Volume 22, Issue 1, Pages (January 2014)

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Structure of the Rho Family GTP-Binding Protein Cdc42 in Complex with the Multifunctional Regulator RhoGDI  Gregory R. Hoffman, Nicolas Nassar, Richard.
Advertisements

Volume 22, Issue 6, Pages (June 2006)
Interactions between Autophagy Receptors and Ubiquitin-like Proteins Form the Molecular Basis for Selective Autophagy  Vladimir Rogov, Volker Dötsch,
Volume 124, Issue 6, Pages (March 2006)
Ross Alexander Robinson, Xin Lu, Edith Yvonne Jones, Christian Siebold 
Structure of an LDLR-RAP Complex Reveals a General Mode for Ligand Recognition by Lipoprotein Receptors  Carl Fisher, Natalia Beglova, Stephen C. Blacklow 
Hierarchical Binding of Cofactors to the AAA ATPase p97
Volume 124, Issue 1, Pages (January 2006)
Structure of the Papillomavirus DNA-Tethering Complex E2:Brd4 and a Peptide that Ablates HPV Chromosomal Association  Eric A. Abbate, Christian Voitenleitner,
Chen-Chou Wu, William J. Rice, David L. Stokes  Structure 
Xiaojing He, Yi-Chun Kuo, Tyler J. Rosche, Xuewu Zhang  Structure 
Structural Basis for the Specific Recognition of Methylated Histone H3 Lysine 4 by the WD-40 Protein WDR5  Zhifu Han, Lan Guo, Huayi Wang, Yue Shen, Xing.
Volume 108, Issue 6, Pages (March 2002)
Volume 21, Issue 9, Pages (September 2013)
Volume 36, Issue 4, Pages (November 2009)
Volume 14, Issue 5, Pages (May 2006)
Volume 23, Issue 2, Pages (February 2015)
Crystal Structure of the Rab9A-RUTBC2 RBD Complex Reveals the Molecular Basis for the Binding Specificity of Rab9A with RUTBC2  Zhe Zhang, Shanshan Wang,
Structural Basis of Atg8 Activation by a Homodimeric E1, Atg7
Volume 28, Issue 1, Pages (October 2007)
Charlotte Hodson, Andrew Purkiss, Jennifer Anne Miles, Helen Walden 
Volume 108, Issue 1, Pages (January 2002)
Ross Alexander Robinson, Xin Lu, Edith Yvonne Jones, Christian Siebold 
Rules for Nuclear Localization Sequence Recognition by Karyopherinβ2
Volume 16, Issue 10, Pages (October 2008)
Crystal Structure of Human Mre11: Understanding Tumorigenic Mutations
Structure of Bax  Motoshi Suzuki, Richard J. Youle, Nico Tjandra  Cell 
Structure of the UBA Domain of Dsk2p in Complex with Ubiquitin
Volume 20, Issue 1, Pages 9-19 (October 2005)
Volume 106, Issue 6, Pages (September 2001)
Volume 16, Issue 10, Pages (October 2008)
Volume 25, Issue 4, Pages (February 2007)
Volume 124, Issue 5, Pages (March 2006)
Volume 18, Issue 8, Pages (August 2010)
Structural Basis for Protein Recognition by B30.2/SPRY Domains
The Crystal Structure of the Costimulatory OX40-OX40L Complex
Volume 14, Issue 5, Pages (May 2006)
Volume 54, Issue 5, Pages (June 2014)
Volume 15, Issue 2, Pages (February 2007)
Structure of the Catalytic Domain of Human DOT1L, a Non-SET Domain Nucleosomal Histone Methyltransferase  Jinrong Min, Qin Feng, Zhizhong Li, Yi Zhang,
Jiao Yang, Melesse Nune, Yinong Zong, Lei Zhou, Qinglian Liu  Structure 
Volume 95, Issue 7, Pages (December 1998)
Volume 13, Issue 4, Pages (October 2015)
Structural Basis of EZH2 Recognition by EED
Volume 18, Issue 3, Pages (March 2010)
Coiled-Coil Domains of SUN Proteins as Intrinsic Dynamic Regulators
Volume 25, Issue 11, Pages e3 (November 2017)
Structural Basis for Specific Recognition of Reelin by Its Receptors
Volume 23, Issue 1, Pages (January 2015)
Volume 22, Issue 1, Pages (January 2014)
Volume 35, Issue 4, Pages (August 2009)
Volume 14, Issue 11, Pages (November 2006)
Volume 18, Issue 5, Pages (May 2010)
Volume 9, Issue 12, Pages (December 2001)
Meigang Gu, Kanagalaghatta R. Rajashankar, Christopher D. Lima 
Volume 15, Issue 6, Pages (December 2001)
Volume 23, Issue 6, Pages (June 2015)
Shiqian Qi, Do Jin Kim, Goran Stjepanovic, James H. Hurley  Structure 
Volume 52, Issue 3, Pages (November 2013)
Jeffrey J. Wilson, Rhett A. Kovall  Cell 
Volume 20, Issue 7, Pages (July 2012)
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 24, Issue 6, Pages (June 2016)
Ying Huang, Michael P. Myers, Rui-Ming Xu  Structure 
Volume 105, Issue 6, Pages (June 2001)
Volume 13, Issue 5, Pages (May 2005)
Volume 127, Issue 7, Pages (December 2006)
Volume 25, Issue 11, Pages e3 (November 2017)
Structure of GABARAP in Two Conformations
Presentation transcript:

