Volume 126, Issue 5, Pages (September 2006)

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Volume 16, Issue 8, Pages (August 2016)
Advertisements

A Fence-like Coat for the Nuclear Pore Membrane
Mark A Willis, Barney Bishop, Lynne Regan, Axel T Brunger  Structure 
Volume 125, Issue 1, Pages (April 2006)
Structural Basis for Vertebrate Filamin Dimerization
Transmembrane Signaling across the Ligand-Gated FhuA Receptor
Molecular Model of the Human 26S Proteasome
Mechanism of Regulation of Receptor Histidine Kinases
Volume 124, Issue 1, Pages (January 2006)
Volume 25, Issue 11, Pages e2 (November 2017)
The Mechanisms of HAMP-Mediated Signaling in Transmembrane Receptors
Chimeras Reveal a Single Lipid-Interface Residue that Controls MscL Channel Kinetics as well as Mechanosensitivity  Li-Min Yang, Dalian Zhong, Paul Blount 
Chen-Chou Wu, William J. Rice, David L. Stokes  Structure 
Volume 39, Issue 6, Pages (September 2010)
Volume 18, Issue 4, Pages (March 2010)
Volume 24, Issue 3, Pages (March 2016)
Volume 108, Issue 6, Pages (March 2002)
Regulation of AMPA Receptor Gating by Ligand Binding Core Dimers
Volume 21, Issue 6, Pages (March 2006)
Barbie K. Ganser-Pornillos, Anchi Cheng, Mark Yeager  Cell 
Volume 22, Issue 1, Pages (January 2014)
Structural Determinants of Transmembrane Helical Proteins
Signaling by Transmembrane Proteins Shifts Gears
Large-Scale Conformational Dynamics of the HIV-1 Integrase Core Domain and Its Catalytic Loop Mutants  Matthew C. Lee, Jinxia Deng, James M. Briggs, Yong.
Volume 112, Issue 7, Pages (April 2017)
Microtubule Structure at 8 Å Resolution
Volume 137, Issue 7, Pages (June 2009)
Volume 16, Issue 8, Pages (August 2016)
Myosin VI Undergoes Cargo-Mediated Dimerization
Mechanism of Regulation of Receptor Histidine Kinases
Structure of CheA, a Signal-Transducing Histidine Kinase
Crystal Structures of a Ligand-free MthK Gating Ring: Insights into the Ligand Gating Mechanism of K+ Channels  Sheng Ye, Yang Li, Liping Chen, Youxing.
Structure of Bax  Motoshi Suzuki, Richard J. Youle, Nico Tjandra  Cell 
Volume 28, Issue 6, Pages (December 2007)
Structural Analysis of Ligand Stimulation of the Histidine Kinase NarX
Volume 124, Issue 5, Pages (March 2006)
Hongwei Wu, Mark W. Maciejewski, Sachiko Takebe, Stephen M. King 
Structural Basis for Vertebrate Filamin Dimerization
Core Structure of gp41 from the HIV Envelope Glycoprotein
Andrew H. Huber, W.James Nelson, William I. Weis  Cell 
Volume 96, Issue 7, Pages (April 2009)
Volume 20, Issue 3, Pages (March 2012)
Jason O. Moore, Wayne A. Hendrickson  Structure 
Volume 12, Issue 6, Pages (December 2003)
Structure of the Human IgE-Fc Cε3-Cε4 Reveals Conformational Flexibility in the Antibody Effector Domains  Beth A. Wurzburg, Scott C. Garman, Theodore.
Volume 21, Issue 6, Pages (June 2013)
Probing the “Dark Matter” of Protein Fold Space
Structure of the RGS-like Domain from PDZ-RhoGEF
The Mechanisms of HAMP-Mediated Signaling in Transmembrane Receptors
Coiled-Coil Domains of SUN Proteins as Intrinsic Dynamic Regulators
Volume 21, Issue 1, Pages (January 2013)
Volume 6, Issue 6, Pages (December 2000)
Volume 34, Issue 5, Pages (June 2009)
Jason O. Moore, Wayne A. Hendrickson  Structure 
Cholesterol Modulates the Dimer Interface of the β2-Adrenergic Receptor via Cholesterol Occupancy Sites  Xavier Prasanna, Amitabha Chattopadhyay, Durba.
Volume 13, Issue 3, Pages (February 2004)
Volume 29, Issue 6, Pages (March 2008)
Crystal Structure of the Human Myeloid Cell Activating Receptor TREM-1
Volume 24, Issue 6, Pages (June 2016)
Volume 20, Issue 4, Pages (April 2012)
The 2.0 å structure of a cross-linked complex between snowdrop lectin and a branched mannopentaose: evidence for two unique binding modes  Christine Schubert.
Volume 153, Issue 7, Pages (June 2013)
Volume 24, Issue 3, Pages (March 2016)
Volume 19, Issue 8, Pages (August 2011)
Volume 13, Issue 5, Pages (May 2005)
Exchange of Regions between Bacterial Poly(A) Polymerase and the CCA-Adding Enzyme Generates Altered Specificities  Heike Betat, Christiane Rammelt, Georges.
The Structure of T. aquaticus DNA Polymerase III Is Distinct from Eukaryotic Replicative DNA Polymerases  Scott Bailey, Richard A. Wing, Thomas A. Steitz 
Sabine Pokutta, William I. Weis  Molecular Cell 
Volume 112, Issue 7, Pages (April 2017)
Volume 18, Issue 5, Pages (May 2010)
Presentation transcript:

