Volume 153, Issue 2, Pages (April 2013)

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Volume 21, Issue 8, Pages (August 2013)
Advertisements

Volume 129, Issue 6, Pages (June 2007)
Synovial Sarcoma Mechanisms: A Series of Unfortunate Events
Volume 125, Issue 1, Pages (April 2006)
Volume 13, Issue 7, Pages (July 2005)
Volume 16, Issue 3, Pages (March 2008)
Structural Basis for Vertebrate Filamin Dimerization
Dom Bellini, Miroslav Z. Papiz  Structure 
Volume 52, Issue 1, Pages (October 2013)
Volume 19, Issue 1, Pages (January 2011)
Volume 47, Issue 1, Pages (July 2012)
Interactions of Pleckstrin Homology Domains with Membranes: Adding Back the Bilayer via High-Throughput Molecular Dynamics  Eiji Yamamoto, Antreas C.
Barbie K. Ganser-Pornillos, Anchi Cheng, Mark Yeager  Cell 
Volume 22, Issue 5, Pages (May 2014)
Structural Modeling of Heteromeric Protein Complexes from Disassembly Pathways and Ion Mobility-Mass Spectrometry  Zoe Hall, Argyris Politis, Carol V.
Volume 124, Issue 3, Pages (February 2006)
OmpA: A Flexible Clamp for Bacterial Cell Wall Attachment
Darren Thompson, Mark B Pepys, Steve P Wood  Structure 
Volume 32, Issue 5, Pages (December 2001)
Jianing Yu, David Ferster  Neuron 
Volume 28, Issue 1, Pages (October 2007)
Volume 24, Issue 13, Pages (July 2014)
Volume 22, Issue 5, Pages (May 2014)
Hybrid Structure of the RagA/C-Ragulator mTORC1 Activation Complex
Volume 51, Issue 2, Pages (July 2013)
Orientational Preferences of Neighboring Helices Can Drive ER Insertion of a Marginally Hydrophobic Transmembrane Helix  Karin Öjemalm, Katrin K. Halling,
Volume 23, Issue 4, Pages (April 2015)
Volume 22, Issue 4, Pages (April 2014)
Volume 18, Issue 9, Pages (September 2010)
Volume 128, Issue 3, Pages (February 2007)
Volume 28, Issue 6, Pages (December 2007)
Foldability of a Natural De Novo Evolved Protein
Volume 128, Issue 6, Pages (March 2007)
Structural Basis for Vertebrate Filamin Dimerization
Volume 156, Issue 4, Pages (February 2014)
Volume 20, Issue 6, Pages (June 2012)
Volume 18, Issue 2, Pages (April 2005)
Volume 19, Issue 5, Pages (May 2012)
Graham D. Bailey, Jae K. Hyun, Alok K. Mitra, Richard L. Kingston 
Volume 14, Issue 5, Pages (May 2006)
Volume 56, Issue 6, Pages (December 2007)
Volume 13, Issue 6, Pages (June 2006)
György Abrusán, Joseph A. Marsh  Cell Reports 
Coiled-Coil Domains of SUN Proteins as Intrinsic Dynamic Regulators
Volume 25, Issue 5, Pages e5 (May 2017)
Each Actin Subunit Has Three Nebulin Binding Sites
Volume 38, Issue 3, Pages (May 2010)
Surface-Induced Dissociation of Homotetramers with D2 Symmetry Yields their Assembly Pathways and Characterizes the Effect of Ligand Binding  Royston S.
Volume 19, Issue 1, Pages (January 2011)
Topological Determinants of Protein Domain Swapping
Volume 26, Issue 1, Pages e4 (January 2018)
Volume 18, Issue 3, Pages (March 2010)
Volume 51, Issue 1, Pages (July 2013)
Hayun Lee, Yi Zhou, David W. Taylor, Dipali G. Sashital  Molecular Cell 
Scarlet S. Shell, Christopher D. Putnam, Richard D. Kolodner 
Volume 138, Issue 4, Pages (August 2009)
Volume 29, Issue 6, Pages (March 2008)
Volume 17, Issue 1, Pages (January 2009)
Hafumi Nishi, Kosuke Hashimoto, Anna R. Panchenko  Structure 
Volume 23, Issue 4, Pages (April 2015)
Volume 30, Issue 3, Pages (May 2008)
Architecture of a Coat for the Nuclear Pore Membrane
Activation of Pheromone-Sensitive Neurons Is Mediated by Conformational Activation of Pheromone-Binding Protein  John D. Laughlin, Tal Soo Ha, David N.M.
Volume 22, Issue 1, Pages (January 2015)
Transcription Dynamics
Volume 109, Issue 8, Pages (October 2015)
Volume 16, Issue 3, Pages (March 2008)
Foldability of a Natural De Novo Evolved Protein
Species-Dependent Ensembles of Conserved Conformational States Define the Hsp90 Chaperone ATPase Cycle  Daniel R. Southworth, David A. Agard  Molecular.
XMAP215 Is a Processive Microtubule Polymerase
Presentation transcript:

Volume 153, Issue 2, Pages 461-470 (April 2013) Protein Complexes Are under Evolutionary Selection to Assemble via Ordered Pathways  Joseph A. Marsh, Helena Hernández, Zoe Hall, Sebastian E. Ahnert, Tina Perica, Carol V. Robinson, Sarah A. Teichmann  Cell  Volume 153, Issue 2, Pages 461-470 (April 2013) DOI: 10.1016/j.cell.2013.02.044 Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Inc. Terms and Conditions

Cell 2013 153, 461-470DOI: (10.1016/j.cell.2013.02.044) Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Inc. Terms and Conditions