Volume 22, Issue 1, Pages 47-58 (January 2014) Structural Basis of the Autophagy-Related LC3/Atg13 LIR Complex: Recognition and Interaction Mechanism  Hironori Suzuki, Keisuke Tabata, Eiji Morita, Masato Kawasaki, Ryuichi Kato, Renwick C.J. Dobson, Tamotsu Yoshimori, Soichi Wakatsuki  Structure  Volume 22, Issue 1, Pages 47-58 (January 2014) DOI: 10.1016/j.str.2013.09.023 Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Ltd Terms and Conditions

Structure 2014 22, 47-58DOI: (10.1016/j.str.2013.09.023) Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Ltd Terms and Conditions

Figure 1 The ULK1 Complex Interacts with LC3 Family Proteins (A) Myc-ULK1 complex (mixture of Myc-Atg13, Myc-Atg101, Myc-ULK1, and Myc-FIP200) coprecipitate with empty vector controls (lane 1), OSF-LC3A (lane 2), OSF-LC3B (lane 3), or OSF-LC3C (lane 4). (B) ULK1 complexes coprecipitate with LC3C. Myc-LC3C coprecipitations with empty vector controls (lane 1), OSF-Atg13 (lane 2). (C and D) Directed yeast two-hybrid interactions between human Atg13 and LC3 family proteins. The top array shows doubly transformed yeast replica plated on minus Leu, minus Trp, minus His, minus Ade selection media, where successful growth represents a positive protein interaction. The bottom array shows replica-plated yeast on minus Leu, minus Trp media (a control for equivalent transformation and yeast growth). The indicated constructs were fused to activating domains (ADs) or DNA binding domains (DBDs). Unfused DBD and AD constructs are shown as negative controls. Structure 2014 22, 47-58DOI: (10.1016/j.str.2013.09.023) Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Ltd Terms and Conditions

Figure 2 Schematic Representation of Atg13 and LC3 Isoforms (A) The Atg13 deletion mutants and LIR peptides for the interaction analysis. (B) Sequence alignment and secondary structure representation of LC3 isoforms. The multiple sequence alignment was generated by ClustalX2 (Larkin et al., 2007) using a box shade representation by BOXSHADE 3.21 (http://embnet.vital-it.ch/software/BOX_form.html). The bar shows the region of LC3A constructs that is used in this study (2–121) along with the secondary structures estimated using the DSSP program (Kabsch and Sander, 1983; boxes are α helices and arrows β strands). Structure 2014 22, 47-58DOI: (10.1016/j.str.2013.09.023) Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Ltd Terms and Conditions

Figure 3 Identification of Atg13 LIR by Pulldown Assay GST pulldown assays were performed using GST-LC3 isoforms and 6xHis-TF-Atg13 (A) or GST-Atg13 and LC3 isoforms (B–D). GST-fusion proteins were immobilized on Glutathione sepharose 4B and mixed with purified counterpart proteins. Pulldown products were subjected to SDS-PAGE and detected by Coomassie brilliant blue (CBB) staining. Structure 2014 22, 47-58DOI: (10.1016/j.str.2013.09.023) Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Ltd Terms and Conditions

