Cited by 0Protein Structure and DynamicsFungal and yeast genetics researchProtein Kinase Regulation and GTPase Signaling

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Residues neighboring an SH3-binding motif participate in the interaction in vivo

Open access

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

In signaling networks, protein–protein interactions are often mediated by modular domains that bind short linear motifs. The motifs’ sequences affect many factors, among them affinity and specificity, or the ability to bind strongly and to the appropriate partners. Using Deep Mutational Scanning to create a mutant library, and protein complementation assays to measure protein–protein interactions, we determined the in vivo binding strength of a library of mutants of a binding motif on the MAP kinase kinase Pbs2, which binds the SH3 domain of the osmosensor protein Sho1 in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. These measurements were made using the full-length endogenous proteins in their native cellular environment. We find that, along with residues within the canonical motif, many mutations in the residues neighboring the motif also modulate binding strength. Interestingly, all Pbs2 mutations that increase binding are situated outside of the Pbs2 region that interacts with the canonical SH3-binding pocket, suggesting that other surfaces on Sho1 contribute to binding. We use predicted structures and mutations to propose a model of binding that involves residues neighboring the canonical Pbs2 motif binding outside of the canonical SH3 binding pocket. We compared this predicted structure with known structures of SH3 domains binding peptides through residues outside of the motif, and put forth possible mechanisms through which Pbs2 can bind specifically to Sho1. We propose that for certain SH3 domain–motif pairs, affinity and specificity are determined by a broader range of sequences than what has previously been considered, potentially allowing easier differentiation between otherwise similar partners.

