CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 44

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Structure based biophysical characterization of the PROPPIN Atg18 shows Atg18 oligomerization upon membrane binding

Scacioc, Andreea, Schmidt, Carla, Hofmann, Tommy, Urlaub, Henning, Kühnel, Karin, Pérez-Lara, Ángel·2017·Scientific Reports
DOI 10.1038/s41598-017-14337-5PMC PMC5656675
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

PROPPINs (β-propellers that bind polyphosphoinositides) are PtdIns3P and PtdIns(3,5)P 2 binding autophagy related proteins. They contain two phosphatidylinositolphosphate (PIP) binding sites and a conserved FRRG motif is essential for PIP binding. Here we present the 2.0 Å resolution crystal structure of the PROPPIN Atg18 from Pichia angusta. We designed cysteine mutants for labelling with the fluorescence dyes to probe the distances of the mutants to the membrane. These measurements support a model for PROPPIN-membrane binding, where the PROPPIN sits in a perpendicular or slightly tilted orientation on the membrane. Stopped-flow measurements suggest that initial PROPPIN-membrane binding is driven by non-specific PIP interactions. The FRRG motif then retains the protein in the membrane by binding two PIP molecules as evident by a lower dissociation rate for Atg18 in comparison with its PIP binding deficient FTTG mutant. We demonstrate that the amine-specific cross-linker Bis(sulfosuccinimidyl)suberate (BS3), which is used for protein-protein cross-linking can also be applied for cross-linking proteins and phosphatidylethanolamine (PE). Cross-linking experiments with liposome bound Atg18 yielded several PE cross-linked peptides. We also observed intermolecular cross-linked peptides, which indicated Atg18 oligomerization. FRET-based stopped-flow measurements revealed that Atg18 rapidly oligomerizes upon membrane binding while it is mainly monomeric in solution.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/s41598-017-14337-5

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Figure 1 Pichia angusta Atg18 structure. (A) Cartoon representations of Atg18 rainbow-colored from blue at the N-terminus to red at the C-terminus. The ligands and FRRG arginine side chains are shown as ball and sticks. Loop 6CD (297–437) is missing and marked through the last ordered residues 296 and 438. Panels (A–C) show the protein in the same orientation. Surface representations of Atg18 showing (B) surface charges with blue depicting positive and red negative charges and (C) conservation of the molecule. Conservation analysis was done with Consurf46. Proteins used for the sequence alignment are listed in the Methods section. (D) Close up on site 1 with bound citrate. The omit mFo-DFc difference map, where m is the figure of merit and D the sigma A weighting factor has a contour level of σ = +2.5. Scheme showing ligand protein interactions was adapted from LigPlot+. Hydrogen bonds and salt bridges between ligand and protein are shown with dashed lines and distances are given in Ångstrom. Water molecules are depicted as cyan spheres. (E) Site 1 with a bound phosphate ion. The 2.5 Å resolution 2mFo-DFc map is contoured at 1.0 σ. (F) PIP binding site 2 with a bound phosphate ion. The 2.0 Å resolution 2mFo-DFc electron density map is contoured at 1.0 σ. Residues with disordered side chains are marked with an asterisk.
Figure 1 Pichia angusta Atg18 structure. (A) Cartoon representations of Atg18 rainbow-colored from blue at the N-terminus to red at the C-terminus. The ligands and FRRG arginine side chains are shown as ball and sticks. Loop 6CD (297–437) is missing and marked through the last ordered residues 296 and 438. Panels (A–C) show the protein in the same orientation. Surface representations of Atg18 showing (B) surface charges with blue depicting positive and red negative charges and (C) conservation of the molecule. Conservation analysis was done with Consurf46. Proteins used for the sequence alignment are listed in the Methods section. (D) Close up on site 1 with bound citrate. The omit mFo-DFc difference map, where m is the figure of merit and D the sigma A weighting factor has a contour level of σ = +2.5. Scheme showing ligand protein interactions was adapted from LigPlot+. Hydrogen bonds and salt bridges between ligand and protein are shown with dashed lines and distances are given in Ångstrom. Water molecules are depicted as cyan spheres. (E) Site 1 with a bound phosphate ion. The 2.5 Å resolution 2mFo-DFc map is contoured at 1.0 σ. (F) PIP binding site 2 with a bound phosphate ion. The 2.0 Å resolution 2mFo-DFc electron density map is contoured at 1.0 σ. Residues with disordered side chains are marked with an asterisk.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 2 Stopped-flow measurements with S448C Atg18 and S448C FTTG Atg18. Time courses of Texas Red (A and B) or Rhodamine B (E and F) fluorescence emission measurements at different accessible lipid concentrations are shown for S448C Atg18 (A and E) and S448C FTTG Atg18 (B and F). A scale-up of the the traces in Fig. 2B and fitting results are shown in Supplementary Figure 11 and Supplementary Tables 3–7, respectively. (C and G) Graphs showing the dependency of k obs1 from the accessible lipid concentration. The y-intercept provides the dissociation rate constant k off, and the slope yields the association rate constant k on. Bars represent the standard errors of three to five technical repeats. The solid line shows a weighted linear fit (equation 2 in Methods). Amplitudes of the k obs1 used for data analysis are shown in Supplementary Figure 5. (D and H) Increases of Texas Red (D) or Rhodamine B (H) fluorescence emission are shown at different accessible lipid concentrations for S448C Atg18 and S448C FTTG Atg18.
