research communications
of the Rab-binding domain of Rab11 family-interacting protein 2
aSchool of Biochemistry and Immunology, Trinity College Dublin, 152–160 Pearse Street, Dublin D2, Ireland, and bDivision of Newborn Medicine, Boston Children's Hospital, Center for Life Sciences, 3 Blackfan Circle, Boston, MA 02446, USA
*Correspondence e-mail: amir.khan@tcd.ie,khan@crystal.harvard.edu
The small GTPases Rab11, Rab14 and Rab25 regulate membrane trafficking through the recruitment of Rab11 family-interacting proteins (FIPs) to endocytic compartments. FIPs are multi-domain effector proteins that have a highly conserved Rab-binding domain (RBD) at their C-termini. Several structures of complexes of Rab11 with RBDs have previously been determined, including those of Rab11–FIP2 and Rab11–FIP3. In addition, the structures of the Rab14–FIP1 and Rab25–FIP2 complexes have been determined. All of the RBD structures contain a central parallel coiled coil in the RBD that binds to the switch 1 and switch 2 regions of the Rab. Here, the α-helices that associate through polar interactions. These include a remarkable stack of arginine residues within a four-helix bundle in the crystal lattice.
of the uncomplexed RBD of FIP2 is presented at 2.3 Å resolution. The structure reveals antiparallelPDB reference: Rab11 family-interacting protein 2, 6s8x
1. Introduction
Rab GTPases regulate membrane-trafficking pathways in eukaryotic cells via the recruitment of effector proteins to subcellular compartments (Hutagalung & Novick, 2011). Rab11 family-interacting protein 2 (FIP2) is a 512-residue effector that contains a Rab-binding domain (RBD) at its C-terminus. The RBD is shared by a family of effector proteins, which include Rab-coupling protein (RCP or FIP1), FIP2 and FIP3 (Hales et al., 2001). The N-terminus of this modular effector family is variable and consists of domains that include EF-hands, ERM domains, C2 domains and myosin V-binding domains. These effectors regulate membrane trafficking following their recruitment to subcellular compartments by Rab11, Rab14 and Rab25 GTPases. Interaction with Rabs is facilitated by the RBD, which is highly conserved in sequence and structure. The crystal structures of Rab11–FIP2, Rab11–FIP3 and Rab25–FIP2 complexes revealed that the RBD is a parallel α-helical coiled coil. The dimers of FIP2 and FIP3 are stabilized by hydrophobic interactions, and the symmetric coiled coil binds to two Rab molecules on each side of the dimer.
The effector FIP2 contains an N-terminal C2 domain that binds to ), a myosin Vb-binding domain (residues 129–290; Hales et al., 2002) and a C-terminal RBD (residues 440–512; Hales et al., 2001) that binds to Rab11. In polarized cells, FIP2 has classically been linked to an endosomal retrieval system that includes cargo such as the transferrin receptor (Lindsay & McCaffrey, 2002). More recently, FIP2 functions have been associated with critical processes that include synaptic vesicle trafficking (Royo et al., 2019) and TLR4-mediated phagocytosis (Skjesol et al., 2019). Moreover, FIP2 functions have been linked to various cancers (Dong & Wu, 2018; Dong et al., 2016; Zhang et al., 2018).
(residues 15–102; Lindsay & McCaffrey, 2004The adaptor functions of FIP2 linking Rab11 membranes to the cytoskeleton are likely to involve dynamic conformational changes. Here, the ab initio phasing method in ARCIMBOLDO. In contrast to previous crystal structures of complexes, the structure of isolated FIP2 reveals the formation of antiparallel α-helical dimers that are stabilized by polar interactions.
