Deconstruction of the Ras switching cycle through saturation mutagenesis

  1. Pradeep Bandaru
  2. Neel H Shah
  3. Moitrayee Bhattacharyya
  4. John P Barton
  5. Yasushi Kondo
  6. Joshua C Cofsky
  7. Christine L Gee
  8. Arup K Chakraborty
  9. Tanja Kortemme
  10. Rama Ranganathan  Is a corresponding author
  11. John Kuriyan  Is a corresponding author
  1. University of California, Berkeley, United States
  2. Ragon Institute of MGH, MIT and Harvard, United States
  3. University of California, San Francisco, United States
  4. University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, United States

Abstract

Ras proteins are highly conserved signaling molecules that exhibit regulated, nucleotide-dependent switching between active and inactive states. The high conservation of Ras requires mechanistic explanation, especially given the general mutational tolerance of proteins. Here, we use deep mutational scanning, biochemical analysis and molecular simulations to understand constraints on Ras sequence. Ras exhibits global sensitivity to mutation when regulated by a GTPase activating protein and a nucleotide exchange factor. Removing the regulators shifts the distribution of mutational effects to be largely neutral, and reveals hotspots of activating mutations in residues that restrain Ras dynamics and promote the inactive state. Evolutionary analysis, combined with structural and mutational data, argue that Ras has co-evolved with its regulators in the vertebrate lineage. Overall, our results show that sequence conservation in Ras depends strongly on the biochemical network in which it operates, providing a framework for understanding the origin of global selection pressures on proteins.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Pradeep Bandaru

    Department of Molecular and Cell Biology, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-9354-3340
  2. Neel H Shah

    Department of Molecular and Cell Biology, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-1186-0626
  3. Moitrayee Bhattacharyya

    Department of Molecular and Cell Biology, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  4. John P Barton

    Ragon Institute of MGH, MIT and Harvard, Cambridge, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-1467-421X
  5. Yasushi Kondo

    Department of Molecular and Cell Biology, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  6. Joshua C Cofsky

    Department of Molecular and Cell Biology, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  7. Christine L Gee

    Department of Molecular and Cell Biology, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-2632-6418
  8. Arup K Chakraborty

    Ragon Institute of MGH, MIT and Harvard, Cambridge, United States
    Competing interests
    Arup K Chakraborty, Senior editor, eLife.
  9. Tanja Kortemme

    Department of Bioengineering and Therapeutic Sciences, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  10. Rama Ranganathan

    Green Center for Systems Biology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, United States
    For correspondence
    rama.ranganathan@utsouthwestern.edu
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  11. John Kuriyan

    Department of Molecular and Cell Biology, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, United States
    For correspondence
    jkuriyan@mac.com
    Competing interests
    John Kuriyan, Senior editor, eLife.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-4414-5477

Funding

Howard Hughes Medical Institute

  • Pradeep Bandaru
  • Neel H Shah
  • Moitrayee Bhattacharyya
  • Yasushi Kondo
  • Joshua C Cofsky
  • Christine L Gee

National Institutes of Health

  • John P Barton
  • Arup K Chakraborty

Damon Runyon Cancer Research Foundation

  • Neel H Shah

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

Reviewing Editor

  1. Alfonso Valencia, Barcelona Supercomputing Center - BSC, Spain

Version history

  1. Received: April 14, 2017
  2. Accepted: July 5, 2017
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: July 7, 2017 (version 1)
  4. Version of Record published: August 1, 2017 (version 2)

Copyright

© 2017, Bandaru 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

  • 9,729
    views
  • 1,488
    downloads
  • 94
    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. Pradeep Bandaru
  2. Neel H Shah
  3. Moitrayee Bhattacharyya
  4. John P Barton
  5. Yasushi Kondo
  6. Joshua C Cofsky
  7. Christine L Gee
  8. Arup K Chakraborty
  9. Tanja Kortemme
  10. Rama Ranganathan
  11. John Kuriyan
(2017)
Deconstruction of the Ras switching cycle through saturation mutagenesis
eLife 6:e27810.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.27810

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.27810

Further reading

    1. Structural Biology and Molecular Biophysics
    Simon M Lichtinger, Joanne L Parker ... Philip C Biggin
    Research Article

    Proton-coupled oligopeptide transporters (POTs) are of great pharmaceutical interest owing to their promiscuous substrate binding site that has been linked to improved oral bioavailability of several classes of drugs. Members of the POT family are conserved across all phylogenetic kingdoms and function by coupling peptide uptake to the proton electrochemical gradient. Cryo-EM structures and alphafold models have recently provided new insights into different conformational states of two mammalian POTs, SLC15A1, and SLC15A2. Nevertheless, these studies leave open important questions regarding the mechanism of proton and substrate coupling, while simultaneously providing a unique opportunity to investigate these processes using molecular dynamics (MD) simulations. Here, we employ extensive unbiased and enhanced-sampling MD to map out the full SLC15A2 conformational cycle and its thermodynamic driving forces. By computing conformational free energy landscapes in different protonation states and in the absence or presence of peptide substrate, we identify a likely sequence of intermediate protonation steps that drive inward-directed alternating access. These simulations identify key differences in the extracellular gate between mammalian and bacterial POTs, which we validate experimentally in cell-based transport assays. Our results from constant-PH MD and absolute binding free energy (ABFE) calculations also establish a mechanistic link between proton binding and peptide recognition, revealing key details underpining secondary active transport in POTs. This study provides a vital step forward in understanding proton-coupled peptide and drug transport in mammals and pave the way to integrate knowledge of solute carrier structural biology with enhanced drug design to target tissue and organ bioavailability.

    1. Structural Biology and Molecular Biophysics
    Hitendra Negi, Aravind Ravichandran ... Ranabir Das
    Research Article

    The proteasome controls levels of most cellular proteins, and its activity is regulated under stress, quiescence, and inflammation. However, factors determining the proteasomal degradation rate remain poorly understood. Proteasome substrates are conjugated with small proteins (tags) like ubiquitin and Fat10 to target them to the proteasome. It is unclear if the structural plasticity of proteasome-targeting tags can influence substrate degradation. Fat10 is upregulated during inflammation, and its substrates undergo rapid proteasomal degradation. We report that the degradation rate of Fat10 substrates critically depends on the structural plasticity of Fat10. While the ubiquitin tag is recycled at the proteasome, Fat10 is degraded with the substrate. Our results suggest significantly lower thermodynamic stability and faster mechanical unfolding in Fat10 compared to ubiquitin. Long-range salt bridges are absent in the Fat10 structure, creating a plastic protein with partially unstructured regions suitable for proteasome engagement. Fat10 plasticity destabilizes substrates significantly and creates partially unstructured regions in the substrate to enhance degradation. NMR-relaxation-derived order parameters and temperature dependence of chemical shifts identify the Fat10-induced partially unstructured regions in the substrate, which correlated excellently to Fat10-substrate contacts, suggesting that the tag-substrate collision destabilizes the substrate. These results highlight a strong dependence of proteasomal degradation on the structural plasticity and thermodynamic properties of the proteasome-targeting tags.