Functional cross-talk between allosteric effects of activating and inhibiting ligands underlies PKM2 regulation

  1. Jamie A Macpherson
  2. Alina Theisen
  3. Laura Masino
  4. Louise Fets
  5. Paul C Driscoll
  6. Vesela Encheva
  7. Ambrosius P Snijders
  8. Stephen R. Martin
  9. Jens Kleinjung
  10. Perdita E Barran
  11. Franca Fraternali  Is a corresponding author
  12. Dimitrios Anastasiou  Is a corresponding author
  1. The Francis Crick Institute, United Kingdom
  2. University of Manchester, United Kingdom
  3. King's College London, United Kingdom

Abstract

Several enzymes can simultaneously interact with multiple intracellular metabolites, however, how the allosteric effects of distinct ligands are integrated to coordinately control enzymatic activity remains poorly understood. We addressed this question using, as a model system, the glycolytic enzyme pyruvate kinase M2 (PKM2). We show that the PKM2 activator fructose 1,6-bisphosphate (FBP) alone promotes tetramerisation and increases PKM2 activity, but addition of the inhibitor L-phenylalanine (Phe) prevents maximal activation of FBP-bound PKM2 tetramers. We developed a method, AlloHubMat, that uses eigenvalue decomposition of mutual information derived from molecular dynamics trajectories to identify residues that mediate FBP-induced allostery. Experimental mutagenesis of these residues identified PKM2 variants in which activation by FBP remains intact but cannot be attenuated by Phe. Our findings reveal residues involved in FBP-induced allostery that enable the integration of allosteric input from Phe and provide a paradigm for the coordinate regulation of enzymatic activity by simultaneous allosteric inputs.

Data availability

All data generated or analysed during this study are included in the manuscript and supporting files.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Jamie A Macpherson

    Cancer Metabolism Laboratory, The Francis Crick Institute, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Alina Theisen

    Michael Barber Centre for Collaborative Mass Spectrometry, Manchester Institute of Biotechnology, School of Chemistry, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-0216-8582
  3. Laura Masino

    Structural Biology Science Technology Platform, The Francis Crick Institute, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Louise Fets

    Cancer Metabolism Laboratory, The Francis Crick Institute, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Paul C Driscoll

    Metabolomics Science Technology Platform, The Francis Crick Institute, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Vesela Encheva

    Proteomics Science Technology Platform, The Francis Crick Institute, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Ambrosius P Snijders

    Proteomics Science Technology Platform, The Francis Crick Institute, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Stephen R. Martin

    Structural Biology Science Technology Platform, The Francis Crick Institute, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Jens Kleinjung

    Computational Biology Science Technology Platform, The Francis Crick Institute, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  10. Perdita E Barran

    Michael Barber Centre for Collaborative Mass Spectrometry, Manchester Institute of Biotechnology, School of Chemistry, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  11. Franca Fraternali

    Randall Division of Cell and Molecular Biophysics, King's College London, London, United Kingdom
    For correspondence
    franca.fraternali@kcl.ac.uk
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-3143-6574
  12. Dimitrios Anastasiou

    Cancer Metabolism Laboratory, The Francis Crick Institute, London, United Kingdom
    For correspondence
    dimitrios.anastasiou@crick.ac.uk
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-1269-843X

Funding

Cancer Research UK (FC001033)

  • Dimitrios Anastasiou

Wellcome (FC001033)

  • Dimitrios Anastasiou

Medical Research Council (FC001033)

  • Dimitrios Anastasiou

Francis Crick Institute (FC001033)

  • Dimitrios Anastasiou

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

Copyright

© 2019, Macpherson 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

  • 4,224
    views
  • 601
    downloads
  • 31
    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. Jamie A Macpherson
  2. Alina Theisen
  3. Laura Masino
  4. Louise Fets
  5. Paul C Driscoll
  6. Vesela Encheva
  7. Ambrosius P Snijders
  8. Stephen R. Martin
  9. Jens Kleinjung
  10. Perdita E Barran
  11. Franca Fraternali
  12. Dimitrios Anastasiou
(2019)
Functional cross-talk between allosteric effects of activating and inhibiting ligands underlies PKM2 regulation
eLife 8:e45068.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.45068

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.45068

Further reading

    1. Biochemistry and Chemical Biology
    2. Computational and Systems Biology
    Shinichi Kawaguchi, Xin Xu ... Toshie Kai
    Research Article

    Protein–protein interactions are fundamental to understanding the molecular functions and regulation of proteins. Despite the availability of extensive databases, many interactions remain uncharacterized due to the labor-intensive nature of experimental validation. In this study, we utilized the AlphaFold2 program to predict interactions among proteins localized in the nuage, a germline-specific non-membrane organelle essential for piRNA biogenesis in Drosophila. We screened 20 nuage proteins for 1:1 interactions and predicted dimer structures. Among these, five represented novel interaction candidates. Three pairs, including Spn-E_Squ, were verified by co-immunoprecipitation. Disruption of the salt bridges at the Spn-E_Squ interface confirmed their functional importance, underscoring the predictive model’s accuracy. We extended our analysis to include interactions between three representative nuage components—Vas, Squ, and Tej—and approximately 430 oogenesis-related proteins. Co-immunoprecipitation verified interactions for three pairs: Mei-W68_Squ, CSN3_Squ, and Pka-C1_Tej. Furthermore, we screened the majority of Drosophila proteins (~12,000) for potential interaction with the Piwi protein, a central player in the piRNA pathway, identifying 164 pairs as potential binding partners. This in silico approach not only efficiently identifies potential interaction partners but also significantly bridges the gap by facilitating the integration of bioinformatics and experimental biology.

    1. Computational and Systems Biology
    2. Neuroscience
    Brian DePasquale, Carlos D Brody, Jonathan W Pillow
    Research Article Updated

    Accumulating evidence to make decisions is a core cognitive function. Previous studies have tended to estimate accumulation using either neural or behavioral data alone. Here, we develop a unified framework for modeling stimulus-driven behavior and multi-neuron activity simultaneously. We applied our method to choices and neural recordings from three rat brain regions—the posterior parietal cortex (PPC), the frontal orienting fields (FOF), and the anterior-dorsal striatum (ADS)—while subjects performed a pulse-based accumulation task. Each region was best described by a distinct accumulation model, which all differed from the model that best described the animal’s choices. FOF activity was consistent with an accumulator where early evidence was favored while the ADS reflected near perfect accumulation. Neural responses within an accumulation framework unveiled a distinct association between each brain region and choice. Choices were better predicted from all regions using a comprehensive, accumulation-based framework and different brain regions were found to differentially reflect choice-related accumulation signals: FOF and ADS both reflected choice but ADS showed more instances of decision vacillation. Previous studies relating neural data to behaviorally inferred accumulation dynamics have implicitly assumed that individual brain regions reflect the whole-animal level accumulator. Our results suggest that different brain regions represent accumulated evidence in dramatically different ways and that accumulation at the whole-animal level may be constructed from a variety of neural-level accumulators.