of an uncomplexed form of FIP2 was determined at 2.3 Å resolution by the2. Materials and methods
2.1. Macromolecule production
A 20 ml overnight culture was added to a conical flask containing 1 l sterile 2×YT broth medium along with a 1:1000 dilution of 30 mg ml−1 kanamycin. The culture was incubated at 37°C and 180 rev min−1 until an OD (A600) reading between 0.6 and 0.8 was reached. At this point, protein expression was induced with 0.5 mM isopropyl β-D-1-thiogalactopyranoside and the temperature of the shaking incubator was adjusted to the optimum temperature for expression of the construct. At 18°C, the culture was left to incubate overnight or for approximately 18 h. At 37°C, the culture was left to incubate for 3 h. To isolate the protein, 20 ml extraction buffer (300 mM NaCl, 10 mM Tris, 10 mM imidazole, 5 mM β-mercaptoethanol) was used to resuspend the bacterial pellet from 1 l of culture. The cell pellet was homogenized and the solution was sonicated by a series of 2 min pulses (duty cycle 30%, output 5, Branson sonifier). Each sample was subjected to sonication three times, resting on ice between rounds of sonication. The lysate was spun in a floor centrifuge at 18 000 rev min−1 and 4°C for 30 min. The resulting supernatant was applied onto a nickel agarose gravity-flow column. The column was then washed thoroughly with extraction buffer (300 mM NaCl, 10 mM Tris, 10 mM imidazole, 5 mM β-mercaptoethanol). The protein was eluted from the column with elution buffer (300 mM NaCl, 10 mM Tris, 200 mM imidazole, 5 mM β-mercaptoethanol). The protein was cleaved with Tobacco etch virus (TEV) protease overnight in a cold room under dialysis with extraction buffer. After cleavage, the protein solution was reapplied onto a nickel agarose gravity-flow column. The flowthrough from the column, containing the cleaved protein, was collected. The protein was then dialyzed into low-salt buffer (5 mM NaCl, 10 mM Tris, 5 mM β-mercaptoethanol) for 3 h. The protein was applied onto a Mono Q anion-exchange column (GE Life Sciences) and a salt gradient was applied from low salt (5 mM NaCl, 10 mM Tris, 1 mM DTT) to high salt (1 M NaCl, 10 mM Tris, 1 mM DTT). The main resulting peak contained pure, cleaved FIP2, as demonstrated by SDS–PAGE. The purified FIP2 was then run on a Superdex 75 16/60 gel-filtration column (buffer: 150 mM NaCl, 10 mM Tris, 1 mM DTT). The resulting peak was taken and concentrated to >6 mg ml−1 for crystallization. The protein concentration was determined from the absorbance at 280 nm using an extinction coefficient of 5960 M−1 cm−1. Macromolecule-production information is summarized in Table 1.
2.2. Crystallization
Purified FIP2 was concentrated to approximately 6 mg ml−1 prior to crystallization. The lead conditions for crystallization were obtained from a sparse-matrix screen (Structure Screen, Hampton Research) as a combination of cobalt chloride and 1,6-hexanediol at low pH. The optimal condition is shown in Table 2. The crystals took approximately two weeks to grow to maximum size. Crystallization information is summarized in Table 2.
|
2.3. Data collection and processing
Crystals were briefly soaked in the reservoir solution supplemented with 25% glycerol prior to data collection. Data were collected on beamline 24-ID-C at the Advanced Photon Source (APS), Argonne, Illinois, USA. Data were integrated using XDS (Kabsch, 2010) and were merged and scaled using AIMLESS (Evans, 2006). Data-collection and processing statistics are summarized in Table 3.
|
2.4. Structure solution and refinement
An initial model of the ARCIMBOLDO (Rodríguez et al., 2009). Four partial helices were built in an automated fashion using the software, and the model was of sufficient quality for manual building into the electron-density map. In an iterative fashion, ARCIMBOLDO_LITE uses Phaser (molecular replacement) to search for short α-helices, followed by SHELXE to connect them into longer Following the last round of model building (rigid-body refinement) in ARCIMBOLDO_LITE, the final model consisted of 197 residues with a Phaser translation-function Z-score of 17.6 and a log-likelihood (LLG) score of 634 (Supplementary Fig. S1). The automated model building was remarkably successful: only five extra residues were built during further stages of manual to give a total of 202 residues distributed over four α-helices. The additional residues and solutes (waters and hexanediol) were built by multiple rounds of model building and through inspection of 2Fo − Fc maps using Coot (Emsley et al., 2010) and Phenix (Liebschner et al., 2019). MolProbity (Chen et al., 2010) was used for Ramachandran analysis. are summarized in Table 4.
