research papers
of human peptidylarginine deiminase type VI (PAD6) provides insights into its inactivity
aProtein Sciences Department, Evotec (United Kingdom), 95 Park Drive, Abingdon OX14 4RY, United Kingdom, bAssay Development Department, Manfred Eigen Campus, Evotec (Germany), Essener Bogen 7, 22419 Hamburg, Germany, cIn vitro Biology Department, Manfred Eigen Campus, Evotec SE, Essener Bogen 7, 22419 Hamburg, Germany, and dChemistry Department, Evotec (United Kingdom), 95 Park Drive, Abingdon OX14 4RY, United Kingdom
*Correspondence e-mail: edward.beaumont@evotec.com
Human peptidylarginine deiminase isoform VI (PAD6), which is predominantly limited to cytoplasmic lattices in the mammalian oocytes in ovarian tissue, is essential for female fertility. It belongs to the peptidylarginine deiminase (PAD) enzyme family that catalyzes the conversion of arginine residues to citrulline in proteins. In contrast to other members of the family, recombinant PAD6 was previously found to be catalytically inactive. We sought to provide structural insight into the human homologue to shed light on this observation. We report here the first 2+ which agrees with acidic residues found to coordinate Ca2+ in other PAD homologs not being conserved in PAD6. The of PAD6 shows similarities with the inactive state of apo PAD2, in which the active site conformation is unsuitable for catalytic citrullination. The putative active site of PAD6 adopts a non-productive conformation that would not allow protein–substrate binding due to with rigid secondary structure elements. This observation is further supported by the lack of activity on the histone H3 and cytokeratin 5 substrates. These findings suggest a different mechanism for enzymatic activation compared with other PADs; alternatively, PAD6 may exert a non-enzymatic function in the cytoplasmic lattice of oocytes and early embryos.
of PAD6, determined at 1.7 Å resolution. PAD6 follows the same domain organization as other structurally known PAD isoenzymes. Further structural analysis and show that PAD6 behaves as a homodimer similar to PAD4. Differential scanning fluorimetry suggests that PAD6 does not coordinate CaKeywords: mammalian fertilization; cytoplasmic lattices; human peptidylarginine deiminase VI; protein structures; PAD6.
PDB reference: Human PAD6 phosphomimic mutant V10E/S446E, apo, 8ql0
1. Introduction
PAD enzymes play crucial roles in various cellular processes through their ability to convert arginine residues on proteins to citrulline in a Ca2+-dependent manner (Arita et al., 2004; Slade et al., 2015). Post-translational citrullination is involved in important physiological processes, such as skin keratinization, neuron insulation and inflammation, or in development (Senshu et al., 1999; Boggs et al., 1999; Suzuki et al., 2003; Wright et al., 2003). In mammals, five PAD isoforms have been identified (PAD1–PAD4 and PAD6). They have been shown to be expressed in a tissue-specific manner with distinct substrate specificity (Vossenaar et al., 2003). PAD6 is the most recently characterized member of the PAD family and is specifically expressed in oocytes (Wright et al., 2003). It was found to play a significant role in oocyte maturation and the development of the fertilized oocyte beyond the two-cell stage (Esposito et al., 2007; Yurttas et al., 2008). Female Pad6 knock-out mice are infertile due to defects in early embryo development (Esposito et al., 2007). Similarly, women with PAD6 mutations have been reported to experience premature embryonic arrest and infertility (Xu et al., 2016; Liu et al., 2021; Begemann et al., 2018). On the cellular level, PAD6 is found within keratin-containing cytoplasmic lattices (CPLs) in mice (Wright et al., 2003). CPLs are proposed to serve as a storage depot for maternal proteins important for embryogenesis (Yurttas et al., 2008; Jentoft et al., 2023). Keratins, particularly cytokeratin 5 and 6, are known to be major constituents of cytoskeletal lattices (Schwarz et al., 1995). Moreover, keratins are suspected to be targets of citrullinating enzymes in keratinocytes (Nachat et al., 2005). Although indirect evidence supports citrullinating activity of PAD6 in oocytes, as indicated by immunostaining of citrullinated protein in wild-type versus PAD6 knock-out mice (Esposito et al., 2007), no direct in vitro evidence for such activity has been observed. In vitro methods used for measuring the activity of other PAD isoforms using L-arginine-based synthetic and peptide substrates have not provided conclusive evidence for PAD6 activity (Raijmakers et al., 2007; Taki et al., 2011). The human PAD4 isoform has been extensively investigated in terms of its structure–function relationships through examination of crystal structures in apo, holo and ligand-complexed forms, as well as the analysis of enzyme mutants (Arita et al., 2004, 2006; Liu et al., 2011; Lewis et al., 2015; Lee et al., 2017). PAD4 has a dimeric structure where the N- and C-terminal regions are responsible for Ca2+ binding and respectively. The binding of Ca2+ to apo-PAD4 induces a conformational transition into its catalytically active state (Arita et al., 2004). The present study provides insights into the structure and function of PAD6, compared with PAD4 and other PAD enzymes, and will facilitate future studies on the role of PAD6 in female fertility.