1. Structural Biology and Molecular Biophysics
Download icon

Structures of the ATP-fueled ClpXP proteolytic machine bound to protein substrate

  1. Xue Fei
  2. Tristan A Bell
  3. Simon Jenni
  4. Benjamin M Stinson
  5. Tania A Baker
  6. Stephen C Harrison
  7. Robert T Sauer  Is a corresponding author
  1. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, United States
  2. Harvard Medical School, United States
  3. Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Harvard Medical School, United States
Research Article
  • Cited 22
  • Views 2,392
  • Annotations
Cite this article as: eLife 2020;9:e52774 doi: 10.7554/eLife.52774

Abstract

ClpXP is an ATP-dependent protease in which the ClpX AAA+ motor binds, unfolds, and translocates specific protein substrates into the degradation chamber of ClpP. We present cryo-EM studies of the E. coli enzyme that show how asymmetric hexameric rings of ClpX bind symmetric heptameric rings of ClpP and interact with protein substrates. Subunits in the ClpX hexamer assume a spiral conformation and interact with two-residue segments of substrate in the axial channel, as observed for other AAA+ proteases and protein-remodeling machines. Strictly sequential models of ATP hydrolysis and a power stroke that moves two residues of the substrate per translocation step have been inferred from these structural features for other AAA+ unfoldases, but biochemical and single-molecule biophysical studies indicate that ClpXP operates by a probabilistic mechanism in which five to eight residues are translocated for each ATP hydrolyzed. We propose structure-based models that could account for the functional results.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Xue Fei

    Department of Biology, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

  2. Tristan A Bell

    Department of Biology, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-3668-8412

  3. Simon Jenni

    Biological Chemistry and Molecular Pharmacology, Harvard Medical School, Boston, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

  4. Benjamin M Stinson

    Department of Biology, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

  5. Tania A Baker

    Department of Biology, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-0737-3411

  6. Stephen C Harrison

    Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Harvard Medical School, Boston, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-7215-9393

  7. Robert T Sauer

    Department of Biology, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, United States
    For correspondence
    bobsauer@mit.edu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-1719-5399

Funding

National Institutes of Health (GM-101988)

  • Robert T Sauer

Howard Hughes Medical Institute

  • Tania A Baker
  • Stephen C Harrison

National Institutes of Health (5T32GM-007287)

  • Tristan A Bell

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

Reviewing Editor

  1. James M Berger, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, United States

Publication history

  1. Received: October 16, 2019
  2. Accepted: February 27, 2020
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: February 28, 2020 (version 1)
  4. Version of Record published: April 1, 2020 (version 2)

Copyright

© 2020, Fei 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

  • 2,392
    Page views
  • 511
    Downloads
  • 22
    Citations

Article citation count generated by polling the highest count across the following sources: Crossref, Scopus, PubMed Central.

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)

Download citations (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)

Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)

Categories and tags

Research organism

    1. Related to

    Protein Unfolding: Same structure, different mechanisms?

    Francis TF Tsai, Christopher P Hill
  2. Further reading

Further reading

    1. Structural Biology and Molecular Biophysics

    Protein Unfolding: Same structure, different mechanisms?

    Francis TF Tsai, Christopher P Hill
    Insight

    Two interpretations of similar structures for the same molecular machine illustrate the limits of inferring biochemical mechanism from protein structure.

    1. Cell Biology
    2. Structural Biology and Molecular Biophysics

    Structural basis of Stu2 recruitment to yeast kinetochores

    Jacob A Zahm et al.
    Research Article Updated

    Chromosome segregation during cell division requires engagement of kinetochores of sister chromatids with microtubules emanating from opposite poles. As the corresponding microtubules shorten, these ‘bioriented’ sister kinetochores experience tension-dependent stabilization of microtubule attachments. The yeast XMAP215 family member and microtubule polymerase, Stu2, associates with kinetochores and contributes to tension-dependent stabilization in vitro. We show here that a C-terminal segment of Stu2 binds the four-way junction of the Ndc80 complex (Ndc80c) and that residues conserved both in yeast Stu2 orthologs and in their metazoan counterparts make specific contacts with Ndc80 and Spc24. Mutations that perturb this interaction prevent association of Stu2 with kinetochores, impair cell viability, produce biorientation defects, and delay cell cycle progression. Ectopic tethering of the mutant Stu2 species to the Ndc80c junction restores wild-type function in vivo. These findings show that the role of Stu2 in tension-sensing depends on its association with kinetochores by binding with Ndc80c.

    1. Neuroscience
    2. Structural Biology and Molecular Biophysics

    Molecular basis for functional connectivity between the voltage sensor and the selectivity filter gate in Shaker K+ channels

    Carlos A Z Bassetto Jnr et al.
    Research Article

    In Shaker K+ channels, the S4-S5 linker couples the voltage sensor (VSD) and pore domain (PD). Another coupling mechanism is revealed using two W434F-containing channels: L361R:W434F and L366H:W434F. In L361R:W434F, W434F affects the L361R VSD seen as a shallower Q-V curve that crosses the G-V. In L366H:W434F, L366H relieves the W434F effect converting a non-conductive channel in a conductive one. We report a chain of residues connecting the VSD (S4) to the selectivity filter (SF) in the PD of an adjacent subunit as the molecular basis for voltage-sensor selectivity filter gate (VS-SF) coupling. Single alanine substitutions in this region (L409A, S411A, S412A or F433A) are enough to disrupt the VS-SF coupling, shown by the absence of Q-V and G-V crossing in L361R:W434F mutant and by the lack of ionic conduction in the L366H:W434F mutant. This residue chain defines a new coupling between the VSD and the PD in voltage-gated channels.