Structural and kinetic analysis of the COP9-Signalosome activation and the cullin-RING ubiquitin ligase deneddylation cycle

  1. Ruzbeh Mosadeghi
  2. Kurt M Reichermeier
  3. Martin Winkler
  4. Anne Schreiber
  5. Justin M Reitsma
  6. Yaru Zhang
  7. Florian Stengel
  8. Junyue Cao
  9. Minsoo Kim
  10. Michael J Sweredoski
  11. Sonja Hess
  12. Alexander Leitner
  13. Ruedi Aebersold
  14. Matthias Peter
  15. Raymond J Deshaies
  16. Radoslav I Enchev  Is a corresponding author
  1. University of Southern California, United States
  2. California Instittute of Technology, United States
  3. Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, Switzerland
  4. University of Konstanz, Germany
  5. California Institute of Technology, United States

Abstract

The COP9-Signalosome (CSN) regulates cullin-RING ubiquitin ligase (CRL) activity and assembly by cleaving Nedd8 from cullins. Free CSN is autoinhibited, and it remains unclear how it becomes activated. We combine structural and kinetic analyses to identify mechanisms that contribute to CSN activation and Nedd8 deconjugation. Both CSN and neddylated substrate undergo large conformational changes upon binding, with important roles played by the N-terminal domains of Csn2 and Csn4 and the RING domain of Rbx1 in enabling formation of a high affinity, fully active complex. The RING domain is crucial for deneddylation, and works in part through conformational changes involving insert-2 of Csn6. Nedd8 deconjugation and re-engagement of the active site zinc by the autoinhibitory Csn5 glutamate-104 diminish affinity for Cul1/Rbx1 by ~100-fold, resulting in its rapid ejection from the active site. Together, these mechanisms enable a dynamic deneddylation-disassembly cycle that promotes rapid remodeling of the cellular CRL network.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Ruzbeh Mosadeghi

    Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  2. Kurt M Reichermeier

    Division of Biology and Biological Engineering, California Instittute of Technology, Pasadena, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  3. Martin Winkler

    Department of Biology, Institute of Biochemistry, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, Zurich, Switzerland
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  4. Anne Schreiber

    Department of Biology, Institute of Biochemistry, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, Zurich, Switzerland
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  5. Justin M Reitsma

    Division of Biology and Biological Engineering, California Instittute of Technology, Pasadena, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  6. Yaru Zhang

    Division of Biology and Biological Engineering, California Instittute of Technology, Pasadena, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  7. Florian Stengel

    Department of Biology, University of Konstanz, Konstanz, Germany
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  8. Junyue Cao

    Division of Biology and Biological Engineering, California Instittute of Technology, Pasadena, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  9. Minsoo Kim

    Division of Biology and Biological Engineering, California Instittute of Technology, Pasadena, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  10. Michael J Sweredoski

    Proteome Exploration Lab, Beckman Institute, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  11. Sonja Hess

    Proteome Exploration Lab, Beckman Institute, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  12. Alexander Leitner

    Department of Biology, University of Konstanz, Konstanz, Germany
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  13. Ruedi Aebersold

    Department of Biology, Institute of Molecular Systems Biology, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, Zürich, Switzerland
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  14. Matthias Peter

    Department of Biology, Institute of Biochemistry, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, Zurich, Switzerland
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  15. Raymond J Deshaies

    Division of Biology and Biological Engineering, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, United States
    Competing interests
    Raymond J Deshaies, Reviewing editor, eLife.
  16. Radoslav I Enchev

    Department of Biology, Institute of Biochemistry, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, Zurich, Switzerland
    For correspondence
    radoslav.enchev@bc.biol.ethz.ch
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.

Copyright

© 2016, Mosadeghi 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

  • 4,391
    views
  • 1,124
    downloads
  • 78
    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. Ruzbeh Mosadeghi
  2. Kurt M Reichermeier
  3. Martin Winkler
  4. Anne Schreiber
  5. Justin M Reitsma
  6. Yaru Zhang
  7. Florian Stengel
  8. Junyue Cao
  9. Minsoo Kim
  10. Michael J Sweredoski
  11. Sonja Hess
  12. Alexander Leitner
  13. Ruedi Aebersold
  14. Matthias Peter
  15. Raymond J Deshaies
  16. Radoslav I Enchev
(2016)
Structural and kinetic analysis of the COP9-Signalosome activation and the cullin-RING ubiquitin ligase deneddylation cycle
eLife 5:e12102.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.12102

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.12102

Further reading

    1. Biochemistry and Chemical Biology
    2. Structural Biology and Molecular Biophysics
    Raji E Joseph, Thomas E Wales ... Amy H Andreotti
    Research Advance

    Inhibition of Bruton’s tyrosine kinase (BTK) has proven to be highly effective in the treatment of B-cell malignancies such as chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), autoimmune disorders, and multiple sclerosis. Since the approval of the first BTK inhibitor (BTKi), Ibrutinib, several other inhibitors including Acalabrutinib, Zanubrutinib, Tirabrutinib, and Pirtobrutinib have been clinically approved. All are covalent active site inhibitors, with the exception of the reversible active site inhibitor Pirtobrutinib. The large number of available inhibitors for the BTK target creates challenges in choosing the most appropriate BTKi for treatment. Side-by-side comparisons in CLL have shown that different inhibitors may differ in their treatment efficacy. Moreover, the nature of the resistance mutations that arise in patients appears to depend on the specific BTKi administered. We have previously shown that Ibrutinib binding to the kinase active site causes unanticipated long-range effects on the global conformation of BTK (Joseph et al., 2020). Here, we show that binding of each of the five approved BTKi to the kinase active site brings about distinct allosteric changes that alter the conformational equilibrium of full-length BTK. Additionally, we provide an explanation for the resistance mutation bias observed in CLL patients treated with different BTKi and characterize the mechanism of action of two common resistance mutations: BTK T474I and L528W.

    1. Biochemistry and Chemical Biology
    Bernd K Gilsbach, Franz Y Ho ... Christian Johannes Gloeckner
    Research Article

    The Parkinson’s disease (PD)-linked protein Leucine-Rich Repeat Kinase 2 (LRRK2) consists of seven domains, including a kinase and a Roc G domain. Despite the availability of several high-resolution structures, the dynamic regulation of its unique intramolecular domain stack is nevertheless still not well understood. By in-depth biochemical analysis, assessing the Michaelis–Menten kinetics of the Roc G domain, we have confirmed that LRRK2 has, similar to other Roco protein family members, a KM value of LRRK2 that lies within the range of the physiological GTP concentrations within the cell. Furthermore, the R1441G PD variant located within a mutational hotspot in the Roc domain showed an increased catalytic efficiency. In contrast, the most common PD variant G2019S, located in the kinase domain, showed an increased KM and reduced catalytic efficiency, suggesting a negative feedback mechanism from the kinase domain to the G domain. Autophosphorylation of the G1+2 residue (T1343) in the Roc P-loop motif is critical for this phosphoregulation of both the KM and the kcat values of the Roc-catalyzed GTP hydrolysis, most likely by changing the monomer–dimer equilibrium. The LRRK2 T1343A variant has a similar increased kinase activity in cells compared to G2019S and the double mutant T1343A/G2019S has no further increased activity, suggesting that T1343 is crucial for the negative feedback in the LRRK2 signaling cascade. Together, our data reveal a novel intramolecular feedback regulation of the LRRK2 Roc G domain by a LRRK2 kinase-dependent mechanism. Interestingly, PD mutants differently change the kinetics of the GTPase cycle, which might in part explain the difference in penetrance of these mutations in PD patients.