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Protein expression and purification
The synthetic gene of the recombinant human PAD6 (V2-P694 S10E S446E, Fig. S1 of the supporting information) with a TEV protease-cleavable 6×His-GST tag fused to its N-terminus was codon-optimized for mammalian expression and cloned into the pcDNA3.4 vector using TOPO cloning strategy (GenScript). The resulting construct was used for transient transfection in HEK cells using PEI-MAX (Sigma–Aldrich) and FreeStyle media (Gibco). To purify PAD6, the cell pellet was resuspended in lysis buffer containing 20 mM Tris–HCl pH 7.5, 200 mM NaCl, 10% glycerol, 1 mM TCEP, 2 mM MgCl2, 10 U ml−1 benzonase and complete protease inhibitor tablets (Roche Applied Science). Cells were lysed by sonication, 5 cycles of 20 s on at 40% amplitude and 20 s off on ice, and the clear lysate was obtained by centrifugation. The His-GST tagged protein was bound to glutathione Sepharose 4FF resin (Cytiva) for 2 h at 4°C with gentle rocking rotation. PAD6 was washed with 20 mM Tris–HCl pH 7.5, 200 mM NaCl, 10% glycerol, 1 mM TCEP and eluted with 20 mM Tris–HCl pH 7.5, 200 mM NaCl, 10% glycerol, 1 mM TCEP, 10 mM reduced glutathione. The tagged protein was treated with TEV protease (with a ratio of 1 mg TEV per 20 mg PAD6) overnight at 4°C, and the untagged protein was purified with HisTrap FF (Cytiva) reverse nickel-affinity followed by on Superdex 200 with 20 mM Tris–HCl pH 7.5, 200 mM NaCl, 1 mM TCEP before concentrating to 3.2 mg ml−1.
The recombinant human PAD4 construct (Fig. S1), used for DSF and aSEC, was adapted from Muth et al. (2017). Briefly, the GST-PAD4 was expressed by autoinduction in ZYM-5052 media (Teknova) in BL21(DE3) pLysS over 18 h at 18°C. Cells were lysed in 20 mM Tris–HCl pH 7.5, 200 mM NaCl, 10% glycerol, 1 mM TCEP, protease inhibitor, 10 U ml−1 benzonase, 2 mM MgCl2. The GST-tagged protein was bound to a GSTrap 4B column (Cytiva) and eluted with 20 mM Tris–HCl pH 7.5, 200 mM NaCl, 10% glycerol, 1 mM TCEP, 10 mM reduced glutathione. The protein was further purified using a Resource Q column (Cytiva) before tag removal using HRV 3C protease (PreScission) incubation overnight at 4°C (with a ratio of 1 mg HRV 3C protease per 40 mg PAD4). The untagged protein was further purified by reverse GSTrap followed by using a Superdex 200 with 20 mM Tris–HCl pH 7.5, 400 mM NaCl, 0.5 mM TCEP before concentrating to 3.1 mg ml−1.
2.2. Analytical size-exclusion chromatography
The M Tris–HCl pH 7.5, 200 mM NaCl, 1 mM TCEP and calibrated using a set of molecular weight protein standards (Bio-Rad) composed of bovine thyroglobulin (670 kDa), bovine gamma globulin (158 kDa), chicken ovalbumin (44 kDa) and horse myoglobulin (17 kDa). The PAD6 sample (1 mg ml−1) and the standards were all run at 0.3 ml min−1.
of PAD6 in solution was examined by analytical on a Superdex 200 increase 5/150GL (Cytiva). The column was equilibrated with 20 m2.3. Differential scanning fluorimetry
Differential scanning fluorimetry (DSF) was performed using SYPRO Orange (Sigma) as the shift reporter dye. Briefly, 4 µM of protein was incubated in buffer (10 mM Tris–HCl pH 7.5, 200 mM NaCl with and without 10 mM of CaCl2) for 30 min on ice. SYPRO Orange dye (Sigma) was diluted to 2× final concentration from 5000× stock. The reactions were monitored in real time (Stratagene MX3005P; excitation, 490 nm; emission, 575 nm) from 25 to 95°C with a rate of change of 0.5°C min−1.
2.4. Determination of PAD6 crystal structure
2.4.1. Crystallization
The purified PAD6 (3.2 mg ml−1) crystallized by vapour diffusion at 18°C using 15–18% PEG 3350, 200–300 mM NaBr, 0.1 M bis-tris propane pH 6.5 as precipitant. Crystals appeared over two days after mixing equal volumes of protein sample and precipitant and matured to their final sizes after ∼15 days. Crystals were then harvested, cryo-protected with reservoir solution supplemented with 25%(v/v) PEG 200 and flash-cooled in liquid nitrogen for diffraction data collection.
