Crystal structure of the dynamin tetramer (original) (raw)

Accession codes

Primary accessions

Protein Data Bank

Data deposits

The atomic coordinates and structure factors of human dynamin 3 have been deposited in the Protein Data Bank (PDB) with accession number 5A3F.

References

  1. Ferguson, S. M. & De Camilli, P. Dynamin, a membrane-remodelling GTPase. Nature Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 13, 75–88 (2012)
    Article CAS Google Scholar
  2. Faelber, K. et al. Crystal structure of nucleotide-free dynamin. Nature 477, 556–560 (2011)
    Article CAS ADS PubMed Google Scholar
  3. Ford, M. G., Jenni, S. & Nunnari, J. The crystal structure of dynamin. Nature 477, 561–566 (2011)
    Article CAS ADS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
  4. Cowling, B. S., Toussaint, A., Muller, J. & Laporte, J. Defective membrane remodeling in neuromuscular diseases: insights from animal models. PLoS Genet. 8, e1002595 (2012)
    Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
  5. Durieux, A. C., Prudhon, B., Guicheney, P. & Bitoun, M. Dynamin 2 and human diseases. J. Mol. Med. 88, 339–350 (2010)
    Article PubMed Google Scholar
  6. Daumke, O., Roux, A. & Haucke, V. BAR domain scaffolds in dynamin-mediated membrane fission. Cell 156, 882–892 (2014)
    Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar
  7. Hinshaw, J. E. & Schmid, S. L. Dynamin self-assembles into rings suggesting a mechanism for coated vesicle budding. Nature 374, 190–192 (1995)
    Article CAS ADS PubMed Google Scholar
  8. Takei, K., McPherson, P. S., Schmid, S. L. & De Camilli, P. Tubular membrane invaginations coated by dynamin rings are induced by GTP-gamma S in nerve terminals. Nature 374, 186–190 (1995)
    Article CAS ADS PubMed Google Scholar
  9. Chappie, J. S. et al. A pseudoatomic model of the dynamin polymer identifies a hydrolysis-dependent powerstroke. Cell 147, 209–222 (2011)
    Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
  10. Faelber, K. et al. Structural insights into dynamin-mediated membrane fission. Structure 20, 1621–1628 (2012)
    Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar
  11. Ramachandran, R. et al. The dynamin middle domain is critical for tetramerization and higher-order self-assembly. EMBO J. 26, 559–566 (2007)
    Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar
  12. Fröhlich, C. et al. Structural insights into oligomerization and mitochondrial remodelling of dynamin 1-like protein. EMBO J. 32, 1280–1292 (2013)
    Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
  13. Gao, S. et al. Structure of myxovirus resistance protein a reveals intra- and intermolecular domain interactions required for the antiviral function. Immunity 35, 514–525 (2011)
    Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar
  14. Gao, S. et al. Structural basis of oligomerization in the stalk region of dynamin-like MxA. Nature 465, 502–506 (2010)
    Article CAS ADS PubMed Google Scholar
  15. Srinivasan, S., Mattila, J. P. & Schmid, S. L. Intrapolypeptide Interactions between the GTPase Effector Domain (GED) and the GTPase Domain Form the Bundle Signaling Element in Dynamin Dimers. Biochemistry 53, 5724–5726 (2014)
    Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar
  16. Koutsopoulos, O. S. et al. Mild functional differences of dynamin 2 mutations associated to centronuclear myopathy and Charcot-Marie Tooth peripheral neuropathy. PLoS ONE 6, e27498 (2011)
    Article CAS ADS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
  17. Sidiropoulos, P. N. et al. Dynamin 2 mutations in Charcot-Marie-Tooth neuropathy highlight the importance of clathrin-mediated endocytosis in myelination. Brain 135, 1395–1411 (2012)
