Ensemble cryoEM elucidates the mechanism of insulin capture and degradation by human insulin degrading enzyme

  1. Zhening Zhang
  2. Wenguang G Liang
  3. Lucas J Bailey
  4. Yong Zi Tan
  5. Hui Wei
  6. Andrew Wang
  7. Mara Farcasanu
  8. Virgil A Woods
  9. Lauren A McCord
  10. David Lee
  11. Weifeng Shang
  12. Rebecca Deprez-Poulain
  13. Benoit Deprez
  14. David R Liu
  15. Akiko Koide
  16. Shohei Koide
  17. Anthony A Kossiakoff
  18. Sheng Li  Is a corresponding author
  19. Bridget Carragher  Is a corresponding author
  20. Clinton S Potter  Is a corresponding author
  21. Wei-Jen Tang  Is a corresponding author
  1. New York Structural Biology Center, United States
  2. The University of Chicago, United States
  3. University of California, San Diego, United States
  4. Argonne National Laboratory, United States
  5. Université de Lille, France
  6. Harvard University, United States
  7. New York University, United States

Abstract

Insulin degrading enzyme (IDE) plays key roles in degrading peptides vital in type 2 diabetes, Alzheimer's, inflammation, and other human diseases. However, the process through which IDE recognizes peptides that tend to form amyloid fibrils remained unsolved. We used cryoEM to understand both the apo- and insulin-bound dimeric IDE states, revealing that IDE displays a large opening between the homologous ~55 kDa N- and C-terminal halves to allow selective substrate capture based on size and charge complementarity. We also used cryoEM, X-ray crystallography, SAXS, and HDX-MS to elucidate the molecular basis of how amyloidogenic peptides stabilize the disordered IDE catalytic cleft, thereby inducing selective degradation by substrate-assisted catalysis. Furthermore, our insulin-bound IDE structures explain how IDE processively degrades insulin by stochastically cutting either chain without breaking disulfide bonds. Together, our studies provide a mechanism for how IDE selectively degrades amyloidogenic peptides and offers structural insights for developing IDE-based therapies.

Data availability

The following data sets were generated

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Zhening Zhang

    National Resource for Automated Molecular Microscopy, Simons Electron Microscopy Center, New York Structural Biology Center, New York, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Wenguang G Liang

    Ben-May Institute for Cancer Research, The University of Chicago, Chicago, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Lucas J Bailey

    Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, The University of Chicago, Chicago, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Yong Zi Tan

    National Resource for Automated Molecular Microscopy, Simons Electron Microscopy Center, New York Structural Biology Center, New York, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-6656-6320
  5. Hui Wei

    National Resource for Automated Molecular Microscopy, Simons Electron Microscopy Center, New York Structural Biology Center, New York, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Andrew Wang

    Ben-May Institute for Cancer Research, The University of Chicago, Chicago, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Mara Farcasanu

    Ben-May Institute for Cancer Research, The University of Chicago, Chicago, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Virgil A Woods

    Department of Medicine, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Lauren A McCord

    Ben-May Institute for Cancer Research, The University of Chicago, Chicago, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  10. David Lee

    Department of Medicine, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  11. Weifeng Shang

    BioCAT, Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  12. Rebecca Deprez-Poulain

    U1177 - Drug and Molecules for Living Systems, Université de Lille, Lille, France
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  13. Benoit Deprez

    U1177 - Drug and Molecules for Living Systems, Université de Lille, Lille, France
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  14. David R Liu

    Department of Chemistry and Chemical Biology, Harvard University, Boston, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  15. Akiko Koide

    Perlmutter Cancer Center, New York University, New York, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  16. Shohei Koide

    Perlmutter Cancer Center, New York University, New York, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  17. Anthony A Kossiakoff

    Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, The University of Chicago, Chicago, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  18. Sheng Li

    Department of Medicine, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, United States
    For correspondence
    s4li@ucsd.edu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  19. Bridget Carragher

    National Resource for Automated Molecular Microscopy, Simons Electron Microscopy Center, New York Structural Biology Center, New York, United States
    For correspondence
    bcarr@nysbc.org
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-0624-5020
  20. Clinton S Potter

    National Resource for Automated Molecular Microscopy, Simons Electron Microscopy Center, New York Structural Biology Center, New York, United States
    For correspondence
    cpotter@nysbc.org
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-2394-0831
  21. Wei-Jen Tang

    Ben-May Institute for Cancer Research, The University of Chicago, Chicago, United States
    For correspondence
    wtang@bsd.uchicago.edu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-8267-8995

Funding

National Institutes of Health (GM81539)

  • Wei-Jen Tang

Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (N66001-14-2-4053)

  • David R Liu

Simons Foundation (349247)

  • Bridget Carragher
  • Clinton S Potter

National Institutes of Health (GM121964)

  • Wei-Jen Tang

National Institutes of Health (GM103310)

  • Bridget Carragher
  • Clinton S Potter

National Institutes of Health (R35 GM118062)

  • David R Liu

Howard Hughes Medical Institute

  • David R Liu

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

Copyright

© 2018, Zhang 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

  • 5,208
    views
  • 778
    downloads
  • 54
    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. Zhening Zhang
  2. Wenguang G Liang
  3. Lucas J Bailey
  4. Yong Zi Tan
  5. Hui Wei
  6. Andrew Wang
  7. Mara Farcasanu
  8. Virgil A Woods
  9. Lauren A McCord
  10. David Lee
  11. Weifeng Shang
  12. Rebecca Deprez-Poulain
  13. Benoit Deprez
  14. David R Liu
  15. Akiko Koide
  16. Shohei Koide
  17. Anthony A Kossiakoff
  18. Sheng Li
  19. Bridget Carragher
  20. Clinton S Potter
  21. Wei-Jen Tang
(2018)
Ensemble cryoEM elucidates the mechanism of insulin capture and degradation by human insulin degrading enzyme
eLife 7:e33572.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.33572

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.33572

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.