Tubulin cofactors and Arl2 are cage-like chaperones that regulate the soluble αβ-tubulin pool for microtubule dynamics

  1. Stanley Nithiananatham
  2. Sinh Le
  3. Elbert Seto
  4. Weitao Jia
  5. Julie Leary
  6. Kevin D Corbett
  7. Jeffrey K Moore
  8. Jawdat Al-Bassam  Is a corresponding author
  1. University of California, Davis, United States
  2. University of California, San Diego, United States
  3. University of Colorado School of Medicine, United States

Abstract

Microtubule dynamics and polarity stem from the polymerization of αß-tubulin heterodimers. Five conserved tubulin cofactors/chaperones and the Arl2 GTPase regulate α- and β-tubulin assembly into heterodimers and maintain the soluble tubulin pool in the cytoplasm, but their physical mechanisms are unknown. Here, we reconstitute a core tubulin chaperone consisting of tubulin cofactors TBCD, TBCE and Arl2, and reveal a cage-like structure for regulating αβ-tubulin. Biochemical assays and electron microscopy structures of multiple intermediates show the sequential binding of αβ-tubulin dimer followed by tubulin cofactor TBCC onto this chaperone, forming a ternary complex in which Arl2 GTP hydrolysis is activated to alter αβ-tubulin conformation. A GTP-state locked Arl2 mutant inhibits ternary complex dissociation in vitro and causes severe defects in microtubule dynamics in vivo. Our studies suggest a revised paradigm for tubulin cofactors and Arl2 functions as a catalytic chaperone that regulates soluble αβ-tubulin assembly and maintenance to support microtubule dynamics.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Stanley Nithiananatham

    Department of Molecular Cellular Biology, University of California, Davis, Davis, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Sinh Le

    Department of Molecular Cellular Biology, University of California, Davis, Davis, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Elbert Seto

    Department of Molecular Cellular Biology, University of California, Davis, Davis, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Weitao Jia

    Department of Molecular Cellular Biology, University of California, Davis, Davis, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Julie Leary

    Department of Molecular Cellular Biology, University of California, Davis, Davis, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Kevin D Corbett

    Ludwig Institute for Cancer Research, University of California, San Diego, San Diego, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Jeffrey K Moore

    Department of Cell and Developmental Biology, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Jawdat Al-Bassam

    Department of Molecular Cellular Biology, University of California, Davis, Davis, United States
    For correspondence
    jawdat@ucdavis.edu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

Copyright

© 2015, Nithiananatham 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

  • 3,605
    views
  • 715
    downloads
  • 48
    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. Stanley Nithiananatham
  2. Sinh Le
  3. Elbert Seto
  4. Weitao Jia
  5. Julie Leary
  6. Kevin D Corbett
  7. Jeffrey K Moore
  8. Jawdat Al-Bassam
(2015)
Tubulin cofactors and Arl2 are cage-like chaperones that regulate the soluble αβ-tubulin pool for microtubule dynamics
eLife 4:e08811.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.08811

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.08811

Further reading

    1. Biochemistry and Chemical Biology
    2. Structural Biology and Molecular Biophysics
    Jie Luo, Jeff Ranish
    Tools and Resources

    Dynamic conformational and structural changes in proteins and protein complexes play a central and ubiquitous role in the regulation of protein function, yet it is very challenging to study these changes, especially for large protein complexes, under physiological conditions. Here, we introduce a novel isobaric crosslinker, Qlinker, for studying conformational and structural changes in proteins and protein complexes using quantitative crosslinking mass spectrometry. Qlinkers are small and simple, amine-reactive molecules with an optimal extended distance of ~10 Å, which use MS2 reporter ions for relative quantification of Qlinker-modified peptides derived from different samples. We synthesized the 2-plex Q2linker and showed that the Q2linker can provide quantitative crosslinking data that pinpoints key conformational and structural changes in biosensors, binary and ternary complexes composed of the general transcription factors TBP, TFIIA, and TFIIB, and RNA polymerase II complexes.

    1. Biochemistry and Chemical Biology
    2. Stem Cells and Regenerative Medicine
    Alejandro J Brenes, Eva Griesser ... Angus I Lamond
    Research Article

    Human induced pluripotent stem cells (hiPSCs) have great potential to be used as alternatives to embryonic stem cells (hESCs) in regenerative medicine and disease modelling. In this study, we characterise the proteomes of multiple hiPSC and hESC lines derived from independent donors and find that while they express a near-identical set of proteins, they show consistent quantitative differences in the abundance of a subset of proteins. hiPSCs have increased total protein content, while maintaining a comparable cell cycle profile to hESCs, with increased abundance of cytoplasmic and mitochondrial proteins required to sustain high growth rates, including nutrient transporters and metabolic proteins. Prominent changes detected in proteins involved in mitochondrial metabolism correlated with enhanced mitochondrial potential, shown using high-resolution respirometry. hiPSCs also produced higher levels of secreted proteins, including growth factors and proteins involved in the inhibition of the immune system. The data indicate that reprogramming of fibroblasts to hiPSCs produces important differences in cytoplasmic and mitochondrial proteins compared to hESCs, with consequences affecting growth and metabolism. This study improves our understanding of the molecular differences between hiPSCs and hESCs, with implications for potential risks and benefits for their use in future disease modelling and therapeutic applications.