1. Structural Biology and Molecular Biophysics
  2. Computational and Systems Biology
Download icon

A dynamic mechanism for allosteric activation of Aurora kinase A by activation loop phosphorylation

  1. Emily F Ruff
  2. Joseph M Muretta
  3. Andrew R Thompson
  4. Eric W Lake
  5. Soreen Cyphers
  6. Steven K Albanese
  7. Sonya M Hanson
  8. Julie M Behr
  9. David D Thomas
  10. John D Chodera
  11. Nicholas M Levinson  Is a corresponding author
  1. University of Minnesota, United States
  2. Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, United States
Research Article
  • Cited 30
  • Views 3,384
  • Annotations
Cite this article as: eLife 2018;7:e32766 doi: 10.7554/eLife.32766

Abstract

Many eukaryotic protein kinases are activated by phosphorylation on a specific conserved residue in the regulatory activation loop, a post-translational modification thought to stabilize the active DFG-In state of the catalytic domain. Here we use a battery of spectroscopic methods that track different catalytic elements of the kinase domain to show that the ~100-fold activation of the mitotic kinase Aurora A (AurA) by phosphorylation occurs without a population shift from the DFG-Out to the DFG-In state, and that the activation loop of the activated kinase remains highly dynamic. Instead, molecular dynamics simulations and electron paramagnetic resonance experiments show that phosphorylation triggers a switch within the DFG-In subpopulation from an autoinhibited DFG-In substate to an active DFG-In substate, leading to catalytic activation. This mechanism raises new questions about the functional role of the DFG-Out state in protein kinases.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Emily F Ruff

    Department of Pharmacology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.

  2. Joseph M Muretta

    Department of Biochemistry, Molecular Biology, and Biophysics, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.

  3. Andrew R Thompson

    Department of Biochemistry, Molecular Biology, and Biophysics, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.

  4. Eric W Lake

    Department of Pharmacology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.

  5. Soreen Cyphers

    Department of Pharmacology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.

  6. Steven K Albanese

    Computational and Systems Biology Program, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-0973-5030

  7. Sonya M Hanson

    Computational and Systems Biology Program, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-8960-5353

  8. Julie M Behr

    Computational and Systems Biology Program, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.

  9. David D Thomas

    Department of Biochemistry, Molecular Biology, and Biophysics, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.

  10. John D Chodera

    Computational and Systems Biology Program, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, United States
    Competing interests
    John D Chodera, is a member of the Scientific Advisory Board for Schrödinger, LLC.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-0542-119X

  11. Nicholas M Levinson

    Department of Pharmacology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, United States
    For correspondence
    nml@umn.edu
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-4338-8087

Funding

National Institutes of Health (R00 Award GM102288)

  • Nicholas M Levinson

National Institutes of Health (R21 Award CA217695)

  • Nicholas M Levinson

National Institutes of Health (NRSA Award F32GM120817)

  • Emily F Ruff

National Institutes of Health (P30-CA008748)

  • John D Chodera

National Institutes of Health (GM121505)

  • John D Chodera

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

Reviewing Editor

  1. William I Weis, Stanford University Medical Center, United States

Publication history

  1. Received: October 13, 2017
  2. Accepted: February 19, 2018
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: February 21, 2018 (version 1)
  4. Version of Record published: March 13, 2018 (version 2)

Copyright

© 2018, Ruff 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

  • 3,384
    Page views
  • 554
    Downloads
  • 30
    Citations

Article citation count generated by polling the highest count across the following sources: Crossref, PubMed Central, Scopus.

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)

Download citations (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)

Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)

Categories and tags

Research organism

Further reading

    1. Evolutionary Biology
    2. Structural Biology and Molecular Biophysics

    Structurally distributed surface sites tune allosteric regulation

    James W McCormick et al.
    Research Article Updated

    Our ability to rationally optimize allosteric regulation is limited by incomplete knowledge of the mutations that tune allostery. Are these mutations few or abundant, structurally localized or distributed? To examine this, we conducted saturation mutagenesis of a synthetic allosteric switch in which Dihydrofolate reductase (DHFR) is regulated by a blue-light sensitive LOV2 domain. Using a high-throughput assay wherein DHFR catalytic activity is coupled to E. coli growth, we assessed the impact of 1548 viable DHFR single mutations on allostery. Despite most mutations being deleterious to activity, fewer than 5% of mutations had a statistically significant influence on allostery. Most allostery disrupting mutations were proximal to the LOV2 insertion site. In contrast, allostery enhancing mutations were structurally distributed and enriched on the protein surface. Combining several allostery enhancing mutations yielded near-additive improvements to dynamic range. Our results indicate a path toward optimizing allosteric function through variation at surface sites.

    1. Biochemistry and Chemical Biology
    2. Structural Biology and Molecular Biophysics

    McsB forms a gated kinase chamber to mark aberrant bacterial proteins for degradation

    Bence Hajdusits et al.
    Research Article

    In Gram-positive bacteria, the McsB protein arginine kinase is central to protein quality control, labelling aberrant molecules for degradation by the ClpCP protease. Despite its importance for stress response and pathogenicity, it is still elusive how the bacterial degradation labelling is regulated. Here, we delineate the mechanism how McsB targets aberrant proteins during stress conditions. Structural data reveal a self-compartmentalized kinase, in which the active sites are sequestered in a molecular cage. The 'closed' octamer interconverts with other oligomers in a phosphorylation-dependent manner and, contrary to these 'open' forms, preferentially labels unfolded proteins. In vivo data show that heat-shock triggers accumulation of higher-order oligomers, of which the octameric McsB is essential for surviving stress situations. The interconversion of open and closed oligomers represents a distinct regulatory mechanism of a degradation labeler, allowing the McsB kinase to adapt its potentially dangerous enzyme function to the needs of the bacterial cell.

    1. Cell Biology
    2. Structural Biology and Molecular Biophysics

    Structural heterogeneity of cellular K5/K14 filaments as revealed by cryo-electron microscopy

    Miriam S Weber et al.
    Research Article

    Keratin intermediate filaments are an essential and major component of the cytoskeleton in epithelial cells. They form a stable yet dynamic filamentous network extending from the nucleus to the cell periphery, which provides resistance to mechanical stresses. Mutations in keratin genes are related to a variety of epithelial tissue diseases. Despite their importance, the molecular structure of keratin filaments remains largely unknown. In this study, we analyzed the structure of keratin 5/keratin 14 filaments within ghost mouse keratinocytes by cryo-electron microscopy and cryo-electron tomography. By averaging a large number of keratin segments, we have gained insights into the helical architecture of the filaments. Two-dimensional classification revealed profound variations in the diameter of keratin filaments and their subunit organization. Computational reconstitution of filaments of substantial length uncovered a high degree of internal heterogeneity along single filaments, which can contain regions of helical symmetry, regions with less symmetry and regions with significant diameter fluctuations. Cross section views of filaments revealed that keratins form hollow cylinders consisting of multiple protofilaments, with an electron dense core located in the center of the filament. These findings shed light on the complex and remarkable heterogenic architecture of keratin filaments, suggesting that they are highly flexible, dynamic cytoskeletal structures.