Internal motions prime cIAP1 for rapid activation (original) (raw)

Accession codes

Accessions

Protein Data Bank

References

  1. Hanahan, D. & Weinberg, R.A. Hallmarks of cancer: the next generation. Cell 144, 646–674 (2011).
    Article CAS Google Scholar
  2. Fuchs, Y. & Steller, H. Programmed cell death in animal development and disease. Cell 147, 742–758 (2011).
    Article CAS Google Scholar
  3. Flygare, J.A. & Fairbrother, W.J. Small-molecule pan-IAP antagonists: a patent review. Expert Opin. Ther. Pat. 20, 251–267 (2010).
    Article CAS Google Scholar
  4. Fulda, S. & Vucic, D. Targeting IAP proteins for therapeutic intervention in cancer. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 11, 109–124 (2012).
    Article CAS Google Scholar
  5. Du, C., Fang, M., Li, Y., Li, L. & Wang, X. Smac, a mitochondrial protein that promotes cytochrome c-dependent caspase activation by eliminating IAP inhibition. Cell 102, 33–42 (2000).
    Article CAS Google Scholar
  6. Verhagen, A.M. et al. Identification of DIABLO, a mammalian protein that promotes apoptosis by binding to and antagonizing IAP proteins. Cell 102, 43–53 (2000).
    Article CAS Google Scholar
  7. Liu, Z. et al. Structural basis for binding of Smac/DIABLO to the XIAP BIR3 domain. Nature 408, 1004–1008 (2000).
    Article CAS Google Scholar
  8. Wu, G. et al. Structural basis of IAP recognition by Smac/DIABLO. Nature 408, 1008–1012 (2000).
    Article CAS Google Scholar
  9. Vucic, D. et al. Engineering ML-IAP to produce an extraordinarily potent caspase 9 inhibitor: implications for Smac-dependent anti-apoptotic activity of ML-IAP. Biochem. J. 385, 11–20 (2005).
    Article CAS Google Scholar
  10. Zobel, K. et al. Design, synthesis, and biological activity of a potent Smac mimetic that sensitizes cancer cells to apoptosis by antagonizing IAPs. ACS Chem. Biol. 1, 525–533 (2006).
    Article CAS Google Scholar
  11. Varfolomeev, E. et al. IAP antagonists induce autoubiquitination of c-IAPs, NF-κB activation, and TNFα-dependent apoptosis. Cell 131, 669–681 (2007).
    Article CAS Google Scholar
  12. Gaither, A. et al. A Smac mimetic rescue screen reveals roles for inhibitor of apoptosis proteins in tumor necrosis factor-α signaling. Cancer Res. 67, 11493–11498 (2007).
    Article CAS Google Scholar
  13. Vince, J.E. et al. IAP antagonists target cIAP1 to induce TNFα-dependent apoptosis. Cell 131, 682–693 (2007).
    Article CAS Google Scholar
  14. Bertrand, M.J.M. et al. cIAP1 and cIAP2 facilitate cancer cell survival by functioning as E3 ligases that promote RIP1 ubiquitination. Mol. Cell 30, 689–700 (2008).
    Article CAS Google Scholar
  15. Varfolomeev, E. et al. c-IAP1 and c-IAP2 are critical mediators of tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNFα)-induced NF-κB activation. J. Biol. Chem. 283, 24295–24299 (2008).
    Article CAS Google Scholar
  16. Plechanovová, A., Jaffray, E.G., Tatham, M.H., Naismith, J.H. & Hay, R.T. Structure of a RING E3 ligase and ubiquitin-loaded E2 primed for catalysis. Nature 489, 115–120 (2012).
    Article Google Scholar
  17. Dou, H., Buetow, L., Sibbet, G.J., Cameron, K. & Huang, D.T. BIRC7–E2 ubiquitin conjugate structure reveals the mechanism of ubiquitin transfer by a RING dimer. Nat. Struct. Mol. Biol. 19, 876–883 (2012).
    Article CAS Google Scholar
  18. Mace, P.D. et al. Structures of the cIAP2 RING domain reveal conformational changes associated with ubiquitin-conjugating enzyme (E2) recruitment. J. Biol. Chem. 283, 31633–31640 (2008).
    Article CAS Google Scholar
  19. Feltham, R. et al. Smac mimetics activate the E3 ligase activity of cIAP1 protein by promoting RING domain dimerization. J. Biol. Chem. 286, 17015–17028 (2011).
    Article CAS Google Scholar
  20. Dueber, E.C. et al. Antagonists induce a conformational change in cIAP1 that promotes autoubiquitination. Science 334, 376–380 (2011).
    Article CAS Google Scholar
  21. Lopez, J. et al. CARD-mediated autoinhibition of cIAP1′s E3 ligase activity suppresses cell proliferation and migration. Mol. Cell 42, 569–583 (2011).
    Article CAS Google Scholar
  22. Kleckner, I.R. & Foster, M.P. An introduction to NMR-based approaches for measuring protein dynamics. Biochim. Biophys. Acta 1814, 942–968 (2011).
    Article CAS Google Scholar
  23. Tugarinov, V. & Kay, L.E. Methyl groups as probes of structure and dynamics in NMR studies of high-molecular-weight proteins. ChemBioChem 6, 1567–1577 (2005).
    Article CAS Google Scholar
  24. Gelis, I. et al. Structural basis for signal-sequence recognition by the translocase motor SecA as determined by NMR. Cell 131, 756–769 (2007).