Figure 4 Overall Structures of Uncomplexed Form and Atg13 LIR-Fused LC3 Isoforms Structures of uncomplexed form (A–C) and Atg13 LIR-fused LC3 isoforms (D–F) are represented by ribbon diagrams and colored in green (LC3A), cyan (LC3B), and orange (LC3C). LIR in symmetry-related molecules (magenta) and its interaction residues are shown in stick representation. Oxygen, nitrogen, and sulfur atoms are shown in red, blue, and yellow, respectively. The secondary structure was defined by the DSSP program (Kabsch and Sander, 1983). Structure 2014 22, 47-58DOI: (10.1016/j.str.2013.09.023) Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Ltd Terms and Conditions

Figure 5 Structural Comparison between the Uncomplexed and the Atg13 LIR Complexed Forms of LC3A (A and B) LC3A and LC3A/Atg13436–447 are shown in ribbon and transparent surface representation. LIR and its interaction residues are shown in stick representation. Carbon atoms of LIR, Lys49, and other residues are colored yellow, magenta, and green, respectively. Oxygen and nitrogen atoms are in red and blue, respectively. (C) Close-up view of Lys49 and Phe52. Carbon atoms of the uncomplexed form and Atg13 LIR complexed form of LC3A are colored in orange and cyan, respectively. Structure 2014 22, 47-58DOI: (10.1016/j.str.2013.09.023) Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Ltd Terms and Conditions

Figure 6 Mutational Analyses of the Interactions between Atg13 and LC3 (A) Schematic representation of mutants for Ala scanning. (B and D) Relative binding abilities of point mutants of Atg13 or LC3A compared with WT were measured by an SPR biosensor and expressed in percentages. Each value represents the mean ± SD. The sensorgrams are shown in Figure S4. (C) Ribbon diagram of the Atg13 LIR-fused LC3A structure highlighting the substituted residues (red stick representation) and the LIR (ribbon representation and colored line). Structure 2014 22, 47-58DOI: (10.1016/j.str.2013.09.023) Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Ltd Terms and Conditions

Figure 7 Structural Comparison of Lys49 Side-Chain Configuration among LC3 Family Proteins Corresponding residues to Lys49 and Phe52 of LC3A in ratLC3 (PDB code 1UGM), GABARAP (1JKT), GATE-16 (1EO6), and Atg8 (2KWC) as uncomplexed form, and LC3B/p62 (2ZJD), GABARAP/synthetic peptide (3D32), GABARAP-L1/NBR1 (2L8J), and Atg8/Atg19 (2ZPN) as LIR-bound form are shown in ribbon representation in green, magenta, cyan, magenta, yellow, salmon, orange, lime green, and slate, and the peptides are colored marine blue, lime green, purple, and yellow orange, respectively. Side-chain atoms are colored red for oxygen and blue for nitrogen. Structure 2014 22, 47-58DOI: (10.1016/j.str.2013.09.023) Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Ltd Terms and Conditions

Figure 8 The Effect of LC3 Mutations on Autophagosome Formation and Autophagy Flux (A) MEFs stably expressing the indicated constructs were cultured in nutrient-rich medium (N) or EBSS (S) with or without bafilomycin A1 (Baf A1) for 1 hr. Bars indicate 20 μm. (B) The numbers of LC3 puncta in cells were counted in >30 cells. Each value represents the mean ± SD. Statistical analysis was performed by Student’s t test: ∗p < 0.05, ∗∗p < 0.01; ns, not significant. Structure 2014 22, 47-58DOI: (10.1016/j.str.2013.09.023) Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Ltd Terms and Conditions

Figure 9 The Binding between LC3 and LIR Is Regulated by Structural Rearrangement of Lys49 Side-Chain and Hydrophobic Interaction by Phe444 and Ile447 (A) Ribbon diagram of LC3A and LIR colored white and yellow. Side chains of binding residues are shown in stick representation. (B–D) Close-up views of the critical binding sites. The residues surrounding Phe444 (the W-site) (D) and Ile447 (the L-site) (B) undergo subtle structural rearrangement and form hydrophobic interactions. In the uncomplexed structure (C), the side-chain of Lys49 covers LIR interaction surface. Upon binding of LIR to LC3, the side-chain of Lys49 detached from Phe52 an open hydrophobic surface consisting of Lys49 and Phe52. Green and purple indicate the residues in the uncomplexed and LIR-bound structures, respectively. Structure 2014 22, 47-58DOI: (10.1016/j.str.2013.09.023) Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Ltd Terms and Conditions