Figure 1 Gene Fusion Events between the Subunits of Protein Complexes Can Either Conserve or Modify Assembly Pathways This diagram demonstrates the three possible fusion events that could occur in a complex with three unique subunits, each repeated twice. With the α-β fusion, the fusion event mimics the first step of assembly, and thus the assembly pathway would be conserved. However, for both the α-γ and β-γ fusions, the assembly pathway is modified. In this graph representation of protein complexes, a circular node represents each protein subunit, and the edges between nodes represent the intersubunit interfaces. Cell 2013 153, 461-470DOI: (10.1016/j.cell.2013.02.044) Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Inc. Terms and Conditions

Figure 2 Experimentally Characterized (Dis)Assembly Pathways of Heteromeric Prefusion Complexes (A) (Dis)assembly pathways of complexes characterized by nESI-MS as well as representative mass spectra. See Table S2 for a full list of subcomplexes identified under different solution conditions. (B) (Dis)assembly pathways of complexes identified from previously published experiments. In the graph representations of protein complexes, interfaces that undergo fusion are shown in orange. See also Figure S1. Cell 2013 153, 461-470DOI: (10.1016/j.cell.2013.02.044) Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Inc. Terms and Conditions

Figure 3 Evolutionary Conservation of Protein Complex (Dis)Assembly Pathways upon Gene Fusion (A) Comparison of the frequency of evolutionary gene fusion events in heteromeric subunits pairs that would either conserve or modify (dis)assembly pathways upon hypothetical subunit fusion. (B) Comparison of observed (dis)assembly conservation from in vitro experiments and in silico predictions with the intrinsically expected values for complexes with the same topologies. (C) Direct comparison of predicted (dis)assembly conservation and randomly occurring fusions in complexes with more than two unique subunits. Error bars represent the SEM. See also Figure S3 and Table S1. Cell 2013 153, 461-470DOI: (10.1016/j.cell.2013.02.044) Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Inc. Terms and Conditions

Figure 4 Evolutionary Simplification of Protein Complex Assembly via Gene Fusion (A) Graph representation of a prefusion complex (PDB ID: 1RM6) in which the subunits that fuse (α and γ) share interaction partners, leading to a large decrease in the number of interfaces upon fusion. (B) Mean reduction in interfaces (per protomer) upon fusion for 36 fusion events, compared with random fusions within the same complexes. (C) Protein-protein interaction network for the E. coli proteins cysI and cysJ showing that four out of nine binding partners (magenta) are shared between the two; thus, the total number of discrete interactions will be reduced by four upon fusion. (D) Comparison of shared binding partners between proteins that undergo fusion from high-throughput protein interaction data for E. coli (n = 61), yeast (n = 16), and humans (n = 16). Comparisons for 411 other species are provided in Table S3. Error bars represent the SEM. See also Table S1. Cell 2013 153, 461-470DOI: (10.1016/j.cell.2013.02.044) Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Inc. Terms and Conditions

Figure 5 Protein Structural Determinants of Gene Fusion (A) Fusion may be unable to occur if the protein termini are too far apart in the prefusion complex. However, if the C terminus of one subunit is close to the N terminus of the other, a productive fusion is more likely. (B) Comparison of fusion and reverse distances between the γ and β subunits of K. aerogenes urease (PDB ID: 1KRA; only one αβγ trimer from the full (αβγ)3 nonamer is shown). (C) Box plot comparison of fusion and reverse distances (in Å) in 47 fusion events from full-length proteins in which fusion occurs in only a single gene order; black bars represent the medians, and boxes and whiskers indicate the distribution quartiles. See also Table S4. Cell 2013 153, 461-470DOI: (10.1016/j.cell.2013.02.044) Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Inc. Terms and Conditions

Figure S1 Acetyl-CoA Carboxylase Carboxyltransferase Experiments, Related to Figure 2 (A) Spectra from nESI-MS experiments observed under native (500 mM ammonium acetate) and destabilizing (30% MeOH, pH 6) conditions. Charge state series corresponding to the intact complex (red), the αβ dimer (green) and the β monomer (blue) are marked. (B) Ion mobility drift time versus m/z contour plot in 30% MeOH, pH 6. (C) Two αβ subcomplexes representing two alternate (dis)assembly pathways are possible. Comparison of the experimental collision cross section (CCS) with theoretical CCS values for the two possible dimers suggests that the dimer preserves the larger interface (orange). CCS values were calculated from the crystal structure using a scaled projection approximation (PA) method (Mack, 1925; Benesch and Ruotolo, 2011). The ion mobility arrival time distribution for the 16+ ion is shown. Cell 2013 153, 461-470DOI: (10.1016/j.cell.2013.02.044) Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Inc. Terms and Conditions

Figure S2 Reassembly Experiments, Related to Table 1 (A–D) Carbamoyl phosphate synthetase (A), tryptophan synthase (B), K. aerogenes urease (C), and H. mustelae urease (D). Mass spectra for each complex are presented under destabilizing conditions, after reassembly, and before (dis)assembly under native conditions. Cell 2013 153, 461-470DOI: (10.1016/j.cell.2013.02.044) Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Inc. Terms and Conditions

Figure S3 Preferential Fusion in Obligate Complexes, Related to Figure 3 (A–C) Comparison of (A) interface size, (B) fraction transient, and (C) coexpression in 94 fusion pairs and 2,449 nonfusion pairs from crystal structures. (D) Comparison of coexpression in interacting pairs of proteins from high-throughput protein-protein interaction data for E. coli (65 fusion pairs and 6,422 nonfusion pairs), yeast (16 fusion pairs and 102 959 nonfusion pairs) and humans (17 fusion pairs and 59 703 nonfusion pairs). All error bars represent the SEM. Cell 2013 153, 461-470DOI: (10.1016/j.cell.2013.02.044) Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Inc. Terms and Conditions