    Article CAS Google Scholar
  25. Martel, A., Liu, P., Weiss, T.M., Niebuhr, M. & Tsuruta, H. An integrated high-throughput data acquisition system for biological solution X-ray scattering studies. J. Synchrotron Radiat. 19, 431–434 (2012).
    Article CAS Google Scholar
  26. Bernadó, P., Mylonas, E., Petoukhov, M.V., Blackledge, M. & Svergun, D.I. Structural characterization of flexible proteins using small-angle X-ray scattering. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 129, 5656–5664 (2007).
    Article Google Scholar
  27. Konarev, P.V., Volkov, V.V., Sokolova, A.V., Koch, M.H.J. & Svergun, D.I. PRIMUS: a Windows PC-based system for small-angle scattering data analysis. J. Appl. Crystallogr. 36, 1277–1282 (2003).
    Article CAS Google Scholar
  28. Henzler-Wildman, K. & Kern, D. Dynamic personalities of proteins. Nature 450, 964–972 (2007).
    Article CAS Google Scholar
  29. Lorenz, S., Cantor, A.J., Rape, M. & Kuriyan, J. Macromolecular juggling by ubiquitylation enzymes. BMC Biol. 11, 65 (2013).
    Article Google Scholar
  30. Krumbiegel, M., Herrmann, A. & Blumenthal, R. Kinetics of the low pH-induced conformational changes and fusogenic activity of influenza hemagglutinin. Biophys. J. 67, 2355–2360 (1994).
    Article CAS Google Scholar
  31. Carr, C.M. & Kim, P.S. A spring-loaded mechanism for the conformational change of influenza hemagglutinin. Cell 73, 823–832 (1993).
    Article CAS Google Scholar
  32. Ohno, A. et al. Structure of the UBA domain of Dsk2p in complex with ubiquitin molecular determinants for ubiquitin recognition. Structure 13, 521–532 (2005).
    Article CAS Google Scholar
  33. Brzovic, P.S., Lissounov, A., Christensen, D.E., Hoyt, D.W. & Klevit, R.E.A. UbcH5/ubiquitin noncovalent complex is required for processive BRCA1-directed ubiquitination. Mol. Cell 21, 873–880 (2006).
    Article CAS Google Scholar
  34. Pruneda, J.N. et al. Structure of an E3:E2~Ub complex reveals an allosteric mechanism shared among RING/U-box ligases. Mol. Cell 47, 933–942 (2012).
    Article CAS Google Scholar
  35. Bentley, M.L. et al. Recognition of UbcH5c and the nucleosome by the Bmi1/Ring1b ubiquitin ligase complex. EMBO J. 30, 3285–3297 (2011).
    Article CAS Google Scholar
  36. Dong, K.C. et al. Preparation of distinct ubiquitin chain reagents of high purity and yield. Structure 19, 1053–1063 (2011).
    Article CAS Google Scholar
  37. Smith, P.A. et al. A plasmid expression system for quantitative in vivo biotinylation of thioredoxin fusion proteins in Escherichia coli. Nucleic Acids Res. 26, 1414–1420 (1998).
    Article CAS Google Scholar
  38. Cai, M. et al. An efficient and cost-effective isotope labeling protocol for proteins expressed in Escherichia coli. J. Biomol. NMR 11, 97–102 (1998).
    Article CAS Google Scholar
  39. Isotope labeling strategies for the study of high-molecular-weight proteins by solution NMR spectroscopy. Nat. Protoc. 1, 749–754 (2006).
  40. Tollinger, M., Skrynnikov, N.R., Mulder, F.A., Forman-Kay, J.D. & Kay, L.E. Slow dynamics in folded and unfolded states of an SH3 domain. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 123, 11341–11352 (2001).
    Article CAS Google Scholar
  41. Carver, J.P. & Richards, R. E. A general two-site solution for the chemical exchange produced dependence of _T_2 upon the Carr-Purcell pulse separation. J. Magn. Reson. 6, 89–105 (1972).
    CAS Google Scholar
  42. Kleckner, I.R. & Foster, M.P. GUARDD: user-friendly MATLAB software for rigorous analysis of CPMG RD NMR data. J. Biomol. NMR 52, 11–22 (2012).
    Article CAS Google Scholar
  43. Tsuruta, H. et al. A wide-bandpass multilayer monochromator for biological small-angle scattering and fiber diffraction studies. J. Appl. Crystallogr. 31, 672–682 (1998).
    Article CAS Google Scholar
  44. Svergun, D.I. Determination of the regularization parameter in indirect-transform methods using perceptual criteria. J. Appl. Crystallogr. 25, 495–503 (1992).
    Article CAS Google Scholar
  45. Svergun, D.I., Petoukhov, M.V. & Koch, M. Determination of domain structure of proteins from X-ray solution scattering. Biophys. J. 80, 2946–2953 (2001).
    Article CAS Google Scholar
  46. Volkov, V.V. & Svergun, D.I. Uniqueness of ab initio shape determination in small-angle scattering. J. Appl. Crystallogr. 36, 860–864 (2003).
    Article CAS Google Scholar
  47. Petoukhov, M.V. & Svergun, D.I. Global rigid body modeling of macromolecular complexes against small-angle scattering data. Biophys. J. 89, 1237–1250 (2005).
    Article CAS Google Scholar