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 · 10.1093/genetics/iyaf153

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

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

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 87

  1. Amberg, 2005, Methods in yeast genetics: a Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory course manual
  2. Aranda-Díaz, 2017, Robust synthetic circuits for two-dimensional control of gene expression in yeast, ACS Synth Biol, 6, 545, 10.1021/acssynbio.6b00251 · DOI
  3. Bendel, 2024, The genetic architecture of protein interaction affinity and specificity, Nat Commun, 15, 8868, 10.1038/s41467-024-53195-4 · DOI · Paper page
  4. Bolger, 2014, Trimmomatic: a flexible trimmer for illumina sequence data, Bioinformatics, 30, 2114, 10.1093/bioinformatics/btu170 · DOI · Paper page
  5. Dalgarno, 1997, SH3 domains and drug design: ligands, structure, and biological function, Biopolymers, 43, 383, 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0282(1997)43:5<383::AID-BIP4>3.0.CO;2-R · DOI
  6. Davey, 2011, How viruses hijack cell regulation, Trends Biochem Sci, 36, 159, 10.1016/j.tibs.2010.10.002 · DOI
  7. Delplace, 2019, Controlled release strategy designed for intravitreal protein delivery to the retina, J Control Release, 293, 10, 10.1016/j.jconrel.2018.11.012 · DOI
  8. Després, 2022, Asymmetrical dose responses shape the evolutionary trade-off between antifungal resistance and nutrient use, Nat Ecol Evol, 6, 1501, 10.1038/s41559-022-01846-4 · DOI · Paper page
  9. Dibyachintan, 2025, Cryptic genetic variation shapes the fate of gene duplicates in a protein interaction network, Nat Commun, 16, 1530, 10.1038/s41467-025-56597-0 · DOI
  10. Dionne, 2021, Protein context shapes the specificity of SH3 domain-mediated interactions in vivo, Nat Commun, 12, 1597, 10.1038/s41467-021-21873-2 · DOI
  11. Dionne, 2022, SRC homology 3 domains: multifaceted binding modules, Trends Biochem Sci., 47, 772, 10.1016/j.tibs.2022.04.005 · DOI
  12. Diss, 2018, The genetic landscape of a physical interaction, eLife, 7, e32472, 10.7554/eLife.32472 · DOI · Paper page
  13. Douangamath, 2002, Topography for independent binding of α-helical and PPII-helical ligands to a peroxisomal SH3 domain, Mol Cell, 10, 1007, 10.1016/S1097-2765(02)00749-9 · DOI
  14. Dubé, 2022, Yeast functional genomics: methods and protocols, 237, 10.1007/978-1-0716-2257-5_14 · DOI
  15. Engel, 2025, Saccharomyces Genome Database: advances in genome annotation, expanded biochemical pathways, and other key enhancements, Genetics, 229, iyae185, 10.1093/genetics/iyae185 · DOI
  16. Ernst, 2010, Coevolution of PDZ domain-ligand interactions analyzed by high-throughput phage display and deep sequencing, Mol Biosyst, 6, 1782, 10.1039/c0mb00061b · DOI
  17. Evans, 2022, 10.1101/2021.10.04.463034 · DOI · Paper page
  18. Faure, 2022, Mapping the energetic and allosteric landscapes of protein binding domains, Nature, 604, 175, 10.1038/s41586-022-04586-4 · DOI
  19. Feng, 1995, Specific interactions outside the proline-rich core of two classes of Src homology 3 ligands, Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A., 92, 12408, 10.1073/pnas.92.26.12408 · DOI
  20. Ferrigno, 1998, Regulated nucleo/cytoplasmic exchange of HOG1 MAPK requires the importin beta homologs NMD5 and XPO1, EMBO J, 17, 5606, 10.1093/emboj/17.19.5606 · DOI
  21. Fowler, 2014, Deep mutational scanning: a new style of protein science, Nat Methods, 11, 801, 10.1038/nmeth.3027 · DOI · Paper page
  22. Freschi, 2013, qPCA: a scalable assay to measure the perturbation of protein–protein interactions in living cells, Mol Biosyst, 9, 36, 10.1039/C2MB25265A · DOI
  23. Gaussmann, 2024, Modulation of peroxisomal import by the PEX13 SH3 domain and a proximal FxxxF binding motif, Nat Commun, 15, 3317, 10.1038/s41467-024-47605-w · DOI
  24. Gorelik, 2012, Distinct peptide binding specificities of Src homology 3 (SH3) protein domains can be determined by modulation of local energetics across the binding interface, J Biol Chem, 287, 9168, 10.1074/jbc.M111.330753 · DOI
  25. Gouw, 2018, The eukaryotic linear motif resource—2018 update, Nucleic Acids Res, 46, D428, 10.1093/nar/gkx1077 · DOI
  26. Grant, 2006, Bio3d: an R package for the comparative analysis of protein structures, Bioinformatics, 22, 2695, 10.1093/bioinformatics/btl461 · DOI
  27. Gueldener, 2002, A second set of loxP marker cassettes for Cre-mediated multiple gene knockouts in budding yeast, Nucleic Acids Res, 30, 23e, 10.1093/nar/30.6.e23 · DOI
  28. Harris, 2020, Array programming with NumPy, Nature, 585, 357, 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 · DOI · Paper page