2.4.2. Diffraction data collection and processing, and refinement
Diffraction data were collected at the I03 beamline at Diamond Light Source (Harwell, United Kingdom). A complete dataset was collected from an individual crystal under a cryogenic stream at 100 K at a wavelength of 0.98 Å and processed using the automated pipeline autoPROC (Vonrhein et al., 2011) that executes XDS (Kabsch, 2010), POINTLESS (Evans, 2006) and AIMLESS (Evans & Murshudov, 2013) of the CCP4 suite (Winn et al., 2011), as well as the STARANISO module (Tickle et al., 2018). The PAD6 structure was solved by using a model generated by AlphaFold [accession No. AF-Q6TGC4-F1 (Jumper et al., 2021)]. This model was then refined using BUSTER (Bricogne et al., 2017) and manually corrected using Coot (Emsley et al., 2010). The data collection and of the final model are shown in Table 1.
|
2.5. Detection of citrullinated proteins by 4-azidophenyl glyoxal cycloaddition on membranes (on-blot assay)
100 µg ml−1 histone H3 (Abcam) or 20 µg ml−1 cytokeratin 5 (Abcam) was incubated with 200 nM PAD6 or 100 nM PAD4 (Cayman) ± 50 µM GSK484 (Sigma) in citrullination buffer (50 mM Tris–HCl pH 7.6, 1 mM CaCl2, 200 mM NaCl2, 2 mM DTT) in a 384-well Nunc MaxiSorp plate (Thermo Scientific) for 3 h at 37°C and 300 r.p.m. shaking. The reaction was stopped by the addition of EGTA, pH 8.0, to a final concentration of 50 mM. The citrullination was detected using the alkyne-biotin based method as described by Hensen et al. (2015). The blots were scanned using the LiCor Odyssey CLx and quantification of protein bands was performed with the integrated Image Studio software.
2.6. Detection of citrullinated histone H3 by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay
Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) assay described by Verheul et al. (2018) was adapted as follows: 1 µg ml−1 histone H3 (Abcam) was incubated with 200 nM PAD6 or 310 pM PAD4 (Cayman) ± 50 µM GSK484 (Sigma) in citrullination buffer (50 mM Tris–HCl pH 7.6, 1 mM CaCl2, 200 mM NaCl and 2 mM DTT) in a 384-well Nunc MaxiSorp plate (Thermo Scientific) for 4 h at 37°C and 300 r.p.m. shaking. After overnight storage at 4°C, plates were blocked with 1% BSA in PBS for 2 h at 37°C and 300 r.p.m. shaking, followed by incubation with the primary antibody (anti-citrullinated H3: Cayman, No. 17939) diluted 1:500 in 1% BSA and 0.05% Tween 20 in PBS, and secondary antibody (HRP-conjugated anti-mouse: Sigma, No. A9044) diluted 1:10 000 in 1% BSA and 0.05% Tween 20 in PBS, for 1 h at 37°C and 300 r.p.m. shaking. After every incubation step the plate was washed 3× with 0.05% Tween 20 in PBS. Finally, the secondary antibody was detected through oxidation of 3,3′,5,5′-tetramethylbenzidine (Sigma), incubating the reaction for 20 min at 37°C and 300 r.p.m. shaking. The reaction was stopped by adding an equal volume of 0.5 M sulfuric acid. The absorbance at 450 nm was measured immediately after (Perkin Elmer Envision 2104).
3. Results
3.1. Construct design of human PAD6
From the five human PAD homologs, four (PAD1 to PAD4) have been previously purified and structurally characterized by X-ray crystallography (Saijo et al., 2016; Slade et al., 2015; Rechiche et al., 2021; Funabashi et al., 2021; Arita et al., 2004). To better understand the relationship between the function and structure of human PAD6, we designed a full-length construct V2-P694 with a TEV-cleavable N-terminal 6×His-GST tag. Two phosphorylation sites on Ser10 and Ser446 have been identified in human PAD6 (Rose et al., 2012). In order to understand the impact of these post-translational modifications on its activity, we designed two phosphomimetic mutations, S10E and S446E, and included them in our final construct. The construct (V2-P694 S10E S446E) was purified to crystallized and characterized biochemically.
3.2. PAD6 shows no citrullination activity on proteins in vitro
Previous work suggests that PAD6 can citrullinate either histones or cytokeratins in oocytes, as indicated by assays using citrulline-specific antibodies and immunocytochemistry (Esposito et al., 2007). However, other studies using in vitro citrullination assays failed to demonstrate PAD6 activity (Raijmakers et al., 2007; Taki et al., 2011). To test the hypothesis that PAD6 is responsible for the citrullination of histone H3 or cytokeratin 5, both potential targets for PAD6 (Schwarz et al., 1995; Nachat et al., 2005; Esposito et al., 2007), we first analyzed the citrullination of histone H3 by an ELISA assay using a specific anti-citrullinated histone H3 antibody. PAD4, which was used as a positive control, clearly increased the citrullination signal for histone H3 [Fig. 1(a)]. The activity of PAD4 was blocked by the addition of the PAD4-specific inhibitor GSK484 (Lewis et al., 2015). In the presence of PAD6 carrying phosphomimetic mutations S10E and S446E, the citrullination signal was similar to that of PAD4:GSK484, showing that no detectable citrullination activity could be observed with PAD6 for histone H3. Given the challenge to identify specific antibodies directed against additional citrullinated proteins of interest, we adopted an antibody-independent assay based on the on-blot technology (Hensen et al., 2015) which allowed us to test additional substrates, such as cytokeratin 5. Data obtained with this orthogonal method clearly confirmed the data obtained with the ELISA method showing the inability of phosphomimetic PAD6 to citrullinate histone H3. Similar enzymatic citrullination inactivity was detected towards cytokeratin 5 as the substrate for PAD6 [Fig. 1(b) and Fig. S2]. Based on these data, we conclude that, unlike PAD4, PAD6 does not exhibit citrullination activity on the substrates tested in vitro.
