Abstract

Ubiquitin is essential for eukaryotic life and varies in only 3 amino acid positions between yeast and humans. However, recent deep sequencing studies indicate that ubiquitin is highly tolerant to single mutations. We hypothesized that this tolerance would be reduced by chemically induced physiologic perturbations. To test this hypothesis, a class of first year UCSF graduate students employed deep mutational scanning to determine the fitness landscape of all possible single residue mutations in the presence of five different small molecule perturbations. These perturbations uncover 'shared sensitized positions' localized to areas around the hydrophobic patch and the C-terminus. In addition, we identified perturbation specific effects such as a sensitization of His68 in HU and a tolerance to mutation at Lys63 in DTT. Our data show how chemical stresses can reduce buffering effects in the ubiquitin proteasome system. Finally, this study demonstrates the potential of lab-based interdisciplinary graduate curriculum.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. David Mavor

    Biophysics Graduate Group, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Kyle Barlow

    Bioinformatics Graduate Group, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Samuel Thompson

    Biophysics Graduate Group, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Benjamin A Barad

    Biophysics Graduate Group, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Alain R Bonny

    Biophysics Graduate Group, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Clinton L Cario

    Bioinformatics Graduate Group, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Garrett Gaskins

    Biophysics Graduate Group, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Zairan Liu

    Biophysics Graduate Group, University of California, San Francisco, San Fransisco, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Laura Deming

    Howard Hughes Medical Institute, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  10. Seth D Axen

    Bioinformatics Graduate Group, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  11. Elena Caceres

    Bioinformatics Graduate Group, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  12. Weilin Chen

    Bioinformatics Graduate Group, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  13. Adolfo Cuesta

    Chemistry and Chemical Biology Graduate Program, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  14. Rachel Gate

    Bioinformatics Graduate Group, University of California, San Francisco, San Fransisco, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  15. Evan M Green

    Biophysics Graduate Group, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  16. Kaitlin R Hulce

    Chemistry and Chemical Biology Graduate Program, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  17. Weiyue Ji

    Biophysics Graduate Group, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  18. Lillian R Kenner

    Biophysics Graduate Group, University of California, San Francisco, San Fransisco, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  19. Bruk Mensa

    Chemistry and Chemical Biology Graduate Program, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  20. Leanna S Morinishi

    Bioinformatics Graduate Group, University of California, San Francisco, San Fransisco, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  21. Steven M Moss

    Chemistry and Chemical Biology Graduate Program, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  22. Marco Mravic

    Biophysics Graduate Group, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  23. Ryan K Muir

    Chemistry and Chemical Biology Graduate Program, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  24. Stefan Niekamp

    Biophysics Graduate Group, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  25. Chimno I Nnadi

    Chemistry and Chemical Biology Graduate Program, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, San Francisco, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  26. Eugene Palovcak

    Biophysics Graduate Group, University of California, San Francisco, San Fransisco, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  27. Erin M Poss

    Chemistry and Chemical Biology Graduate Program, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  28. Tyler D Ross

    Biophysics Graduate Group, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  29. Eugenia C Salcedo

    Chemistry and Chemical Biology Graduate Program, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  30. Stephanie See

    Chemistry and Chemical Biology Graduate Program, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  31. Meena Subramaniam

    Bioinformatics Graduate Group, University of California, San Francisco, San Fransisco, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  32. Allison W Wong

    Chemistry and Chemical Biology Graduate Program, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  33. Jennifer Li

    UCSF Science and Health Education Partnership, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  34. Kurt S Thorn

    UCSF Science and Health Education Partnership, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  35. Shane Thomas Ó Conchúir

    Department of Bioengineering and Therapeutic Science, California Institute for Quantitative Biology, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  36. Benjamin P Roscoe

    Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Pharmacology, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  37. Eric D Chow

    Department of Biochemistry and Biophysics, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  38. Joseph L DeRisi

    Department of Biochemistry and Biophysics, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  39. Tanja Kortemme

    Department of Bioengineering and Therapeutic Science, California Institute for Quantitative Biology, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  40. Daniel NA Bolon

    Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Pharmacology, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  41. James S Fraser

    Department of Bioengineering and Therapeutic Science, California Institute for Quantitative Biology, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, United States
    For correspondence
    jfraser@fraserlab.com
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