was determined using
|
3. Results and discussion
Here, we describe an effector domain from a Rab11 family-interacting protein (FIP) in the uncomplexed state for the first time. Despite the known structures of FIP2 in complex with Rab11 and Rab25 (Jagoe, Lindsay et al., 2006; Lall et al., 2013), (MR) failed to provide a solution. Models of FIP2 from PDB entries 2gzd, 2gzh, 4c4p and 3tso were extracted and used as search models. All of these structures have a resolution of better than 2.5 Å. In order to account for possible flexibility at the termini, the core helical regions of FIP2 were searched as monomers and dimers, but did not provide clear solutions that produced interpretable electron-density maps. It is unclear why MR failed to distinguish correct solutions, at least for the monomeric α-helix. However, the consists exclusively of α-helices aligned with their long axes in similar orientations (Fig. 1a). The nature of these crystals may pose a challenge for long α-helices as MR search models. Since crystal formation required the presence of a small amount of Co2+, data were also collected at the Co2+ Although there was a weak anomalous signal, it was insufficient for phasing of the structure. Wide-search from the full Protein Data Bank was performed using Phaser (McCoy et al., 2007), as implemented in the Structural Biology Grid portal (https://sbgrid.org/; Stokes-Rees & Sliz, 2010). Candidate α-helical proteins were identified, but none were suitable as initial models for further refinement.
Phasing was successfully performed using ARCIMBOLDO_LITE as implemented within the CCP4 suite (Rodríguez et al., 2009; Winn et al., 2011). The of FIP2 can be described as an α-helical tetramer in which the long axes of the helices are coincident with the c axis of the crystal (Fig. 1a). The consists of two pairs of antiparallel α-helices that are assembled through polar interactions (Fig. 1b). The are of varying lengths depending on the extent of disorder at the N/C-termini. Although the segment 439–512 was subjected to crystallization, a minimum of the first seven residues and the last 15 residues are disordered. The of FIP2 is in contrast to the previously determined NMR solution structure of FIP2 (Fig. 1c; Wei et al., 2009) and the of FIP2 in complex with Rab11 (Fig. 1d; Jagoe, Jackson et al., 2006). These structures are parallel α-helical dimers that are tightly associated by hydrophobic interactions.
The packing interactions within the α-helical tetramer are fascinating and are worth closer inspection (Fig. 2). Dimers from the form a stack of arginine residues with their symmetry-related dimers in the lattice (Fig. 2a). Each helix contributes two arginines that form two layers of a four-arginine stack in the middle of the α-helical bundle (Fig. 2b). The distances between the Cζ atoms in the stacked guanidino side chains are 3.5–3.8 Å. Aspartate residues form salt bridges with these arginines and presumably contribute to orienting the guanidino groups (not shown). The electron-density map in this region reveals well ordered side chains (Fig. 2c). Arg–Arg interactions have been recognized for their significant contributions to protein assemblies (Neves et al., 2012; Vernon et al., 2018). The distance between the stacks (<4 Å) is similar to the observed van der Waals distances from a survey of structures (Vernon et al., 2018). However, the detailed energetics and stabilization of stacked arginines in protein assemblies are poorly characterized and require further study.
