Engineered Domain Swapping as an On/Off Switch for Protein Function

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Structure-Based Engineering of Angucyclinone 6-Ketoreductases
Advertisements

Volume 18, Issue 2, Pages (February 2010)
Networks of Dynamic Allostery Regulate Enzyme Function
Volume 12, Issue 10, Pages (October 2005)
Volume 57, Issue 3, Pages (February 2015)
Volume 17, Issue 1, Pages (January 2010)
Crystal Structure of the Tandem Phosphatase Domains of RPTP LAR
The loop E–loop D region of Escherichia coli 5S rRNA: the solution structure reveals an unusual loop that may be important for binding ribosomal proteins 
Structural Basis for the Highly Selective Inhibition of MMP-13
Moses Prabu-Jeyabalan, Ellen Nalivaika, Celia A. Schiffer  Structure 
Sebastian Meyer, Raimund Dutzler  Structure 
Volume 9, Issue 10, Pages (October 2002)
Structural Basis for Vertebrate Filamin Dimerization
The Structure of the Cytoplasmic Domain of the Chloride Channel ClC-Ka Reveals a Conserved Interaction Interface  Sandra Markovic, Raimund Dutzler  Structure 
Solution Structure of the U11-48K CHHC Zinc-Finger Domain that Specifically Binds the 5′ Splice Site of U12-Type Introns  Henning Tidow, Antonina Andreeva,
Huifang Huang, Stephen C Harrison, Gregory L Verdine 
Volume 13, Issue 12, Pages (December 2005)
Debanu Das, Millie M Georgiadis  Structure 
Tom Huxford, De-Bin Huang, Shiva Malek, Gourisankar Ghosh  Cell 
Allosteric Effects of the Oncogenic RasQ61L Mutant on Raf-RBD
Volume 23, Issue 7, Pages (July 2015)
Chloroplast NADP-malate dehydrogenase: structural basis of light-dependent regulation of activity by thiol oxidation and reduction  Paul D Carr, Denis.
Fuqing Wu, David J. Menn, Xiao Wang  Chemistry & Biology 
Structure-Guided Design of Fluorescent S-Adenosylmethionine Analogs for a High- Throughput Screen to Target SAM-I Riboswitch RNAs  Scott F. Hickey, Ming C.
A Solution to Limited Genomic Capacity: Using Adaptable Binding Surfaces to Assemble the Functional HIV Rev Oligomer on RNA  Matthew D. Daugherty, Iván.
Solution and Crystal Structures of a Sugar Binding Site Mutant of Cyanovirin-N: No Evidence of Domain Swapping  Elena Matei, William Furey, Angela M.
Beena Krishnan, Lila M. Gierasch  Chemistry & Biology 
Volume 14, Issue 2, Pages (February 2006)
Yuan Yang, Chang Shu, Pingwei Li, Tatyana I. Igumenova 
Structure of the UBA Domain of Dsk2p in Complex with Ubiquitin
Volume 3, Issue 1, Pages (January 2013)
A Conformational Switch in the CRIB-PDZ Module of Par-6
Volume 10, Issue 2, Pages (February 2002)
Structural Basis for Vertebrate Filamin Dimerization
Volume 17, Issue 6, Pages (June 2009)
Daniel Hoersch, Tanja Kortemme  Structure 
Zhenjian Cai, Nabil H. Chehab, Nikola P. Pavletich  Molecular Cell 
Volume 18, Issue 6, Pages (June 2010)
The Crystal Structure of the Costimulatory OX40-OX40L Complex
Volume 9, Issue 8, Pages (August 2001)
Elizabeth J. Little, Andrea C. Babic, Nancy C. Horton  Structure 
Volume 13, Issue 2, Pages (February 2005)
Volume 9, Issue 11, Pages (November 2001)
Volume 24, Issue 8, Pages (August 2016)
Volume 20, Issue 11, Pages (November 2013)
Volume 24, Issue 12, Pages e5 (December 2017)
Volume 20, Issue 2, Pages (February 2013)
Volume 16, Issue 12, Pages (September 2016)
Structural Basis for the Highly Selective Inhibition of MMP-13
Volume 13, Issue 12, Pages (December 2005)
Volume 13, Issue 7, Pages (July 2005)
Structure-Based Engineering of Angucyclinone 6-Ketoreductases
Meigang Gu, Kanagalaghatta R. Rajashankar, Christopher D. Lima 
Promiscuous Protein Binding as a Function of Protein Stability
Volume 16, Issue 3, Pages (March 2008)
A Role for Intersubunit Interactions in Maintaining SAGA Deubiquitinating Module Structure and Activity  Nadine L. Samara, Alison E. Ringel, Cynthia Wolberger 
Volume 14, Issue 4, Pages (April 2006)
Volume 16, Issue 3, Pages (March 2008)
Solution Structure of a TBP–TAFII230 Complex
Volume 22, Issue 9, Pages (September 2015)
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.
Ying Huang, Michael P. Myers, Rui-Ming Xu  Structure 
Volume 18, Issue 3, Pages (March 2011)
Eva M. Huber, Michael Groll  Structure 
Volume 13, Issue 5, Pages (May 2005)
Damian Dawidowski, David S. Cafiso  Structure 
Volume 27, Issue 7, Pages e5 (July 2019)
Volume 14, Issue 12, Pages (December 2006)
The Structure of T. aquaticus DNA Polymerase III Is Distinct from Eukaryotic Replicative DNA Polymerases  Scott Bailey, Richard A. Wing, Thomas A. Steitz 
Debanu Das, Millie M Georgiadis  Structure 
Presentation transcript:

Engineered Domain Swapping as an On/Off Switch for Protein Function Jeung-Hoi Ha, Joshua M. Karchin, Nancy Walker-Kopp, Carlos A. Castañeda, Stewart N. Loh  Chemistry & Biology  Volume 22, Issue 10, Pages 1384-1393 (October 2015) DOI: 10.1016/j.chembiol.2015.09.007 Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ltd Terms and Conditions

Chemistry & Biology 2015 22, 1384-1393DOI: (10. 1016/j. chembiol. 2015 Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ltd Terms and Conditions

Figure 1 Schematics of Lever-Target Design and Disulfide Crosslinking and RBP Activity Tests for Domain Swapping (A) A lever protein (Ub, red) with a long (≥25 Å) N-to-C distance is inserted into a target protein (RBP, blue) at a point in a surface loop of the target (position 34 of RBP is shown as an example; red circle). Residues 1–34 of RBP are colored cyan. (B) The lever domain forces the target domain apart at the insertion site, separating it into two pieces that cannot refold within the same molecule. Each end of the bisected target can then refold via domain swap to generate a closed dimer (shown), longer closed oligomers, or a long linear polymer. (C) For the disulfide crosslinking assay, RU-Cys2 proteins are denatured and reduced, then allowed to refold and oxidize. If they dimerize via domain swapping, with the hinge region between the two Cys groups, the disulfide bond will form intermolecularly, thereby covalently linking the two monomers. Similarly, if the protein swaps to generate longer polymers then the disulfide bonds will covalently link all subunits together, allowing polymer size to be determined by SDS-PAGE. If the protein instead forms complexes by conventional interactions (i.e. surface binding without strand exchange), the disulfide bonds will form intramolecularly and run as monomers on SDS-PAGE. Two identical RU-Cys2 variants are shown, but the method works equally well for two different RU-Cys2 species. (D) For the ribose binding activity test, inactive NBM and CBM variants of the same RU (shown) or different RU variants are mixed, denatured, and allowed to refold. Domain swapping results in one inactive complex that contains both NBM + CBM mutations and one complex that is free of mutations and is fully active. Chemistry & Biology 2015 22, 1384-1393DOI: (10.1016/j.chembiol.2015.09.007) Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ltd Terms and Conditions

