Single-molecule force spectroscopy of protein-membrane interactions

  1. Lu Ma
  2. Yiying Cai
  3. Yanghui Li
  4. Junyi Jiao
  5. Zhenyong Wu
  6. Ben O'Shaughnessy
  7. Pietro De Camilli  Is a corresponding author
  8. Erdem Karatekin  Is a corresponding author
  9. Yongli Zhang  Is a corresponding author
  1. Yale University School of Medicine, United States
  2. Columbia University, United States

Abstract

Many biological processes rely on protein-membrane interactions in the presence of mechanical forces, yet high resolution methods to quantify such interactions are lacking. Here, we describe a single-molecule force spectroscopy approach to quantify membrane binding of C2 domains in Synaptotagmin-1 (Syt1) and Extended Synaptotagmin-2 (E-Syt2). Syts and E-Syts bind the plasma membrane via multiple C2 domains, bridging the plasma membrane with synaptic vesicles or endoplasmic reticulum to regulate membrane fusion or lipid exchange, respectively. In our approach, single proteins attached to membranes supported on silica beads are pulled by optical tweezers, allowing membrane binding and unbinding transitions to be measured with unprecedented spatiotemporal resolution. C2 domains from either protein resisted unbinding forces of 2-7 pN and had binding energies of 4-14 kBT per C2 domain. Regulation by bilayer composition or Ca2+ recapitulated known properties of both proteins. The method can be widely applied to study protein-membrane interactions.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Lu Ma

    Department of Cell Biology, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Yiying Cai

    Department of Cell Biology, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Yanghui Li

    Department of Cell Biology, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Junyi Jiao

    Department of Cell Biology, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Zhenyong Wu

    Department of Cellular and Molecular Physiology, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Ben O'Shaughnessy

    Department of Chemical Engineering, Columbia University, New York, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Pietro De Camilli

    Department of Cell Biology, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, United States
    For correspondence
    pietro.decamilli@yale.edu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Erdem Karatekin

    Department of Cellular and Molecular Physiology, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, United States
    For correspondence
    erdem.karatekin@yale.edu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-5934-8728
  9. Yongli Zhang

    Department of Cell Biology, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, United States
    For correspondence
    yongli.zhang@yale.edu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-7079-7973

Funding

National Institutes of Health (R01GM093341)

  • Yongli Zhang

Brain Research Foundation

  • Yongli Zhang

Kavli Foundation

  • Pietro De Camilli
  • Erdem Karatekin

Raymond and Beverly Sackler Institute for Biological, Physical and Engineering Sciences, Yale University (Seed Grant)

  • Erdem Karatekin
  • Yongli Zhang

National Institutes of Health (R01NS36251)

  • Pietro De Camilli

National Institutes of Health (DA018343)

  • Pietro De Camilli

National Institutes of Health (R01GM108954)

  • Erdem Karatekin

National Institutes of Health (R01GM114513)

  • Erdem Karatekin

National Institutes of Health (R01GM120193)

  • Yongli Zhang

Kavli Foundation (Kavli Neuroscience Scholar Award)

  • Erdem Karatekin

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

Copyright

© 2017, Ma 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

  • 5,418
    views
  • 908
    downloads
  • 59
    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. Lu Ma
  2. Yiying Cai
  3. Yanghui Li
  4. Junyi Jiao
  5. Zhenyong Wu
  6. Ben O'Shaughnessy
  7. Pietro De Camilli
  8. Erdem Karatekin
  9. Yongli Zhang
(2017)
Single-molecule force spectroscopy of protein-membrane interactions
eLife 6:e30493.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.30493

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.30493

Further reading

    1. Biochemistry and Chemical Biology
    2. Structural Biology and Molecular Biophysics
    Yamato Niitani, Kohei Matsuzaki ... Michio Tomishige
    Research Article

    The two identical motor domains (heads) of dimeric kinesin-1 move in a hand-over-hand process along a microtubule, coordinating their ATPase cycles such that each ATP hydrolysis is tightly coupled to a step and enabling the motor to take many steps without dissociating. The neck linker, a structural element that connects the two heads, has been shown to be essential for head–head coordination; however, which kinetic step(s) in the chemomechanical cycle is ‘gated’ by the neck linker remains unresolved. Here, we employed pre-steady-state kinetics and single-molecule assays to investigate how the neck-linker conformation affects kinesin’s motility cycle. We show that the backward-pointing configuration of the neck linker in the front kinesin head confers higher affinity for microtubule, but does not change ATP binding and dissociation rates. In contrast, the forward-pointing configuration of the neck linker in the rear kinesin head decreases the ATP dissociation rate but has little effect on microtubule dissociation. In combination, these conformation-specific effects of the neck linker favor ATP hydrolysis and dissociation of the rear head prior to microtubule detachment of the front head, thereby providing a kinetic explanation for the coordinated walking mechanism of dimeric kinesin.

    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.