  29. Haslam, 2012, Peptide-binding domains: are limp handshakes safest?, Sci Signal, 5, e40, 10.1126/scisignal.2003372 · DOI
  30. Hunter, 2007, Matplotlib: a 2D graphics environment, Comput Sci Eng, 9, 90, 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55 · DOI · Paper page
  31. Ivarsson, 2019, Affinity and specificity of motif-based protein–protein interactions, Curr Opin Struct Biol, 54, 26, 10.1016/j.sbi.2018.09.009 · DOI
  32. Janke, 2004, A versatile toolbox for PCR-based tagging of yeast genes: new fluorescent proteins, more markers and promoter substitution cassettes, Yeast, 21, 947, 10.1002/yea.1142 · DOI
  33. Kamrad, 2020, Pyphe, a python toolbox for assessing microbial growth and cell viability in high-throughput colony screens, eLife, 9, e55160, 10.7554/eLife.55160 · DOI
  34. Kaneko, 2012, Superbinder SH2 domains act as antagonists of cell signaling, Sci Signal, 5, ra68, 10.1126/scisignal.2003021 · DOI
  35. Kaneko, 2008, The SH3 domain—a family of versatile peptide- and protein-recognition module, Front Biosci, 13, 4938, 10.2741/3053 · DOI
  36. Karlsson, 2016, Improved affinity at the cost of decreased specificity: a recurring theme in PDZ-peptide interactions, Sci Rep, 6, 34269, 10.1038/srep34269 · DOI
  37. Kazlauskas, 2016, Large-scale screening of preferred interactions of Human Src Homology-3 (SH3) domains using native target proteins as affinity ligands, Mol Cell Proteomics, 15, 3270, 10.1074/mcp.M116.060483 · DOI
  38. Kelil, 2017, Exhaustive search of linear information encoding protein–peptide recognition, PLoS Comput Biol, 13, e1005499, 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1005499 · DOI
  39. Kelil, 2016, Evolution of domain–peptide interactions to coadapt specificity and affinity to functional diversity, Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A., 113, E3862, 10.1073/pnas.1518469113 · DOI
  40. Kennedy, 1995, Origin of PDZ (DHR, GLGF) domains, Trends Biochem. Sci, 20, 350, 10.1016/S0968-0004(00)89074-X · DOI
  41. Kijima, 2023, A universal sequencing read interpreter, Sci Adv, 9, eadd2793, 10.1126/sciadv.add2793 · DOI
  42. Konagurthu, 2006, MUSTANG: a multiple structural alignment algorithm, Proteins, 64, 559, 10.1002/prot.20921 · DOI
  43. Kumar, 2024, ELM-the Eukaryotic linear motif resource-2024 update, Nucleic Acids Res, 52, D442, 10.1093/nar/gkad1058 · DOI
  44. Kursula, 2008, 10.2210/pdb2VKN/pdb · DOI
  45. Langmead, 2009, Ultrafast and memory-efficient alignment of short DNA sequences to the human genome, Genome Biol, 10, R25, 10.1186/gb-2009-10-3-r25 · DOI · Paper page
  46. Lee, 1996, Crystal structure of the conserved core of HIV-1 Nef complexed with a Src family SH3 domain, Cell, 85, 931, 10.1016/S0092-8674(00)81276-3 · DOI
  47. Lemieux, 2024, Dissection of the role of a Src homology 3 domain in the evolution of binding preference of paralogous proteins, Genetics, 226, iyad175, 10.1093/genetics/iyad175 · DOI
  48. Lemieux, 2025, 10.1101/2025.03.19.640584 · DOI
  49. Li, 2005, Specificity and versatility of SH3 and other proline-recognition domains: structural basis and implications for cellular signal transduction, Biochem J, 390, 641, 10.1042/BJ20050411 · DOI
  50. Liao, 2020, High-affinity interactions of the nSH3/cSH3 domains of Grb2 with the C-terminal proline-rich domain of SOS1, J Am Chem Soc, 142, 3401, 10.1021/jacs.9b10710 · DOI
  51. Lim, 1994, Structural determinants of peptide-binding orientation and of sequence specificity in SH3 domains, Nature, 372, 375, 10.1038/372375a0 · DOI
  52. Maeda, 1995, Activation of yeast PBS2 MAPKK by MAPKKKs or by binding of an SH3-containing osmosensor, Science, 269, 554, 10.1126/science.7624781 · DOI
  53. Mapes, 2004, Nbp2 targets the Ptc1-type 2C Ser/Thr phosphatase to the HOG MAPK pathway, EMBO J, 23, 302, 10.1038/sj.emboj.7600036 · DOI
  54. Marles, 2004, Protein–protein interaction affinity plays a crucial role in controlling the sho1p-mediated signal transduction pathway in yeast, Mol Cell, 14, 813, 10.1016/j.molcel.2004.05.024 · DOI
  55. Martin, 2011, Cutadapt removes adapter sequences from high-throughput sequencing reads, EMBnet.journal, 17, 10, 10.14806/ej.17.1.200 · DOI · Paper page
  56. Masella, 2012, PANDAseq: paired-end assembler for illumina sequences, BMC Bioinf, 13, 31, 10.1186/1471-2105-13-31 · DOI · Paper page
  57. McDonald, 2019, Microbial experimental evolution—a proving ground for evolutionary theory and a tool for discovery, EMBO Rep, 20, e46992, 10.15252/embr.201846992 · DOI
  58. McKinney, 2010, Data structures for statistical computing in python, Proc 9th Python Sci Conf, 10.25080/Majora-92bf1922-00a · DOI