3.3. Tertiary and of PAD6
PAD6 crystallized in the C2 and the structure was determined to a resolution of 1.7 Å (Table 1). A single chain is present in the The of PAD6 is typical of the PAD family and consists of two consecutive immunoglobulin-like domains (IgG1 and IgG2) followed by a α/β propeller C-terminal domain (Saijo et al., 2016; Slade et al., 2015; Funabashi et al., 2021; Arita et al., 2004). This C-terminal domain contains the catalytic citrullination site in other PADs (Mondal & Thompson, 2019) [Fig. 2(a)].
PAD4 was found to form a head-to-tail homodimer, with one monomer being related to another PAD molecule by a crystallographic twofold axis (Arita et al., 2004), and it has been shown that this dimerization is important for optimal activity (Liu et al., 2011; Lee et al., 2017). The crystal structures of PAD2 (Slade et al., 2015) and PAD3 (Funabashi et al., 2021; Rechiche et al., 2021) exhibit the same head-to-tail assembly. Examination of the PAD6 crystal packing showed that PAD6 adopts a nearly identical dimeric arrangement across the crystal packing, with a buried surface of 1986.5 Å2 at the interface [Fig. S3(a)]. This value suggests that the two molecules are involved in a physiological dimerization rather than a (Janin & Chothia, 1990). Interestingly, the PAD6 assembly closely resembles the PAD4 dimer, since the superposition gives an r.m.s.d. of 2.0 Å with 982 aligned Cα [Fig. 2(b), Fig. S3(b)]. This small r.m.s.d. value is in the range of those obtained after pairwise superimpositions between the different dimeric assemblies of PAD isoenzymes (PAD2, PAD3, PAD4 and PAD6), indicating that this organization is well conserved in all these members of the PAD family. An analytical assay indicates that PAD6 elutes as a dimer in solution, with a molecular weight calculated at ∼182 kDa [Fig. 2(c)]. In addition, a chemical cross-linking experiment showed a unique band observed at ∼150 kDa, consistent with inter-molecular interactions among PAD6 molecules to form dimers [Fig. S3(c)]. Altogether, these data suggest that PAD6 most likely dimerizes in the same way as PAD4 and other dimeric PAD isoenzymes.
The dimeric interface is formed by residues from the three domains [Fig. S3(d)]. It has been shown in PAD4 that the hydrophobic nature of several interfacial residues is important for the dimeric stability (Liu et al., 2011; Lee et al., 2017). Notably, hydrophobic residues are also found at equivalent positions in PAD6. Among these, in PAD4, Tyr435 belongs to the `interface-loop' (I-loop) which critically influences both the dimeric stability and the (Lee et al., 2017). The Tyr435 residue is conserved in PAD6 (Tyr444). The structure reveals a different conformation and interfacial interactions to those in PAD4. This Tyr435 directly interacts with several residues from the facing monomers as it establishes hydrogen bonds with Glu281 and Tyr237 side chains and is involved in a network of hydrophobic contacts involving Val200 and Leu272. However, in PAD6, the I-loop is partly disordered and Tyr444 interacts with Tyr561 of the same chain, which in turns establishes hydrophobic contacts with Ile288–Pro289 from the facing monomer [Fig. 2(d)]. This shows that the dimer interface, while being overall well conserved, reveals subtle differences regarding the I-loop.
3.4. PAD6 is calcium-free
Previous studies on PAD4 revealed the capacity of the enzyme to bind five Ca2+ ions cooperatively to transition to the active conformation (Arita et al., 2004; Liu et al., 2011). The Ca1 and Ca2 are located in the C-terminal and Ca2+ binding at these sites is crucial to shape the substrate-binding site and assist the catalysis (Arita et al., 2004). Ca3–Ca5 are located further from the active site in the IgG2 domain. Although not essential for activity, Ca2+ binding at these sites enhances PAD4 catalytic efficiency (Liu et al., 2013). PAD1–3 bind calcium at equivalent sites to PAD4 except PAD1, which lacks the binding site for Ca5 (Saijo et al., 2016; Slade et al., 2015; Rechiche et al., 2021). The sequence examination shows that many of the acidic (seven Asp or Glu) and polar (one Asn) residues involved in the Ca2+ coordination in PAD4 are not conserved in PAD6 [Fig. 3(a)].
Fig. 3(b) maps the corresponding residues in the PAD6 The regions equivalent to the five Ca2+-binding sites in PAD4 are more exposed to solvent than in Ca2+-bound PAD4, and they are occupied by water molecules. Within the region equivalent to PAD4 Ca3–Ca5, the disordered segment 170–176 also illustrates its flexibility.
To support the sequence and structural analyses, we performed thermal shift assay to examine the effect of calcium to PAD4 and PAD6. We observed that the addition of 10 mM CaCl2 significantly increases the melting temperature of PAD4 [Fig. 3(c)], from Tm = 46.8°C ± 0.7 to Tm = 69.6°C ± 0.2, indicating that the conformational stability of PAD4 is dependent on Ca2+ ions. Conversely, PAD6 was not thermostabilized in the presence of 10 mM CaCl2. Additionally, isothermal titration (ITC) experiments provide further evidence that PAD6 is unlikely to bind Ca2+ in contrast to PAD4 (Fig. S4). Altogether, the present analysis suggests that PAD6 is unlikely to coordinate calcium ions.
