Emergence and evolution of an interaction between intrinsically disordered proteins

  1. Greta Hultqvist  Is a corresponding author
  2. Emma Åberg
  3. Carlo Camilloni
  4. Gustav N Sundell
  5. Eva Andersson
  6. Jakob Dogan
  7. Celestine N chi
  8. Michele Vendruscolo  Is a corresponding author
  9. Per Jemth  Is a corresponding author
  1. Uppsala University, Sweden
  2. University of Cambridge, United Kingdom
  3. ETH Zürich, Switzerland

Abstract

Protein-protein interactions involving intrinsically disordered proteins are important for cellular function and common in all organisms. However, it is not clear how such interactions emerge and evolve on a molecular level. We performed phylogenetic reconstruction, resurrection and biophysical characterization of two interacting disordered protein domains, CID and NCBD. CID appeared after the divergence of protostomes and deuterostomes 450-600 million years ago, while NCBD was present in the protostome/deuterostome ancestor. The most ancient CID/NCBD formed a relatively weak complex (Kd~5 μM). At the time of the first vertebrate-specific whole genome duplication the affinity had increased (Kd~200 nM) and was maintained in further speciation. Experiments together with molecular modeling using NMR chemical shifts suggest that new interactions involving intrinsically disordered proteins may evolve via a low affinity complex which is optimized by modulating direct interactions as well as dynamics, while tolerating several potentially disruptive mutations.

Data availability

The following previously published data sets were used
    1. Mehta TK
    2. et al
    (2013) Japanese lamprey genome project
    Publicly available at the Japanese Lamprey Genome Project.
    1. Sterck L
    2. et al.
    (2012) OrcA
    Publicly available at the Bioinformatics and Evolutionary Genomics.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Greta Hultqvist

    Department of Medical Biochemistry and Microbiology, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden
    For correspondence
    greta.hultqvist@pubcare.uu.se
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Emma Åberg

    Department of Medical Biochemistry and Microbiology, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Carlo Camilloni

    Department of Chemistry, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Gustav N Sundell

    Department of Medical Biochemistry and Microbiology, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Eva Andersson

    Department of Medical Biochemistry and Microbiology, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Jakob Dogan

    Department of Medical Biochemistry and Microbiology, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Celestine N chi

    Laboratory of Physical Chemistry, ETH Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-4154-2378
  8. Michele Vendruscolo

    Department of Chemistry, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
    For correspondence
    mv245@cam.ac.uk
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-3616-1610
  9. Per Jemth

    Department of Medical Biochemistry and Microbiology, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden
    For correspondence
    Per.Jemth@imbim.uu.se
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-1516-7228

Funding

Vetenskapsrådet

  • Per Jemth

The funders had no role in study design, data collection and interpretation, or the decision to submit the work for publication.

Copyright

© 2017, Hultqvist 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

  • 5,461
    views
  • 1,017
    downloads
  • 44
    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. Greta Hultqvist
  2. Emma Åberg
  3. Carlo Camilloni
  4. Gustav N Sundell
  5. Eva Andersson
  6. Jakob Dogan
  7. Celestine N chi
  8. Michele Vendruscolo
  9. Per Jemth
(2017)
Emergence and evolution of an interaction between intrinsically disordered proteins
eLife 6:e16059.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.16059

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.16059

Further reading

    1. Structural Biology and Molecular Biophysics
    Christopher T Schafer, Raymond F Pauszek III ... David P Millar
    Research Article

    The canonical chemokine receptor CXCR4 and atypical receptor ACKR3 both respond to CXCL12 but induce different effector responses to regulate cell migration. While CXCR4 couples to G proteins and directly promotes cell migration, ACKR3 is G-protein-independent and scavenges CXCL12 to regulate extracellular chemokine levels and maintain CXCR4 responsiveness, thereby indirectly influencing migration. The receptors also have distinct activation requirements. CXCR4 only responds to wild-type CXCL12 and is sensitive to mutation of the chemokine. By contrast, ACKR3 recruits GPCR kinases (GRKs) and β-arrestins and promiscuously responds to CXCL12, CXCL12 variants, other peptides and proteins, and is relatively insensitive to mutation. To investigate the role of conformational dynamics in the distinct pharmacological behaviors of CXCR4 and ACKR3, we employed single-molecule FRET to track discrete conformational states of the receptors in real-time. The data revealed that apo-CXCR4 preferentially populates a high-FRET inactive state, while apo-ACKR3 shows little conformational preference and high transition probabilities among multiple inactive, intermediate and active conformations, consistent with its propensity for activation. Multiple active-like ACKR3 conformations are populated in response to agonists, compared to the single CXCR4 active-state. This and the markedly different conformational landscapes of the receptors suggest that activation of ACKR3 may be achieved by a broader distribution of conformational states than CXCR4. Much of the conformational heterogeneity of ACKR3 is linked to a single residue that differs between ACKR3 and CXCR4. The dynamic properties of ACKR3 may underly its inability to form productive interactions with G proteins that would drive canonical GPCR signaling.

    1. Immunology and Inflammation
    2. Structural Biology and Molecular Biophysics
    Ana Cristina Chang-Gonzalez, Aoi Akitsu ... Wonmuk Hwang
    Research Advance

    Increasing evidence suggests that mechanical load on the αβ T-cell receptor (TCR) is crucial for recognizing the antigenic peptide-bound major histocompatibility complex (pMHC) molecule. Our recent all-atom molecular dynamics (MD) simulations revealed that the inter-domain motion of the TCR is responsible for the load-induced catch bond behavior of the TCR-pMHC complex and peptide discrimination (Chang-Gonzalez et al., 2024). To further examine the generality of the mechanism, we perform all-atom MD simulations of the B7 TCR under different conditions for comparison with our previous simulations of the A6 TCR. The two TCRs recognize the same pMHC and have similar interfaces with pMHC in crystal structures. We find that the B7 TCR-pMHC interface stabilizes under ∼15 pN load using a conserved dynamic allostery mechanism that involves the asymmetric motion of the TCR chassis. However, despite forming comparable contacts with pMHC as A6 in the crystal structure, B7 has fewer high-occupancy contacts with pMHC and exhibits higher mechanical compliance during the simulation. These results indicate that the dynamic allostery common to the TCRαβ chassis can amplify slight differences in interfacial contacts into distinctive mechanical responses and nuanced biological outcomes.