  59. Michnick, 2016, The dihydrofolate reductase protein-fragment complementation assay: a survival-selection assay for large-scale analysis of protein–protein interactions, Cold Spring Harb Protoc., 2016, db.prot090027, 10.1101/pdb.prot090027 · DOI
  60. Miyazaki, 2011, Methods in enzymology, synthetic biology, part B, 399
  61. Monera, 1995, Relationship of sidechain hydrophobicity and alpha-helical propensity on the stability of the single-stranded amphipathic alpha-helix, J Pept Sci, 1, 319, 10.1002/psc.310010507 · DOI
  62. Murakami, 2008, Two adjacent docking sites in the yeast Hog1 mitogen-activated protein (MAP) kinase differentially interact with the Pbs2 MAP kinase kinase and the Ptp2 protein tyrosine phosphatase, Mol Cell Biol, 28, 2481, 10.1128/MCB.01817-07 · DOI
  63. Pawson, 2002, Interaction domains: from simple binding events to complex cellular behavior, FEBS Lett, 513, 2, 10.1016/S0014-5793(01)03292-6 · DOI
  64. Pettersen, 2021, UCSF ChimeraX: structure visualization for researchers, educators, and developers, Protein Sci, 30, 70, 10.1002/pro.3943 · DOI
  65. Posas, 1997, Osmotic activation of the HOG MAPK pathway via Ste11p MAPKKK: scaffold role of Pbs2p MAPKK, Science, 276, 1702, 10.1126/science.276.5319.1702 · DOI
  66. R Core Team, 2023, R: a language and environment for statistical computing
  67. Rice, 2000, EMBOSS: the European molecular biology open software suite, Trends Genet, 16, 276, 10.1016/S0168-9525(00)02024-2 · DOI · Paper page
  68. Rickles, 1995, Phage display selection of ligand residues important for Src homology 3 domain binding specificity, Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A., 92, 10909, 10.1073/pnas.92.24.10909 · DOI
  69. Robles, 2023, Linear motif specificity in signaling through p38α and ERK2 mitogen–activated protein kinases, Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A., 120, e2316599120, 10.1073/pnas.2316599120 · DOI
  70. Rochette, 2015, Genome-wide protein–protein interaction screening by protein-fragment complementation assay (PCA) in living cells, J Vis Exp, 97, e52255, 10.3791/52255 · DOI
  71. Rognes, 2016, VSEARCH: a versatile open source tool for metagenomics, PeerJ, 4, e2584, 10.7717/peerj.2584 · DOI
  72. Ryan, 2016, CRISPR-Cas9 Genome engineering in Saccharomyces cerevisiae cells, Cold Spring Harb Protoc, 2016, pdb.prot086827, 10.1101/pdb.prot086827 · DOI
  73. Saito, 2012, Response to hyperosmotic stress, Genetics, 192, 289, 10.1534/genetics.112.140863 · DOI
  74. Stein, 2008, Contextual specificity in peptide-mediated protein interactions, PLoS One, 3, e2524, 10.1371/journal.pone.0002524 · DOI
  75. Stollar, 2009, Structural, functional, and bioinformatic studies demonstrate the crucial role of an extended peptide binding site for the SH3 domain of yeast Abp1p, J Biol Chem., 284, 26918, 10.1074/jbc.M109.028431 · DOI
  76. Takaku, 2010, Solution structure of a novel Cdc42 binding module of Bem1 and its interaction with Ste20 and Cdc42, J Biol Chem, 285, 19346, 10.1074/jbc.M110.116749 · DOI
  77. Tarassov, 2008, An in vivo map of the yeast protein interactome, Science, 320, 1465, 10.1126/science.1153878 · DOI
  78. Tatebayashi, 2006, Adaptor functions of Cdc42, Ste50, and sho1 in the yeast osmoregulatory HOG MAPK pathway, EMBO J, 25, 3033, 10.1038/sj.emboj.7601192 · DOI
  79. Tonikian, 2009, Bayesian modeling of the yeast SH3 domain interactome predicts spatiotemporal dynamics of endocytosis proteins, PLoS Biol, 7, e1000218, 10.1371/journal.pbio.1000218 · DOI
  80. Van Roey, 2014, Short linear motifs: ubiquitous and functionally diverse protein interaction modules directing cell regulation, Chem Rev., 114, 6733, 10.1021/cr400585q · DOI
  81. Varadi, 2022, AlphaFold Protein Structure Database: massively expanding the structural coverage of protein-sequence space with high-accuracy models, Nucleic Acids Res, 50, D439, 10.1093/nar/gkab1061 · DOI · Paper page
  82. Vincentelli, 2015, Quantifying domain-ligand affinities and specificities by high-throughput holdup assay, Nat Methods, 12, 787, 10.1038/nmeth.3438 · DOI
  83. Wang, 2018, 10.1101/469197 · DOI
  84. Yu, 1994, Structural basis for the binding of proline-rich peptides to SH3 domains, Cell, 76, 933, 10.1016/0092-8674(94)90367-0 · DOI
  85. Zarin, 2024, 10.1101/2024.04.25.591103 · DOI
  86. Zarrinpar, 2004, Sho1 and Pbs2 act as coscaffolds linking components in the yeast high osmolarity MAP kinase pathway, Mol Cell, 14, 825, 10.1016/j.molcel.2004.06.011 · DOI
  87. Zarrinpar, 2003, Optimization of specificity in a cellular protein interaction network by negative selection, Nature, 426, 676, 10.1038/nature02178 · DOI