3.5. Inactive form of PAD6
In the current apo PAD6 structure, the loops surrounding the putative active site could be entirely traced from the electron density [Fig. S5(a)]. In the PAD6 sequence, Ala676 is found at a position equivalent to the active cysteine Cys645 in PAD4, which is conserved in all other PAD isoenzymes [Fig. 4(a)]. Thus, this position cannot serve as a potential catalysis of citrullination in PAD6. However, Ala676 is flanked by two cysteines (Cys675 and Cys677) that could potentially act as active residues. In the structure, neither Cys675 nor Cys677 are favourably positioned and oriented for effective reactivity with the substrate in PAD6, and the I661–A678 loop occludes access to either of these cysteines [Figs. 4(b) and 4(c)]. Fig. 4(c) illustrates the differences between PAD6 and the holo PAD4 structure in complex with a substrate, the histone H3 N-terminal tail in which Arg8 is the target for citrullination (PDB entry 2dew; Arita et al., 2006). In the current PAD6 structure, loop I661–A678 would sterically hinder substrate binding as seen in 2dew [Fig. 4(c), top right]. Additionally, while in the holo PAD4 structure the active cysteine (which is intentionally mutated to alanine in 2dew) is part of a small α-helix, Ala676 and Cys677 in PAD6 are part of a β-strand [Fig. 4(c), bottom right]. A B-factor analysis indicates that loop I661-A678 has low thermal motion compared with other regions of the structure, suggesting that its conformation is relatively stable [Fig. S5(b)]. In the apo PAD4 structure, (PDB entry 1wd8; Arita et al., 2004), the equivalent loop (I630-G646) is disordered, as well as the surrounding loops. In the apo PAD2 structure (PDB entry4n20; Slade et al., 2015), the corresponding loop I635–G648 was modelled and exhibited a conformation characteristic of an inactive state, akin to what is observed in PAD6. Notably, in this loop the PAD2 active cysteine (Cys646) is not in a position suitable for catalytic citrullination [Fig. 4(d)]. Additionally, in this structure, Arg347 shields access to the catalytic centre formed by Asp351, His471 and Asp473 by occupying the substrate-binding cleft (Slade et al., 2015). In PAD6, the residue corresponding to Arg347 of PAD2, Arg355, adopts a similar position in the vicinity of Asp353, His480 and Asp482 [Fig. 4(e)]. The role of Arg355 as a pseudo-substrate is further supported by a direct interaction with Asp359. Interestingly, a non-productive form of Ca2+-bound PAD3 has been crystallized (PDB entry 7d8n; Funabashi et al., 2021), showing a similar configuration of the active site where the equivalent Arg346 shields access to the catalytic centre [Fig. 4(e)].
Altogether, our structure analysis shows that the PAD6 structure corresponds to an inactive form of PAD that resembles the inactive apo PAD2 structure. If PAD6 is to be activated to catalyze citrullination of substrates in the physiological environment, it may be achieved through a specific mechanism, independent to Ca2+. The activation of PAD6 would involve the displacement of the loop I661–A678 so that the substrate could access the In our structure, a PEG molecule from the crystallization solution was found in the vicinity of Cys675 and Cys677 [Fig. S5(c)], suggesting that this conformation is not rigid, and the putative active site can be accessed by a potential substrate.
4. Discussion
In this study, we determined the first structure of human PAD6. The et al., 2004). The dimeric assembly of PAD6 was also observed in solution, suggesting the existence of PAD6 dimers under physiological conditions. Interestingly, all the other structurally known PAD isoenzymes adopt the same dimeric assembly, with the exception of PAD1, which has been shown to be a monomeric PAD (Saijo et al., 2016). The dimerization state of PAD4 enhances the cooperative binding of Ca2+ and enzymatic activity (Liu et al., 2011), with residues at the dimeric interface exerting a long-distance impact on the active site (Lee et al., 2017). The binding of five calcium ions to PAD4 induces an active conformation essential for catalytic citrullination (Liu et al., 2011). In contrast to other PAD isoforms, PAD6 is most likely unable to coordinate calcium ions with most of the residues responsible for the Ca2+ binding not conserved. Unsurprisingly, PAD6 was found to be enzymatically inactive for citrullination using histone H3 and cytokeratin 5 in vitro, substrates expressed in oocytes (Schwarz et al., 1995). At the structural level, the PAD6 putative active site is in an unsuitable conformation for substrate binding. Key residues are mis-positioned for an efficient substrate binding and citrullination catalysis, similar to the PAD2 inactive state or to the non-productive Ca2+-bound PAD3. These observations raise questions of whether other factors are necessary for PAD6 enzymatic activity and, subsequently, the exact nature of PAD6 substrates. Post-translational modification could be one possibility. Indeed, PAD6 can undergo phosphorylation during the maturation of mouse oocytes (Snow et al., 2008) and 2 phosphorylation sites have been identified in human PAD6 (Rose et al., 2012). The introduction of the phosphomimetic mutations S10E and S446E did not result in activity. Although one can consider actual phosphorylation could have a greater impact than these mutations, the localization of these residues far from the active site rather indicates that PAD6 phosphorylation at these sites is unlikely to influence its enzymatic activity [Fig. S5(a)]. Nonetheless, the accessibility and flexibility of these residues were consistent with previous data showing that both phosphorylated residues are involved in a protein–protein interaction with 14-3-3 (YWHA) (Snow et al., 2008; Rose et al., 2012). 14-3-3, a chaperone-like protein, has also recently been localized in the CPLs (Jentoft et al., 2023). We cannot rule out that interaction with 14-3-3 or any other PAD6 physiological partners could be required to activate an enzymatic activity via an unknown mechanism. The fact that this mechanism would not depend on Ca2+ ions sets PAD6 apart within the PAD family but it remains plausible as illustrated by the bacterial PPAD enzymes which do not utilize Ca2+ for citrullination (Goulas et al., 2015; Bielecka et al., 2014).