Figure 2 Stopped-flow measurements with S448C Atg18 and S448C FTTG Atg18. Time courses of Texas Red (A and B) or Rhodamine B (E and F) fluorescence emission measurements at different accessible lipid concentrations are shown for S448C Atg18 (A and E) and S448C FTTG Atg18 (B and F). A scale-up of the the traces in Fig. 2B and fitting results are shown in Supplementary Figure 11 and Supplementary Tables 3–7, respectively. (C and G) Graphs showing the dependency of k obs1 from the accessible lipid concentration. The y-intercept provides the dissociation rate constant k off, and the slope yields the association rate constant k on. Bars represent the standard errors of three to five technical repeats. The solid line shows a weighted linear fit (equation 2 in Methods). Amplitudes of the k obs1 used for data analysis are shown in Supplementary Figure 5. (D and H) Increases of Texas Red (D) or Rhodamine B (H) fluorescence emission are shown at different accessible lipid concentrations for S448C Atg18 and S448C FTTG Atg18.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 3 (A) Atg18 structure showing residues, which were mutated to cysteines for fluorescence labeling experiments. E170 is marked with an asterisk because its side chain is disordered in the structure and was modelled as an alanine. (B) Liposome flotation assays were performed with wild-type, cysteine-free and single cysteine Atg18 mutants using 100 nm LUVs composed of DOPC/DOPE/Texas Red-PE/PtdIns(3,5)P2 (76:21:2:1, molar ratio). The top two fractions of the gradient show protein bound to liposomes and bottom fractions contain unbound protein. The S448C FTTG mutant served as a negative control. (C) Observed changes of the normalized fluorescence at 520 nm for the Oregon Green labelled mutants after Texas Red liposome addition. (D) Model for Atg18 binding at the membrane. The docking was manually performed taking data from (C) into account. Residues are color coded according to the observed change in normalized fluorescence. Color bar is shown.
Figure 3 (A) Atg18 structure showing residues, which were mutated to cysteines for fluorescence labeling experiments. E170 is marked with an asterisk because its side chain is disordered in the structure and was modelled as an alanine. (B) Liposome flotation assays were performed with wild-type, cysteine-free and single cysteine Atg18 mutants using 100 nm LUVs composed of DOPC/DOPE/Texas Red-PE/PtdIns(3,5)P2 (76:21:2:1, molar ratio). The top two fractions of the gradient show protein bound to liposomes and bottom fractions contain unbound protein. The S448C FTTG mutant served as a negative control. (C) Observed changes of the normalized fluorescence at 520 nm for the Oregon Green labelled mutants after Texas Red liposome addition. (D) Model for Atg18 binding at the membrane. The docking was manually performed taking data from (C) into account. Residues are color coded according to the observed change in normalized fluorescence. Color bar is shown.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 4 (A) Intramolecular cross-links of Atg18 are shown with red lines. Cross-links that are not included in the crystal structure are indicated by dotted lines. The seven blades of the β-propeller are rainbow colored. Residues missing from the crystal structure are highlighted in grey and light orange (residues 297–437, blade 6). (B) Bar diagramme indicating intermolecular Atg18 interactions (blue Lines). (C) Native mass spectrum of Atg18 oligomers. Calculated masses of the oligomers are given. (D) Intramolecular cross-links identified in Atg18 in the presence of liposomes. (E) Blue lines indicate intermolecular cross-links between two Atg18 molecules in the presence of liposomes. Red lines show protein-PE cross-links. PE cross-linked residues are labelled.
