Auto-regulation of Rab5 GEF activity in Rabex5 by allosteric structural changes, catalytic core dynamics and ubiquitin binding

  1. Janelle Lauer
  2. Sandra Segeletz
  3. Alice Cezanne
  4. Giambattista Guaitoli
  5. Francesco Raimondi
  6. Marc Gentzel
  7. Vikram Alva
  8. Michael Habeck
  9. Yannis Kalaidzidis
  10. Marius Ueffing
  11. Andrei N Lupas
  12. Christian Johannes Gloeckner
  13. Marino Zerial  Is a corresponding author
  1. Max Planck Institute of Molecular Cell Biology and Genetics, Germany
  2. German Center for Neurodegenerative Diseases, Germany
  3. Heidelberg University, Germany
  4. Technical University Dresden, Germany
  5. Max Planck Institute for Developmental Biology, Germany
  6. Max Planck Institute for Biophysical Chemistry, Germany
  7. University of Tübingen, Germany

Abstract

Intracellular trafficking depends on the function of Rab GTPases, whose activation is regulated by guanine exchange factors (GEFs). The Rab5 GEF, Rabex5, was previously proposed to be auto-inhibited by its C-terminus. Here, we studied full-length Rabex5 and Rabaptin5 proteins as well as domain deletion Rabex5 mutants using hydrogen deuterium exchange mass spectrometry. We generated a structural model of Rabex5, using chemical cross-linking mass spectrometry and integrative modeling techniques. By correlating structural changes with nucleotide exchange activity for each construct, we uncovered new auto-regulatory roles for the Ubiquitin binding domains and the Linker connecting those domains to the catalytic core of Rabex5. We further provide evidence that enhanced dynamics in the catalytic core are linked to catalysis. Our results suggest a more complex auto-regulation mechanism than previously thought and imply that Ubiquitin binding serves not only to position Rabex5 but to also control its Rab5 GEF activity through allosteric structural alterations.

Data availability

Data generated for figures 1a and 3 are included in the supporting files.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Janelle Lauer

    Max Planck Institute of Molecular Cell Biology and Genetics, Dresden, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-1412-6766
  2. Sandra Segeletz

    Max Planck Institute of Molecular Cell Biology and Genetics, Dresden, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Alice Cezanne

    Max Planck Institute of Molecular Cell Biology and Genetics, Dresden, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Giambattista Guaitoli

    Translational Biomarker in Neurodegenerative Diseases, German Center for Neurodegenerative Diseases, Tübingen, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Francesco Raimondi

    Bioquant, Heidelberg University, Heidelberg, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Marc Gentzel

    Molecular Analysis Mass Spectrometry Center for Molecular and Cellular Bioimaging, Technical University Dresden, Dresden, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-4482-6010
  7. Vikram Alva

    Department of Protein Evolution, Max Planck Institute for Developmental Biology, Tübingen, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-1188-473X
  8. Michael Habeck

    Statistical Inverse Problems in Biophysics, Max Planck Institute for Biophysical Chemistry, Göttingen, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Yannis Kalaidzidis

    Max Planck Institute of Molecular Cell Biology and Genetics, Dresden, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  10. Marius Ueffing

    Institute for Ophthalmic Research, Center for Ophthalmology, University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  11. Andrei N Lupas

    Department of Protein Evolution, Max Planck Institute for Developmental Biology, Tübingen, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-1959-4836
  12. Christian Johannes Gloeckner

    Translational Biomarker in Neurodegenerative Diseases, German Center for Neurodegenerative Diseases, Tübingen, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-6494-6944
  13. Marino Zerial

    Max Planck Institute of Molecular Cell Biology and Genetics, Dresden, Germany
    For correspondence
    zerial@mpi-cbg.de
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-7490-4235

Funding

Max-Planck-Gesellschaft (Open-access funding)

  • Marino Zerial

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

Copyright

© 2019, Lauer 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

  • 1,910
    views
  • 264
    downloads
  • 35
    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. Janelle Lauer
  2. Sandra Segeletz
  3. Alice Cezanne
  4. Giambattista Guaitoli
  5. Francesco Raimondi
  6. Marc Gentzel
  7. Vikram Alva
  8. Michael Habeck
  9. Yannis Kalaidzidis
  10. Marius Ueffing
  11. Andrei N Lupas
  12. Christian Johannes Gloeckner
  13. Marino Zerial
(2019)
Auto-regulation of Rab5 GEF activity in Rabex5 by allosteric structural changes, catalytic core dynamics and ubiquitin binding
eLife 8:e46302.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.46302

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.46302

Further reading

    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.

    1. Immunology and Inflammation
    2. Structural Biology and Molecular Biophysics
    Colleen A Maillie, Kiana Golden ... Marco Mravic
    Research Article

    A potent class of HIV-1 broadly neutralizing antibodies (bnAbs) targets the envelope glycoprotein’s membrane proximal exposed region (MPER) through a proposed mechanism where hypervariable loops embed into lipid bilayers and engage headgroup moieties alongside the epitope. We address the feasibility and determinant molecular features of this mechanism using multi-scale modeling. All-atom simulations of 4E10, PGZL1, 10E8, and LN01 docked onto HIV-like membranes consistently form phospholipid complexes at key complementarity-determining region loop sites, solidifying that stable and specific lipid interactions anchor bnAbs to membrane surfaces. Ancillary protein-lipid contacts reveal surprising contributions from antibody framework regions. Coarse-grained simulations effectively capture antibodies embedding into membranes. Simulations estimating protein-membrane interaction strength for PGZL1 variants along an inferred maturation pathway show bilayer affinity is evolved and correlates with neutralization potency. The modeling demonstrated here uncovers insights into lipid participation in antibodies’ recognition of membrane proteins and highlights antibody features to prioritize in vaccine design.