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank R. Klevit for helpful discussions and A. Taherbhoy for assistance in preparing ubiquitin-charged E2. We acknowledge use of the Central California 900-MHz Facility (supported by US National Institutes of Health (NIH) grant GM68933) and thank D. Wemmer and J. Pelton for assistance with the facility. Use of the Stanford Synchrotron Radiation Lightsource (SSRL), Stanford Linear Accelerator Center (SLAC) US National Accelerator Laboratory, is supported by the US Department of Energy (DOE), Office of Science, Office of Basic Energy Sciences under contract no. DE-AC02-76SF00515. The SSRL Structural Molecular Biology Program is supported by the DOE Office of Biological and Environmental Research and by the NIH National Institute of General Medical Sciences (NIGMS) (including grant P41GM103393). The contents of this publication are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official views of NIGMS or NIH.

Author information

Author notes

  1. Aaron H Phillips & John W Blankenship
    Present address: Present addresses: Department of Structural Biology, St. Jude Children's Research Hospital, Memphis, Tennessee, USA (A.H.P.) and Department of Molecular Biology and Protein Engineering, Emergent BioSolutions, Seattle, Washington, USA (J.W.B.).,
  2. Aaron H Phillips and Allyn J Schoeffler: These authors contributed equally to this work.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Early Discovery Biochemistry, Genentech, South San Francisco, California, USA
    Aaron H Phillips, Allyn J Schoeffler, John W Blankenship, Kerry Zobel, Erin C Dueber & Wayne J Fairbrother
  2. Stanford Synchrotron Radiation Lightsource, Stanford Linear Accelerator Center National Laboratory, Menlo Park, California, USA
    Tsutomu Matsui & Thomas M Weiss
  3. Department of Biochemical and Cellular Pharmacology, Genentech, South San Francisco, California, USA
    Anthony M Giannetti

Authors

  1. Aaron H Phillips
    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
  2. Allyn J Schoeffler
    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
  3. Tsutomu Matsui
    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
  4. Thomas M Weiss
    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
  5. John W Blankenship
    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
  6. Kerry Zobel
    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
  7. Anthony M Giannetti
    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
  8. Erin C Dueber
    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
  9. Wayne J Fairbrother
    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

A.H.P. designed and performed NMR experiments, analyzed data and wrote the paper. A.J.S. designed and performed SAXS and biochemical experiments (except surface plasmon resonance experiments), analyzed data and wrote the paper. T.M. and T.M.W. designed the specialized stopped-flow SAXS instrumentation and performed SAXS experiments. K.Z. prepared peptide reagents. A.M.G. performed surface plasmon resonance experiments. J.W.B. performed selected NMR experiments. E.C.D. and W.J.F. supervised the work, designed experiments and contributed to the writing of the paper.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence toErin C Dueber or Wayne J Fairbrother.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

A.J.S., A.M.G., K.Z., E.C.D. and W.J.F. are all employed by Genentech, a member of the Roche group. J.W.B. is employed by Emergent Biosolutions.