A physiological model for complex formation involves Rab11 recruitment of pre-formed parallel dimers of cytosolic FIP2 to endosomes (Jagoe, Lindsay et al., 2006; Eathiraj et al., 2006). This model is premised on the finding that switch 1 and switch 2 of a single Rab11 molecule interact with both α-helices of FIP2 in a symmetric fashion to form a heterotetrameric complex (Fig. 3a). Also, FIP2 spontaneously forms dimers in solution at physiological pH (Jagoe, Jackson et al., 2006; Jagoe, Lindsay et al., 2006). It is probable that parallel dimers dissociate to form the crystals observed here at pH 4.8. Therefore, the physiological relevance of the structure of uncomplexed FIP2 observed under these conditions is unknown. Nevertheless, it is intriguing to observe the conformational flexibility of the α-helices of FIP2 under various conditions. Although the central α-helical regions are similar in all structures, the N- and C-termini diverge significantly (Figs. 3b and 3c). Whether these variations reflect possible dynamic changes of FIP2 during membrane trafficking requires further investigation. Interestingly, crystals of the Rab11–FIP2 complex have been grown at pH 4.5 (Jagoe, Lindsay et al., 2006), albeit under different precipitant conditions. It is conceivable that FIP2 can exist in multiple conformational states and that Rab11 binds selectively to the parallel dimer during the crystallization process.
In summary, the uncomplexed structure of FIP2 reveals head-to-tail oligomers of α-helices that are stabilized by polar interactions. The diffraction data and may contribute to a useful archive for further improvement of techniques in macromolecular phasing.
Supporting information
PDB reference: Rab11 family-interacting protein 2, 6s8x
Supplementary Figure S1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1107/S2053230X20009164/ft5109sup1.pdf
Acknowledgements
Data were collected at the Northeastern Collaborative Access Team beamlines, which are funded by the National Institute of General Medical Sciences from the National Institutes of Health (P41 GM103403). The PILATUS 6M detector on the 24-ID-C beamline is funded by an NIH–ORIP HEI grant (S10 RR029205). This research used resources of the Advanced Photon Source, a US Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Science User Facility operated for the DOE Office of Science by Argonne National Laboratory under Contract No. DE-AC02-06CH11357.
Funding information
This work was supported by a Science Foundation Ireland Principal Investigator Award (grant No. 12/IA/1239 to ARK).
References
Chen, V. B., Arendall, W. B., Headd, J. J., Keedy, D. A., Immormino, R. M., Kapral, G. J., Murray, L. W., Richardson, J. S. & Richardson, D. C. (2010). Acta Cryst. D66, 12–21. Web of Science CrossRef CAS IUCr Journals Google Scholar
Dong, W., Qin, G. & Shen, R. (2016). Int. J. Cancer, 138, 1680–1688. CrossRef CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Dong, W. & Wu, X. (2018). Cancer Cell Int. 18, 35. CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
Eathiraj, S., Mishra, A., Prekeris, R. & Lambright, D. G. (2006). J. Mol. Biol. 364, 121–135. CrossRef PubMed CAS Google Scholar
Emsley, P., Lohkamp, B., Scott, W. G. & Cowtan, K. (2010). Acta Cryst. D66, 486–501. Web of Science CrossRef CAS IUCr Journals Google Scholar
Evans, P. (2006). Acta Cryst. D62, 72–82. Web of Science CrossRef CAS IUCr Journals Google Scholar
Hales, C. M., Griner, R., Hobdy-Henderson, K. C., Dorn, M. C., Hardy, D., Kumar, R., Navarre, J., Chan, E. K. L., Lapierre, L. A. & Goldenring, J. R. (2001). J. Biol. Chem. 276, 39067–39075. CrossRef PubMed CAS Google Scholar
Hales, C. M., Vaerman, J.-P. & Goldenring, J. R. (2002). J. Biol. Chem. 277, 50415–50421. CrossRef PubMed CAS Google Scholar