revealed that the protein adopts the typical of the PAD family, with conserved N-terminal immunoglobulin-like domains (IgG1 and IgG2) followed by the C-terminal The crystal packing analysis suggests that the PAD6 is similar to that of PAD4, a dimer organized in a head-to-tail fashion (AritaAlternatively, PAD6 might possess a non-enzymatic function in the oocyte. Indeed, several studies have shown PAD6 to be involved in CPL formation (Wright et al., 2003; Esposito et al., 2007; Jentoft et al., 2023). CPLs are highly abundant in oocytes and have long been predicted to function as a storage form for maternal contribution of ribosomes and proteins in oocytes to early embryo (Yurttas et al., 2008; Capco et al., 1993; Jentoft et al., 2023). More recently, PAD6 has also been linked to another cytoplasmic complex, the subcortical maternal complex (SCMC) (Li et al., 2008; Kim et al., 2010), a multi-protein complex (∼670–2000 kDa) essential for early embryogenesis in mouse and human (Li et al., 2008; Zhu et al., 2015). Though these observations provide evidence of PAD6 being associated to the cellular and multi-protein complexes (i.e. CPL and SCMC), further studies are needed to identify the functional mechanism of PAD6 in early embryo development.
Supporting information
PDB reference: Human PAD6 phosphomimic mutant V10E/S446E, apo, 8ql0
Supporting figures. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1107/S2052252524002549/jt5075sup1.pdf
Acknowledgements
All authors are currently or have been employees of Evotec SE at the time of the study. Author contributions are as follows: FMR, AG, CR and EB designed and coordinated the research; PL coordinated the research; FMR, RB, IC, ADR, PV and EB performed experiments and/or data analysis; EB, FMR and AG wrote the paper with input from all authors.
Funding information
The study was supported, in whole or in part, by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (grant No. INV-035107). Under the grant conditions of the Foundation, a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Generic License has already been assigned to the Author Accepted Manuscript version that might arise from this submission.
References
Arita, K., Hashimoto, H., Shimizu, T., Nakashima, K., Yamada, M. & Sato, M. (2004). Nat. Struct. Mol. Biol. 11, 777–783. Web of Science CrossRef PubMed CAS Google Scholar
Arita, K., Shimizu, T., Hashimoto, H., Hidaka, Y., Yamada, M. & Sato, M. (2006). Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA, 103, 5291–5296. Web of Science CrossRef PubMed CAS Google Scholar
Begemann, M., Rezwan, F. I., Beygo, J., Docherty, L. E., Kolarova, J., Schroeder, C., Buiting, K., Chokkalingam, K., Degenhardt, F., Wakeling, E. L., Kleinle, S., González Fassrainer, D., Oehl-Jaschkowitz, B., Turner, C. L. S., Patalan, M., Gizewska, M., Binder, G., Bich Ngoc, C. T., Chi Dung, V., Mehta, S. G., Baynam, G., Hamilton-Shield, J. P., Aljareh, S., Lokulo-Sodipe, O., Horton, R., Siebert, R., Elbracht, M., Temple, I. K., Eggermann, T. & Mackay, D. J. G. (2018). J. Med. Genet. 55, 497–504. CrossRef CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Bielecka, E., Scavenius, C., Kantyka, T., Jusko, M., Mizgalska, D., Szmigielski, B., Potempa, B., Enghild, J. J., Prossnitz, E. R., Blom, A. M. & Potempa, J. (2014). J. Biol. Chem. 289, 32481–32487. CrossRef CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Boggs, J. M., Rangaraj, G., Koshy, K. M., Ackerley, C., Wood, D. D. & Moscarello, M. A. (1999). J. Neurosci. Res. 57, 529–535. CrossRef PubMed CAS Google Scholar
Bricogne, G., Blanc, E., Brandl, M., Flensburg, C., Keller, P., Paciorek, W., Roversi, P., Sharff, A., Smart, O. S., Vonrhein, C. & Womack, T. O. (2017). BUSTER version 2.11.8. Global Phasing Ltd, Cambridge, United Kingdom. Google Scholar
Capco, D. G., Gallicano, G. I., McGaughey, R. W., Downing, K. H. & Larabell, C. A. (1993). Cell Motil. Cytoskeleton, 24, 85–99. CrossRef CAS PubMed 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
