Cited by 51

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

Kaneko, Tomonori, Kumasaka, Takashi, Ganbe, Tadashi, Sato, Takao, Miyazawa, Keiji, Kitamura, Naomi, Tanaka, Nobuo·2003·Journal of Biological Chemistry

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

Crossref · 10.1074/jbc.m306677200

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Citations

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 37

  1. Mayer, 2001, J. Cell Sci., 114, 1253, 10.1242/jcs.114.7.1253 · DOI
  2. Ren, 1993, Science, 259, 1157, 10.1126/science.8438166 · DOI
  3. Tong, 2002, Science, 295, 321, 10.1126/science.1064987 · DOI
  4. Lim, 1994, Nature, 372, 375, 10.1038/372375a0 · DOI
  5. Lewitzky, 2001, Oncogene, 20, 1052, 10.1038/sj.onc.1204202 · DOI · Paper page
  6. Yamasaki, 2003, Mol. Cell. Biol., 23, 2515, 10.1128/MCB.23.7.2515-2529.2003 · DOI
  7. Berry, 2002, Curr. Biol., 12, 1336, 10.1016/S0960-9822(02)01038-2 · DOI · Paper page
  8. Nishida, 2001, EMBO J., 20, 2995, 10.1093/emboj/20.12.2995 · DOI
  9. Kato, 2000, J. Biol. Chem., 275, 37481, 10.1074/jbc.M007251200 · DOI · Paper page
  10. Lock, 2000, J. Biol. Chem., 275, 31536, 10.1074/jbc.M003597200 · DOI · Paper page
  11. Naviglio, 1998, EMBO J., 17, 3241, 10.1093/emboj/17.12.3241 · DOI · Paper page
  12. Komada, 2001, Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun., 281, 1065, 10.1006/bbrc.2001.4441 · DOI
  13. Endo, 2000, FEBS Lett., 477, 55, 10.1016/S0014-5793(00)01760-9 · DOI
  14. Lohi, 2001, FEBS Lett., 508, 287, 10.1016/S0014-5793(01)03079-4 · DOI
  15. Takata, 2000, Genes Cells, 5, 57, 10.1046/j.1365-2443.2000.00303.x · DOI · Paper page
  16. Bilodeau, 2002, Nat. Cell. Bio., 4, 534, 10.1038/ncb815 · DOI
  17. Liu, 2003, Mol. Cell, 11, 471, 10.1016/S1097-2765(03)00046-7 · DOI · Paper page
  18. Kami, 2002, EMBO J., 21, 4268, 10.1093/emboj/cdf428 · DOI
  19. Lim, 1994, Protein Sci., 3, 1261, 10.1002/pro.5560030812 · DOI
  20. Nguyen, 1998, Science, 282, 2088, 10.1126/science.282.5396.2088 · DOI
  21. Rossmann, 1999, Acta Crystallogr. Sect. D Biol. Crystallogr., 55, 1631, 10.1107/S0907444999008379 · DOI
  22. Kissinger, 1999, Acta Crystallogr. Sect. D Biol. Crystallogr., 55, 484, 10.1107/S0907444998012517 · DOI
  23. Kohda, 1994, Structure, 2, 1029, 10.1016/S0969-2126(94)00106-5 · DOI
  24. McRee, 1999, J. Struct. Biol., 125, 156, 10.1006/jsbi.1999.4094 · DOI
  25. Brunger, 1998, Acta Crystallogr. Sect. D Biol. Crystallogr., 54, 905, 10.1107/S0907444998003254 · DOI
  26. Collaborative Computational Project Number 4, 1994, Acta Crystallogr. Sect. D Biol. Crystallogr., 50, 760, 10.1107/S0907444994003112 · DOI
  27. Murshudov, 1997, Acta Crystallogr. Sect. D Biol. Crystallogr., 53, 240, 10.1107/S0907444996012255 · DOI
  28. Nicholls, 1991, Proteins, 11, 281, 10.1002/prot.340110407 · DOI
  29. Kraulis, 1991, J. Appl. Crystallogr., 24, 946, 10.1107/S0021889891004399 · DOI
  30. Merritt, 1997, Methods Enzymol., 277, 505, 10.1016/S0076-6879(97)77028-9 · DOI
  31. Wu, 1995, Structure, 3, 215, 10.1016/S0969-2126(01)00151-4 · DOI
  32. Larson, 2000, Protein Sci., 9, 2170, 10.1110/ps.9.11.2170 · DOI
  33. Chen, 2000, Struct. Fold Des., 8, R213, 10.1016/S0969-2126(00)00524-4 · DOI
  34. Inagaki, 1999, Tanpakushitsu Kakusan Koso, 44, 355
  35. Mizuno, 2003, Mol. Biol. Cell, 14, 3675, 10.1091/mbc.e02-12-0823 · DOI
  36. Mongiovi, 1999, EMBO J., 18, 5300, 10.1093/emboj/18.19.5300 · DOI
  37. Kang, 2000, EMBO J., 19, 2889, 10.1093/emboj/19.12.2889 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

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