The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Structural Insight into Modest Binding of a Non-PXXP Ligand to the Signal Transducing Adaptor Molecule-2 Src Homology 3 Domain
Abstract
Although some exceptional motifs have been identified, it is well known that the PXXP motif is the motif of ligand proteins generally recognized by the Src homology 3 (SH3) domain. SH3-ligand interactions are usually weak, with ordinary KD approximately 10 microM. The structural basis for a tight and specific association (KD = 0.24 microm) between Gads SH3 and a novel motif, PX(V/I)(D/N)RXXKP, was revealed in a previous structural analysis of the complex formed between them. In this paper, we report the crystal structure of the signal transducing adaptor molecule-2 (STAM2) SH3 domain in complex with a peptide with a novel motif derived from a ligand protein, UBPY. The derived KD value for this complex is 27 microM. The notable difference in affinity for these parallel complexes may be explained because the STAM2 SH3 structure does not provide a specificity pocket for binding, whereas the Gads SH3 structure does. Instead, the structure of STAM2 SH3 is analogous to that of Grb2 SH3 which, in addition to normal PXXP ligands, has also been shown to moderately recognize the novel motif discussed herein. Thus, the extremely tight interaction observed between Gads SH3 and the novel motif is caused not by an innate ability of the novel motif but rather by an evolutionary change in the Gads SH3 domain. Instead, SH3 domains of STAM2 and Grb2 retain the moderate characteristics of recognizing their ligand proteins like other SH3 domains for appropriate transient interactions between sig…
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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?
A subfamily of SH3 domains binds atypical peptide ligands centered around a consensus RXXK peptide motif.
“We and others have previously reported a subfamily of SH3 domains that bind to atypical peptide ligands centered around a consensus RXXK peptide motif (19 -21, 43-46).”
From Regulation of Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor Ubiquitination and Trafficking by the USP8·STAM Complex (2010) · cites this paper as [20]
Mammalian STAM1/2 proteins interact in vitro with USP8 and AMSH.
“the mammalian STAM1/2 proteins have been shown to interact in vitro with two DUBs: USP8 and the associated molecule with the SH3 domain of STAM (AMSH) (19 -22).”
From Regulation of Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor Ubiquitination and Trafficking by the USP8·STAM Complex (2010) · cites this paper as [20]
Two consensus RXXK motifs had previously been identified in USP8 and shown to interact with the STAM2 SH3 domain.
“Two consensus RXXK motifs had previously been identified in USP8 and shown to interact with the STAM2 SH3 domain (19 -21).”
From Regulation of Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor Ubiquitination and Trafficking by the USP8·STAM Complex (2010) · cites this paper as [20]
The central region of USP8 contains STAM binding determinants.
“This region has been reported to contain STAM binding determinants (20,21)”
From Regulation of Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor Ubiquitination and Trafficking by the USP8·STAM Complex (2010) · cites this paper as [20]
Citations
Cites
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 37
- Mayer, 2001, J. Cell Sci., 114, 1253, 10.1242/jcs.114.7.1253 · DOI
- Ren, 1993, Science, 259, 1157, 10.1126/science.8438166 · DOI
- Tong, 2002, Science, 295, 321, 10.1126/science.1064987 · DOI