    Article PubMed Google Scholar
  18. Liu, Y. W. et al. Differential curvature sensing and generating activities of dynamin isoforms provide opportunities for tissue-specific regulation. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 108, E234–E242 (2011)
    Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
  19. Vallis, Y. et al. Importance of the pleckstrin homology domain of dynamin in clathrin-mediated endocytosis. Curr. Biol. 9, 257–263 (1999)
    Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar
  20. Kenniston, J. A. & Lemmon, M. A. Dynamin GTPase regulation is altered by PH domain mutations found in centronuclear myopathy patients. EMBO J. 29, 3054–3067 (2010)
    Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
  21. Bowman, G. R., Pande, V. S. & Noé, F. (eds) An Introduction to Markov State Models and Their Application to Long Timescale Molecular Simulation. (Springer, 2014)
    Book MATH Google Scholar
  22. Schütte, C. & Sarich, M. Metastability and Markov models in molecular dynamics: modeling, analysis, algorithmic approaches. In Courant Lecture Notes Vol. 24 (American Mathematical Society, 2013)
    Book MATH Google Scholar
  23. Kohlhoff, K. J. et al. Cloud-based simulations on Google Exacycle reveal ligand modulation of GPCR activation pathways. Nature Chem. 6, 15–21 (2014)
    Article CAS ADS Google Scholar
  24. Chen, Y. J., Zhang, P., Egelman, E. H. & Hinshaw, J. E. The stalk region of dynamin drives the constriction of dynamin tubes. Nature Struct. Mol. Biol. 11, 574–575 (2004)
    Article CAS Google Scholar
  25. Roux, A. et al. Membrane curvature controls dynamin polymerization. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 107, 4141–4146 (2010)
    Article CAS ADS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
  26. Sundborger, A. C. et al. A dynamin mutant defines a super-constricted pre-fission state. Cell Rep. 8, 734–742 (2014)
    Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
  27. Cocucci, E., Gaudin, R. & Kirchhausen, T. Dynamin recruitment and membrane scission at the neck of a clathrin-coated pit. Mol. Biol. Cell 25, 3595–3609 (2014)
    Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
  28. Grassart, A. et al. Actin and dynamin2 dynamics and interplay during clathrin-mediated endocytosis. J. Cell Biol. 205, 721–735 (2014)
    Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
  29. Graham, M. E., O’Callaghan, D. W., McMahon, H. T. & Burgoyne, R. D. Dynamin-dependent and dynamin-independent processes contribute to the regulation of single vesicle release kinetics and quantal size. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 99, 7124–7129 (2002)
    Article CAS ADS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
  30. Schmid, E. M. & McMahon, H. T. Integrating molecular and network biology to decode endocytosis. Nature 448, 883–888 (2007)
    Article CAS ADS PubMed Google Scholar
  31. Cao, H., Garcia, F. & McNiven, M. A. Differential distribution of dynamin isoforms in mammalian cells. Mol. Biol. Cell 9, 2595–2609 (1998)
    Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
  32. Kabsch, W. XDS. Acta Crystallogr. D 66, 125–132 (2010)
    Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
  33. McCoy, A. J. et al. Phaser crystallographic software. J. Appl. Crystallogr. 40, 658–674 (2007)
    Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
  34. Emsley, P., Lohkamp, B., Scott, W. G. & Cowtan, K. Features and development of Coot. Acta Crystallogr. D 66, 486–501 (2010)
    Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
