1. Structural Biology and Molecular Biophysics
Download icon

Screening of candidate substrates and coupling ions of transporters by thermostability shift assays

  1. Homa Majd
  2. Martin S King
  3. Shane M Palmer
  4. Anthony C Smith
  5. Liam DH Elbourne
  6. Ian T Paulsen
  7. David Sharples
  8. Peter JF Henderson
  9. Edmund RS Kunji  Is a corresponding author
  1. University of Cambridge, United Kingdom
  2. Macquarie University, Australia
  3. University of Leeds, United Kingdom
Tools and Resources
  • Cited 10
  • Views 2,336
  • Annotations
Cite this article as: eLife 2018;7:e38821 doi: 10.7554/eLife.38821

Abstract

Substrates of most transport proteins have not been identified, limiting our understanding of their role in physiology and disease. Traditional identification methods use transport assays with radioactive compounds, but they are technically challenging and many compounds are unavailable in radioactive form or are prohibitively expensive, precluding large-scale trials. Here, we present a high-throughput screening method that can identify candidate substrates from libraries of unlabeled compounds. The assay is based on the principle that transport proteins recognize substrates through specific interactions, which lead to enhanced stabilization of the transporter population in thermostability shift assays. Representatives of three different transporter (super)families were tested, which differ in structure as well as transport and ion coupling mechanisms. In each case, the substrates were identified correctly from a large set of chemically related compounds, including stereo-isoforms. In some cases, stabilization by substrate binding was enhanced further by ions, providing testable hypotheses on energy coupling mechanisms.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Homa Majd

    Medical Research Council Mitochondrial Biology Unit, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Martin S King

    Medical Research Council Mitochondrial Biology Unit, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Shane M Palmer

    Medical Research Council Mitochondrial Biology Unit, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Anthony C Smith

    Medical Research Council Mitochondrial Biology Unit, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Liam DH Elbourne

    Department of Molecular Sciences, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Ian T Paulsen

    Department of Molecular Sciences, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. David Sharples

    Astbury Centre for Structural Molecular Biology, University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Peter JF Henderson

    Astbury Centre for Structural Molecular Biology, University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Edmund RS Kunji

    Medical Research Council Mitochondrial Biology Unit, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
    For correspondence
    ek@mrc-mbu.cam.ac.uk
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-0610-4500

Funding

Medical Research Council (MC_UU_00015/1)

  • Homa Majd
  • Martin S King
  • Shane M Palmer
  • Anthony C Smith
  • Edmund RS Kunji

Cambridge Commonwealth, European and International Trust

  • Homa Majd

Leverhulme Trust (EM-2014 -045)

  • Peter JF Henderson

Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (MPSI BBS/B/14418)

  • David Sharples

Wellcome (JIF 062164/Z/00/Z)

  • David Sharples

University of Leeds

  • David Sharples

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

Reviewing Editor

  1. Volker Dötsch, J.W. Goethe-University, Germany

Publication history

  1. Received: July 11, 2018
  2. Accepted: October 11, 2018
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: October 15, 2018 (version 1)
  4. Version of Record published: November 1, 2018 (version 2)

Copyright

© 2018, Majd 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

  • 2,336
    Page views
  • 423
    Downloads
  • 10
    Citations

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

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)

  1. Further reading

Further reading

    1. Biochemistry and Chemical Biology
    2. Structural Biology and Molecular Biophysics
    Thuy-Lan V Lite et al.
    Research Article

    Protein-protein interaction specificity is often encoded at the primary sequence level. However, the contributions of individual residues to specificity are usually poorly understood and often obscured by mutational robustness, sequence degeneracy, and epistasis. Using bacterial toxin-antitoxin systems as a model, we screened a combinatorially complete library of antitoxin variants at three key positions against two toxins. This library enabled us to measure the effect of individual substitutions on specificity in hundreds of genetic backgrounds. These distributions allow inferences about the general nature of interface residues in promoting specificity. We find that positive and negative contributions to specificity are neither inherently coupled nor mutually exclusive. Further, a wild-type antitoxin appears optimized for specificity as no substitutions improve discrimination between cognate and non-cognate partners. By comparing crystal structures of paralogous complexes, we provide a rationale for our observations. Collectively, this work provides a generalizable approach to understanding the logic of molecular recognition.

    1. Microbiology and Infectious Disease
    2. Structural Biology and Molecular Biophysics
    William Wan et al.
    Research Article Updated

    Filoviruses such as Ebola and Marburg virus bud from the host membrane as enveloped virions. This process is achieved by the matrix protein VP40. When expressed alone, VP40 induces budding of filamentous virus-like particles, suggesting that localization to the plasma membrane, oligomerization into a matrix layer, and generation of membrane curvature are intrinsic properties of VP40. There has been no direct information on the structure of VP40 matrix layers within viruses or virus-like particles. We present structures of Ebola and Marburg VP40 matrix layers in intact virus-like particles, and within intact Marburg viruses. VP40 dimers assemble extended chains via C-terminal domain interactions. These chains stack to form 2D matrix lattices below the membrane surface. These lattices form a patchwork assembly across the membrane and suggesting that assembly may begin at multiple points. Our observations define the structure and arrangement of the matrix protein layer that mediates formation of filovirus particles.