How IGF-1 activates its receptor

  1. Jennifer M Kavran
  2. Jacqueline M McCabe
  3. Patrick O Byrne
  4. Mary Katherine Connacher
  5. Zhihong Wang
  6. Alexander Ramek
  7. Sarvenaz Sarabipour
  8. Yibing Shan
  9. David E Shaw
  10. Kalina Hristova
  11. Philip A Cole
  12. Daniel Leahy  Is a corresponding author
  1. Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, United States
  2. University of the Sciences, United States
  3. D.E. Shaw Research, United States
  4. Johns Hopkins University, United States
  5. Columbia University, United States
  6. Johns Hopkins, United States

Abstract

The Type I Insulin-like Growth Factor Receptor (IGF1R) is involved in growth and survival of normal and neoplastic cells. A ligand-dependent conformational change is thought to regulate IGF1R activity, but the nature of this change is unclear. We point out an underappreciated dimer in the crystal structure of the related Insulin Receptor (IR) with Insulin bound that allows direct comparison with unliganded IR and suggests a mechanism by which ligand regulates IR/IGF1R activity. We test this mechanism in a series of biochemical and biophysical assays and find the IGF1R ectodomain maintains an autoinhibited state in which the TMs are held apart. Ligand binding releases this constraint, allowing TM association and unleashing an intrinsic propensity of the intracellular regions to autophosphorylate. Enzymatic studies of full-length and kinase-containing fragments show phosphorylated IGF1R is fully active independent of ligand and the extracellular-TM regions. The key step triggered by ligand binding is thus autophosphorylation.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Jennifer M Kavran

    Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  2. Jacqueline M McCabe

    Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  3. Patrick O Byrne

    Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  4. Mary Katherine Connacher

    Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  5. Zhihong Wang

    University of the Sciences, Philadelphia, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  6. Alexander Ramek

    D.E. Shaw Research, New York, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  7. Sarvenaz Sarabipour

    Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  8. Yibing Shan

    D.E. Shaw Research, New York, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  9. David E Shaw

    D.E. Shaw Research, New York, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  10. Kalina Hristova

    Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  11. Philip A Cole

    Columbia University, New York, United States
    Competing interests
    Philip A Cole, Reviewing editor, eLife.
  12. Daniel Leahy

    Johns Hopkins, Baltimore, United States
    For correspondence
    dleahy@jhmi.edu
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.

Reviewing Editor

  1. John Kuriyan, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, University of California, Berkeley, United States

Version history

  1. Received: June 23, 2014
  2. Accepted: September 23, 2014
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: September 25, 2014 (version 1)
  4. Version of Record published: October 28, 2014 (version 2)

Copyright

© 2014, Kavran 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

  • 11,006
    views
  • 1,636
    downloads
  • 151
    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. Jennifer M Kavran
  2. Jacqueline M McCabe
  3. Patrick O Byrne
  4. Mary Katherine Connacher
  5. Zhihong Wang
  6. Alexander Ramek
  7. Sarvenaz Sarabipour
  8. Yibing Shan
  9. David E Shaw
  10. Kalina Hristova
  11. Philip A Cole
  12. Daniel Leahy
(2014)
How IGF-1 activates its receptor
eLife 3:e03772.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.03772

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.03772

Further reading

    1. Structural Biology and Molecular Biophysics
    Nicholas James Ose, Paul Campitelli ... Sefika Banu Ozkan
    Research Article

    We integrate evolutionary predictions based on the neutral theory of molecular evolution with protein dynamics to generate mechanistic insight into the molecular adaptations of the SARS-COV-2 spike (S) protein. With this approach, we first identified candidate adaptive polymorphisms (CAPs) of the SARS-CoV-2 S protein and assessed the impact of these CAPs through dynamics analysis. Not only have we found that CAPs frequently overlap with well-known functional sites, but also, using several different dynamics-based metrics, we reveal the critical allosteric interplay between SARS-CoV-2 CAPs and the S protein binding sites with the human ACE2 (hACE2) protein. CAPs interact far differently with the hACE2 binding site residues in the open conformation of the S protein compared to the closed form. In particular, the CAP sites control the dynamics of binding residues in the open state, suggesting an allosteric control of hACE2 binding. We also explored the characteristic mutations of different SARS-CoV-2 strains to find dynamic hallmarks and potential effects of future mutations. Our analyses reveal that Delta strain-specific variants have non-additive (i.e., epistatic) interactions with CAP sites, whereas the less pathogenic Omicron strains have mostly additive mutations. Finally, our dynamics-based analysis suggests that the novel mutations observed in the Omicron strain epistatically interact with the CAP sites to help escape antibody binding.

    1. Structural Biology and Molecular Biophysics
    Marco van den Noort, Panagiotis Drougkas ... Bert Poolman
    Research Article

    Bacteria utilize various strategies to prevent internal dehydration during hypertonic stress. A common approach to countering the effects of the stress is to import compatible solutes such as glycine betaine, leading to simultaneous passive water fluxes following the osmotic gradient. OpuA from Lactococcus lactis is a type I ABC-importer that uses two substrate-binding domains (SBDs) to capture extracellular glycine betaine and deliver the substrate to the transmembrane domains for subsequent transport. OpuA senses osmotic stress via changes in the internal ionic strength and is furthermore regulated by the 2nd messenger cyclic-di-AMP. We now show, by means of solution-based single-molecule FRET and analysis with multi-parameter photon-by-photon hidden Markov modeling, that the SBDs transiently interact in an ionic strength-dependent manner. The smFRET data are in accordance with the apparent cooperativity in transport and supported by new cryo-EM data of OpuA. We propose that the physical interactions between SBDs and cooperativity in substrate delivery are part of the transport mechanism.