Esposito, G., Vitale, A. M., Leijten, F. P., Strik, A. M., Koonen-Reemst, A. M., Yurttas, P., Robben, T. J., Coonrod, S. & Gossen, J. A. (2007). Mol. Cell. Endocrinol. 273, 25–31. CrossRef PubMed CAS Google Scholar
Evans, P. (2006). Acta Cryst. D62, 72–82. Web of Science CrossRef CAS IUCr Journals Google Scholar
Evans, P. R. & Murshudov, G. N. (2013). Acta Cryst. D69, 1204–1214. Web of Science CrossRef CAS IUCr Journals Google Scholar
Funabashi, K., Sawata, M., Nagai, A., Akimoto, M., Mashimo, R., Takahara, H., Kizawa, K., Thompson, P. R., Ite, K., Kitanishi, K. & Unno, M. (2021). Arch. Biochem. Biophys. 708, 108911. CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
Goulas, T., Mizgalska, D., Garcia-Ferrer, I., Kantyka, T., Guevara, T., Szmigielski, B., Sroka, A., Millán, C., Usón, I., Veillard, F., Potempa, B., Mydel, P., Solà, M., Potempa, J. & Gomis-Rüth, F. X. (2015). Sci. Rep. 5, 11969. Web of Science CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
Hensen, S. M. M., Boelens, W. C., Bonger, K. M., van Cruchten, R. T. P., van Delft, F. L. & Pruijn, G. J. M. (2015). Molecules, 20, 6592–6600. CrossRef CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Janin, J. & Chothia, C. (1990). J. Biol. Chem. 265, 16027–16030. CrossRef CAS PubMed Web of Science Google Scholar
Jentoft, I. M. A., Bäuerlein, F. J. B., Welp, L. M., Cooper, B. H., Petrovic, A., So, C., Penir, S. M., Politi, A. Z., Horokhovskyi, Y., Takala, I., Eckel, H., Moltrecht, R., Lénárt, P., Cavazza, T., Liepe, J., Brose, N., Urlaub, H., Fernández-Busnadiego, R. & Schuh, M. (2023). Cell, 186, 5308–5327.e25. CrossRef CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Jumper, J., Evans, R., Pritzel, A., Green, T., Figurnov, M., Ronneberger, O., Tunyasuvunakool, K., Bates, R., Žídek, A., Potapenko, A., Bridgland, A., Meyer, C., Kohl, S. A. A., Ballard, A. J., Cowie, A., Romera-Paredes, B., Nikolov, S., Jain, R., Adler, J., Back, T., Petersen, S., Reiman, D., Clancy, E., Zielinski, M., Steinegger, M., Pacholska, M., Berghammer, T., Bodenstein, S., Silver, D., Vinyals, O., Senior, A. W., Kavukcuoglu, K., Kohli, P. & Hassabis, D. (2021). Nature, 596, 583–589. Web of Science CrossRef CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Kabsch, W. (2010). Acta Cryst. D66, 125–132. Web of Science CrossRef CAS IUCr Journals Google Scholar
Kim, B., Kan, R., Anguish, L., Nelson, L. M. & Coonrod, S. A. (2010). PLoS One, 5, e12587. CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
Lee, C. Y., Lin, C. C., Liu, Y. L., Liu, G. Y., Liu, J. H. & Hung, H. C. (2017). Sci. Rep. 7, 42662. CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
Lewis, H. D., Liddle, J., Coote, J. E., Atkinson, S. J., Barker, M. D., Bax, B. D., Bicker, K. L., Bingham, R. P., Campbell, M., Chen, Y. H., Chung, C. W., Craggs, P. D., Davis, R. P., Eberhard, D., Joberty, G., Lind, K. E., Locke, K., Maller, C., Martinod, K., Patten, C., Polyakova, O., Rise, C. E., Rüdiger, M., Sheppard, R. J., Slade, D. J., Thomas, P., Thorpe, J., Yao, G., Drewes, G., Wagner, D. D., Thompson, P. R., Prinjha, R. K. & Wilson, D. M. (2015). Nat. Chem. Biol. 11, 189–191. CrossRef CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Li, L., Baibakov, B. & Dean, J. (2008). Dev. Cell, 15, 416–425. Web of Science CrossRef PubMed CAS Google Scholar
Liu, J., Tan, Z., He, J., Jin, T., Han, Y., Hu, L. & Huang, S. (2021). J. Assist. Reprod. Genet. 38, 1551–1559. CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
Liu, Y. L., Chiang, Y. H., Liu, G. Y. & Hung, H. C. (2011). PLoS One, 6, e21314. CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
Liu, Y. L., Tsai, I. C., Chang, C. W., Liao, Y. F., Liu, G. Y. & Hung, H. C. (2013). PLoS One, 8, e51660. CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
Mondal, S. & Thompson, P. R. (2019). Acc. Chem. Res. 52, 818–832. Web of Science CrossRef CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Muth, A., Subramanian, V., Beaumont, E., Nagar, M., Kerry, P., McEwan, P., Srinath, H., Clancy, K., Parelkar, S. & Thompson, P. R. (2017). J. Med. Chem. 60, 3198–3211. CrossRef CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Nachat, R., Méchin, M. C., Takahara, H., Chavanas, S., Charveron, M., Serre, G. & Simon, M. (2005). J. Invest. Dermatol. 124, 384–393. CrossRef PubMed CAS Google Scholar
