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.

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

  • 11,179
    views
  • 1,728
    downloads
  • 165
    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. Immunology and Inflammation
    2. Structural Biology and Molecular Biophysics
    Douwe Schulte, Marta Šiborová ... Joost Snijder
    Research Article

    Antibodies are a major component of adaptive immunity against invading pathogens. Here, we explore possibilities for an analytical approach to characterize the antigen-specific antibody repertoire directly from the secreted proteins in convalescent serum. This approach aims to perform simultaneous antibody sequencing and epitope mapping using a combination of single particle cryo-electron microscopy (cryoEM) and bottom-up proteomics techniques based on mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS). We evaluate the performance of the deep-learning tool ModelAngelo in determining de novo antibody sequences directly from reconstructed 3D volumes of antibody-antigen complexes. We demonstrate that while map quality is a critical bottleneck, it is possible to sequence antibody variable domains from cryoEM reconstructions with accuracies of up to 80–90%. While the rate of errors exceeds the typical levels of somatic hypermutation, we show that the ModelAngelo-derived sequences can be used to assign the used V-genes. This provides a functional guide to assemble de novo peptides from LC-MS/MS data more accurately and improves the tolerance to a background of polyclonal antibody sequences. Following this proof-of-principle, we discuss the feasibility and future directions of this approach to characterize antigen-specific antibody repertoires.

    1. Biochemistry and Chemical Biology
    2. Structural Biology and Molecular Biophysics
    Yamato Niitani, Kohei Matsuzaki ... Michio Tomishige
    Research Article

    The two identical motor domains (heads) of dimeric kinesin-1 move in a hand-over-hand process along a microtubule, coordinating their ATPase cycles such that each ATP hydrolysis is tightly coupled to a step and enabling the motor to take many steps without dissociating. The neck linker, a structural element that connects the two heads, has been shown to be essential for head–head coordination; however, which kinetic step(s) in the chemomechanical cycle is ‘gated’ by the neck linker remains unresolved. Here, we employed pre-steady-state kinetics and single-molecule assays to investigate how the neck-linker conformation affects kinesin’s motility cycle. We show that the backward-pointing configuration of the neck linker in the front kinesin head confers higher affinity for microtubule, but does not change ATP binding and dissociation rates. In contrast, the forward-pointing configuration of the neck linker in the rear kinesin head decreases the ATP dissociation rate but has little effect on microtubule dissociation. In combination, these conformation-specific effects of the neck linker favor ATP hydrolysis and dissociation of the rear head prior to microtubule detachment of the front head, thereby providing a kinetic explanation for the coordinated walking mechanism of dimeric kinesin.