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

  • 2,913
    views
  • 653
    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. Neuroscience
    2. Structural Biology and Molecular Biophysics
    Yangyu Wu, Yangyang Yan ... Fred J Sigworth
    Research Article

    We present near-atomic-resolution cryoEM structures of the mammalian voltage-gated potassium channel Kv1.2 in open, C-type inactivated, toxin-blocked and sodium-bound states at 3.2 Å, 2.5 Å, 3.2 Å, and 2.9 Å. These structures, all obtained at nominally zero membrane potential in detergent micelles, reveal distinct ion-occupancy patterns in the selectivity filter. The first two structures are very similar to those reported in the related Shaker channel and the much-studied Kv1.2–2.1 chimeric channel. On the other hand, two new structures show unexpected patterns of ion occupancy. First, the toxin α-Dendrotoxin, like Charybdotoxin, is seen to attach to the negatively-charged channel outer mouth, and a lysine residue penetrates into the selectivity filter, with the terminal amine coordinated by carbonyls, partially disrupting the outermost ion-binding site. In the remainder of the filter two densities of bound ions are observed, rather than three as observed with other toxin-blocked Kv channels. Second, a structure of Kv1.2 in Na+ solution does not show collapse or destabilization of the selectivity filter, but instead shows an intact selectivity filter with ion density in each binding site. We also attempted to image the C-type inactivated Kv1.2 W366F channel in Na+ solution, but the protein conformation was seen to be highly variable and only a low-resolution structure could be obtained. These findings present new insights into the stability of the selectivity filter and the mechanism of toxin block of this intensively studied, voltage-gated potassium channel.

    1. Structural Biology and Molecular Biophysics
    Joseph Clayton, Aarion Romany ... Jana Shen
    Research Article

    Aberrant signaling of BRAFV600E is a major cancer driver. Current FDA-approved RAF inhibitors selectively inhibit the monomeric BRAFV600E and suffer from tumor resistance. Recently, dimer-selective and equipotent RAF inhibitors have been developed; however, the mechanism of dimer selectivity is poorly understood. Here, we report extensive molecular dynamics (MD) simulations of the monomeric and dimeric BRAFV600E in the apo form or in complex with one or two dimer-selective (PHI1) or equipotent (LY3009120) inhibitor(s). The simulations uncovered the unprecedented details of the remarkable allostery in BRAFV600E dimerization and inhibitor binding. Specifically, dimerization retrains and shifts the αC helix inward and increases the flexibility of the DFG motif; dimer compatibility is due to the promotion of the αC-in conformation, which is stabilized by a hydrogen bond formation between the inhibitor and the αC Glu501. A more stable hydrogen bond further restrains and shifts the αC helix inward, which incurs a larger entropic penalty that disfavors monomer binding. This mechanism led us to propose an empirical way based on the co-crystal structure to assess the dimer selectivity of a BRAFV600E inhibitor. Simulations also revealed that the positive cooperativity of PHI1 is due to its ability to preorganize the αC and DFG conformation in the opposite protomer, priming it for binding the second inhibitor. The atomically detailed view of the interplay between BRAF dimerization and inhibitor allostery as well as cooperativity has implications for understanding kinase signaling and contributes to the design of protomer selective RAF inhibitors.