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

  • 2,211
    views
  • 513
    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
    Jinsai Shang, Douglas J Kojetin
    Research Advance

    Peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor gamma (PPARγ) is a nuclear receptor transcription factor that regulates gene expression programs in response to ligand binding. Endogenous and synthetic ligands, including covalent antagonist inhibitors GW9662 and T0070907, are thought to compete for the orthosteric pocket in the ligand-binding domain (LBD). However, we previously showed that synthetic PPARγ ligands can cooperatively cobind with and reposition a bound endogenous orthosteric ligand to an alternate site, synergistically regulating PPARγ structure and function (Shang et al., 2018). Here, we reveal the structural mechanism of cobinding between a synthetic covalent antagonist inhibitor with other synthetic ligands. Biochemical and NMR data show that covalent inhibitors weaken—but do not prevent—the binding of other ligands via an allosteric mechanism, rather than direct ligand clashing, by shifting the LBD ensemble toward a transcriptionally repressive conformation, which structurally clashes with orthosteric ligand binding. Crystal structures reveal different cobinding mechanisms including alternate site binding to unexpectedly adopting an orthosteric binding mode by altering the covalent inhibitor binding pose. Our findings highlight the significant flexibility of the PPARγ orthosteric pocket, its ability to accommodate multiple ligands, and demonstrate that GW9662 and T0070907 should not be used as chemical tools to inhibit ligand binding to PPARγ.

    1. Structural Biology and Molecular Biophysics
    Yuanyuan Wang, Fan Xu ... Yongning He
    Research Article

    SCARF1 (scavenger receptor class F member 1, SREC-1 or SR-F1) is a type I transmembrane protein that recognizes multiple endogenous and exogenous ligands such as modified low-density lipoproteins (LDLs) and is important for maintaining homeostasis and immunity. But the structural information and the mechanisms of ligand recognition of SCARF1 are largely unavailable. Here, we solve the crystal structures of the N-terminal fragments of human SCARF1, which show that SCARF1 forms homodimers and its epidermal growth factor (EGF)-like domains adopt a long-curved conformation. Then, we examine the interactions of SCARF1 with lipoproteins and are able to identify a region on SCARF1 for recognizing modified LDLs. The mutagenesis data show that the positively charged residues in the region are crucial for the interaction of SCARF1 with modified LDLs, which is confirmed by making chimeric molecules of SCARF1 and SCARF2. In addition, teichoic acids, a cell wall polymer expressed on the surface of gram-positive bacteria, are able to inhibit the interactions of modified LDLs with SCARF1, suggesting the ligand binding sites of SCARF1 might be shared for some of its scavenging targets. Overall, these results provide mechanistic insights into SCARF1 and its interactions with the ligands, which are important for understanding its physiological roles in homeostasis and the related diseases.