  35. Adams, P. D. et al. The Phenix software for automated determination of macromolecular structures. Methods 55, 94–106 (2011)
    Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
  36. Chen, V. B. et al. MolProbity: all-atom structure validation for macromolecular crystallography. Acta Crystallogr. D 66, 12–21 (2010)
    Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar
  37. The PyMOL Molecular Graphics System. Version 1.7.0.1. (Schrödinger, LLC)
  38. Kabsch, W. A solution for the best rotation to relate two sets of vectors. Acta Crystallogr. A 32, 922–923 (1976)
    Article ADS Google Scholar
  39. Larkin, M. A. et al. Clustal W and Clustal X version 2.0. Bioinformatics 23, 2947–2948 (2007)
    Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar
  40. Pettersen, E. F. et al. UCSF Chimera–a visualization system for exploratory research and analysis. J. Comput. Chem. 25, 1605–1612 (2004)
    Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar
  41. Schuck, P. Size-distribution analysis of macromolecules by sedimentation velocity ultracentrifugation and lamm equation modeling. Biophys. J. 78, 1606–1619 (2000)
    Article CAS ADS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
  42. Laue, T. M. & Stafford, W. F., III . Modern applications of analytical ultracentrifugation. Annu. Rev. Biophys. Biomol. Struct. 28, 75–100 (1999)
    Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar
  43. Laue, M. T., Shah, B. D., Ridgeway, T. M. & Pelletier, S. L. in Analytical Ultracentrifugation in Biochemistry and Polymer Science (eds Harding, S. E. et al.) 90–125 (Royal Society of Chemistry, 1992)
    Google Scholar
  44. Edelstein, A. et al. Computer control of microscopes using μManager. Curr. Protoc. Mol. Biol http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/0471142727.mb1420s92 (2010)
  45. Humphrey, W., Dalke, A. & Schulten, K. VMD: visual molecular dynamics. J. Mol. Graph. 14, 33–38 (1996)
    Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar
  46. Lindahl, E., Hess, B. & van der Spoel, D. GROMACS 3.0: a package for molecular simulation and trajectory analysis. J. Mol. Model. 7, 306–317 (2001)
    Article CAS Google Scholar
  47. Mackerell, A. D. Jr, Feig, M. & Brooks, C. L., III . Extending the treatment of backbone energetics in protein force fields: limitations of gas-phase quantum mechanics in reproducing protein conformational distributions in molecular dynamics simulations. J. Comput. Chem. 25, 1400–1415 (2004)
    Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar
  48. Prinz, J.-H. et al. Markov models of molecular kinetics: Generation and validation. J. Chem. Phys. 134, 174105 (2011)
    Article ADS CAS PubMed Google Scholar
  49. Stanley, N., Esteban-Martin, S. & De Fabritiis, G. Kinetic modulation of a disordered protein domain by phosphorylation. Nature Commun. 5, 5272 (2014)
    Article CAS ADS Google Scholar
  50. Senne, M. et al. EMMA: A Software Package for Markov Model Building and Analysis. J. Chem. Theory Comput. 8, 2223–2238 (2012)
    Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar
  51. Swope, W. C., Pitera, J. W. & Suits, F. Describing protein folding kinetics by molecular dynamics simulations. 1. Theory. J. Phys. Chem. B 108, 6571–6581 (2004)
    Article CAS Google Scholar
  52. Deuflhard, P. & Weber, M. Robust Perron cluster analysis in conformation dynamics. Linear Algebra Appl. 398, 161–184 (2005)
    Article MathSciNet MATH Google Scholar
  53. Chappie, J. S. & Dyda, F. Building a fission machine–structural insights into dynamin assembly and activation. J. Cell Sci. 126, 2773–2784 (2013)
    Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