Figure 2 Pairwise Mixing of RU-Cys2 Variants Reveals Homo- and Hetero-Swapping (A) Non-reducing SDS-PAGE indicates that all RU-Cys2 variants swap with themselves (lanes labeled homo-swap), but some pairs swap more extensively with each other than with themselves (lanes labeled hetero-swap). The RU34 + RU210 and RU60 + RU210 lanes contain larger swapped polymers than the lanes RU34, RU60, or RU210 alone. By contrast, the RU34 + RU60 lane shows a banding pattern similar to that of the sum of the RU34 and RU60 lanes, suggesting that RU34 and RU60 prefer to swap with themselves rather than with each other. (B and C) The amino acid connectivities and hinge regions of the proposed homo- and hetero-swapped structures in (A). The amino acid sequence of the RBP domain is shown as a thick colored arrow and the amino acid connectivity of the swapped complex is traced by a dashed white arrow. The hinge region is a dashed magenta arrow. In the hetero-swapped complex formed by RU34 and RU210 (C), the potential hinge region (magenta box) extends from positions 35 to 210. Once the RU34/RU210 hetero-swapped dimer forms, additional RU34 and RU210 proteins can add to the N-terminal and C-terminal ends, respectively, via the homo-swapping interactions depicted in (B). (D) Addition of subunits to the hetero-dimer can be prevented by truncating the amino acids to either side of the Ub domain in the RU hetero-pair. Chemistry & Biology 2015 22, 1384-1393DOI: (10.1016/j.chembiol.2015.09.007) Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ltd Terms and Conditions

Figure 3 FRET Competition Assay for Domain Swapping (A) Homo-swapping control in which RU125-CyPet and RU125-YPet are challenged with unlabeled RU125 competitor (concentrations in inset). Fluorescence spectra are normalized to CyPet emission for clarity. (B) The same data in (A) are plotted as CyPet/YPet emission ratio, with hetero-swapping results obtained with unlabeled RU34, RU60, and RU210 competitors included. Lines are best fit to the one-site binding equation. Chemistry & Biology 2015 22, 1384-1393DOI: (10.1016/j.chembiol.2015.09.007) Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ltd Terms and Conditions

Figure 4 The Hinge Region of the Hetero-Swapped Dimer Maps to Residues 94–101 (A and B) RU60-ΔN and RU125-ΔC bind to regenerate native-like RBP structure. (A) HSQC crosspeaks of 15N-RU60-ΔN alone (blue) and 15N-RU125-ΔC alone (green) show little superposition with resonances of WT RBP (red). (B) When 15N-RU60-ΔN is mixed with unlabeled RU125-ΔC (blue), and when 15N-RU125-ΔC is mixed with unlabeled RU60-ΔN (green), most of the blue and green peaks shift into alignment with the WT RBP peaks (red). WT Ub resonances are colored black; these black peaks overlay well with blue and green peaks in both (A) and (B), indicating that Ub is folded and native-like in all samples. (C) The process of mapping the hinge region is demonstrated using a zoomed-in region of (B). Resonance assignments of WT RBP are indicated, with residue numbers colored blue if the WT RBP peak superimposes with a peak from 15N-RU60-ΔN (complexed with unlabeled RU125-ΔC), green if the WT RBP peak superimposes with a peak from 15N-RU125-ΔC (complexed with unlabeled RU60-ΔN), and gray if no superposition is observed with either protein. Ub assignments are in black. Chemistry & Biology 2015 22, 1384-1393DOI: (10.1016/j.chembiol.2015.09.007) Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ltd Terms and Conditions

Figure 5 Location of the Hinge Region on RBP The structure of WT RBP is shown at top and the amino acid sequence at the bottom. Color coding is the same as in Figure 4; namely, green and blue indicate backbone resonances of WT RBP that superimpose with those of 15N-RU125-ΔC and 15N-RU60-ΔN, respectively, gray denotes resonances of WT RBP that do not superimpose with any peak from either 15N-RU125-ΔC or 15N-RU60-ΔN, and black indicates lack of assignment or Pro. The potential hinge (magenta) is located between residues 94 and 101, in the longest surface loop on RBP. Chemistry & Biology 2015 22, 1384-1393DOI: (10.1016/j.chembiol.2015.09.007) Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ltd Terms and Conditions