Precise assembly of complex beta sheet topologies from de novo designed building blocks

  1. Indigo Chris King  Is a corresponding author
  2. James Gleixner
  3. Lindsey Doyle
  4. Alexandre Kuzin
  5. John F Hunt
  6. Rong Xiao
  7. Gaetano T Montelione
  8. Barry L Stoddard
  9. Frank DiMaio
  10. David Baker
  1. University of Washington, United States
  2. Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, United States
  3. Columbia University, United States
  4. Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, United States

Abstract

Design of complex alpha-beta protein topologies poses a challenge because of the large number of alternative packing arrangements. A similar challenge presumably limited the emergence of large and complex protein topologies in evolution. Here we demonstrate that protein topologies with six and seven-stranded beta sheets can be designed by insertion of one de novo designed beta sheet containing protein into another such that the two beta sheets are merged to form a single extended sheet, followed by amino acid sequence optimization at the newly formed strand-strand, strand-helix, and helix-helix interfaces. Crystal structures of two such designs closely match the computational design models. Searches for similar structures in the SCOP protein domain database yield only weak matches with different beta sheet connectivities. A similar beta sheet fusion mechanism may have contributed to the emergence of complex beta sheets during natural protein evolution.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Indigo Chris King

    Molecular Engineering and Sciences Building, University of Washington, Seattle, United States
    For correspondence
    chrisk1@uw.edu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. James Gleixner

    Institute for Protein Design, University of Washington, Seattle, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Lindsey Doyle

    Basic Sciences, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Alexandre Kuzin

    Biological Sciences, Northeast Structural Genomics Consortium, Columbia University, New York, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. John F Hunt

    Biological Sciences, Northeast Structural Genomics Consortium, Columbia University, New York, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Rong Xiao

    Center for Advanced Biotechnology and Medicine, Department of Molecular Biology and Biochemistry, Northeast Structural Genomics Consortium, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, Piscataway, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Gaetano T Montelione

    Center for Advanced Biotechnology and Medicine, Department of Molecular Biology and Biochemistry, Northeast Struc-tural Genomics Consortium, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, Piscataway, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Barry L Stoddard

    Basic Sciences, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Frank DiMaio

    Institute for Protein Design, University of Washington, Seattle, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  10. David Baker

    Institute for Protein Design, University of Washington, Seattle, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

Copyright

© 2015, King 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

  • 2,276
    views
  • 519
    downloads
  • 14
    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. Indigo Chris King
  2. James Gleixner
  3. Lindsey Doyle
  4. Alexandre Kuzin
  5. John F Hunt
  6. Rong Xiao
  7. Gaetano T Montelione
  8. Barry L Stoddard
  9. Frank DiMaio
  10. David Baker
(2015)
Precise assembly of complex beta sheet topologies from de novo designed building blocks
eLife 4:e11012.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.11012

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.11012

Further reading

    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.

    1. Structural Biology and Molecular Biophysics
    Christopher T Schafer, Raymond F Pauszek III ... David P Millar
    Research Article

    The canonical chemokine receptor CXCR4 and atypical receptor ACKR3 both respond to CXCL12 but induce different effector responses to regulate cell migration. While CXCR4 couples to G proteins and directly promotes cell migration, ACKR3 is G-protein-independent and scavenges CXCL12 to regulate extracellular chemokine levels and maintain CXCR4 responsiveness, thereby indirectly influencing migration. The receptors also have distinct activation requirements. CXCR4 only responds to wild-type CXCL12 and is sensitive to mutation of the chemokine. By contrast, ACKR3 recruits GPCR kinases (GRKs) and β-arrestins and promiscuously responds to CXCL12, CXCL12 variants, other peptides and proteins, and is relatively insensitive to mutation. To investigate the role of conformational dynamics in the distinct pharmacological behaviors of CXCR4 and ACKR3, we employed single-molecule FRET to track discrete conformational states of the receptors in real-time. The data revealed that apo-CXCR4 preferentially populates a high-FRET inactive state, while apo-ACKR3 shows little conformational preference and high transition probabilities among multiple inactive, intermediate and active conformations, consistent with its propensity for activation. Multiple active-like ACKR3 conformations are populated in response to agonists, compared to the single CXCR4 active-state. This and the markedly different conformational landscapes of the receptors suggest that activation of ACKR3 may be achieved by a broader distribution of conformational states than CXCR4. Much of the conformational heterogeneity of ACKR3 is linked to a single residue that differs between ACKR3 and CXCR4. The dynamic properties of ACKR3 may underly its inability to form productive interactions with G proteins that would drive canonical GPCR signaling.