Structural basis of ribosomal peptide macrocyclization in plants

  1. Joel Haywood
  2. Jason W Schmidberger
  3. Amy M James
  4. Samuel G Nonis
  5. Kirill V Sukhoverkov
  6. Mikael Elias
  7. Charles S Bond
  8. Joshua S Mylne  Is a corresponding author
  1. The University of Western Australia, Australia
  2. University of Minnesota, United States

Abstract

Constrained, cyclic peptides encoded by plant genes represent a new generation of drug leads. Evolution has repeatedly recruited the Cys-protease asparaginyl endopeptidase (AEP) to perform their head-to-tail ligation. These macrocyclization reactions use the substrates amino terminus instead of water to deacylate, so a peptide bond is formed. How solvent-exposed plant AEPs macrocyclize is poorly understood. Here we present the crystal structure of an active plant AEP from the common sunflower, Helianthus annuus. The active site contained electron density for a tetrahedral intermediate with partial occupancy that predicted a binding mode for peptide macrocyclization. By substituting catalytic residues we could alter the ratio of cyclic to acyclic products. Moreover, we showed AEPs from other species lacking cyclic peptides can perform macrocyclization under favorable pH conditions. This structural characterization of AEP presents a logical framework for engineering superior enzymes that generate macrocyclic peptide drug leads.

Data availability

The following data sets were generated

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Joel Haywood

    School of Molecular Sciences, The University of Western Australia, Perth, Australia
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Jason W Schmidberger

    School of Molecular Sciences, The University of Western Australia, Perth, Australia
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Amy M James

    School of Molecular Sciences, The University of Western Australia, Perth, Australia
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Samuel G Nonis

    School of Molecular Sciences, The University of Western Australia, Perth, Australia
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Kirill V Sukhoverkov

    School of Molecular Sciences, The University of Western Australia, Perth, Australia
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Mikael Elias

    Department of Biochemistry, Molecular Biology and Biophysics, University of Minnesota, St Paul, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Charles S Bond

    School of Molecular Sciences, The University of Western Australia, Perth, Australia
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Joshua S Mylne

    School of Molecular Sciences, The University of Western Australia, Perth, Australia
    For correspondence
    joshua.mylne@uwa.edu.au
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-4957-6388

Funding

Australian Research Council (FT120100013)

  • Joshua S Mylne

Australian Research Council (DP160100107)

  • Joshua S Mylne

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

Reviewing Editor

  1. Charles S Craik, University of California, San Francisco, United States

Version history

  1. Received: October 19, 2017
  2. Accepted: January 26, 2018
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: January 31, 2018 (version 1)
  4. Version of Record published: March 2, 2018 (version 2)

Copyright

© 2018, Haywood 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

  • 3,063
    views
  • 500
    downloads
  • 49
    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. Joel Haywood
  2. Jason W Schmidberger
  3. Amy M James
  4. Samuel G Nonis
  5. Kirill V Sukhoverkov
  6. Mikael Elias
  7. Charles S Bond
  8. Joshua S Mylne
(2018)
Structural basis of ribosomal peptide macrocyclization in plants
eLife 7:e32955.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.32955

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.32955

Further reading

    1. Structural Biology and Molecular Biophysics
    Xiao-Ru Chen, Karuna Dixit ... Tatyana I Igumenova
    Research Article

    Regulated hydrolysis of the phosphoinositide phosphatidylinositol(4,5)-bis-phosphate to diacylglycerol and inositol-1,4,5-P3 defines a major eukaryotic pathway for translation of extracellular cues to intracellular signaling circuits. Members of the lipid-activated protein kinase C isoenzyme family (PKCs) play central roles in this signaling circuit. One of the regulatory mechanisms employed to downregulate stimulated PKC activity is via a proteasome-dependent degradation pathway that is potentiated by peptidyl-prolyl isomerase Pin1. Here, we show that contrary to prevailing models, Pin1 does not regulate conventional PKC isoforms α and βII via a canonical cis-trans isomerization of the peptidyl-prolyl bond. Rather, Pin1 acts as a PKC binding partner that controls PKC activity via sequestration of the C-terminal tail of the kinase. The high-resolution structure of full-length Pin1 complexed to the C-terminal tail of PKCβII reveals that a novel bivalent interaction mode underlies the non-catalytic mode of Pin1 action. Specifically, Pin1 adopts a conformation in which it uses the WW and PPIase domains to engage two conserved phosphorylated PKC motifs, the turn motif and hydrophobic motif, respectively. Hydrophobic motif is a non-canonical Pin1-interacting element. The structural information combined with the results of extensive binding studies and experiments in cultured cells suggest that non-catalytic mechanisms represent unappreciated modes of Pin1-mediated regulation of AGC kinases and other key enzymes/substrates.

    1. Structural Biology and Molecular Biophysics
    Christian Galicia, Giambattista Guaitoli ... Wim Versées
    Research Article

    Roco proteins entered the limelight after mutations in human LRRK2 were identified as a major cause of familial Parkinson’s disease. LRRK2 is a large and complex protein combining a GTPase and protein kinase activity, and disease mutations increase the kinase activity, while presumably decreasing the GTPase activity. Although a cross-communication between both catalytic activities has been suggested, the underlying mechanisms and the regulatory role of the GTPase domain remain unknown. Several structures of LRRK2 have been reported, but structures of Roco proteins in their activated GTP-bound state are lacking. Here, we use single-particle cryo-electron microscopy to solve the structure of a bacterial Roco protein (CtRoco) in its GTP-bound state, aided by two conformation-specific nanobodies: NbRoco1 and NbRoco2. This structure presents CtRoco in an active monomeric state, featuring a very large GTP-induced conformational change using the LRR-Roc linker as a hinge. Furthermore, this structure shows how NbRoco1 and NbRoco2 collaborate to activate CtRoco in an allosteric way. Altogether, our data provide important new insights into the activation mechanism of Roco proteins, with relevance to LRRK2 regulation, and suggest new routes for the allosteric modulation of their GTPase activity.