9Å structure of the COPI coat reveals that the Arf1 GTPase occupies two contrasting molecular environments

  1. Svetlana O Dodonova
  2. Patrick Aderhold
  3. Juergen Kopp
  4. Iva Ganeva
  5. Simone Röhling
  6. Wim J Hagen
  7. Irmgard Sinning
  8. Felix Wieland
  9. John AG Briggs  Is a corresponding author
  1. European Molecular Biology Laboratory, Germany
  2. Heidelberg University, Germany

Abstract

COPI coated vesicles mediate trafficking within the Golgi apparatus and between the Golgi and the endoplasmic reticulum. Assembly of a COPI coated vesicle is initiated by the small GTPase Arf1 that recruits the coatomer complex to the membrane, triggering polymerization and budding. The vesicle uncoats before fusion with a target membrane. Coat components are structurally conserved between COPI and clathrin/adaptor proteins. Using cryo-electron tomography and subtomogram averaging, we determined the structure of the COPI coat assembled on membranes in vitro at 9 Å resolution. We also obtained a 2.57 Å resolution crystal structure of βδ-COP. By combining these structures we built a molecular model of the coat. We additionally determined the coat structure in the presence of ArfGAP proteins that regulate coat dissociation. We found that Arf1 occupies contrasting molecular environments within the coat, leading us to hypothesize that some Arf1 molecules may regulate vesicle assembly while others regulate coat disassembly.

Data availability

The following data sets were generated
The following previously published data sets were used

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Svetlana O Dodonova

    Structural and Computational Biology Unit, European Molecular Biology Laboratory, Heidelberg, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-5002-8138
  2. Patrick Aderhold

    Heidelberg University Biochemistry Center, Heidelberg University, Heidelberg, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Juergen Kopp

    Heidelberg University Biochemistry Center, Heidelberg University, Heidelberg, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Iva Ganeva

    Heidelberg University Biochemistry Center, Heidelberg University, Heidelberg, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Simone Röhling

    Heidelberg University Biochemistry Center, Heidelberg University, Heidelberg, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Wim J Hagen

    Structural and Computational Biology Unit, European Molecular Biology Laboratory, Heidelberg, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-6229-2692
  7. Irmgard Sinning

    Heidelberg University Biochemistry Center, Heidelberg University, Heidelberg, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Felix Wieland

    Heidelberg University Biochemistry Center, Heidelberg University, Heidelberg, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. John AG Briggs

    Structural and Computational Biology Unit, European Molecular Biology Laboratory, Heidelberg, Germany
    For correspondence
    john.briggs@embl.de
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-3990-6910

Funding

Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (SFB638 (A16))

  • Felix Wieland
  • John AG Briggs

Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (SFB638 (Z4))

  • Irmgard Sinning

Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (WI 654/12-1)

  • Felix Wieland

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

Copyright

© 2017, Dodonova 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

  • 5,286
    views
  • 896
    downloads
  • 100
    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. Svetlana O Dodonova
  2. Patrick Aderhold
  3. Juergen Kopp
  4. Iva Ganeva
  5. Simone Röhling
  6. Wim J Hagen
  7. Irmgard Sinning
  8. Felix Wieland
  9. John AG Briggs
(2017)
9Å structure of the COPI coat reveals that the Arf1 GTPase occupies two contrasting molecular environments
eLife 6:e26691.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.26691

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.26691

Further reading

    1. Developmental Biology
    2. Structural Biology and Molecular Biophysics
    Elise S Bruguera, Jacob P Mahoney, William I Weis
    Research Article

    Wnt/β-catenin signaling directs animal development and tissue renewal in a tightly controlled, cell- and tissue-specific manner. In the mammalian central nervous system, the atypical ligand Norrin controls angiogenesis and maintenance of the blood-brain barrier and blood-retina barrier through the Wnt/β-catenin pathway. Like Wnt, Norrin activates signaling by binding and heterodimerizing the receptors Frizzled (Fzd) and low-density lipoprotein receptor-related protein 5 or 6 (LRP5/6), leading to membrane recruitment of the intracellular transducer Dishevelled (Dvl) and ultimately stabilizing the transcriptional coactivator β-catenin. Unlike Wnt, the cystine knot ligand Norrin only signals through Fzd4 and additionally requires the co-receptor Tetraspanin12 (Tspan12); however, the mechanism underlying Tspan12-mediated signal enhancement is unclear. It has been proposed that Tspan12 integrates into the Norrin-Fzd4 complex to enhance Norrin-Fzd4 affinity or otherwise allosterically modulate Fzd4 signaling. Here, we measure direct, high-affinity binding between purified Norrin and Tspan12 in a lipid environment and use AlphaFold models to interrogate this interaction interface. We find that Tspan12 and Fzd4 can simultaneously bind Norrin and that a pre-formed Tspan12/Fzd4 heterodimer, as well as cells co-expressing Tspan12 and Fzd4, more efficiently capture low concentrations of Norrin than Fzd4 alone. We also show that Tspan12 competes with both heparan sulfate proteoglycans and LRP6 for Norrin binding and that Tspan12 does not impact Fzd4-Dvl affinity in the presence or absence of Norrin. Our findings suggest that Tspan12 does not allosterically enhance Fzd4 binding to Norrin or Dvl, but instead functions to directly capture Norrin upstream of signaling.

    1. Structural Biology and Molecular Biophysics
    Laura-Marie Silbermann, Benjamin Vermeer ... Katarzyna Tych
    Review Article

    Molecular chaperones are vital proteins that maintain protein homeostasis by assisting in protein folding, activation, degradation, and stress protection. Among them, heat-shock protein 90 (Hsp90) stands out as an essential proteostasis hub in eukaryotes, chaperoning hundreds of ‘clients’ (substrates). After decades of research, several ‘known unknowns’ about the molecular function of Hsp90 remain unanswered, hampering rational drug design for the treatment of cancers, neurodegenerative, and other diseases. We highlight three fundamental open questions, reviewing the current state of the field for each, and discuss new opportunities, including single-molecule technologies, to answer the known unknowns of the Hsp90 chaperone.