Abstract

Ubiquitin is essential for eukaryotic life and varies in only 3 amino acid positions between yeast and humans. However, recent deep sequencing studies indicate that ubiquitin is highly tolerant to single mutations. We hypothesized that this tolerance would be reduced by chemically induced physiologic perturbations. To test this hypothesis, a class of first year UCSF graduate students employed deep mutational scanning to determine the fitness landscape of all possible single residue mutations in the presence of five different small molecule perturbations. These perturbations uncover 'shared sensitized positions' localized to areas around the hydrophobic patch and the C-terminus. In addition, we identified perturbation specific effects such as a sensitization of His68 in HU and a tolerance to mutation at Lys63 in DTT. Our data show how chemical stresses can reduce buffering effects in the ubiquitin proteasome system. Finally, this study demonstrates the potential of lab-based interdisciplinary graduate curriculum.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. David Mavor

    Biophysics Graduate Group, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Kyle Barlow

    Bioinformatics Graduate Group, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Samuel Thompson

    Biophysics Graduate Group, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Benjamin A Barad

    Biophysics Graduate Group, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Alain R Bonny

    Biophysics Graduate Group, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Clinton L Cario

    Bioinformatics Graduate Group, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Garrett Gaskins

    Biophysics Graduate Group, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Zairan Liu

    Biophysics Graduate Group, University of California, San Francisco, San Fransisco, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Laura Deming

    Howard Hughes Medical Institute, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  10. Seth D Axen

    Bioinformatics Graduate Group, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  11. Elena Caceres

    Bioinformatics Graduate Group, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  12. Weilin Chen

    Bioinformatics Graduate Group, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  13. Adolfo Cuesta

    Chemistry and Chemical Biology Graduate Program, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  14. Rachel Gate

    Bioinformatics Graduate Group, University of California, San Francisco, San Fransisco, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  15. Evan M Green

    Biophysics Graduate Group, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  16. Kaitlin R Hulce

    Chemistry and Chemical Biology Graduate Program, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  17. Weiyue Ji

    Biophysics Graduate Group, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  18. Lillian R Kenner

    Biophysics Graduate Group, University of California, San Francisco, San Fransisco, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  19. Bruk Mensa

    Chemistry and Chemical Biology Graduate Program, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  20. Leanna S Morinishi

    Bioinformatics Graduate Group, University of California, San Francisco, San Fransisco, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  21. Steven M Moss

    Chemistry and Chemical Biology Graduate Program, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  22. Marco Mravic

    Biophysics Graduate Group, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  23. Ryan K Muir

    Chemistry and Chemical Biology Graduate Program, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  24. Stefan Niekamp

    Biophysics Graduate Group, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  25. Chimno I Nnadi

    Chemistry and Chemical Biology Graduate Program, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, San Francisco, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  26. Eugene Palovcak

    Biophysics Graduate Group, University of California, San Francisco, San Fransisco, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  27. Erin M Poss

    Chemistry and Chemical Biology Graduate Program, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  28. Tyler D Ross

    Biophysics Graduate Group, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  29. Eugenia C Salcedo

    Chemistry and Chemical Biology Graduate Program, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  30. Stephanie See

    Chemistry and Chemical Biology Graduate Program, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  31. Meena Subramaniam

    Bioinformatics Graduate Group, University of California, San Francisco, San Fransisco, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  32. Allison W Wong

    Chemistry and Chemical Biology Graduate Program, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  33. Jennifer Li

    UCSF Science and Health Education Partnership, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  34. Kurt S Thorn

    UCSF Science and Health Education Partnership, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  35. Shane Thomas Ó Conchúir

    Department of Bioengineering and Therapeutic Science, California Institute for Quantitative Biology, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  36. Benjamin P Roscoe

    Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Pharmacology, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  37. Eric D Chow

    Department of Biochemistry and Biophysics, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  38. Joseph L DeRisi

    Department of Biochemistry and Biophysics, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  39. Tanja Kortemme

    Department of Bioengineering and Therapeutic Science, California Institute for Quantitative Biology, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  40. Daniel NA Bolon

    Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Pharmacology, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  41. James S Fraser

    Department of Bioengineering and Therapeutic Science, California Institute for Quantitative Biology, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, United States
    For correspondence
    jfraser@fraserlab.com
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