Download references

Acknowledgements

This project was supported by grants from the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (MA1081/8-2 to D.J.M.; SFB740/D7 and SFB958/A04 to F.N.; SFB740/C8 and SFB 958/A7 to V.H.; SFB 740/C7 and SFB958/A12 to O.D.; and ES410/2-1 to S.E.), an ERC consolidator grant (ERC-2013-CoG-616024 to O.D.), an ERC starting grant (pcCell to F.N.) and a grant from the Einstein Foundation Berlin (SOoPiC to N.P.). T.F.R. acknowledges partial financial support by the Cluster of Excellence REBIRTH (DFG EXC 62/1). We thank B. Purfürst for help with electron microscopy; S. Hertel, L. Litz, P. Straub and S. Wohlgemuth for experimental assistance; and the staff at beamlines X06SA (PXI) and X06DA (PXIII) at the Swiss Light Source (Villigen, Switzerland) for help during data collection. We thank Y.-W. Liu for discussions, and A. Wittinghofer for his support and discussions in the initial stages of the project.

Author information

Author notes

  1. York Posor
    Present address: †Present address: Cancer Institute, University College London, 72 Huntley Street, London WC1E 6DD, UK.,
  2. Thomas F. Reubold and Katja Faelber: These authors contributed equally to this work.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institut für Biophysikalische Chemie, Medizinische Hochschule Hannover, Carl-Neuberg-Str. 1, Hannover, 30625, Germany
    Thomas F. Reubold, Ute Curth, Roopsee Anand, Dietmar J. Manstein & Susanne Eschenburg
  2. Max-Delbrück-Centrum für Molekulare Medizin, Kristallographie, Robert-Rössle-Straße 10, Berlin, 13125, Germany
    Katja Faelber, Jeanette Schlegel & Oliver Daumke
  3. Institut für Mathematik, Freie Universität Berlin, Arnimallee 6, Berlin, 14195, Germany
    Nuria Plattner & Frank Noé
  4. Leibniz-Institut für Molekulare Pharmakologie, Robert-Rössle-Straße 10, Berlin, 13125, Germany
    York Posor, Katharina Ketel & Volker Haucke
  5. Forschungseinrichtung Strukturanalyse, Medizinische Hochschule Hannover, Carl-Neuberg-Str. 1, Hannover, 30625, Germany
    Ute Curth & Dietmar J. Manstein
  6. Institut für Chemie und Biochemie, Freie Universität Berlin, Takustraße 6, Berlin, 14195, Germany
    Volker Haucke & Oliver Daumke

Authors

  1. Thomas F. Reubold
    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
  2. Katja Faelber
    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
  3. Nuria Plattner
    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
  4. York Posor
    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
  5. Katharina Ketel
    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
  6. Ute Curth
    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
  7. Jeanette Schlegel
    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
  8. Roopsee Anand
    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
  9. Dietmar J. Manstein
    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
  10. Frank Noé
    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
  11. Volker Haucke
    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
  12. Oliver Daumke
    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
  13. Susanne Eschenburg
    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

T.F.R. grew the crystals and collected data; K.F. solved the structure; T.F.R., K.F. and S.E. refined the structure; T.F.R. and R.A. purified protein for crystallization and monomeric dynamin; K.F. and J.S. purified all other proteins, performed liposome co-sedimentation, EM and GTPase assays; U.C. performed and analysed analytical ultracentrifugation experiments; Y.P. and K.K. performed transferrin uptake assays; N.P. and. F.N. conducted and analysed molecular modelling and molecular dynamics simulations. N.P. and Y.P. contributed equally to this work. T.F.R., K.F., F.N., V.H., O.D. and S.E. interpreted structural data. T.F.R., K.F., Y.P., N.P., U.C., D.J.M., F.N., V.H., O.D. and S.E. designed the research. T.F.R., K.F., F.N., O.D. and S.E. wrote the manuscript.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence toKatja Faelber, Oliver Daumke or Susanne Eschenburg.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Extended data figures and tables

Extended Data Figure 1 Characterization of the dynamin 3 construct.

a, Top: the domain structure of dynamin 3. The previously used sequence-derived domain nomenclature is shown below. Bottom: a dynamin 3 monomer colour-coded according to the domain architecture. b, SDS–PAGE representing a typical purification of dynamin 3. M, marker proteins; NI, whole-cell-lysate non-induced; SN, supernatant of cleared lysate; E, elution peak of the Talon-Co2+ column; CL, after cleavage with TEV protease; P, pool after gel filtration. c, Representative electron density map (stereo view). Two stalk helices are shown as stick models, the 2_F_o − F_c map is contoured at 1.0_σ. Raw data for b is available in Supplementary Information.