- Lim, 1994, Nature, 372, 375, 10.1038/372375a0 · DOI
- Lewitzky, 2001, Oncogene, 20, 1052, 10.1038/sj.onc.1204202 · DOI · Paper page
- Yamasaki, 2003, Mol. Cell. Biol., 23, 2515, 10.1128/MCB.23.7.2515-2529.2003 · DOI
- Berry, 2002, Curr. Biol., 12, 1336, 10.1016/S0960-9822(02)01038-2 · DOI · Paper page
- Nishida, 2001, EMBO J., 20, 2995, 10.1093/emboj/20.12.2995 · DOI
- Kato, 2000, J. Biol. Chem., 275, 37481, 10.1074/jbc.M007251200 · DOI · Paper page
- Lock, 2000, J. Biol. Chem., 275, 31536, 10.1074/jbc.M003597200 · DOI · Paper page
- Naviglio, 1998, EMBO J., 17, 3241, 10.1093/emboj/17.12.3241 · DOI · Paper page
- Komada, 2001, Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun., 281, 1065, 10.1006/bbrc.2001.4441 · DOI
- Endo, 2000, FEBS Lett., 477, 55, 10.1016/S0014-5793(00)01760-9 · DOI
- Lohi, 2001, FEBS Lett., 508, 287, 10.1016/S0014-5793(01)03079-4 · DOI
- Takata, 2000, Genes Cells, 5, 57, 10.1046/j.1365-2443.2000.00303.x · DOI · Paper page
- Bilodeau, 2002, Nat. Cell. Bio., 4, 534, 10.1038/ncb815 · DOI
- Liu, 2003, Mol. Cell, 11, 471, 10.1016/S1097-2765(03)00046-7 · DOI · Paper page
- Kami, 2002, EMBO J., 21, 4268, 10.1093/emboj/cdf428 · DOI
- Lim, 1994, Protein Sci., 3, 1261, 10.1002/pro.5560030812 · DOI
- Nguyen, 1998, Science, 282, 2088, 10.1126/science.282.5396.2088 · DOI
- Rossmann, 1999, Acta Crystallogr. Sect. D Biol. Crystallogr., 55, 1631, 10.1107/S0907444999008379 · DOI
- Kissinger, 1999, Acta Crystallogr. Sect. D Biol. Crystallogr., 55, 484, 10.1107/S0907444998012517 · DOI
- Kohda, 1994, Structure, 2, 1029, 10.1016/S0969-2126(94)00106-5 · DOI
- McRee, 1999, J. Struct. Biol., 125, 156, 10.1006/jsbi.1999.4094 · DOI
- Brunger, 1998, Acta Crystallogr. Sect. D Biol. Crystallogr., 54, 905, 10.1107/S0907444998003254 · DOI
- Collaborative Computational Project Number 4, 1994, Acta Crystallogr. Sect. D Biol. Crystallogr., 50, 760, 10.1107/S0907444994003112 · DOI
- Murshudov, 1997, Acta Crystallogr. Sect. D Biol. Crystallogr., 53, 240, 10.1107/S0907444996012255 · DOI
- Nicholls, 1991, Proteins, 11, 281, 10.1002/prot.340110407 · DOI
- Kraulis, 1991, J. Appl. Crystallogr., 24, 946, 10.1107/S0021889891004399 · DOI
- Merritt, 1997, Methods Enzymol., 277, 505, 10.1016/S0076-6879(97)77028-9 · DOI
- Wu, 1995, Structure, 3, 215, 10.1016/S0969-2126(01)00151-4 · DOI
- Larson, 2000, Protein Sci., 9, 2170, 10.1110/ps.9.11.2170 · DOI
- Chen, 2000, Struct. Fold Des., 8, R213, 10.1016/S0969-2126(00)00524-4 · DOI
- Inagaki, 1999, Tanpakushitsu Kakusan Koso, 44, 355
- Mizuno, 2003, Mol. Biol. Cell, 14, 3675, 10.1091/mbc.e02-12-0823 · DOI
- Mongiovi, 1999, EMBO J., 18, 5300, 10.1093/emboj/18.19.5300 · DOI
- Kang, 2000, EMBO J., 19, 2889, 10.1093/emboj/19.12.2889 · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Niendorf, S., Oksche, A., Kisser, A., Löhler, J., Prinz, M., Schorle, H., Feller, S., Lewitzky, M., Horak, I., & Knobeloch, K.-P. (2007) · Molecular and Cellular Biology · doi:10.1128/mcb.01566-06 · Cited by 207
Berlin, I., Schwartz, H., & Nash, P. D. (2010) · Journal of Biological Chemistry · doi:10.1074/jbc.m109.016287 · Cited by 121
Integrin-mediated signalling through the MAP-kinase pathway
Yee, K. L., Weaver, V. M., & Hammer, D. A. (2008) · IET Systems Biology · doi:10.1049/iet-syb:20060058 · Cited by 117
Metadata
- Authors
- Kaneko, T., Kumasaka, T., Ganbe, T., Sato, T., Miyazawa, K., Kitamura, N., & Tanaka, N.
- Venue
- Journal of Biological Chemistry
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2003-11
- Volume
- 278
- Issue
- 48
- Pages
- 48162-48168
- ISSN
- 0021-9258
- Cited by
- 51
- References
- 0
- Language
- en
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