand Contacts Residue-residue contacts have been tabulated from the original structure references [12, 13, 16], with ligand residues colored by the type of interaction observed as in Figure 2. Receptor murine/human sequence differences are colored red. Structure 2003 11, 411-422DOI: (10.1016/S0969-2126(03)00047-9)

Figure 4 Structure of huNKG2D Superpositions of the Cα backbones of the various structures of NKG2D, based on all common Cαs in a monomer, are shown, colored as indicated. At top, NKG2D homodimers are superimposed, in two orthogonal views left (asterisks indicate the N termini of free huNKG2D) and right, highlighting the variation in the homodimer interface angle. In the middle, all eight NKG2D monomer structures are superimposed, again in two orthogonal views left and right, highlighting the elements of flexibility in the protein. The β3-β4 and stirrup loops are indicated. At bottom, expanded views of the stirrup loop (left, cluster #1; center, cluster #2) and the side chains of ligand-contacted residues on the body of the NKG2D NKD (right) are shown. Distances illustrate the structural variance of the indicated atoms. Structure 2003 11, 411-422DOI: (10.1016/S0969-2126(03)00047-9)