Figure 4 (A) Intramolecular cross-links of Atg18 are shown with red lines. Cross-links that are not included in the crystal structure are indicated by dotted lines. The seven blades of the β-propeller are rainbow colored. Residues missing from the crystal structure are highlighted in grey and light orange (residues 297–437, blade 6). (B) Bar diagramme indicating intermolecular Atg18 interactions (blue Lines). (C) Native mass spectrum of Atg18 oligomers. Calculated masses of the oligomers are given. (D) Intramolecular cross-links identified in Atg18 in the presence of liposomes. (E) Blue lines indicate intermolecular cross-links between two Atg18 molecules in the presence of liposomes. Red lines show protein-PE cross-links. PE cross-linked residues are labelled.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 5 Characterization of Atg18-Atg18 interactions with FRET based stopped-flow measurements. (A) Graph shows time courses of rapid mixing of 0.5 µM Atg18 C113 (labelled with Alexa Fluor 488) with 0.5 µM Atg18 C113 (labelled with Alexa Fluor 546) either in the presence of unlabeled liposomes (1 mM total lipid), Ins(1,3,5)P3 (6 µM) or free in solution. (B) Experiments are similar to (A), but Oregon Green and Texas Red were used as donor and acceptor dyes instead. (C) Measurements with Texas Red labelled liposomes in comparison with measurements using labelled proteins for monitoring of the FRET signal. Unlabelled protein was mixed with unlabelled protein bound liposomes to monitor aggregation by measuring of the absorbance at 405 nm. Time course traces were normalized for comparison.
Figure 5 Characterization of Atg18-Atg18 interactions with FRET based stopped-flow measurements. (A) Graph shows time courses of rapid mixing of 0.5 µM Atg18 C113 (labelled with Alexa Fluor 488) with 0.5 µM Atg18 C113 (labelled with Alexa Fluor 546) either in the presence of unlabeled liposomes (1 mM total lipid), Ins(1,3,5)P3 (6 µM) or free in solution. (B) Experiments are similar to (A), but Oregon Green and Texas Red were used as donor and acceptor dyes instead. (C) Measurements with Texas Red labelled liposomes in comparison with measurements using labelled proteins for monitoring of the FRET signal. Unlabelled protein was mixed with unlabelled protein bound liposomes to monitor aggregation by measuring of the absorbance at 405 nm. Time course traces were normalized for comparison.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 6 Model for Atg18 membrane binding. The protein oligomerizes upon membrane binding while it is mainly monomeric in solution. Higher order oligomers might be formed by membrane bound Atg18.
Figure 6 Model for Atg18 membrane binding. The protein oligomerizes upon membrane binding while it is mainly monomeric in solution. Higher order oligomers might be formed by membrane bound Atg18.CC BY · PubMed Central

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 2 references

Research works printed but not linked: 47

  1. Wen, X. & Klionsky, D. J. An overview of macroautophagy in yeast. J Mol Biol 428, 1681–1699 (2016). · DOI
  2. Dove, S. K., Dong, K., Kobayashi, T., Williams, F. K. & Michell, R. H. Phosphatidylinositol 3,5-bisphosphate and Fab1p/PIKfyve underPPIn endo-lysosome function. Biochem J 419, 1–13 (2009). · DOI
  3. Proikas-Cezanne, T. et al. WIPI-1alpha (WIPI49), a member of the novel 7-bladed WIPI protein family, is aberrantly expressed in human cancer and is linked to starvation-induced autophagy. Oncogene 23, 9314–9325 (2004). · DOI · Paper page
  4. Polson, H. E. et al. Mammalian Atg18 (WIPI2) localizes to omegasome-anchored phagophores and positively regulates LC3 lipidation. Autophagy 6 (2010). · DOI · Paper page
  5. Barth, H., Meiling-Wesse, K., Epple, U. D. & Thumm, M. Autophagy and the cytoplasm to vacuole targeting pathway both require Aut10p. FEBS Lett 508, 23–28 (2001). · DOI · Paper page