Volume 126, Issue 5, Pages 929-940 (September 2006) The HAMP Domain Structure Implies Helix Rotation in Transmembrane Signaling  Michael Hulko, Franziska Berndt, Markus Gruber, Jürgen U. Linder, Vincent Truffault, Anita Schultz, Jörg Martin, Joachim E. Schultz, Andrei N. Lupas, Murray Coles  Cell  Volume 126, Issue 5, Pages 929-940 (September 2006) DOI: 10.1016/j.cell.2006.06.058 Copyright © 2006 Elsevier Inc. Terms and Conditions

Figure 1 Sequence Properties of HAMP Domains The sequences shown are a representative subset from a multiple alignment of 250 HAMP sequences (see Experimental Procedures) and illustrate the conservation pattern of HAMP domains. Residues present in at least two-thirds of the sequences are colored red, and positions in which at least two-thirds of the residues are hydrophobic are shaded yellow. Residues involved in contacts between the helices and the connector are marked with asterisks (∗). Positions forming the x and da core layers of the observed structure and positions forming the a and d core layers of the proposed alternate structure are labeled correspondingly. The graphs of average hydrophobicity (arbitrary units) and side-chain size (Å3) reflect the properties of the entire alignment, not just of the sequences shown. The position corresponding to A291 in Af1503 HAMP, which is consistently much smaller and less hydrophobic than other core positions, is circled in red. The sequences are the following: Af1503, Archaeoglobus fulgidus gi|7483645; MtRV3645, Mycobacterium tuberculosis gi|81668722; EcTar, Escherichia coli gi|2506837; RrChvG, Rhodospirillum rubrum gi|48763978; IlCpxA, Idiomarina loihiensis gi|56180543; Vp0117, Vibrio parahaemolyticus gi|28805099; Vf2138, Vibrio fischeri gi|59480846; SpCyaG, Spirulina platensis gi|11990887; Mmp0413, Methanococcus maripaludis gi|44920733; AcNtrY, Azorhizobium caulinodans gi|585587; alr0642, Nostoc PCC7120 gi|25535039; MmOrf, Magnetospirillum magnetotacticum gi|46203505; Vpa0491, Photobacterium profundum gi|46917034; Sav4768, Streptomyces avermitilis gi|29831311; Bl0031, Bifidobacterium longum gi|23325219; and Lmo1061, Listeria monocytogenes gi|25515443. Sequences are labeled according to their effector domains as follows: histidine kinase (hk), methylated chemotaxis receptor (mcp), diguanylate cyclase (Gcyc), and adenylyl cyclase (Acyc). Cell 2006 126, 929-940DOI: (10.1016/j.cell.2006.06.058) Copyright © 2006 Elsevier Inc. Terms and Conditions

