Specific lid-base contacts in the 26S proteasome control the conformational switching required for substrate degradation

  1. Eric R Greene
  2. Ellen A Goodall
  3. Andres H de la Peña
  4. Mary E Matyskiela
  5. Gabriel C Lander
  6. Andreas Martin  Is a corresponding author
  1. University of California, Berkeley, United States
  2. The Scripps Research Institute, United States
  3. Celgene, United States

Abstract

The 26S proteasome is essential for proteostasis and the regulation of vital processes through ATP-dependent degradation of ubiquitinated substrates. To accomplish the multi-step degradation process, the proteasome's regulatory particle, consisting of lid and base subcomplexes, undergoes major conformational changes whose origin is unknown. Investigating the Saccharomyces cerevisiae proteasome, we found that peripheral interactions between the lid subunit Rpn5 and the base AAA+-ATPase ring are important for stabilizing the substrate-engagement-competent state and coordinating the conformational switch to processing states upon substrate engagement. Disrupting these interactions perturbs the conformational equilibrium and interferes with degradation initiation, while later processing steps remain unaffected. Similar defects in early degradation steps are observed when eliminating hydrolysis in the ATPase subunit Rpt6, whose nucleotide state seems to control proteasome conformational transitions. These results provide important insight into interaction networks that coordinate conformational changes with various stages of degradation, and how modulators of conformational equilibria may influence substrate turnover.

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. Eric R Greene

    Department of Molecular and Cell Biology, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  2. Ellen A Goodall

    Department of Molecular and Cell Biology, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-9876-5973
  3. Andres H de la Peña

    Department of Integrative Structural and Computational Biology, The Scripps Research Institute, La Jolla, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  4. Mary E Matyskiela

    Structral and Chemical Biology, Celgene, San Diego, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  5. Gabriel C Lander

    Department of Integrative Structural and Computational Biology, The Scripps Research Institute, La Jolla, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-4921-1135
  6. Andreas Martin

    Department of Molecular and Cell Biology, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, United States
    For correspondence
    a.martin@berkeley.edu
    Competing interests
    Andreas Martin, Reviewing editor, eLife.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-0923-3284

Funding

Howard Hughes Medical Institute

  • Andreas Martin

National Institutes of Health (R01-GM094497)

  • Andreas Martin

National Institutes of Health (DP2EB020402)

  • Gabriel C Lander

American Cancer Society (132279-PF-18-189-01-DMC)

  • Andres H de la Peña

Pew Charitable Trusts

  • Gabriel C Lander

National Institutes of Health (S10OD021634)

  • Gabriel C Lander

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

Copyright

© 2019, Greene 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

  • 2,205
    views
  • 320
    downloads
  • 29
    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. Eric R Greene
  2. Ellen A Goodall
  3. Andres H de la Peña
  4. Mary E Matyskiela
  5. Gabriel C Lander
  6. Andreas Martin
(2019)
Specific lid-base contacts in the 26S proteasome control the conformational switching required for substrate degradation
eLife 8:e49806.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.49806

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.49806

Further reading

    1. Biochemistry and Chemical Biology
    Shraddha KC, Kenny H Nguyen ... Thomas C Boothby
    Research Article

    The conformational ensemble and function of intrinsically disordered proteins (IDPs) are sensitive to their solution environment. The inherent malleability of disordered proteins, combined with the exposure of their residues, accounts for this sensitivity. One context in which IDPs play important roles that are concomitant with massive changes to the intracellular environment is during desiccation (extreme drying). The ability of organisms to survive desiccation has long been linked to the accumulation of high levels of cosolutes such as trehalose or sucrose as well as the enrichment of IDPs, such as late embryogenesis abundant (LEA) proteins or cytoplasmic abundant heat-soluble (CAHS) proteins. Despite knowing that IDPs play important roles and are co-enriched alongside endogenous, species-specific cosolutes during desiccation, little is known mechanistically about how IDP-cosolute interactions influence desiccation tolerance. Here, we test the notion that the protective function of desiccation-related IDPs is enhanced through conformational changes induced by endogenous cosolutes. We find that desiccation-related IDPs derived from four different organisms spanning two LEA protein families and the CAHS protein family synergize best with endogenous cosolutes during drying to promote desiccation protection. Yet the structural parameters of protective IDPs do not correlate with synergy for either CAHS or LEA proteins. We further demonstrate that for CAHS, but not LEA proteins, synergy is related to self-assembly and the formation of a gel. Our results suggest that functional synergy between IDPs and endogenous cosolutes is a convergent desiccation protection strategy seen among different IDP families and organisms, yet the mechanisms underlying this synergy differ between IDP families.

    1. Biochemistry and Chemical Biology
    2. Structural Biology and Molecular Biophysics
    Jie Luo, Jeff Ranish
    Tools and Resources

    Dynamic conformational and structural changes in proteins and protein complexes play a central and ubiquitous role in the regulation of protein function, yet it is very challenging to study these changes, especially for large protein complexes, under physiological conditions. Here, we introduce a novel isobaric crosslinker, Qlinker, for studying conformational and structural changes in proteins and protein complexes using quantitative crosslinking mass spectrometry. Qlinkers are small and simple, amine-reactive molecules with an optimal extended distance of ~10 Å, which use MS2 reporter ions for relative quantification of Qlinker-modified peptides derived from different samples. We synthesized the 2-plex Q2linker and showed that the Q2linker can provide quantitative crosslinking data that pinpoints key conformational and structural changes in biosensors, binary and ternary complexes composed of the general transcription factors TBP, TFIIA, and TFIIB, and RNA polymerase II complexes.