An expanded allosteric network in PTP1B by multitemperature crystallography, fragment screening, and covalent tethering

  1. Daniel A Keedy
  2. Zachary B Hill
  3. Justin T Biel
  4. Emily Kang
  5. T Justin Rettenmaier
  6. Jose Brandao-Neto
  7. Nicholas M Pearce
  8. Frank von Delft
  9. James A Wells
  10. James S Fraser  Is a corresponding author
  1. University of California, San Francisco, United States
  2. Diamond Light Source, United Kingdom
  3. University of Utrecht, Netherlands

Abstract

Allostery is an inherent feature of proteins, but it remains challenging to reveal the mechanisms by which allosteric signals propagate. A clearer understanding of this intrinsic circuitry would afford new opportunities to modulate protein function. Here we have identified allosteric sites in protein tyrosine phosphatase 1B (PTP1B) by combining multiple-temperature X-ray crystallography experiments and structure determination from hundreds of individual small-molecule fragment soaks. New modeling approaches reveal 'hidden' low-occupancy conformational states for protein and ligands. Our results converge on allosteric sites that are conformationally coupled to the active-site WPD loop and are hotspots for fragment binding. Targeting one of these sites with covalently tethered molecules or mutations allosterically inhibits enzyme activity. Overall, this work demonstrates how the ensemble nature of macromolecular structure, revealed here by multitemperature crystallography, can elucidate allosteric mechanisms and open new doors for long-range control of protein function.

Data availability

Data have been deposited in PDB under the accession codes: 6B90, 6B8E, 6B8T, 6B8X, 6B8Z, 6BAI, 6B95, 5QDE, 5QDF, 5QDG, 5QDH, 5QDI, 5QDJ, 5QDK, 5QDL, 5QDM, 5QDN, 5QDO, 5QDP, 5QDQ, 5QDR, 5QDS, 5QDT, 5QDU, 5QDV, 5QDW, 5QDX, 5QDY, 5QDZ, 5QE0, 5QE1, 5QE2, 5QE3, 5QE4, 5QE5, 5QE6, 5QE7, 5QE8, 5QE9, 5QEA, 5QEB, 5QEC, 5QED, 5QEE, 5QEF, 5QEG, 5QEH, 5QEI, 5QEJ, 5QEK, 5QEL, 5QEM, 5QEN, 5QEO, 5QEP, 5QEQ, 5QER, 5QES, 5QET, 5QEU, 5QEV, 5QEW, 5QEX, 5QEY, 5QEZ, 5QF0, 5QF1, 5QF2, 5QF3, 5QF4, 5QF5, 5QF6, 5QF7, 5QF8, 5QF9, 5QFA, 5QFB, 5QFC, 5QFD, 5QFE, 5QFF, 5QFG, 5QFH, 5QFI, 5QFJ, 5QFK, 5QFL, 5QFM, 5QFN, 5QFO, 5QFP, 5QFQ, 5QFR, 5QFS, 5QFT, 5QFU, 5QFV, 5QFW, 5QFX, 5QFY, 5QFZ, 5QG0, 5QG1, 5QG2, 5QG3, 5QG4, 5QG5, 5QG6, 5QG7, 5QG8, 5QG9, 5QGA, 5QGB, 5QGC, 5QGD, 5QGE, 5QGF and further data available at https://zenodo.org/record/1044103

The following data sets were generated

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Daniel A Keedy

    Department of Bioengineering and Therapeutic Sciences, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Zachary B Hill

    Department of Pharmaceutical Chemistry, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Justin T Biel

    Department of Bioengineering and Therapeutic Sciences, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Emily Kang

    Department of Pharmaceutical Chemistry, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. T Justin Rettenmaier

    Cellular and Molecular Pharmacology, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Jose Brandao-Neto

    XChem, Diamond Light Source, Didcot, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-6015-320X
  7. Nicholas M Pearce

    Crystal and Structural Chemistry, University of Utrecht, Utrecht, Netherlands
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-6693-8603
  8. Frank von Delft

    XChem, Diamond Light Source, Didcot, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. James A Wells

    Department of Pharmaceutical Chemistry, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-8267-5519
  10. James S Fraser

    Department of Bioengineering and Therapeutic Science, California Institute for Quantitative Biology, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, United States
    For correspondence
    jfraser@fraserlab.com
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-5080-2859

Funding

Kinship Foundation

  • James S Fraser

National Cancer Institute (CA191018)

  • James A Wells

National Cancer Institute ((F31 CA180378)

  • T Justin Rettenmaier

National Institute of General Medical Sciences (GM123159)

  • James S Fraser

National Institute of General Medical Sciences (GM124169)

  • James S Fraser

National Institute of General Medical Sciences (GM124149)

  • James S Fraser

Pew Charitable Trusts

  • James S Fraser

David and Lucile Packard Foundation

  • James S Fraser

National Institute of General Medical Sciences (GM110580)

  • James S Fraser

National Science Foundation (STC-1231306)

  • James S Fraser

University of California (LFR-17-476732)

  • James S Fraser

Helen Hay Whitney Foundation

  • Zachary B Hill

National Cancer Institute (K99CA203002)

  • Zachary B Hill

A.P. Giannini Foundation (Postdoctoral Fellowship)

  • Daniel A Keedy

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

Copyright

© 2018, Keedy 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

  • 7,672
    views
  • 1,215
    downloads
  • 147
    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. Daniel A Keedy
  2. Zachary B Hill
  3. Justin T Biel
  4. Emily Kang
  5. T Justin Rettenmaier
  6. Jose Brandao-Neto
  7. Nicholas M Pearce
  8. Frank von Delft
  9. James A Wells
  10. James S Fraser
(2018)
An expanded allosteric network in PTP1B by multitemperature crystallography, fragment screening, and covalent tethering
eLife 7:e36307.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.36307

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.36307

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.