  6. Stromhaug, P. E., Reggiori, F., Guan, J., Wang, C. W. & Klionsky, D. J. Atg21 is a phosphoinositide binding protein required for efficient lipidation and localization of Atg8 during uptake of aminopeptidase I by selective autophagy. Mol Biol Cell 15, 3553–3566 (2004). · DOI
  7. Krick, R. et al. Piecemeal microautophagy of the nucleus requires the core macroautophagy genes. Mol Biol Cell 19, 4492–4505 (2008). · DOI
  8. Dove, S. K. et al. Svp1p defines a family of phosphatidylinositol 3,5-bisphosphate effectors. EMBO J 23, 1922–1933 (2004). · DOI
  9. Krick, R., Tolstrup, J., Appelles, A., Henke, S. & Thumm, M. The relevance of the phosphatidylinositolphosphat-binding motif FRRGT of Atg18 and Atg21 for the Cvt pathway and autophagy. FEBS Lett 580, 4632–4638 (2006). · DOI
  10. Nair, U., Cao, Y., Xie, Z. & Klionsky, D. J. Roles of the lipid-binding motifs of Atg18 and Atg21 in the cytoplasm to vacuole targeting pathway and autophagy. J Biol Chem 285, 11476–11488 (2010). · DOI
  11. Jeffries, T. R., Dove, S. K., Michell, R. H. & Parker, P. J. PtdIns-specific MPR pathway association of a novel WD40 repeat protein, WIPI49. Mol Biol Cell 15, 2652–2663 (2004). · DOI
  12. Krick, R. et al. Structural and functional characterization of the two phosphoinositide binding sites of PROPPINs, a beta-propeller protein family. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 109, E2042–2049 (2012). · DOI
  13. Baskaran, S., Ragusa, M. J., Boura, E. & Hurley, J. H. Two-Site Recognition of Phosphatidylinositol 3-Phosphate by PROPPINs in Autophagy. Mol Cell 47, 339–348 (2012). · DOI
  14. Watanabe, Y. et al. Structure-based Analyses Reveal Distinct Binding Sites for Atg2 and Phosphoinositides in Atg18. J Biol Chem 287, 31681–31690 (2012). · DOI
  15. Busse, R. A. et al. Characterization of PROPPIN-Phosphoinositide Binding and Role of Loop 6CD in PROPPIN-Membrane Binding. Biophys J 108, 2223–2234 (2015). · DOI
  16. Tamura, N. et al. Atg18 phosphoregulation controls organellar dynamics by modulating its phosphoinositide-binding activity. J Cell Biol 202, 685–698 (2013). · DOI
  17. Reggiori, F., Tucker, K. A., Stromhaug, P. E. & Klionsky, D. J. The Atg1-Atg13 complex regulates Atg9 and Atg23 retrieval transport from the pre-autophagosomal structure. Dev Cell 6, 79–90 (2004). · DOI · Paper page
  18. Obara, K., Sekito, T., Niimi, K. & Ohsumi, Y. The Atg18-Atg2 complex is recruited to autophagic membranes via phosphatidylinositol 3-phosphate and exerts an essential function. J Biol Chem 283, 23972–23980 (2008). · DOI
  19. Rieter, E. et al. Atg18 function in autophagy is regulated by specific sites within its beta-propeller. J Cell Sci 126, 593–604 (2013). · DOI
  20. Dooley, H. C. et al. WIPI2 links LC3 conjugation with PI3P, autophagosome formation, and pathogen clearance by recruiting Atg12-5-16L1. Mol Cell 55, 238–252 (2014). · DOI
  21. Krick, R., Henke, S., Tolstrup, J. & Thumm, M. Dissecting the localization and function of Atg18, Atg21 and Ygr223c. Autophagy 4, 896–910 (2008). · DOI
  22. Efe, J. A., Botelho, R. J. & Emr, S. D. Atg18 regulates organelle morphology and Fab1 kinase activity independent of its membrane recruitment by phosphatidylinositol 3,5-bisphosphate. Mol Biol Cell 18, 4232–4244 (2007). · DOI
  23. Jin, N. et al. VAC14 nucleates a protein complex essential for the acute interconversion of PI3P and PI(3,5)P(2) in yeast and mouse. EMBO J 27, 3221–3234 (2008). · DOI
  24. Scacioc, A. Structural, biochemical and computational studies on PROPPINs, proteins important in autophagy, Doctoral thesis (Göttingen Graduate School for Neurosciences, Biophysics and Molecular Biosciences). http://hdl.handle.net/11858/00-1735-0000-0028-8675-3 (2015).