Figure 2 A Stereo View of the HAMP Domain Dimer The final ensemble of 22 calculated structures is shown superimposed over backbone atoms of ordered residues (S278–V328) of both monomers. The RMSD of this superimposition to the average structure is 0.17 Å (see Table 1). Cell 2006 126, 929-940DOI: (10.1016/j.cell.2006.06.058) Copyright © 2006 Elsevier Inc. Terms and Conditions

Figure 3 Structure of the Af1503 HAMP Domain (A) Schematic side and top views of the dimer. The helices are shown as green (α1) and yellow (α2) cylinders with monomers distinguished by bold and faint colors. The middle and right views represent the left view rotated by 90° around the vertical and horizontal axes, respectively. (B) Detailed representations of the views shown in (A). Side chains of residues involved in packing interactions within the core of the domain are shown in red (residues in x-layer geometry) and blue (da-layer geometry). (C) The packing of residues in the HAMP domain. Side views of the monomer, the N-terminal helices, and C-terminal helices are shown. The residues involved in each layer are labeled; coloring is as in (A). Cell 2006 126, 929-940DOI: (10.1016/j.cell.2006.06.058) Copyright © 2006 Elsevier Inc. Terms and Conditions

Figure 4 Interactions in the Hydrophobic Core of the HAMP Domain The helices are viewed from the membrane; their N termini thus point toward the viewer. (A) Schematic representation of complementary x-da packing (left) versus knobs-into-holes packing (right). The two packing modes can be interconverted by rotating adjacent helices by 26° in opposite directions, as illustrated by the cogwheel diagram. (B) Cross sections through the four core layers of the HAMP domain and their modeled counterparts in the rotated state. The core residues are labeled. The coloring scheme is as in Figure 3. Cell 2006 126, 929-940DOI: (10.1016/j.cell.2006.06.058) Copyright © 2006 Elsevier Inc. Terms and Conditions

Figure 5 Effects of Wild-Type and Mutant Forms of Af1503 HAMP In Vitro and In Vivo Two chimeric receptors were created: AfHAMP-CHD, where Af1503 was fused C terminally to the CHD domain (cyclase homology domain) of the mycobacterial adenylyl cyclase, Rv3645, and Tar-AfHAMP, where Af1503 HAMP was substituted for the HAMP domain of the E.coli aspartate receptor, Tar. (A) Sequence alignment indicating the fusion borders for the chimeras AfHAMP-CHD and Tar-AfHAMP with respect to the native sequences of Af1503, Rv3645, and Tar. The HAMP domains are boxed, and the position of the mutated alanine is indicated by an asterisk (∗). (B) Activity of the AfHAMP-CHD chimera. The upper panel shows specific adenylyl cyclase activity of AfHAMP-CHD and its A291G, A291C, A291V, A291I, and A291L mutants compared to the wild-type catalytic domain (Rv3645HAMP-CHD). Error bars represent SEM (n ≥ 4). The differences in activities between AfHAMP-CHD and the mutants are statistically significant (2p << 0.01). The lower panel shows specific activity of the AfHAMP-CHD chimeras plotted against the side-chain volume of the residue in position of the mutated alanine. The line shows a linear fit of all data points except that of A291C. (C) Function of Tar and Tar-AfHAMP receptors expressed in E. coli CP362 cells, which lack all four chemotaxis receptors. The upper and lower panels show the radial swarm velocity determined by swimming-plate assays and the tumbling frequency of the cells, respectively, for Tar-AfHAMP and its A291C and A291V mutants versus CP362 cells with and without wild-type Tar receptors. Error bars represent SEM (n = 6, top panel; n ≥ 20, bottom panel). Cell 2006 126, 929-940DOI: (10.1016/j.cell.2006.06.058) Copyright © 2006 Elsevier Inc. Terms and Conditions