Quality control in oocytes by p63 is based on a spring-loaded activation mechanism on the molecular and cellular level

  1. Daniel Coutandin
  2. Christian Osterburg
  3. Ratnesh Kumar Srivastav
  4. Manuela Sumyk
  5. Sebastian Kehrloesser
  6. Jakob Gebel
  7. Marcel Tuppi
  8. Jens Hannewald
  9. Birgit Schäfer
  10. Eidarus Salah
  11. Sebastian Mathea
  12. Uta Müller-Kuller
  13. James Doutch
  14. Manuel Grez
  15. Stefan Knapp
  16. Volker Dötsch  Is a corresponding author
  1. Goethe University, Germany
  2. Merck KGaA, Germany
  3. University of Oxford, United Kingdom
  4. Georg-Speyer Haus, Germany
  5. ISIS Neutron and Muon Source, United Kingdom
  6. Georg-Speyer-Haus, Germany

Abstract

Mammalian oocytes are arrested in the dictyate stage of meiotic prophase I for long periods of time, during which the high concentration of the p53 family member TAp63α sensitizes them to DNA damage-induced apoptosis. TAp63α is kept in an inactive and exclusively dimeric state but undergoes rapid phosphorylation-induced tetramerization and concomitant activation upon detection of DNA damage. Here we show that the TAp63α dimer is a kinetically trapped state. Activation follows a spring-loaded mechanism not requiring further translation of other cellular factors in oocytes and is associated with unfolding of the inhibitory structure that blocks the tetramerization interface. Using a combination of biophysical methods as well as cell and ovary culture experiments we explain how TAp63α is kept inactive in the absence of DNA damage but causes rapid oocyte elimination in response to a few DNA double strand breaks thereby acting as the key quality control factor in maternal reproduction.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Daniel Coutandin

    Institute of Biophysical Chemistry and Center for Biomolecular Magnetic Resonance and Cluster of Excellence Macromolecular Complexes, Goethe University, Frankfurt, Germany
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  2. Christian Osterburg

    Institute of Biophysical Chemistry and Center for Biomolecular Magnetic Resonance and Cluster of Excellence Macromolecular Complexes, Goethe University, Frankfurt, Germany
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  3. Ratnesh Kumar Srivastav

    Institute of Biophysical Chemistry and Center for Biomolecular Magnetic Resonance and Cluster of Excellence Macromolecular Complexes, Goethe University, Frankfurt, Germany
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  4. Manuela Sumyk

    Institute of Biophysical Chemistry and Center for Biomolecular Magnetic Resonance and Cluster of Excellence Macromolecular Complexes, Goethe University, Frankfurt, Germany
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  5. Sebastian Kehrloesser

    Institute of Biophysical Chemistry and Center for Biomolecular Magnetic Resonance and Cluster of Excellence Macromolecular Complexes, Goethe University, Frankfurt, Germany
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  6. Jakob Gebel

    Institute of Biophysical Chemistry and Center for Biomolecular Magnetic Resonance and Cluster of Excellence Macromolecular Complexes, Goethe University, Frankfurt, Germany
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  7. Marcel Tuppi

    Institute of Biophysical Chemistry and Center for Biomolecular Magnetic Resonance and Cluster of Excellence Macromolecular Complexes, Goethe University, Frankfurt, Germany
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  8. Jens Hannewald

    MS-DTB-C Protein Purification, Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  9. Birgit Schäfer

    Institute of Biophysical Chemistry and Center for Biomolecular Magnetic Resonance and Cluster of Excellence Macromolecular Complexes, Goethe University, Frankfurt, Germany
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  10. Eidarus Salah

    Nuffield Department of Medicine, Structural Genomics Consortium, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  11. Sebastian Mathea

    Nuffield Department of Medicine, Structural Genomics Consortium, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  12. Uta Müller-Kuller

    Georg-Speyer Haus, Frankfurt, Germany
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  13. James Doutch

    Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, ISIS Neutron and Muon Source, Dodcot, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  14. Manuel Grez

    Georg-Speyer-Haus, Frankfurt, Germany
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  15. Stefan Knapp

    Nuffield Department of Medicine, Structural Genomics Consortium, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  16. Volker Dötsch

    Institute of Biophysical Chemistry and Center for Biomolecular Magnetic Resonance and Cluster of Excellence Macromolecular Complexes, Goethe University, Frankfurt, Germany
    For correspondence
    vdoetsch@em.uni-frankfurt.de
    Competing interests
    Volker Dötsch, Reviewing editor, eLife.