Integrated supplementary information

Supplementary Figure 1 Definition and assessment of cIAP1 constructs.

(a) cIAP1 constructs used in this study are shown as primary structure schematics with domains colored as in the main text. Mutations and deletions are indicated with magenta lines. The mutations in the cIAP1-B3R construct reduce proteolysis and non-native disulfide formation1. (b) The binding of cIAP1-B3R (blue) and cIAP1-B3RMF-AA (gray) to monobiotinylated ubiquitin was tested using biolayer interferometry. Equilibrium response values are plotted against cIAP1 concentration. No detectable binding is observed by the cIAP1-B3RMF-AA construct. cIAP1-B3R binds ubiquitin with a KD of approximately 20 μM as determined by a single-site binding isotherm fit, in good agreement with past studies2. Recent reports have suggested that this mutation destabilizes cIAP13, which might contribute to the very slight decrease in E2 binding affinity we observe in the MF-AA variants. The use of cIAP1MF-AA in E2 binding studies removes the complicating effects of direct cIAP1-ubiquitin binding in the case of the E2-Ub conjugate. (c) The binding of cIAP1-B3R (blue) and cIAP1-B3R-ΔCARD (green) to E2SRCK was assessed using biolayer interferometry. Equilibrium response values were plotted as a function of E2 concentration, and the resulting curves were fit to a single-site binding isotherm. The affinities determined are approximately 27 μM (cIAP1-B3R) and 19 μM (cIAP1-B3R-ΔCARD), recapitulating the relative increase in affinity upon CARD deletion observed in the case of cIAP1-B3RMF-AA.

Supplementary Figure 2 UbcH5c does not induce dimerization of cIAP1.

(a) cIAP1-B3R responds to SMAC mimetics by dimerizing, as detected by native gel electrophoresis. Lane 1 shows a native molecular weight marker (Native Mark, Invitrogen) with molecular weights indicated at left. Lane 2 shows monomeric cIAP1 (64 μM). Lane 3 shows dimerized cIAP1 in the presence of AVPW (1 mM). Binding of the bivalent SMAC mimetic BV6 (1 mM) induces stronger and more compact dimerization because it can engage two BIR3 domains simultaneously. Lanes 4-7 demonstrate that UbcH5c (64 μM) does not affect the dimerization state of cIAP1. Lanes 8-10 demonstrate that the gel mobility of UbcH5c is not affected by the SMAC mimetics. All samples contain 1% DMSO. (b) cIAP1-B3R (64 μM) was incubated with UbcH5c at 0 to 128 μM. No detectable dimer is formed. cIAP1 bound to BV6 is included as a dimerization control.

Supplementary Figure 3 Methionine methyl groups assigned by mutagenesis.

1H-13C HMQC spectra of each methionine to leucine point mutant (blue) overlaid with the cIAP1-B3R spectrum (red). The M466L mutant is also shown with the contours drawn four times lower. The M266L, M391L, M392L, and M402L spectra display secondary chemical shift changes that may be due to structural perturbations as a result of the mutation.

Supplementary Figure 4 Dispersion profiles of UBA α3.

The residues in UBA α3 were fit to a single exchange process with kex = 970 ± 100 s-1 and pB = 2.2 ± 0.1 %. Data and fits at 900 MHz are shown in red, 800 MHz data and fits are in blue. Error bars were determined by treating the spectral noise level as the uncertainty in peak heights. The two residues in UBA α3 that do not have detectable R2 dispersion, Q411 and L418, are severely overlapped in the 1H-15N spectra. As shown in Fig. 4a, R2 dispersion was also detected at additional residues in the UBA (A388, V389, M390, A399, F404, K425, D429 and I430) as well as at five additional residues outside the UBA domain (L359, T534, I548, V581 and I608); however, as the residues do not cluster into large, contiguous surfaces we did not fit the data to extract kinetic or equilibrium parameters describing the exchange processes.