Extended Data Figure 2 Dimerization of dynamin 3.

a, Superposition of dynamin 1 (grey; PDB code: 3SNH) and dynamin 3 (magenta and green) dimers, colour-coded as in Fig. 1. The stalk arrangement in dynamin 3 is essentially the same as in dynamin 1. b, Interface 2 in dynamin 3. The view is rotated by 90° with respect to a. The zoom shows the side chains of residues involved in interface formation. Residues, whose mutation render dynamin 1 and dynamin 3 monomeric, are marked with an asterisk. c, Top: stalks of the dynamin 3 tetramer, as seen in the crystal structure (left). Dynamin dimers (dark and light blue) are formed via interface 2 (I2) and assemble into the tetramer via interfaces 1 and 3 (I1 and I3, respectively). In alternative dimerization models (middle and right)52, dynamin monomers assemble via interface 1 (middle) or interface 3 (right) to form elongated dimers of different shapes. Bottom: arrangement of stalks of a dynamin 1 as fitted into a cryo-EM density map of a super-constricted dynamin 1 helix (PDB code: 4UUD)26. d, Oligomeric state of dimer interface mutants, as assayed by analytical ultracentrifugation at a protein concentration of 20 µM. The following molecular masses were obtained from c(s) analyses: dynamin 1(R361S/R399A) (176 kDa, dimeric) in dark blue; dynamin 1(I481D/H687D/L688S) (84 kDa, monomeric) in light blue; dynamin 3(K361S/R399A) (165 kDa, dimeric) in red, dynamin 3(I481D/H677D/L678S) (83 kDa, monomeric) in black.

Extended Data Figure 3 Dynamin assembly via interface 3.

a, Schematic overview of the interactions in interface 3. b, Details of loop L1NS. The 2_F_o − F_c electron density is contoured at 1.0_σ. c, The Charcot–Marie–Tooth-related mutation G358R is located at the C-terminal end of loop L1NS. It probably disturbs the structural integrity of this loop and therefore might interfere with oligomerization. d, Clathrin-coated pit dynamics in HeLa cells expressing interface 3 mutants of dynamin 2. HeLa cells treated with dynamin 2 siRNA were co-transfected with plasmids encoding eGFP or siRNA-resistant dynamin 2–eGFP and mRFP–clathrin-light-chain, and live cells were imaged at 37 °C by TIRF microscopy. Shown are representative time-resolved line scans (kymographs) from at least ten time-lapse recordings of individual cells. Attenuated clathrin-coated pit dynamics upon depletion of endogenous dynamin 2 are only rescued by re-expression of wild-type but not mutant dynamin 2–eGFP. Note that the dynamin 2 mutants tested displayed a more diffuse subcellular distribution although they were still recruited to clathrin-coated pits.

Extended Data Figure 4 Localization of the PH domain in the tetramer.

a, Superposition of an outer dynamin molecule (magenta) and an inner molecule (green) of the dynamin 3 tetramer. The comparison reveals an ∼40° rotation of the G domains and BSEs. Furthermore, the PH domain is visible only in the outer molecule. b, Superposition of the stalk and PH domain in dynamin 1 (grey) and dynamin 3 (magenta). c, Connectivity of PH domain and stalk in the outer molecule. Shown are the stalk and PH domain of an outer molecule (magenta) and the stalk of the corresponding inner molecule (green) from a dimer. Since the gap of ∼58 Å between V629 of the PH domain and P643 of the inner stalk is too large to be spanned by the missing 13 residues (grey dashed line), we can unambiguously assign the PH domains in dynamin 3 to the outer stalks (black dashed lines). All other potential connections including molecules from the second dimer or symmetry-related tetramers span even larger distances (not shown). In the crystal structures of dynamin 1, an unequivocal assignment of the PH domain to a specific stalk was not possible, due to the long unresolved linker regions between the stalk and the PH domains. Concomitantly, the impact of the interface between stalk and PH domain has not been generally recognized53. d, The outer PH domains are clearly defined in the electron density (left panel), whereas no density for a PH domain is observed in the equivalent position at the inner stalks (right panel). The density visible in the right panel corresponds mainly to a G domain from a symmetry-related molecule. The 2_F_o − F_c electron density is contoured at 1.0_σ. e, Modelling of a PH domain (grey) relative to an inner stalk (green) in the same geometry as seen in the outer molecules leads to steric clashes (black oval) with an adjacent stalk (blue).

