Protein Dynamics: Proteins acting out of (dis)order
A disordered region at the N-terminus of the glucocorticoid receptor can fine tune how cells respond to a hormone via an allosteric mechanism.
- Weill Cornell Medical College, United States
For a long time it was thought that proteins only worked after folding into specific three-dimensional shapes (Anfinsen, 1973). However, disordered proteins – flexible proteins that lack a well-defined shape or structure – are found in almost all organisms, and our understanding of how protein disorder is coupled to protein function continues to evolve.
Disordered proteins can bind to other well-folded proteins and fold around them, thus gaining structure while executing their functions. Alternatively, disordered proteins can attach to other proteins via short, typically linear motifs, influencing the target protein while remaining largely flexible and unstructured (Mittag et al., 2010; Babu et al., 2012; Van Roey et al., 2014). However, it was commonly assumed that disordered proteins were unable to exhibit allostery, or “action at a distance”. Now, in eLife, Vincent Hilser and colleagues at Johns Hopkins University and the University of Houston report that disordered proteins can show allostery, and that alterations in the disordered regions of a protein can tune this effect to regulate the protein’s function (Li et al., 2017).
Allostery involves a change made at one location in a protein (the so-called allosteric site) exerting a functional effect at a distant region of the same protein (the functional site). Intuitively, we like to think of allostery as being transmitted via a physical connection between the allosteric site and the functional site: that is, pulling or pushing at the initial site is ‘felt at the distant site. In order for such a signal to be transmitted, we also assume that the connection between the sites must be rigid (Figure 1A and B). If the connection is instead flexible and dynamic, as in a disordered protein, it would seem that perturbation at one site cannot be effectively communicated to a distant location. As is often the case, however, our intuition based on the macroscopic physical world can lead us astray when considering things on the molecular scale.
Figure 1
Allosteric coupling in well-structured and flexible proteins.
(A, B) Cartoon illustrations of two rigidly linked well-structured domains in an assumed mechanical model. The allosteric site is on the right, above its ligand (black downward arrow), and the functional site is on the left, below its binding partner (black upward arrow). Binding at the allosteric site pivots the rigid linker around a fulcrum; this applies a force to the domain containing the functional site, which binds to its partner. (C) Cartoon illustration of allosteric coupling between a structured domain (left) and a disordered domain (right). The flexibility of the disordered region means that a force is not directly applied to the structured domain when the disordered region binds to its binding partner (black downward arrows). (D) Nevertheless, binding of the disordered region alters the energetics of the system in a way that makes binding at the functional site more favorable. In this illustrative case, we simulate these energetics by placing our mechanical system in a water bath (blue dashed line). By binding to its ligand (bottom right), the disordered domain raises the water level in the bath (blue upward arrow in C), indirectly causing the domain containing the functional site to float closer to its target. In real proteins, the energetic coupling is mediated by the rebalancing of the ensemble of different possible states that occurs when the allosteric site binds to its ligand (see Hilser and Thompson, 2007).
Hilser’s earlier work has shown that it may be difficult or impossible to understand the behavior of a protein in the context of a single direct link between sites of action and effect. Instead, it must be understood in terms of a constantly changing ensemble of different protein structures, in which changes in the stability of one site influence the entire ensemble in a way that can alter the likelihood of changes at a distant site (Hilser et al., 1998). The beauty of this theory is that it applies equally to well-structured proteins and to disordered proteins. Indeed, over 10 years ago, Hilser used this approach to predict that disordered protein regions could exert allosteric effects on other protein domains (Figure 1C and D; Hilser and Thompson, 2007).
Since this original prediction, a handful of high profile reports have documented allostery in disordered proteins, including in the oncoprotein E1A (Ferreon et al., 2013), and in a bacterial antitoxin (Garcia-Pino et al., 2010). Now, Hilser and colleagues, including Jing Li as first author, have focused on a protein known as the glucocorticoid receptor, a critical transcription factor that controls how cells respond to steroid hormones. Under different conditions, cells will produce versions of this receptor that differ only in the length of a disordered region at one end of the protein. Li et al. show that these different forms of the glucocorticoid receptor also alter the strength of the hormonal response to differing extents. This is possible because the disordered region enhances the hormonal response by enhancing DNA binding at a site located in an entirely different part of the protein. Paradoxically, the same disordered region also inhibits the hormonal response by directly regulating another domain, the F-domain. Depending on the specific form of the N-terminal disordered protein region, the sum of these two opposing effects is different, allowing the cell to fine tune its response to the presence of the hormone.
