A structural mechanism for phosphorylation-dependent inactivation of the AP2 complex

  1. Edward A Partlow
  2. Richard W Baker  Is a corresponding author
  3. Gwendolyn M Beacham
  4. Joshua S Chappie
  5. Andres E Leschziner  Is a corresponding author
  6. Gunther Hollopeter  Is a corresponding author
  1. Cornell University, United States
  2. University of California, San Diego, United States

Abstract

Endocytosis of transmembrane proteins is orchestrated by the AP2 clathrin adaptor complex. AP2 dwells in a closed, inactive state in the cytosol, but adopts an open, active conformation on the plasma membrane. Membrane-activated complexes are also phosphorylated, but the significance of this mark is debated. We recently proposed that NECAP negatively regulates AP2 by binding open and phosphorylated complexes (Beacham et al., 2018). Here, we report high-resolution cryo-EM structures of NECAP bound to phosphorylated AP2. The site of AP2 phosphorylation is directly coordinated by residues of the NECAP PHear domain that are predicted from genetic screens in C. elegans. Using membrane mimetics to generate conformationally open AP2, we find that a second domain of NECAP binds these complexes and cryo-EM reveals both domains of NECAP engaging closed, inactive AP2. Assays in vitro and in vivo confirm these domains cooperate to inactivate AP2. We propose that phosphorylation marks adaptors for inactivation.

Data availability

The density maps generated during this study are available at the Electron Microscopy Data Bank (EMD-20215, unclamped and EMD-20220, clamped). The atomic structures generated during this study are available at the Protein Data Bank (PDB 6OWO, unclamped and 6OXL, clamped).

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Edward A Partlow

    Department of Molecular Medicine, Cornell University, Ithaca, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-5513-088X
  2. Richard W Baker

    Department of Cellular and Molecular Medicine, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, United States
    For correspondence
    ribaker@ucsd.edu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Gwendolyn M Beacham

    Department of Molecular Medicine, Cornell University, Ithaca, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Joshua S Chappie

    Department of Molecular Medicine, Cornell University, Ithaca, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Andres E Leschziner

    Department of Cellular and Molecular Medicine, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, United States
    For correspondence
    aleschziner@ucsd.edu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Gunther Hollopeter

    Department of Molecular Medicine, Cornell University, Ithaca, United States
    For correspondence
    gh383@cornell.edu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-6409-0530

Funding

National Institute of General Medical Sciences (R01 GM127548-01A1)

  • Gunther Hollopeter

Damon Runyon Cancer Research Foundation (DRG-#2285-17)

  • Richard W Baker

National Science Foundation (DGE-1650441)

  • Gwendolyn M Beacham

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

Copyright

© 2019, Partlow 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

  • 4,395
    views
  • 585
    downloads
  • 17
    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. Edward A Partlow
  2. Richard W Baker
  3. Gwendolyn M Beacham
  4. Joshua S Chappie
  5. Andres E Leschziner
  6. Gunther Hollopeter
(2019)
A structural mechanism for phosphorylation-dependent inactivation of the AP2 complex
eLife 8:e50003.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.50003

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.50003

Further reading

    1. Cell Biology
    2. Physics of Living Systems
    Deb Sankar Banerjee, Shiladitya Banerjee
    Research Article

    Accurate regulation of centrosome size is essential for ensuring error-free cell division, and dysregulation of centrosome size has been linked to various pathologies, including developmental defects and cancer. While a universally accepted model for centrosome size regulation is lacking, prior theoretical and experimental works suggest a centrosome growth model involving autocatalytic assembly of the pericentriolar material. Here, we show that the autocatalytic assembly model fails to explain the attainment of equal centrosome sizes, which is crucial for error-free cell division. Incorporating latest experimental findings into the molecular mechanisms governing centrosome assembly, we introduce a new quantitative theory for centrosome growth involving catalytic assembly within a shared pool of enzymes. Our model successfully achieves robust size equality between maturing centrosome pairs, mirroring cooperative growth dynamics observed in experiments. To validate our theoretical predictions, we compare them with available experimental data and demonstrate the broad applicability of the catalytic growth model across different organisms, which exhibit distinct growth dynamics and size scaling characteristics.

    1. Cell Biology
    2. Chromosomes and Gene Expression
    Bhumil Patel, Maryke Grobler ... Needhi Bhalla
    Research Article

    Meiotic crossover recombination is essential for both accurate chromosome segregation and the generation of new haplotypes for natural selection to act upon. This requirement is known as crossover assurance and is one example of crossover control. While the conserved role of the ATPase, PCH-2, during meiotic prophase has been enigmatic, a universal phenotype when pch-2 or its orthologs are mutated is a change in the number and distribution of meiotic crossovers. Here, we show that PCH-2 controls the number and distribution of crossovers by antagonizing their formation. This antagonism produces different effects at different stages of meiotic prophase: early in meiotic prophase, PCH-2 prevents double-strand breaks from becoming crossover-eligible intermediates, limiting crossover formation at sites of initial double-strand break formation and homolog interactions. Later in meiotic prophase, PCH-2 winnows the number of crossover-eligible intermediates, contributing to the designation of crossovers and ultimately, crossover assurance. We also demonstrate that PCH-2 accomplishes this regulation through the meiotic HORMAD, HIM-3. Our data strongly support a model in which PCH-2’s conserved role is to remodel meiotic HORMADs throughout meiotic prophase to destabilize crossover-eligible precursors and coordinate meiotic recombination with synapsis, ensuring the progressive implementation of meiotic recombination and explaining its function in the pachytene checkpoint and crossover control.