Extended Data Figure 5 The PH domains regulate oligomerization of dynamin.

a, In the absence of liposomes, a dynamin 3 variant lacking the PH domain (ΔPH) was sedimented more efficiently than wild-type dynamin 3 (WT). Both ΔPH and wild type lacked the PRD. The proteins were sedimented by ultracentrifugation after 20 h of incubation at low salt concentrations (60 mM NaCl) in the presence of the non-hydrolysable GTP analogue GMPPCP. S, supernatant; P, pellet fraction. b, c, Representative negative-stain electron micrographs of wild type (b) and ΔPH (c) under the same conditions as in a. For each protein, at least eight micrographs were recorded. Both constructs showed oligomeric ring structures, similar to structures seen for full-length dynamin7. Our data indicate that oligomerization of dynamin does not require membrane binding, but membrane binding requires oligomerization (Fig. 2). d, In liposome co-sedimentation assays, dynamin 3 bound to Folch liposomes independently of their size. Not extr., not extruded. e, At physiological salt concentrations (150 mM NaCl), dynamin 3 efficiently tubulated unfiltered Folch liposomes. In contrast, ΔPH did not decorate the liposome surface and did not induce liposome tubulation. For each setup at least 12 micrographs were recorded. f, When expressed in HeLa cells, dynamin 2(ΔPH) formed large cytosolic aggregates that did not co-localize with mRFP–clathrin. Arrowheads indicate co-localization for wild-type dynamin 2. Shown are magnified insets of representative images from at least 20 individual cells, acquired by TIRF microscopy. g, Dynamin 2(ΔPH) was dominant-negative in transferrin uptake assays. Data shown represent mean ± s.e.m., the number of independent experiments is indicated in the bar. Raw data for a and d is available in Supplementary Information.

Extended Data Figure 6 Mutational analysis of the interface between PH domain and stalk.

a, Analytical gel filtration analysis for wild-type dynamin 3 and the mutant R518D. The proteins were pre-incubated for 10 min at 22 °C or 37 °C. When pre-incubated at 37 °C, only R518D showed a higher molecular weight species. AU, arbitrary units. b, Intrinsic GTPase activity of wild-type dynamin 3 and the mutant R518D at 37 °C in the absence of liposomes. The lines represent linear fits of GTP hydrolysis versus time. For R518D, a biphasic behaviour of the GTPase activity was apparent (for wild type: _k_obs = 0.5 min−1; for R518D: _k_obs1 = 2.2 min−1 and _k_obs2 = 13.3 min−1). This biochemical behaviour is reminiscent of dynamin 1 mutants in the PH-domain–stalk interface that show increased oligomerization and GTPase rates when incubated at 37 °C20. Perturbations in this interface appear to promote oligomerization of dynamin, pointing to an autoinhibitory function of this interface for oligomerization. The average of two independent measurements is shown with deviations ranging from 0% to 0.05% for wild type and 0% to 0.62% for R518D. c, Analytical ultracentrifugation experiments for the indicated dynamin 3 variants, as in Fig. 2a. For the mutant K361S that sediments as a single species, a molecular mass of 164 kDa could be obtained from c(s) analysis, indicating that this mutant forms dimers in solution. d, Liposome co-sedimentation analysis for the indicated mutants. S, supernatant; P, pellet fraction. e, GTPase activity of the indicated mutants in the absence and presence of liposomes. Shown is the average of two independent measurements, with deviations ranging from 1% to 11%. f, Ability of dynamin 2 mutants to rescue defective CME of transferrin in absence of endogenous dynamin 2. The assay was performed as described in Fig. 2d. R518 in dynamin 3 corresponds to R522 in dynamin 2 and the R522H mutation in dynamin 2 is implicated in centronuclear myopathy. Data shown represent mean ± s.e.m., the number of independent experiments is indicated in the bar. Note, we generally observed that the GTPase experiments were the most sensitive indicators of structural perturbations induced by mutations. Compared to membrane binding assays, GTPase assays appear to be more sensitive to the actual architecture of the dynamin oligomer and alterations induced by point mutations. Transferrin uptake assays could be influenced by cellular factors, such as BAR-domain protein that may stabilize mutant dynamin forms with deficits in oligomerization. Raw data for d is available in Supplementary Information.