Raijmakers, R., Zendman, A. J., Egberts, W. V., Vossenaar, E. R., Raats, J., Soede-Huijbregts, C., Rutjes, F. P., van Veelen, P. A., Drijfhout, J. W. & Pruijn, G. J. (2007). J. Mol. Biol. 367, 1118–1129. CrossRef PubMed CAS Google Scholar
Rechiche, O., Lee, T. V. & Lott, J. S. (2021). Acta Cryst. F77, 334–340. CrossRef IUCr Journals Google Scholar
Rose, R., Rose, M. & Ottmann, C. (2012). J. Struct. Biol. 180, 65–72. Web of Science CrossRef CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Saijo, S., Nagai, A., Kinjo, S., Mashimo, R., Akimoto, M., Kizawa, K., Yabe-Wada, T., Shimizu, N., Takahara, H. & Unno, M. (2016). J. Mol. Biol. 428, 3058–3073. Web of Science CrossRef CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Schwarz, S. M., Gallicano, G. I., McGaughey, R. W. & Capco, D. G. (1995). Mech. Dev. 53, 305–321. CrossRef CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Senshu, T., Akiyama, K., Ishigami, A. & Nomura, K. (1999). J. Dermatol. Sci. 21, 113–126. CrossRef PubMed CAS Google Scholar
Slade, D. J., Fang, P., Dreyton, C. J., Zhang, Y., Fuhrmann, J., Rempel, D., Bax, B. D., Coonrod, S. A., Lewis, H. D., Guo, M., Gross, M. L. & Thompson, P. R. (2015). Am. Chem. Soc. Chem. Biol. 10, 1043–1053. CAS Google Scholar
Snow, A. J., Puri, P., Acker-Palmer, A., Bouwmeester, T., Vijayaraghavan, S. & Kline, D. (2008). Biol. Reprod. 79, 337–347. CrossRef PubMed CAS Google Scholar
Suzuki, A., Yamada, R., Chang, X., Tokuhiro, S., Sawada, T., Suzuki, M., Nagasaki, M., Nakayama-Hamada, M., Kawaida, R., Ono, M., Ohtsuki, M., Furukawa, H., Yoshino, S., Yukioka, M., Tohma, S., Matsubara, T., Wakitani, S., Teshima, R., Nishioka, Y., Sekine, A., Iida, A., Takahashi, A., Tsunoda, T., Nakamura, Y. & Yamamoto, K. (2003). Nat. Genet. 34, 395–402. CrossRef PubMed CAS Google Scholar
Taki, H., Gomi, T., Knuckley, B., Thompson, P. R., Vugrek, O., Hirata, K., Miyahara, T., Shinoda, K., Hounoki, H., Sugiyama, E., Usui, I., Urakaze, M., Tobe, K., Ishimoto, T., Inoue, R., Tanaka, A., Mano, H., Ogawa, H. & Mori, H. (2011). Adv. Biosci. Biotechnol. 02, 304–310. CrossRef CAS Google Scholar
Tickle, I. J., Flensburg, C., Keller, P., Paciorek, W., Sharff, A., Vonrhein, C. & Bricogne, G. (2018). STARANISO. Global Phasing Ltd, Cambridge, United Kingdom. Google Scholar
Verheul, M. K., van Veelen, P. A., van Delft, M. A. M., de Ru, A., Janssen, G. M. C., Rispens, T., Toes, R. E. M. & Trouw, L. A. (2018). Autoimmun. Rev. 17, 136–141. CrossRef CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Vonrhein, C., Flensburg, C., Keller, P., Sharff, A., Smart, O., Paciorek, W., Womack, T. & Bricogne, G. (2011). Acta Cryst. D67, 293–302. Web of Science CrossRef CAS IUCr Journals Google Scholar
Vossenaar, E. R., Zendman, A. J., van Venrooij, W. J. & Pruijn, G. J. (2003). BioEssays, 25, 1106–1118. 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
Wright, P. W., Bolling, L. C., Calvert, M. E., Sarmento, O. F., Berkeley, E. V., Shea, M. C., Hao, Z., Jayes, F. C., Bush, L. A., Shetty, J., Shore, A. N., Reddi, P. P., Tung, K. S., Samy, E., Allietta, M. M., Sherman, N. E., Herr, J. C. & Coonrod, S. A. (2003). Dev. Biol. 256, 73–88. CrossRef PubMed CAS Google Scholar
Xu, Y., Shi, Y., Fu, J., Yu, M., Feng, R., Sang, Q., Liang, B., Chen, B., Qu, R., Li, B., Yan, Z., Mao, X., Kuang, Y., Jin, L., He, L., Sun, X. & Wang, L. (2016). Am. J. Hum. Genet. 99, 744–752. CrossRef CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Yurttas, P., Vitale, A. M., Fitzhenry, R. J., Cohen-Gould, L., Wu, W., Gossen, J. A. & Coonrod, S. A. (2008). Development, 135, 2627–2636. CrossRef PubMed CAS Google Scholar
Zhu, K., Yan, L., Zhang, X., Lu, X., Wang, T., Yan, J., Liu, X., Qiao, J. & Li, L. (2015). Mol. Hum. Reprod. 21, 320–329. CrossRef CAS 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.