Volume 22, Issue 2, Pages (February 2014)

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Volume 18, Issue 2, Pages (February 2010)
Advertisements

Structural Basis for NHERF Recognition by ERM Proteins
Jinwei Zhu, Yuan Shang, Yitian Xia, Rongguang Zhang, Mingjie Zhang 
Ross Alexander Robinson, Xin Lu, Edith Yvonne Jones, Christian Siebold 
Volume 20, Issue 8, Pages (August 2012)
Jinwei Zhu, Yuan Shang, Yitian Xia, Rongguang Zhang, Mingjie Zhang 
Volume 23, Issue 3, Pages (March 2016)
Callum Smits, Peter E. Czabotar, Mark G. Hinds, Catherine L. Day 
Volume 13, Issue 12, Pages (December 2005)
Volume 16, Issue 9, Pages (September 2008)
Volume 21, Issue 9, Pages (September 2013)
Volume 31, Issue 1, Pages (July 2009)
Volume 24, Issue 11, Pages (November 2016)
Yvonne Groemping, Karine Lapouge, Stephen J. Smerdon, Katrin Rittinger 
Volume 24, Issue 8, Pages (August 2016)
Volume 16, Issue 10, Pages (October 2008)
Volume 18, Issue 11, Pages (November 2010)
Volume 28, Issue 4, Pages (November 2007)
Volume 18, Issue 2, Pages (February 2010)
Structure of the TPR Domain of p67phox in Complex with Rac·GTP
Crystal Structure of the Rab9A-RUTBC2 RBD Complex Reveals the Molecular Basis for the Binding Specificity of Rab9A with RUTBC2  Zhe Zhang, Shanshan Wang,
Volume 43, Issue 3, Pages (August 2011)
Volume 15, Issue 1, Pages (January 2007)
Phospho-Pon Binding-Mediated Fine-Tuning of Plk1 Activity
Solution and Crystal Structures of a Sugar Binding Site Mutant of Cyanovirin-N: No Evidence of Domain Swapping  Elena Matei, William Furey, Angela M.
Ross Alexander Robinson, Xin Lu, Edith Yvonne Jones, Christian Siebold 
Volume 21, Issue 10, Pages (October 2013)
Volume 24, Issue 10, Pages (October 2016)
Volume 128, Issue 3, Pages (February 2007)
Volume 9, Issue 6, Pages (June 2011)
Volume 21, Issue 2, Pages (February 2014)
Volume 23, Issue 5, Pages (May 2015)
Volume 18, Issue 8, Pages (August 2010)
Volume 19, Issue 12, Pages (December 2011)
Volume 16, Issue 5, Pages (May 2008)
Zhenjian Cai, Nabil H. Chehab, Nikola P. Pavletich  Molecular Cell 
The Structure of the Tiam1 PDZ Domain/ Phospho-Syndecan1 Complex Reveals a Ligand Conformation that Modulates Protein Dynamics  Xu Liu, Tyson R. Shepherd,
Volume 13, Issue 2, Pages (February 2005)
Structural Basis of EZH2 Recognition by EED
Volume 23, Issue 2, Pages (February 2015)
Coiled-Coil Domains of SUN Proteins as Intrinsic Dynamic Regulators
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.
Rab35/ACAP2 and Rab35/RUSC2 Complex Structures Reveal Molecular Basis for Effector Recognition by Rab35 GTPase  Lin Lin, Yingdong Shi, Mengli Wang, Chao.
Volume 13, Issue 12, Pages (December 2005)
Mirjana Lilic, Milos Vujanac, C. Erec Stebbins  Molecular Cell 
Volume 14, Issue 4, Pages (April 2006)
Shiqian Qi, Do Jin Kim, Goran Stjepanovic, James H. Hurley  Structure 
Volume 52, Issue 3, Pages (November 2013)
Volume 24, Issue 10, Pages (October 2016)
ASPP2 Regulates Epithelial Cell Polarity through the PAR Complex
Volume 20, Issue 1, Pages (January 2012)
Gerd Prehna, Maya I. Ivanov, James B. Bliska, C. Erec Stebbins  Cell 
Volume 21, Issue 11, Pages (November 2013)
Volume 24, Issue 7, Pages (July 2016)
Robert S. Magin, Glen P. Liszczak, Ronen Marmorstein  Structure 
Structural Insight into BLM Recognition by TopBP1
Volume 111, Issue 6, Pages (December 2002)
Recognition of AT-Rich DNA Binding Sites by the MogR Repressor
Structural Basis for NHERF Recognition by ERM Proteins
Volume 17, Issue 1, Pages (January 2009)
Volume 21, Issue 6, Pages (June 2013)
Jia-Wei Wu, Amy E. Cocina, Jijie Chai, Bruce A. Hay, Yigong Shi 
Volume 19, Issue 8, Pages (August 2011)
Volume 26, Issue 5, Pages e3 (May 2018)
Volume 24, Issue 3, Pages (March 2016)
Yogesh K. Gupta, Deepak T. Nair, Robin P. Wharton, Aneel K. Aggarwal 
Volume 25, Issue 9, Pages e3 (September 2017)
Robert S. Magin, Glen P. Liszczak, Ronen Marmorstein  Structure 
The Human Cytomegalovirus UL44 C Clamp Wraps around DNA
Volume 15, Issue 6, Pages (September 2004)
Presentation transcript:

Volume 22, Issue 2, Pages 304-314 (February 2014) Structural Details of Human Tuba Recruitment by InlC of Listeria monocytogenes Elucidate Bacterial Cell-Cell Spreading  Lilia Polle, Luciano A. Rigano, Rowan Julian, Keith Ireton, Wolf-Dieter Schubert  Structure  Volume 22, Issue 2, Pages 304-314 (February 2014) DOI: 10.1016/j.str.2013.10.017 Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Ltd Terms and Conditions

Structure 2014 22, 304-314DOI: (10.1016/j.str.2013.10.017) Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Ltd Terms and Conditions

Figure 1 Proline-Rich Peptide Recognition by Tuba SH3-6 (A) Surface presentation of the Tuba SH3-6 domain. N-WASP (red) and Mena (yellow) peptides adopt equivalent conformations. (B) Peptide binding residues of Tuba SH3-6, conserved in SH3 domains (Larson and Davidson, 2000), are shown in blue, whereas less-conserved peptide binding groove residues are in gray. The N-WASP peptide is colored red. (C) Isothermal titration calorimetry (ITC) analysis of Tuba SH3-6/N-WASP peptide: titration heat release (upper panel) and corrected heat data are plotted against N-WASP peptide molar ratios (lower panel). Structure 2014 22, 304-314DOI: (10.1016/j.str.2013.10.017) Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Ltd Terms and Conditions

Figure 2 InlC Recognition of Tuba SH3-6 (A) Translucent surfaces reveal the secondary structure of both proteins. (B) Superimposing three crystallographically independent complexes show InlC and the SH3 domain core as mostly rigid. The N-and C termini (dotted ellipse) and most loops of Tuba SH3-6 are more variable. (C) Surfaces of InlC and of Tuba SH3-6 colored as in (A). Surface areas in complex formation adopt the color of the binding partner. Magenta: Lys173InlC. Structure 2014 22, 304-314DOI: (10.1016/j.str.2013.10.017) Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Ltd Terms and Conditions

Figure 3 Details of InlC/Tuba SH3-6 Interaction (A) Residues of InlC and Tuba SH3-6 involved in the intermolecular interaction in three independent complexes are shown. Aromatic residues are underlined. Thin black dotted lines and thick red dashed lines, respectively, indicate hydrogen bonds and van der Waals interactions. (B) ITC analysis of WT Tuba SH3-6 or variants binding InlCWT or variants showing corrected heat versus molar ratio. Error bars represent standard errors of the mean. Structure 2014 22, 304-314DOI: (10.1016/j.str.2013.10.017) Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Ltd Terms and Conditions

Figure 4 Mutation of F146A in InlC Attenuates Cell-Cell Spread of Lm (A) Caco-2 BBE1 cells were infected with WT, ΔinlC, or inlCF146A strains 12 hr prior to fixation and labeling: intracellular (red) and extracellular bacteria (yellow) or F-actin (blue). (i) Infection foci surface areas were measured by ImageJ (http://rsbweb.nih.gov/ij). (ii) Bacterial spreading was quantified using mean relative focal surface areas for WT, ΔinlC, or inlCF146A infections from three experiments. ANOVA analysis: p < 0.0001. ∗p < 0.05 relative to WT control. Scale bars = 20 μm. (B) Effect of F146A on bacterial protrusion formation. (i) EGFP-expressing Caco-2 BBE1 cells were infected with Lm for 5.5 hr, fixed, and labeled for confocal microscopy. Protrusions (∗) were identified as EGFP-positive F-actin tails projecting from transfected cells into EGFP-negative cells. Bacteria with F-actin tails (arrow) and symmetric F-actin (arrowhead) within EGFP-positive cells were also scored. Protrusion formation efficiency is the percentage of total F-actin-associated bacteria in protrusions. Scale bar = 5 μm. (ii) Relative protrusion efficiencies by WT, ΔinlC, or inlCF146A Lm strains are absolute percentages normalized to WT from three experiments. Statistical analysis are as in (A). Error bars represent standard errors of the mean. Structure 2014 22, 304-314DOI: (10.1016/j.str.2013.10.017) Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Ltd Terms and Conditions

Figure 5 Lm Mutant inlCF146A Is Unable to Alter Apical Junction Morphology (A) Apical junctions of infected Caco-2 BBE1 human cells in transwells uninfected or infected for 5.5 hr with WT, ΔinlC, or inlCF146A strains. Fixed cells were labeled for bacteria (blue), F-actin (red), and tight junction protein ZO1 (green). Asterisks indicate cells with intracellular F-actin-decorated bacteria. Junctions (ZO1 labeling) in WT Lm-infected cells are curved; those in ΔinlC- or inlCF146A-infected cells are more linear. Scale bars = 10 μm. (B) Quantification of cell junction linearity. Linear indices of junctions were determined as mean values from three experiments. Statistical analysis by ANOVA indicated p = 0.0070. ∗p < 0.05 relative to the uninfected (U) control. Structure 2014 22, 304-314DOI: (10.1016/j.str.2013.10.017) Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Ltd Terms and Conditions

Figure 6 Tuba SH3-6 Binding Surfaces (A) Tuba SH3-6 complexes with InlC and N-WASP peptide are overlayed. N-terminal residues of N-WASP peptide sterically clash with InlC. (B) Residues of Tuba SH3-6 in contact with InlC or N-WASP are only in blue and pink; those in contact with both are in gray. (C) Tuba SH3-6 sequence alignment for small animal hosts. Underlaid colors are as in (B). Secondary structure shown in green. Residues different to human Tuba are in bold and color: yellow, not in interface; red, affecting binding. Structure 2014 22, 304-314DOI: (10.1016/j.str.2013.10.017) Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Ltd Terms and Conditions