Supplementary Figure 5 Characterization of the conformational states of cIAP1 variants.

(a) Size-exclusion multi-angle light scattering (SEC-MALS) traces of cIAP1 constructs with and without SMAC mimetics. Apo-proteins are shown in black, AVPW-bound protein in blue, and BV6 bound proteins (as a dimerization control) in red. The UV absorbance for each peak was normalized to 1. As expected, cIAP1-B3R (top) dimerizes in response to both AVPW and BV6, while cIAP1-B3R-ΔCARD (center) is constitutively open and dimerizes only in the presence of BV6. The L617E construct (bottom) blocks AVPW-induced dimerization without disrupting the closed conformation. (b) L617 is positioned in the RING dimerization interface. The structure of the cIAP2 RING dimer (PDB code: 3EB5, ref. 4) is shown in cartoon representation with the homologous residue to L617, L603, colored magenta and shown as spheres. Zinc ions are shown as light gray spheres.

Supplementary Figure 6 Standard SAXS models.

Averaged, filtered SAXS models from 10 independent ab initio calculations are shown for cIAP1-B3R, cIAP1-B3R-∆C7 and cIAP1-B3RL617E with and without AVPW. Fits (dark blue lines) of the raw scattering data (red circles) to the best ab initio model from each set are shown. Chi values for those fits are also shown. Models were generated as described (see Methods) using GASBOR.

Supplementary Figure 7 Molecular models based on standard cIAP1 SAXS data.

(a) The best of ten molecular models of cIAP1-B3R-ΔC7 is shown superposed with the averaged, filtered ab initio model. A normalized spatial discrepancy (NSD) for the aligment is indicated. The fit (dark blue line) of the molecular model to the experimental data (red circles) is shown below the model, and the Chi value describing the fit is indicated. I stands for scattering intensity and q is proportional to the scattering angle (q = 4 sin(θ)/λ, where 2_θ_ = the angle between the incident X-ray beam and the detector, and λ = the X-ray wavelength in Ångstroms). (b) The same data as in (a) is shown for cIAP1-B3R-ΔC7 in the presence of 1 mM AVPW. (c, d) Constraints used in the generation of closed monomeric molecular models are shown. All constraints are based on mutational data1. (e) The best of ten molecular models of cIAP1-B3R is shown superposed with the averaged, filtered ab initio model, in two views. The NSD between the two models is indicated. (f) The fit of the best cIAP1-B3R molecular model to the experimental data is shown. All colors and variables are as in (a). (g) A subset of calculated molecular models for cIAP1-B3R is shown aligned by their BIR3 domains to demonstrate the heterogeneity of the position of the CARD. The protein likely exists as an ensemble of states not fully reflected by any single model. (h) The distributions of Rg values in the ensembles of molecular models generated by EOM for cIAP1-B3R (black), cIAP1-B3RL617E (orange), cIAP1-B3R-ΔC7 (violet) and cIAP1-B3RL617E + AVPW (green) are shown. The initial, unoptimized pools are displayed as dotted lines, and the optimized ensembles as solid lines. Note that the closed states (cIAP1-B3R and cIAP1-B3RL617E) adopt tighter and smaller distributions than the open states (cIAP1-B3R-ΔC7 and cIAP1-B3RL617E + AVPW), reflecting the more rigid conformation of the closed states.

Supplementary Figure 8 Controls for TR-SAXS measurements.

(a,b) Time-resolved SAXS (TR-SAXS) experiments of cIAP1-B3R and cIAP1-B3RL617E mixed with buffer instead of AVPW. (c, d) TR-SAXS experiment of cIAP1-B3R-∆C7 mixed (c) with buffer and (d) with AVPW. (e) TR-SAXS analysis of cIAP1-B3RL617E with a higher concentration of AVPW (1 mM). The relative populations of the monomeric, open, and dimeric conformations of cIAP1 were extracted from the TR-SAXS data by deconvolution using the static scattering curves of each state as reference (See Methods). Each point represents and average from three experiments, plus or minus standard deviation. Data are fit to first order integrated rate equations. The closed monomer fraction is shown as blue squares, open fraction as hot pink circles, dimer fraction as purple diamonds.

Supplementary information

Rights and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Phillips, A., Schoeffler, A., Matsui, T. et al. Internal motions prime cIAP1 for rapid activation.Nat Struct Mol Biol 21, 1068–1074 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1038/nsmb.2916

Download citation