Reviewing Editor

  1. Jeffery W Kelly, Scripps Research Institute, United States

Version history

  1. Received: March 5, 2016
  2. Accepted: April 6, 2016
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: April 25, 2016 (version 1)
  4. Version of Record published: May 9, 2016 (version 2)

Copyright

© 2016, Mavor 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

  • 4,321
    views
  • 660
    downloads
  • 72
    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. David Mavor
  2. Kyle Barlow
  3. Samuel Thompson
  4. Benjamin A Barad
  5. Alain R Bonny
  6. Clinton L Cario
  7. Garrett Gaskins
  8. Zairan Liu
  9. Laura Deming
  10. Seth D Axen
  11. Elena Caceres
  12. Weilin Chen
  13. Adolfo Cuesta
  14. Rachel Gate
  15. Evan M Green
  16. Kaitlin R Hulce
  17. Weiyue Ji
  18. Lillian R Kenner
  19. Bruk Mensa
  20. Leanna S Morinishi
  21. Steven M Moss
  22. Marco Mravic
  23. Ryan K Muir
  24. Stefan Niekamp
  25. Chimno I Nnadi
  26. Eugene Palovcak
  27. Erin M Poss
  28. Tyler D Ross
  29. Eugenia C Salcedo
  30. Stephanie See
  31. Meena Subramaniam
  32. Allison W Wong
  33. Jennifer Li
  34. Kurt S Thorn
  35. Shane Thomas Ó Conchúir
  36. Benjamin P Roscoe
  37. Eric D Chow
  38. Joseph L DeRisi
  39. Tanja Kortemme
  40. Daniel NA Bolon
  41. James S Fraser
(2016)
Determination of ubiquitin fitness landscapes under different chemical stresses in a classroom setting
eLife 5:e15802.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.15802

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.15802

Further reading

    1. Computational and Systems Biology
    2. Medicine
    Seo-Gyeong Bae, Guo Nan Yin ... Jihwan Park
    Research Article

    Erectile dysfunction (ED) affects a significant proportion of men aged 40–70 and is caused by cavernous tissue dysfunction. Presently, the most common treatment for ED is phosphodiesterase 5 inhibitors; however, this is less effective in patients with severe vascular disease such as diabetic ED. Therefore, there is a need for development of new treatment, which requires a better understanding of the cavernous microenvironment and cell-cell communications under diabetic condition. Pericytes are vital in penile erection; however, their dysfunction due to diabetes remains unclear. In this study, we performed single-cell RNA sequencing to understand the cellular landscape of cavernous tissues and cell type-specific transcriptional changes in diabetic ED. We found a decreased expression of genes associated with collagen or extracellular matrix organization and angiogenesis in diabetic fibroblasts, chondrocytes, myofibroblasts, valve-related lymphatic endothelial cells, and pericytes. Moreover, the newly identified pericyte-specific marker, Limb Bud-Heart (Lbh), in mouse and human cavernous tissues, clearly distinguishing pericytes from smooth muscle cells. Cell-cell interaction analysis revealed that pericytes are involved in angiogenesis, adhesion, and migration by communicating with other cell types in the corpus cavernosum; however, these interactions were highly reduced under diabetic conditions. Lbh expression is low in diabetic pericytes, and overexpression of LBH prevents erectile function by regulating neurovascular regeneration. Furthermore, the LBH-interacting proteins (Crystallin Alpha B and Vimentin) were identified in mouse cavernous pericytes through LC-MS/MS analysis, indicating that their interactions were critical for maintaining pericyte function. Thus, our study reveals novel targets and insights into the pathogenesis of ED in patients with diabetes.

    1. Computational and Systems Biology
    Rebecca A Deek, Siyuan Ma ... Hongzhe Li
    Review Article

    Large-scale microbiome studies are progressively utilizing multiomics designs, which include the collection of microbiome samples together with host genomics and metabolomics data. Despite the increasing number of data sources, there remains a bottleneck in understanding the relationships between different data modalities due to the limited number of statistical and computational methods for analyzing such data. Furthermore, little is known about the portability of general methods to the metagenomic setting and few specialized techniques have been developed. In this review, we summarize and implement some of the commonly used methods. We apply these methods to real data sets where shotgun metagenomic sequencing and metabolomics data are available for microbiome multiomics data integration analysis. We compare results across methods, highlight strengths and limitations of each, and discuss areas where statistical and computational innovation is needed.