Reviewing Editor

  1. Jeffery W Kelly, Scripps Research Institute, United States

Version history

  1. Received: March 5, 2016
  2. Accepted: April 6, 2016
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: April 25, 2016 (version 1)
  4. Version of Record published: May 9, 2016 (version 2)

Copyright

© 2016, Mavor 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

  • 4,285
    views
  • 656
    downloads
  • 69
    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. David Mavor
  2. Kyle Barlow
  3. Samuel Thompson
  4. Benjamin A Barad
  5. Alain R Bonny
  6. Clinton L Cario
  7. Garrett Gaskins
  8. Zairan Liu
  9. Laura Deming
  10. Seth D Axen
  11. Elena Caceres
  12. Weilin Chen
  13. Adolfo Cuesta
  14. Rachel Gate
  15. Evan M Green
  16. Kaitlin R Hulce
  17. Weiyue Ji
  18. Lillian R Kenner
  19. Bruk Mensa
  20. Leanna S Morinishi
  21. Steven M Moss
  22. Marco Mravic
  23. Ryan K Muir
  24. Stefan Niekamp
  25. Chimno I Nnadi
  26. Eugene Palovcak
  27. Erin M Poss
  28. Tyler D Ross
  29. Eugenia C Salcedo
  30. Stephanie See
  31. Meena Subramaniam
  32. Allison W Wong
  33. Jennifer Li
  34. Kurt S Thorn
  35. Shane Thomas Ó Conchúir
  36. Benjamin P Roscoe
  37. Eric D Chow
  38. Joseph L DeRisi
  39. Tanja Kortemme
  40. Daniel NA Bolon
  41. James S Fraser
(2016)
Determination of ubiquitin fitness landscapes under different chemical stresses in a classroom setting
eLife 5:e15802.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.15802

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.15802

Further reading

    1. Computational and Systems Biology
    2. Developmental Biology
    Gang Xue, Xiaoyi Zhang ... Zhiyuan Li
    Research Article

    Organisms utilize gene regulatory networks (GRN) to make fate decisions, but the regulatory mechanisms of transcription factors (TF) in GRNs are exceedingly intricate. A longstanding question in this field is how these tangled interactions synergistically contribute to decision-making procedures. To comprehensively understand the role of regulatory logic in cell fate decisions, we constructed a logic-incorporated GRN model and examined its behavior under two distinct driving forces (noise-driven and signal-driven). Under the noise-driven mode, we distilled the relationship among fate bias, regulatory logic, and noise profile. Under the signal-driven mode, we bridged regulatory logic and progression-accuracy trade-off, and uncovered distinctive trajectories of reprogramming influenced by logic motifs. In differentiation, we characterized a special logic-dependent priming stage by the solution landscape. Finally, we applied our findings to decipher three biological instances: hematopoiesis, embryogenesis, and trans-differentiation. Orthogonal to the classical analysis of expression profile, we harnessed noise patterns to construct the GRN corresponding to fate transition. Our work presents a generalizable framework for top-down fate-decision studies and a practical approach to the taxonomy of cell fate decisions.

    1. Computational and Systems Biology
    2. Genetics and Genomics
    Weichen Song, Yongyong Shi, Guan Ning Lin
    Tools and Resources

    We propose a new framework for human genetic association studies: at each locus, a deep learning model (in this study, Sei) is used to calculate the functional genomic activity score for two haplotypes per individual. This score, defined as the Haplotype Function Score (HFS), replaces the original genotype in association studies. Applying the HFS framework to 14 complex traits in the UK Biobank, we identified 3619 independent HFS–trait associations with a significance of p < 5 × 10−8. Fine-mapping revealed 2699 causal associations, corresponding to a median increase of 63 causal findings per trait compared with single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP)-based analysis. HFS-based enrichment analysis uncovered 727 pathway–trait associations and 153 tissue–trait associations with strong biological interpretability, including ‘circadian pathway-chronotype’ and ‘arachidonic acid-intelligence’. Lastly, we applied least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) regression to integrate HFS prediction score with SNP-based polygenic risk scores, which showed an improvement of 16.1–39.8% in cross-ancestry polygenic prediction. We concluded that HFS is a promising strategy for understanding the genetic basis of human complex traits.