Reviewing Editor

  1. Joaquín M Espinosa, University of Colorado Denver School of Medicine, United States

Ethics

Animal experimentation: The work with mice was conducted according to the regulations of the Goethe University and the DFG (according to {section sign} 4 TierSchG) and supervised by the Tierschutzbeauftragte of Goethe University.

Version history

  1. Received: December 18, 2015
  2. Accepted: March 28, 2016
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: March 29, 2016 (version 1)
  4. Version of Record published: April 29, 2016 (version 2)

Copyright

© 2016, Coutandin et al.

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License permitting unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.

Metrics

  • 2,278
    views
  • 470
    downloads
  • 51
    citations

Views, downloads and citations are aggregated across all versions of this paper published by eLife.

Download links

A two-part list of links to download the article, or parts of the article, in various formats.

Downloads (link to download the article as PDF)

Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)

Cite this article (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)

  1. Daniel Coutandin
  2. Christian Osterburg
  3. Ratnesh Kumar Srivastav
  4. Manuela Sumyk
  5. Sebastian Kehrloesser
  6. Jakob Gebel
  7. Marcel Tuppi
  8. Jens Hannewald
  9. Birgit Schäfer
  10. Eidarus Salah
  11. Sebastian Mathea
  12. Uta Müller-Kuller
  13. James Doutch
  14. Manuel Grez
  15. Stefan Knapp
  16. Volker Dötsch
(2016)
Quality control in oocytes by p63 is based on a spring-loaded activation mechanism on the molecular and cellular level
eLife 5:e13909.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.13909

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.13909

Further reading

    1. Structural Biology and Molecular Biophysics
    Xiao-Ru Chen, Karuna Dixit ... Tatyana I Igumenova
    Research Article

    Regulated hydrolysis of the phosphoinositide phosphatidylinositol(4,5)-bis-phosphate to diacylglycerol and inositol-1,4,5-P3 defines a major eukaryotic pathway for translation of extracellular cues to intracellular signaling circuits. Members of the lipid-activated protein kinase C isoenzyme family (PKCs) play central roles in this signaling circuit. One of the regulatory mechanisms employed to downregulate stimulated PKC activity is via a proteasome-dependent degradation pathway that is potentiated by peptidyl-prolyl isomerase Pin1. Here, we show that contrary to prevailing models, Pin1 does not regulate conventional PKC isoforms α and βII via a canonical cis-trans isomerization of the peptidyl-prolyl bond. Rather, Pin1 acts as a PKC binding partner that controls PKC activity via sequestration of the C-terminal tail of the kinase. The high-resolution structure of full-length Pin1 complexed to the C-terminal tail of PKCβII reveals that a novel bivalent interaction mode underlies the non-catalytic mode of Pin1 action. Specifically, Pin1 adopts a conformation in which it uses the WW and PPIase domains to engage two conserved phosphorylated PKC motifs, the turn motif and hydrophobic motif, respectively. Hydrophobic motif is a non-canonical Pin1-interacting element. The structural information combined with the results of extensive binding studies and experiments in cultured cells suggest that non-catalytic mechanisms represent unappreciated modes of Pin1-mediated regulation of AGC kinases and other key enzymes/substrates.

    1. Structural Biology and Molecular Biophysics
    Christian Galicia, Giambattista Guaitoli ... Wim Versées
    Research Article

    Roco proteins entered the limelight after mutations in human LRRK2 were identified as a major cause of familial Parkinson’s disease. LRRK2 is a large and complex protein combining a GTPase and protein kinase activity, and disease mutations increase the kinase activity, while presumably decreasing the GTPase activity. Although a cross-communication between both catalytic activities has been suggested, the underlying mechanisms and the regulatory role of the GTPase domain remain unknown. Several structures of LRRK2 have been reported, but structures of Roco proteins in their activated GTP-bound state are lacking. Here, we use single-particle cryo-electron microscopy to solve the structure of a bacterial Roco protein (CtRoco) in its GTP-bound state, aided by two conformation-specific nanobodies: NbRoco1 and NbRoco2. This structure presents CtRoco in an active monomeric state, featuring a very large GTP-induced conformational change using the LRR-Roc linker as a hinge. Furthermore, this structure shows how NbRoco1 and NbRoco2 collaborate to activate CtRoco in an allosteric way. Altogether, our data provide important new insights into the activation mechanism of Roco proteins, with relevance to LRRK2 regulation, and suggest new routes for the allosteric modulation of their GTPase activity.