  25. Yang, B. et al. Identification of cross-linked peptides from complex samples. Nat Methods 9, 904–906 (2012). · DOI
  26. Liko, I., Allison, T. M., Hopper, J. T. & Robinson, C. V. Mass spectrometry guided structural biology. Curr Opin Struct Biol 40, 136–144 (2016). · DOI
  27. Sobott, F., Hernandez, H., McCammon, M. G., Tito, M. A. & Robinson, C. V. A tandem mass spectrometer for improved transmission and analysis of large macromolecular assemblies. Anal Chem 74, 1402–1407 (2002). · DOI · Paper page
  28. Cox, J. & Mann, M. MaxQuant enables high peptide identification rates, individualized p.p.b.-range mass accuracies and proteome-wide protein quantification. Nat Biotechnol 26, 1367–1372 (2008). · DOI · Paper page
  29. Kalkhof, S. & Sinz, A. Chances and pitfalls of chemical cross-linking with amine-reactive N-hydroxysuccinimide esters. Anal Bioanal Chem 392, 305–312 (2008). · DOI
  30. Thomas, C. C., Dowler, S., Deak, M., Alessi, D. R. & van Aalten, D. M. Crystal structure of the phosphatidylinositol 3,4-bisphosphate-binding pleckstrin homology (PH) domain of tandem PH-domain-containing protein 1 (TAPP1): molecular basis of lipid specificity. Biochem J 358, 287–294 (2001). · DOI
  31. Mao, Y. et al. Crystal structure of the VHS and FYVE tandem domains of Hrs, a protein involved in membrane trafficking and signal transduction. Cell 100, 447–456 (2000). · DOI
  32. Bernasconi, C. F. Relaxation kinetics. Academic Press, New York. (1976).
  33. Sinz, A. Chemical cross-linking and mass spectrometry to map three-dimensional protein structures and protein-protein interactions. Mass Spectrom Rev 25, 663–682 (2006). · DOI
  34. Rappsilber, J. The beginning of a beautiful friendship: cross-linking/mass spectrometry and modelling of proteins and multi-protein complexes. J Struct Biol 173, 530–540 (2011). · DOI
  35. Suzuki, K., Akioka, M., Kondo-Kakuta, C., Yamamoto, H. & Ohsumi, Y. Fine mapping of autophagy-related proteins during autophagosome formation in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. J Cell Sci 126, 2534–2544 (2013). · DOI
  36. Van Duyne, G. D., Standaert, R. F., Karplus, P. A., Schreiber, S. L. & Clardy, J. Atomic structures of the human immunophilin FKBP-12 complexes with FK506 and rapamycin. J Mol Biol 229, 105–124 (1993). · DOI
  37. Kabsch, W. Automatic Processing of Rotation Diffraction Data from Crystals of Initially Unknown Symmetry and Cell Constants. Journal of Applied Crystallography 26, 795–800 (1993). · DOI
  38. McCoy, A. J. et al. Phaser crystallographic software. J Appl Crystallogr 40, 658–674 (2007). · DOI · Paper page
  39. Emsley, P. & Cowtan, K. Coot: model-building tools for molecular graphics. Acta Crystallographica Section D-Biological Crystallography 60, 2126–2132 (2004). · DOI · Paper page
  40. Murshudov, G. N., Vagin, A. A. & Dodson, E. J. Refinement of macromolecular structures by the maximum-likelihood method. Acta Crystallographica Section D-Biological Crystallography 53, 240–255 (1997). · DOI
  41. Adams, P. D. et al. PHENIX: a comprehensive Python-based system for macromolecular structure solution. Acta Crystallogr D Biol Crystallogr 66, 213–221 (2010). · DOI · Paper page
  42. Wallace, A. C., Laskowski, R. A. & Thornton, J. M. Ligplot - a Program to Generate Schematic Diagrams of Protein Ligand Interactions. Protein Engineering 8, 127–134 (1995). · DOI
  43. Sievers, F. et al. Fast, scalable generation of high-quality protein multiple sequence alignments using Clustal Omega. Mol Syst Biol 7, 539 (2011). · DOI
  44. Landau, M. et al. ConSurf 2005: the projection of evolutionary conservation scores of residues on protein structures. Nucleic Acids Res 33, W299–302 (2005). · DOI
  45. Busse, R. A. et al. Analyzing Protein-Phosphoinositide Interactions with Liposome Flotation Assays. Methods Mol Biol 1376, 155–162 (2016). · DOI
  46. Olsen, J. V. et al. Parts per million mass accuracy on an Orbitrap mass spectrometer via lock mass injection into a C-trap. Mol Cell Proteomics 4, 2010–2021 (2005). · DOI
  47. Hernandez, H. & Robinson, C. V. Determining the stoichiometry and interactions of macromolecular assemblies from mass spectrometry. Nat Protoc 2, 715–726 (2007). · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Scacioc, A., Schmidt, C., Hofmann, T., Urlaub, H., Kühnel, K., & Pérez-Lara, Á.
Venue
Scientific Reports
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2017-10-25
Volume
7
Issue
1
ISSN
2045-2322
DOI
10.1038/s41598-017-14337-5
PMC
PMC5656675
Cited by
44
References
2
Language
en
Licence

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review