Metadata

Authors
Jordan, D. F., Dubé, A. K., Dionne, U., Bradley, D., & Landry, C. R.
Affiliations
PROTEO (CA)
Corresponding author
  • Jordan, David F
  • Landry, Christian R
Venue
GENETICS
Published
2025-08-04
Volume
231
Issue
2
ISSN
  • 0016-6731 (ISSN-L)
  • 1943-2631
OpenAlex
W4412933707
Cited by
0
References
1
FWCI
0.00
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Genetics (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) (acceptedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • Canadian Institutes of Health Research (387697, 525827)
  • Human Frontier Science Program (RGP34/2018)
  • Canada Research Chair in Cellular Systems and Synthetic Biology
  • Canada Graduate Scholarship
  • NSERC
  • NSERC CREATE program EvoFunPath
  • FRQS
  • EMBO Long-Term Fellowship (ALTF 1069-2019)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Protein Structure and Dynamics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Fungal and yeast genetics research
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Protein Kinase Regulation and GTPase Signaling
Keywords
SH3 domain, short linear motifs, protein-protein interaction, Pbs2, Sho1, MAP kinase kinase, binding affinity, binding specificity, osmosensor, Saccharomyces cerevisiae, deep mutational scanning, protein complementation, binding site model
MeSH terms
Binding Sites, Models, Molecular, Mutation, Protein Binding, Saccharomyces cerevisiae, src Homology Domains, Amino Acid Motifs, Saccharomyces cerevisiae Proteins

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