Extended Data Figure 7 Molecular dynamics simulations and Markov models.

a, The PH-domain–stalk interaction is characterized by a number of mainly polar interactions. The represented conformation is one of the starting structures (setup 2) for the MD simulations and quickly converts into one of the metastable conformations shown in Fig. 3. b, Relaxation timescales of different constructs as a function of lag time computed from Markov models. The timescales of all models (black) have converged at a lag time of about 20 ns within statistical uncertainty (colour-shaded regions), indicating approximate Markovianity. The grey area indicates the region with lag times larger than relaxation timescales. c, Top: intrinsic conformation dynamics of the L1NS loop shown for the wild type (black) and the mutant K361S (red). Bottom: six metastable conformations and their equilibrium probabilities of the L1NS loop (setup 3) for the wild type (black) and mutant K361S (red) computed from the Markov model. d, Residue pairs used to characterize the L1NS loop and stalk–PH domain interactions.

Extended Data Figure 8 Interactions of the G domain, stalk and BSE in the tetramer.

a, Two views on a fitting of the dynamin 3 tetramer crystal structure into the EM density of non-constricted oligomerized dynamin 1 (ref 24). The positions of the inner G domains are shown in all four molecules since the outer G domains in our crystals are stabilized by crystal contacts. Apparently, membrane binding and oligomerization is associated with major movements of the G domain, BSE and the PH domain (indicated by arrows). b, A loop of the outer PH domain and an inner G domain are in close proximity. c, The outer G domains (left), but not the inner G domains (right), are well defined in the electron density. The 2_F_o − F_c electron density is contoured at 1.0_σ. The weak electron density for the inner G domains and the resulting uncertainty in determining the contact sites prevented us from analysing this interaction in more detail. d, The BSE of an inner monomer (grey) interacts with the stalk of an outer monomer (magenta). This contact involves R465 which is mutated to tryptophan in some centronuclear myopathy patients. The R465W mutation leads to hyperactive dynamin4 that fragments the T tubule network in mouse-myoblast-derived myotubes and Drosophila body wall muscle (Y.-W. Liu, personal communication).

Extended Data Figure 9 Disease-relevant mutations in dynamin.

Localizations of mutations leading to Charcot–Marie–Tooth neuropathy (black balls) and centronuclear myopathy (pink balls) are plotted onto a dynamin 3 monomer. Colour code as in Fig. 1.

Extended Data Table 1 Data collection and refinement statistics

Full size table

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

This file contains Supplementary Figure 1, sequence alignment of the dynamin superfamily. The figure contains a structure-based alignment of protein sequences of important members of the dynamin superfamily. Amino acid residues mutated in this study are highlighted. It also contains gel images for Figure 2 and Extended Data Figures 5 and 6. (PDF 2723 kb)

PowerPoint slides

Rights and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Reubold, T., Faelber, K., Plattner, N. et al. Crystal structure of the dynamin tetramer.Nature 525, 404–408 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1038/nature14880

Download citation