The divergent mitotic kinesin MKLP2 exhibits atypical structure and mechanochemistry

  1. Joseph Atherton
  2. I-Mei Yu
  3. Alexander Cook
  4. Joseph M Muretta
  5. Agnel Joseph
  6. Jennifer Major
  7. Yannick Sourigues
  8. Jeffrey Clause
  9. Maya Topf
  10. Steven S Rosenfeld
  11. Anne Houdusse
  12. Carolyn A Moores  Is a corresponding author
  1. Birkbeck College, United Kingdom
  2. Institut Curie, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, France
  3. University of Minnesota, United States
  4. Lerner Research Institute, Cleveland Clinic, United States

Abstract

MKLP2, a kinesin-6, has critical roles during the metaphase-anaphase transition and cytokinesis. Its motor domain contains conserved nucleotide binding motifs, but is divergent in sequence (~35% identity) and size (~40% larger) compared to other kinesins. Using cryo-electron microscopy and biophysical assays, we have undertaken a mechanochemical dissection of the microtubule-bound MKLP2 motor domain during its ATPase cycle, and show that many facets of its mechanism are distinct from other kinesins. While the MKLP2 neck-linker is directed towards the microtubule plus-end in an ATP-like state, it does not fully dock along the motor domain. Furthermore, the footprint of the MKLP2 motor domain on the MT surface is altered compared to motile kinesins, and enhanced by kinesin-6-specific sequences. The conformation of the highly extended loop6 insertion characteristic of kinesin-6s is nucleotide-independent and does not contact the MT surface. Our results emphasize the role of family-specific insertions in modulating kinesin motor function.

Data availability

The following data sets were generated

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Joseph Atherton

    Institute of Structural and Molecular Biology, Birkbeck College, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. I-Mei Yu

    Structural Motility, Institut Curie, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Paris, France
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Alexander Cook

    Institute of Structural and Molecular Biology, Birkbeck College, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Joseph M Muretta

    Department of Biochemistry, Molecular Biology, and Biophysics, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Agnel Joseph

    Institute of Structural and Molecular Biology, Birkbeck College, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Jennifer Major

    Department of Cancer Biology, Lerner Research Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Clevelan, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Yannick Sourigues

    Structural Motility, Institut Curie, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Paris, France
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Jeffrey Clause

    Structural Motility, Institut Curie, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Paris, France
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Maya Topf

    Institute of Structural and Molecular Biology, Birkbeck College, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  10. Steven S Rosenfeld

    Department of Cancer Biology, Lerner Research Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  11. Anne Houdusse

    Structural Motility, Institut Curie, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Paris, France
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  12. Carolyn A Moores

    Institute of Structural and Molecular Biology, Birkbeck College, London, United Kingdom
    For correspondence
    c.moores@mail.cryst.bbk.ac.uk
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-5686-6290

Funding

Medical Research Council (MR/J000973/1)

  • Carolyn A Moores

Medical Research Council (MR/J003867/1)

  • Alexander Cook

Medical Research Council (MR/M019292/1)

  • Maya Topf

American Heart Association (SDG20480032)

  • Joseph M Muretta

National Institute of General Medical Sciences (GM102875 NS073610)

  • Steven S Rosenfeld

Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique

  • Anne Houdusse

Agence Nationale de la Recherche

  • Anne Houdusse

Ligue Contre le Cancer

  • Anne Houdusse

European Commission (Marie Curie Fellowship)

  • I-Mei Yu

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

Copyright

© 2017, Atherton 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

  • 2,930
    views
  • 656
    downloads
  • 41
    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. Joseph Atherton
  2. I-Mei Yu
  3. Alexander Cook
  4. Joseph M Muretta
  5. Agnel Joseph
  6. Jennifer Major
  7. Yannick Sourigues
  8. Jeffrey Clause
  9. Maya Topf
  10. Steven S Rosenfeld
  11. Anne Houdusse
  12. Carolyn A Moores
(2017)
The divergent mitotic kinesin MKLP2 exhibits atypical structure and mechanochemistry
eLife 6:e27793.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.27793

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.27793

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
    Colleen A Maillie, Kiana Golden ... Marco Mravic
    Research Article

    A potent class of HIV-1 broadly neutralizing antibodies (bnAbs) targets the envelope glycoprotein’s membrane proximal exposed region (MPER) through a proposed mechanism where hypervariable loops embed into lipid bilayers and engage headgroup moieties alongside the epitope. We address the feasibility and determinant molecular features of this mechanism using multi-scale modeling. All-atom simulations of 4E10, PGZL1, 10E8, and LN01 docked onto HIV-like membranes consistently form phospholipid complexes at key complementarity-determining region loop sites, solidifying that stable and specific lipid interactions anchor bnAbs to membrane surfaces. Ancillary protein-lipid contacts reveal surprising contributions from antibody framework regions. Coarse-grained simulations effectively capture antibodies embedding into membranes. Simulations estimating protein-membrane interaction strength for PGZL1 variants along an inferred maturation pathway show bilayer affinity is evolved and correlates with neutralization potency. The modeling demonstrated here uncovers insights into lipid participation in antibodies’ recognition of membrane proteins and highlights antibody features to prioritize in vaccine design.