These findings imply that disordered proteins may have certain advantages for allosteric regulation compared with well-structured proteins. Producing different forms of well-structured proteins is challenging, because splicing new protein segments into an existing structure, or excising segments out of one, may be difficult to do while maintaining the protein’s architecture. In contrast, disordered proteins are essentially unconstrained by structure. As such, they can easily tolerate the insertion or removal of segments to generate distinct forms (Romero et al., 2006). Li et al. show that cells producing distinct forms of a specific disordered protein region, featuring different allosteric properties, exhibit different hormonal responses. More broadly, their work implies that altering a disordered region of a protein is a particularly flexible approach by which cells and organisms can fine tune allosteric regulation of critical biological processes. It can therefore be expected that this mechanism will prove to be widespread and important throughout biology.
References
-
Protein dynamics and conformational disorder in molecular recognitionJournal of Molecular Recognition 23:105–116.https://doi.org/10.1002/jmr.961
Article and author information
Author details
Publication history
Copyright
© 2017, Eliezer
This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.
Metrics
-
- 2,556
- views
-
- 247
- downloads
-
- 5
- 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)
Protein Dynamics: Proteins acting out of (dis)order
eLife 6:e32762.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.32762
Further reading
-
- Structural Biology and Molecular Biophysics
Osmotic stress and chloride regulate the autophosphorylation and activity of the WNK1 and WNK3 kinase domains. The kinase domain of unphosphorylated WNK1 (uWNK1) is an asymmetric dimer possessing water molecules conserved in multiple uWNK1 crystal structures. Conserved waters are present in two networks, referred to here as conserved water networks 1 and 2 (CWN1 and CWN2). Here, we show that PEG400 applied to crystals of dimeric uWNK1 induces de-dimerization. Both the WNK1 the water networks and the chloride-binding site are disrupted by PEG400. CWN1 is surrounded by a cluster of pan-WNK-conserved charged residues. Here, we mutagenized these charges in WNK3, a highly active WNK isoform kinase domain, and WNK1, the isoform best studied crystallographically. Mutation of E314 in the Activation Loop of WNK3 (WNK3/E314Q and WNK3/E314A, and the homologous WNK1/E388A) enhanced the rate of autophosphorylation, and reduced chloride sensitivity. Other WNK3 mutants reduced the rate of autophosphorylation activity coupled with greater chloride sensitivity than wild-type. The water and chloride regulation thus appear linked. The lower activity of some mutants may reflect effects on catalysis. Crystallography showed that activating mutants introduced conformational changes in similar parts of the structure to those induced by PEG400. WNK activating mutations and crystallography support a role for CWN1 in WNK inhibition consistent with water functioning as an allosteric ligand.
-
- Structural Biology and Molecular Biophysics
Peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor gamma (PPARγ) is a nuclear receptor transcription factor that regulates gene expression programs in response to ligand binding. Endogenous and synthetic ligands, including covalent antagonist inhibitors GW9662 and T0070907, are thought to compete for the orthosteric pocket in the ligand-binding domain (LBD). However, we previously showed that synthetic PPARγ ligands can cooperatively cobind with and reposition a bound endogenous orthosteric ligand to an alternate site, synergistically regulating PPARγ structure and function (Shang et al., 2018). Here, we reveal the structural mechanism of cobinding between a synthetic covalent antagonist inhibitor with other synthetic ligands. Biochemical and NMR data show that covalent inhibitors weaken—but do not prevent—the binding of other ligands via an allosteric mechanism, rather than direct ligand clashing, by shifting the LBD ensemble toward a transcriptionally repressive conformation, which structurally clashes with orthosteric ligand binding. Crystal structures reveal different cobinding mechanisms including alternate site binding to unexpectedly adopting an orthosteric binding mode by altering the covalent inhibitor binding pose. Our findings highlight the significant flexibility of the PPARγ orthosteric pocket, its ability to accommodate multiple ligands, and demonstrate that GW9662 and T0070907 should not be used as chemical tools to inhibit ligand binding to PPARγ.
