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

  • 2,186
    views
  • 506
    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. Structural Biology and Molecular Biophysics
    Bradley P Clarke, Alexia E Angelos ... Yi Ren
    Research Article

    In eukaryotes, RNAs transcribed by RNA Pol II are modified at the 5′ end with a 7-methylguanosine (m7G) cap, which is recognized by the nuclear cap binding complex (CBC). The CBC plays multiple important roles in mRNA metabolism, including transcription, splicing, polyadenylation, and export. It promotes mRNA export through direct interaction with a key mRNA export factor, ALYREF, which in turn links the TRanscription and EXport (TREX) complex to the 5′ end of mRNA. However, the molecular mechanism for CBC-mediated recruitment of the mRNA export machinery is not well understood. Here, we present the first structure of the CBC in complex with an mRNA export factor, ALYREF. The cryo-EM structure of CBC-ALYREF reveals that the RRM domain of ALYREF makes direct contact with both the NCBP1 and NCBP2 subunits of the CBC. Comparing CBC-ALYREF with other cellular complexes containing CBC and/or ALYREF components provides insights into the coordinated events during mRNA transcription, splicing, and export.

    1. Structural Biology and Molecular Biophysics
    Julia Belyaeva, Matthias Elgeti
    Review Article

    Under physiological conditions, proteins continuously undergo structural fluctuations on different timescales. Some conformations are only sparsely populated, but still play a key role in protein function. Thus, meaningful structure–function frameworks must include structural ensembles rather than only the most populated protein conformations. To detail protein plasticity, modern structural biology combines complementary experimental and computational approaches. In this review, we survey available computational approaches that integrate sparse experimental data from electron paramagnetic resonance spectroscopy with molecular modeling techniques to derive all-atom structural models of rare protein conformations. We also propose strategies to increase the reliability and improve efficiency using deep learning approaches, thus advancing the field of integrative structural biology.