Structural principles of SNARE complex recognition by the AAA+ protein NSF

  1. K Ian White
  2. Minglei Zhao
  3. Ucheor B Choi
  4. Richard A Pfuetzner
  5. Axel T Brunger  Is a corresponding author
  1. Stanford University, United States
  2. University of Chicago, United States

Abstract

The recycling of SNARE proteins following complex formation and membrane fusion is an essential process in eukaryotic trafficking. A highly conserved AAA+ protein, NSF (N-ethylmaleimide sensitive factor) and an adaptor protein, SNAP (soluble NSF attachment protein), disassembles the SNARE complex. We report electron-cryomicroscopy structures of the complex of NSF, αSNAP, and the full-length soluble neuronal SNARE complex (composed of syntaxin-1A, synaptobrevin-2, SNAP-25A) in the presence of ATP under non-hydrolyzing conditions at ~3.9 Å resolution. These structures reveal electrostatic interactions by which two αSNAP molecules interface with a specific surface of the SNARE complex. This interaction positions the SNAREs such that the 15 N-terminal residues of SNAP-25A are loaded into the D1 ring pore of NSF via a spiral pattern of interactions between a conserved tyrosine NSF residue and SNAP-25A backbone atoms. This loading process likely precedes ATP hydrolysis. Subsequent ATP hydrolysis then drives complete disassembly.

Data availability

The coordinates and corresponding EM density maps have been deposited in the PDB and EMDB, respectively.

The following data sets were generated
    1. Axel T Brunger
    (2018) The 20S supercomplex engaging the SNAP-25 N-terminus (class 1)
    Publicly available at the EMBL-EBI Protein Data Bank (accession no: EMD-9100).
    1. Axel T Brunger
    (2018) The 20S supercomplex engaging the SNAP-25 N-terminus (class 2)
    Publicly available at the EMBL-EBI Protein Data Bank (accession no: EMD-9101).

Article and author information

Author details

  1. K Ian White

    Department of Molecular and Cellular Physiology, Stanford University, Stanford, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  2. Minglei Zhao

    Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, University of Chicago, Chicago, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  3. Ucheor B Choi

    Department of Molecular and Cellular Physiology, Stanford University, Stanford, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  4. Richard A Pfuetzner

    Department of Molecular and Cellular Physiology, Stanford University, Stanford, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  5. Axel T Brunger

    Department of Molecular and Cellular Physiology, Stanford University, Stanford, United States
    For correspondence
    brunger@stanford.edu
    Competing interests
    Axel T Brunger, Reviewing editor, eLife.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-5121-2036

Funding

Howard Hughes Medical Institute

  • Axel T Brunger

National Institutes of Health

  • Axel T Brunger

Helen Hay Whitney Foundation

  • K Ian White

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

Copyright

© 2018, White 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

  • 3,953
    views
  • 678
    downloads
  • 74
    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. K Ian White
  2. Minglei Zhao
  3. Ucheor B Choi
  4. Richard A Pfuetzner
  5. Axel T Brunger
(2018)
Structural principles of SNARE complex recognition by the AAA+ protein NSF
eLife 7:e38888.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.38888

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.38888

Further reading

    1. Neuroscience
    Jacob A Miller
    Insight

    When navigating environments with changing rules, human brain circuits flexibly adapt how and where we retain information to help us achieve our immediate goals.

    1. Neuroscience
    Gáspár Oláh, Rajmund Lákovics ... Gábor Tamás
    Research Article

    Human-specific cognitive abilities depend on information processing in the cerebral cortex, where the neurons are significantly larger and their processes longer and sparser compared to rodents. We found that, in synaptically connected layer 2/3 pyramidal cells (L2/3 PCs), the delay in signal propagation from soma to soma is similar in humans and rodents. To compensate for the longer processes of neurons, membrane potential changes in human axons and/or dendrites must propagate faster. Axonal and dendritic recordings show that the propagation speed of action potentials (APs) is similar in human and rat axons, but the forward propagation of excitatory postsynaptic potentials (EPSPs) and the backward propagation of APs are 26 and 47% faster in human dendrites, respectively. Experimentally-based detailed biophysical models have shown that the key factor responsible for the accelerated EPSP propagation in human cortical dendrites is the large conductance load imposed at the soma by the large basal dendritic tree. Additionally, larger dendritic diameters and differences in cable and ion channel properties in humans contribute to enhanced signal propagation. Our integrative experimental and modeling study provides new insights into the scaling rules that help maintain information processing speed albeit the large and sparse neurons in the human cortex.