1. Computational and Systems Biology
Download icon

Determination of ubiquitin fitness landscapes under different chemical stresses in a classroom setting

Research Article
  • Cited 31
  • Views 3,617
  • Annotations
Cite this article as: eLife 2016;5:e15802 doi: 10.7554/eLife.15802

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

Publication 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

  • 3,617
    Page views
  • 612
    Downloads
  • 31
    Citations

Article citation count generated by polling the highest count across the following sources: Scopus, Crossref, PubMed Central.

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)

Download citations (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)

Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)

Further reading

    1. Chromosomes and Gene Expression
    2. Computational and Systems Biology
    Michael Roland Wolff et al.
    Research Article

    Chromatin dynamics are mediated by remodeling enzymes and play crucial roles in gene regulation, as established in a paradigmatic model, the S. cerevisiae PHO5 promoter. However, effective nucleosome dynamics, i.e. trajectories of promoter nucleosome configurations, remain elusive. Here, we infer such dynamics from the integration of published single-molecule data capturing multi-nucleosome configurations for repressed to fully active PHO5 promoter states with other existing histone turnover and new chromatin accessibility data. We devised and systematically investigated a new class of 'regulated on-off-slide' models simulating global and local nucleosome (dis)assembly and sliding. Only seven of 68145 models agreed well with all data. All seven models involve sliding and the known central role of the N-2 nucleosome, but regulate promoter state transitions by modulating just one assembly rather than disassembly process. This is consistent with but challenges common interpretations of previous observations at the PHO5 promoter and suggests chromatin opening by binding competition.

    1. Cell Biology
    2. Computational and Systems Biology
    Taraneh Zarin et al.
    Research Advance Updated

    In previous work, we showed that intrinsically disordered regions (IDRs) of proteins contain sequence-distributed molecular features that are conserved over evolution, despite little sequence similarity that can be detected in alignments (Zarin et al., 2019). Here, we aim to use these molecular features to predict specific biological functions for individual IDRs and identify the molecular features within them that are associated with these functions. We find that the predictable functions are diverse. Examining the associated molecular features, we note some that are consistent with previous reports and identify others that were previously unknown. We experimentally confirm that elevated isoelectric point and hydrophobicity, features that are positively associated with mitochondrial localization, are necessary for mitochondrial targeting function. Remarkably, increasing isoelectric point in a synthetic IDR restores weak mitochondrial targeting. We believe feature analysis represents a new systematic approach to understand how biological functions of IDRs are specified by their protein sequences.