Hutagalung, A. H. & Novick, P. J. (2011). Physiol. Rev. 91, 119–149. CrossRef CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Jagoe, W. N., Jackson, S. R., Lindsay, A. J., McCaffrey, M. W. & Khan, A. R. (2006). Acta Cryst. F62, 692–694. Web of Science CrossRef IUCr Journals Google Scholar
Jagoe, W. N., Lindsay, A. J., Read, R. J., McCoy, A. J., McCaffrey, M. W. & Khan, A. R. (2006). Structure, 14, 1273–1283. Web of Science CrossRef PubMed CAS Google Scholar
Kabsch, W. (2010). Acta Cryst. D66, 125–132. Web of Science CrossRef CAS IUCr Journals Google Scholar
Lall, P., Horgan, C. P., Oda, S., Franklin, E., Sultana, A., Hanscom, S. R., McCaffrey, M. W. & Khan, A. R. (2013). Biochim. Biophys. Acta, 1834, 2679–2690. CrossRef CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Liebschner, D., Afonine, P. V., Baker, M. L., Bunkóczi, G., Chen, V. B., Croll, T. I., Hintze, B., Hung, L.-W., Jain, S., McCoy, A. J., Moriarty, N. W., Oeffner, R. D., Poon, B. K., Prisant, M. G., Read, R. J., Richardson, J. S., Richardson, D. C., Sammito, M. D., Sobolev, O. V., Stockwell, D. H., Terwilliger, T. C., Urzhumtsev, A. G., Videau, L. L., Williams, C. J. & Adams, P. D. (2019). Acta Cryst. D75, 861–877. Web of Science CrossRef IUCr Journals Google Scholar
Lindsay, A. J. & McCaffrey, M. W. (2002). J. Biol. Chem. 277, 27193–27199. Web of Science CrossRef PubMed CAS Google Scholar
Lindsay, A. J. & McCaffrey, M. W. (2004). J. Cell Sci. 117, 4365–4375. CrossRef PubMed CAS Google Scholar
McCoy, A. J., Grosse-Kunstleve, R. W., Adams, P. D., Winn, M. D., Storoni, L. C. & Read, R. J. (2007). J. Appl. Cryst. 40, 658–674. Web of Science CrossRef CAS IUCr Journals Google Scholar
Neves, M. A., Yeager, M. & Abagyan, R. (2012). J. Phys. Chem. B, 116, 7006–7013. Web of Science CrossRef CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Rodríguez, D. D., Grosse, C., Himmel, S., González, C., de Ilarduya, I. M., Becker, S., Sheldrick, G. M. & Usón, I. (2009). Nat. Methods, 6, 651–653. Web of Science PubMed Google Scholar
Royo, M., Gutiérrez, Y., Fernández-Monreal, M., Gutiérrez-Eisman, S., Jiménez, R., Jurado, S. & Esteban, J. A. (2019). J. Cell Sci. 132, jcs234237. CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
Skjesol, A., Yurchenko, M., Bösl, K., Gravastrand, C., Nilsen, K. E., Grøvdal, L. M., Agliano, F., Patane, F., Lentini, G., Kim, H., Teti, G., Kumar Sharma, A., Kandasamy, R. K., Sporsheim, B., Starheim, K. K., Golenbock, D. T., Stenmark, H., McCaffrey, M., Espevik, T. & Husebye, H. (2019). PLoS Pathog. 15, e1007684. CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
Stokes-Rees, I. & Sliz, P. (2010). Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA, 107, 21476–21481. Web of Science CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Vernon, R. M., Chong, P. A., Tsang, B., Kim, T. H., Bah, A., Farber, P., Lin, H. & Forman-Kay, J. D. (2018). eLife, 7, e31486. CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
Wei, J., Liu, Y., Bose, K., Henry, G. D. & Baleja, J. D. (2009). Biochemistry, 48, 549–557. CrossRef PubMed CAS Google Scholar
Winn, M. D., Ballard, C. C., Cowtan, K. D., Dodson, E. J., Emsley, P., Evans, P. R., Keegan, R. M., Krissinel, E. B., Leslie, A. G. W., McCoy, A., McNicholas, S. J., Murshudov, G. N., Pannu, N. S., Potterton, E. A., Powell, H. R., Read, R. J., Vagin, A. & Wilson, K. S. (2011). Acta Cryst. D67, 235–242. Web of Science CrossRef CAS IUCr Journals Google Scholar
Zhang, X., Peng, Y., Huang, Y., Deng, S., Feng, X., Hou, G., Lin, H., Wang, J., Yan, R., Zhao, Y., Fan, X., Meltzer, S. J., Li, S. & Jin, Z. (2018). Cell Death Dis. 9, 778. CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) Licence, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original authors and source are cited.