Solution structure of the constant region of nuclear envelope protein LAP2 reveals two LEM‐domain structures: one binds BAF and the other binds DNA by.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Three ‐ dimensional solution structure of the 44 kDa ectodomain of SIV gp41 by Michael Caffrey, Mengli Cai, Joshua Kaufman, Stephen J. Stahl, Paul T. Wingfield,
Advertisements

Structure of TAR RNA Complexed with a Tat-TAR Interaction Nanomolar Inhibitor that Was Identified by Computational Screening  Zhihua Du, Kenneth E Lind,
Volume 8, Issue 7, Pages (July 2000)
Volume 105, Issue 4, Pages (May 2001)
Volume 125, Issue 1, Pages (April 2006)
Volume 23, Issue 11, Pages (November 2015)
Volume 13, Issue 7, Pages (July 2005)
Solution Structure of a Cyanovirin-N:Manα1-2Manα Complex
Structural Basis for Vertebrate Filamin Dimerization
Backbone Dynamics of the 18
Volume 9, Issue 9, Pages (September 2001)
Volume 7, Issue 8, Pages (August 1999)
X-Ray Structures of Myc-Max and Mad-Max Recognizing DNA
Barley lipid-transfer protein complexed with palmitoyl CoA: the structure reveals a hydrophobic binding site that can expand to fit both large and small.
Tom Huxford, De-Bin Huang, Shiva Malek, Gourisankar Ghosh  Cell 
Volume 9, Issue 11, Pages (November 2001)
Volume 108, Issue 6, Pages (March 2015)
Volume 11, Issue 7, Pages (July 2003)
Volume 19, Issue 7, Pages (July 2011)
Volume 8, Issue 7, Pages (July 2000)
Structure and RNA Interactions of the N-Terminal RRM Domains of PTB
Volume 24, Issue 4, Pages (April 2016)
Volume 13, Issue 2, Pages (February 2005)
Volume 28, Issue 1, Pages (October 2007)
Phospho-Pon Binding-Mediated Fine-Tuning of Plk1 Activity
Volume 13, Issue 9, Pages (December 2015)
Solution and Crystal Structures of a Sugar Binding Site Mutant of Cyanovirin-N: No Evidence of Domain Swapping  Elena Matei, William Furey, Angela M.
Leonardus M.I. Koharudin, Angela M. Gronenborn  Structure 
Structure of Bax  Motoshi Suzuki, Richard J. Youle, Nico Tjandra  Cell 
Volume 21, Issue 10, Pages (October 2013)
Nicholas J Skelton, Cliff Quan, Dorothea Reilly, Henry Lowman 
Volume 20, Issue 1, Pages (October 2005)
Volume 22, Issue 12, Pages (March 2018)
Structural Analysis of the Voltage-Dependent Calcium Channel β Subunit Functional Core and Its Complex with the α1 Interaction Domain  Yarden Opatowsky,
Volume 2, Issue 11, Pages (November 1994)
Hongwei Wu, Mark W. Maciejewski, Sachiko Takebe, Stephen M. King 
Structural Basis for Vertebrate Filamin Dimerization
Volume 10, Issue 5, Pages (May 2002)
Volume 8, Issue 7, Pages (July 2000)
Volume 25, Issue 12, Pages e2 (December 2017)
Volume 17, Issue 10, Pages (October 2009)
Structural Diversity in Integrin/Talin Interactions
Volume 23, Issue 6, Pages (June 2015)
Coiled-Coil Domains of SUN Proteins as Intrinsic Dynamic Regulators
Volume 12, Issue 7, Pages (July 2004)
Volume 19, Issue 1, Pages (January 2011)
Insights into Oncogenic Mutations of Plexin-B1 Based on the Solution Structure of the Rho GTPase Binding Domain  Yufeng Tong, Prasanta K. Hota, Mehdi.
Volume 13, Issue 7, Pages (July 2005)
Volume 11, Issue 2, Pages (February 2003)
Volume 15, Issue 6, Pages (December 2001)
Subdomain Interactions Foster the Design of Two Protein Pairs with ∼80% Sequence Identity but Different Folds  Lauren L. Porter, Yanan He, Yihong Chen,
Volume 11, Issue 8, Pages (August 2003)
Min Wang, Mary Prorok, Francis J. Castellino  Biophysical Journal 
Jeffrey J. Wilson, Rhett A. Kovall  Cell 
Volume 20, Issue 1, Pages (January 2012)
Volume 35, Issue 3, Pages (August 2009)
Solution Structure of a TBP–TAFII230 Complex
Unmasking the Annexin I Interaction from the Structure of Apo-S100A11
Volume 8, Issue 1, Pages (January 2000)
Volume 8, Issue 7, Pages (July 2000)
The Crystal Structure of an Unusual Processivity Factor, Herpes Simplex Virus UL42, Bound to the C Terminus of Its Cognate Polymerase  Harmon J Zuccola,
Solution Structure of the Interacting Domains of the Mad–Sin3 Complex
Backbone Dynamics of the 18
Volume 18, Issue 9, Pages (September 2010)
Volume 13, Issue 5, Pages (May 2005)
The AXH Domain Adopts Alternative Folds
Volume 44, Issue 6, Pages (December 2011)
Volume 14, Issue 12, Pages (December 2006)
Volume 9, Issue 2, Pages (February 2001)
Three-Dimensional Structure of the Complexin/SNARE Complex
Presentation transcript:

Solution structure of the constant region of nuclear envelope protein LAP2 reveals two LEM‐domain structures: one binds BAF and the other binds DNA by Mengli Cai, Ying Huang, Rodolfo Ghirlando, Katherine L. Wilson, Robert Craigie, and G.Marius Clore EMBO J. Volume 20(16):4399-4407 August 15, 2001 ©2001 by European Molecular Biology Organization

Analytical ultracentrifugation of LAP21–168. Analytical ultracentrifugation of LAP21–168. Sedimentation equilibrium profiles, plotted in terms of ln(A290) versus the square of the radius (r2), for intact LAP21–168 (open circles) and thombin‐cleaved LAP21–168 (filled circles). In the case of thrombin‐cleaved LAP21–168 the N‐terminal His‐tag and the polypeptide chain between Arg86 and Ser87 are completely clipped as judged by SDS–PAGE. The sample comprises 10 mg/ml LAP21–168 in 50 mM potassium phosphate pH 7.2 and the data were collected at 20°C and 16 000 r.p.m. The molecular weight for intact LAP21–168 is 20 700 ± 700, indicating that LAP21–168 exists as a single monomeric species in solution. The average molecular weight of thrombin‐cleaved LAP21–168 is 9040 ± 200. These data indicate that LAP21–168 includes two independently folded domains that do not associate with each other in solution, consistent with the NMR data. Mengli Cai et al. EMBO J. 2001;20:4399-4407 ©2001 by European Molecular Biology Organization

Best‐fit superpositions of the final 20 simulated annealing structures of (A) the LAP2‐N domain and (B) the LAP2‐C domain. Best‐fit superpositions of the final 20 simulated annealing structures of (A) the LAP2‐N domain and (B) the LAP2‐C domain. The backbone is shown in red and ordered side chains in blue. Mengli Cai et al. EMBO J. 2001;20:4399-4407 ©2001 by European Molecular Biology Organization

(A) Ribbon diagrams of the LAP2‐N domain (‘LEM‐like’), the LAP2‐C domain (LEM‐domain), the C‐terminal domain of T4 endonuclease VII and the N‐terminal domain of the transcription termination factor rho. (A) Ribbon diagrams of the LAP2‐N domain (‘LEM‐like’), the LAP2‐C domain (LEM‐domain), the C‐terminal domain of T4 endonuclease VII and the N‐terminal domain of the transcription termination factor rho. (B) Structure‐based sequence alignment of the four domains. Residues in helices or helical turns are colored red. The coordinates of T4 endonuclease VII and rho were taken from Allison et al. (1998; PDB accession code 1A62) and Raaijmakers et al. (1999; PDB accession code 1EN7), respectively. Mengli Cai et al. EMBO J. 2001;20:4399-4407 ©2001 by European Molecular Biology Organization

1H‐15N correlation spectra illustrating the interactions between LAP21–168, DNA and BAF. (A) Comparison of LAP2 in the absence (red) and presence of 1.5 equivalents (blue) of a duplex DNA dodecamer. 1H‐15N correlation spectra illustrating the interactions between LAP21–168, DNA and BAF. (A) Comparison of LAP2 in the absence (red) and presence of 1.5 equivalents (blue) of a duplex DNA dodecamer. Only cross‐peaks of the LAP2‐N domain shift upon DNA binding, while those of the LAP2‐C domain remain unchanged, indicating that duplex DNA interacts exclusively with the LAP2‐N (LEM‐like) domain. (B) Comparison of the spectrum of LAP21–168 (selected region) in the absence (red) and presence (blue) of one equivalent (in terms of monomer) of BAF. Only the cross‐peaks in the LAP2‐C domain change significantly upon binding to BAF, while the cross‐peaks of the LAP2‐N domain remain unchanged. Thus, BAF only interacts with the LAP2‐C domain (LEM‐domain). (C) Comparison of LAP21–168 in the absence (red) and presence (blue) of the BAF–DNA nucleoprotein complex. All resolved peaks in the complex are labeled and arise from the LAP2‐N domain. All peaks originating from the LAP2‐C domain disappear upon binding the BAF–DNA nucleoprotein complex. These data indicate that only the LAP2‐C domain interacts with the BAF–DNA nucleoprotein complex. Mengli Cai et al. EMBO J. 2001;20:4399-4407 ©2001 by European Molecular Biology Organization

Interaction surfaces on (A) LAP2‐N for DNA, (B) LAP2‐C for BAF and (C) BAF for LAP2‐C derived from chemical shift mapping. Interaction surfaces on (A) LAP2‐N for DNA, (B) LAP2‐C for BAF and (C) BAF for LAP2‐C derived from chemical shift mapping. The left side of the figure shows the domains as molecular surface representations with residues that either shift or broaden significantly upon binding colored in green (hydrophobic), cyan (hydrophilic), blue (positively charged) and red (negatively charged). For LAP2‐N (A), Arg33 and Lys34 are displayed in magenta since they are clearly located in the DNA binding site but their backbone amide resonances were too broad to be observed in the 1H‐15N correlation spectra either in the free state or bound to DNA. For BAF (C), residues known to interact with DNA from single site mutational analysis are also displayed in magenta (Umland et al., 2000). To the right of the figure are ribbon diagrams in the same orientations as the molecular surfaces; best‐fits of LAP2‐N (red) and LAP2‐C (blue) are displayed in (A) and (B); and the two subunits of BAF are shown in red and blue in (C). The views shown in (A) and (B) differ by an ∼90° rotation. The structures in (A) and (B) are displayed on the same scale, while that in (C) is on a smaller scale. Coordinates for BAF are from Cai et al. (1998; PDB accession code 1QCK). Mengli Cai et al. EMBO J. 2001;20:4399-4407 ©2001 by European Molecular Biology Organization