A molecular basis for the differential roles of Bub1 and BubR1 in the spindle assembly checkpoint

  1. Katharina Overlack
  2. Ivana Primorac
  3. Mathijs Vleugel
  4. Veronica Krenn
  5. Stefano Maffini
  6. Ingrid Hoffmann
  7. Geert J P L Kops
  8. Andrea Musacchio  Is a corresponding author
  1. Max Planck Institute of Molecular Physiology, Germany
  2. University Medical Center Utrecht, Netherlands Antilles
  3. University Medical Center Utrecht, Netherlands

Abstract

The spindle assembly checkpoint (SAC) monitors and promotes kinetochore-microtubule attachment during mitosis. Bub1 and BubR1, SAC components, originated from duplication of an ancestor gene. Subsequent sub-functionalization established subordination: Bub1, recruited first to kinetochores, promotes successive BubR1 recruitment. Because both Bub1 and BubR1 hetero-dimerize with Bub3, a targeting adaptor for phosphorylated kinetochores, the molecular basis for such sub-functionalization is unclear. We demonstrate that Bub1, but not BubR1, enhances binding of Bub3 to phosphorylated kinetochores. Grafting a short motif of Bub1 onto BubR1 promotes Bub1-independent kinetochore recruitment of BubR1. Such gain-of-function BubR1 mutant cannot sustain a functional checkpoint. We demonstrate that kinetochore localization of BubR1 relies on direct hetero-dimerization with Bub1 at a pseudo-symmetric interface. Such pseudo-symmetric interaction underpins a template-copy relationship crucial for kinetochore-microtubule attachment and SAC signaling. Our results illustrate how gene duplication and sub-functionalization shape the workings of an essential molecular network.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Katharina Overlack

    Department of Mechanistic Cell Biology, Max Planck Institute of Molecular Physiology, Dortmund, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Ivana Primorac

    Department of Mechanistic Cell Biology, Max Planck Institute of Molecular Physiology, Dortmund, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Mathijs Vleugel

    Molecular Cancer Research, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, Netherlands Antilles
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Veronica Krenn

    Department of Mechanistic Cell Biology, Max Planck Institute of Molecular Physiology, Dortmund, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Stefano Maffini

    Department of Mechanistic Cell Biology, Max Planck Institute of Molecular Physiology, Dortmund, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Ingrid Hoffmann

    Department of Mechanistic Cell Biology, Max Planck Institute of Molecular Physiology, Dortmund, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Geert J P L Kops

    Molecular Cancer Research, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, Netherlands
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Andrea Musacchio

    Department of Mechanistic Cell Biology, Max Planck Institute of Molecular Physiology, Dortmund, Germany
    For correspondence
    andrea.musacchio@mpi-dortmund.mpg.de
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

Copyright

© 2015, Overlack 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

  • 4,394
    views
  • 803
    downloads
  • 135
    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. Katharina Overlack
  2. Ivana Primorac
  3. Mathijs Vleugel
  4. Veronica Krenn
  5. Stefano Maffini
  6. Ingrid Hoffmann
  7. Geert J P L Kops
  8. Andrea Musacchio
(2015)
A molecular basis for the differential roles of Bub1 and BubR1 in the spindle assembly checkpoint
eLife 4:e05269.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.05269

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.05269

Further reading

    1. Biochemistry and Chemical Biology
    Jaskamaljot Kaur Banwait, Liana Islam, Aaron L Lucius
    Research Article

    Escherichia coli ClpB and Saccharomyces cerevisiae Hsp104 are AAA+ motor proteins essential for proteome maintenance and thermal tolerance. ClpB and Hsp104 have been proposed to extract a polypeptide from an aggregate and processively translocate the chain through the axial channel of its hexameric ring structure. However, the mechanism of translocation and if this reaction is processive remains disputed. We reported that Hsp104 and ClpB are non-processive on unfolded model substrates. Others have reported that ClpB is able to processively translocate a mechanically unfolded polypeptide chain at rates over 240 amino acids (aa) per second. Here, we report the development of a single turnover stopped-flow fluorescence strategy that reports on processive protein unfolding catalyzed by ClpB. We show that when translocation catalyzed by ClpB is challenged by stably folded protein structure, the motor enzymatically unfolds the substrate at a rate of ~0.9 aa s−1 with a kinetic step-size of ~60 amino acids at sub-saturating [ATP]. We reconcile the apparent controversy by defining enzyme catalyzed protein unfolding and translocation as two distinct reactions with different mechanisms of action. We propose a model where slow unfolding followed by fast translocation represents an important mechanistic feature that allows the motor to rapidly translocate up to the next folded region or rapidly dissociate if no additional fold is encountered.

    1. Biochemistry and Chemical Biology
    2. Structural Biology and Molecular Biophysics
    Marina Dajka, Tobias Rath ... Benesh Joseph
    Research Article

    Lipopolysaccharides (LPS) confer resistance against harsh conditions, including antibiotics, in Gram-negative bacteria. The lipopolysaccharide transport (Lpt) complex, consisting of seven proteins (A-G), exports LPS across the cellular envelope. LptB2FG forms an ATP-binding cassette transporter that transfers LPS to LptC. How LptB2FG couples ATP binding and hydrolysis with LPS transport to LptC remains unclear. We observed the conformational heterogeneity of LptB2FG and LptB2FGC in micelles and/or proteoliposomes using pulsed dipolar electron spin resonance spectroscopy. Additionally, we monitored LPS binding and release using laser-induced liquid bead ion desorption mass spectrometry. The β-jellyroll domain of LptF stably interacts with the LptG and LptC β-jellyrolls in both the apo and vanadate-trapped states. ATP binding at the cytoplasmic side is allosterically coupled to the selective opening of the periplasmic LptF β-jellyroll domain. In LptB2FG, ATP binding closes the nucleotide binding domains, causing a collapse of the first lateral gate as observed in structures. However, the second lateral gate, which forms the putative entry site for LPS, exhibits a heterogeneous conformation. LptC binding limits the flexibility of this gate to two conformations, likely representing the helix of LptC as either released from or inserted into the transmembrane domains. Our results reveal the regulation of the LPS entry gate through the dynamic behavior of the LptC transmembrane helix, while its β-jellyroll domain is anchored in the periplasm. This, combined with long-range ATP-dependent allosteric gating of the LptF β-jellyroll domain, may ensure efficient and unidirectional transport of LPS across the periplasm.