1. Biochemistry and Chemical Biology
  2. Structural Biology and Molecular Biophysics

A dynamic charge-charge interaction modulates PP2A:B56 substrate recruitment

  1. Xinru Wang
  2. Dimitriya H Garvanska
  3. Isha Nasa
  4. Yumi Ueki
  5. Gang Zhang
  6. Arminja N Kettenbach
  7. Wolfgang Peti
  8. Jakob Nilsson  Is a corresponding author
  9. Rebecca Page  Is a corresponding author
  1. Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, University of Arizona, United States
  2. The Novo Nordisk Foundation Center for Protein Research, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Denmark
  3. Department of Biochemistry and Cell Biology, Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, United States
  4. Norris Cotton Cancer Center, Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Medical Center Drive, United States
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.55966
Share this article
Cite this article
  1. Xinru Wang
  2. Dimitriya H Garvanska
  3. Isha Nasa
  4. Yumi Ueki
  5. Gang Zhang
  6. Arminja N Kettenbach
  7. Wolfgang Peti
  8. Jakob Nilsson
  9. Rebecca Page
(2020)
A dynamic charge-charge interaction modulates PP2A:B56 substrate recruitment
eLife 9:e55966.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.55966
  2. Download BibTeX
  3. Download .RIS

Abstract

The recruitment of substrates by the ser/thr protein phosphatase 2A (PP2A) is poorly understood, limiting our understanding of PP2A-regulated signaling. Recently, the first PP2A:B56 consensus binding motif, LxxIxE, was identified. However, most validated LxxIxE motifs bind PP2A:B56 with micromolar affinities, suggesting that additional motifs exist to enhance PP2A:B56 binding. Here, we report the requirement of a positively charged motif in a subset of PP2A:B56 interactors, including KIF4A, to facilitate B56 binding via dynamic, electrostatic interactions. Using molecular and cellular experiments, we show that a conserved, negatively charged groove on B56 mediates dynamic binding. We also discovered that this positively charged motif, in addition to facilitating KIF4A dephosphorylation, is essential for condensin I binding, a function distinct and exclusive from PP2A-B56 binding. Together, these results reveal how dynamic, charge-charge interactions fine-tune the interactions mediated by specific motifs, providing a new framework for understanding how PP2A regulation drives cellular signaling.

Introduction

Protein serine/threonine phosphatase 2A (PP2A) is one of the defining members of the ser/thr phosphoprotein phosphatase (PPP) family that, together with protein phosphatase 1 (PP1), regulates over 90% of all ser/thr dephosphorylation events in eukaryotic cells (Eichhorn et al., 2009). PP2A is also recognized as a tumor suppressor because its inactivation by small molecules, viral proteins or endogenous inhibitors leads to tumor formation (Bialojan and Takai, 1988; Pallas et al., 1990; Ruvolo, 2016; Williams et al., 2019). Cellular and biochemical studies further confirmed this by demonstrating the role of PP2A in orchestrating mitotic events, cell apoptosis, metabolism and many other fundamental cellular signaling pathways (Nilsson, 2019; Reid et al., 2013; Reynhout and Janssens, 2019; Wlodarchak and Xing, 2016). In spite of our advances in understanding PP2A signaling, there is a comparative lack of information about how substrates are specifically recruited to PP2A.

The PP2A holoenzyme is a heterotrimer, composed of a scaffolding subunit A (PPP2R1), a regulatory subunit B (PPP2R2-PPP2R5) and a catalytic subunit C (PPP2C) (Cho and Xu, 2007; Xu et al., 2008; Xu et al., 2006). The A and C subunits form the PP2A core enzyme. Although this core enzyme is relatively invariant, the variable and interchangeable regulatory B subunits result in a diversity of distinct PP2A holoenzymes. There are four known families of B subunits, B55 (B’), B56 (B’, PR61), PR72 (B’’), and PR93 (B’’’), that differ in both their primary sequences and tertiary structures. Moreover, within each B subunit family, the existence of multiple isoforms and splicing variants further increases the overall number of potential PP2A holoenzymes (Eichhorn et al., 2009). Thus, it is the highly variable B subunits that determine PP2A holoenzyme substrate specificity. However, how the B subunits mediate substrate binding at a molecular level is only now beginning to become clear.

Recent structural and biochemical studies showed that PP2A, like other PPPs (i.e., PP1, PP2B/Calcineurin (CN)) bind conserved short linear motifs (SLiMs) found within the intrinsically disordered region (IDR) of its substrates and regulators (Tompa et al., 2014; Van Roey and Davey, 2015; Wang et al., 2016). These SLiMs are disordered in their free form but typically become ordered upon binding structured domains (Dyson and Wright, 2002). Crystal structures of ordered SLiMs in complex with PPPs show that these recognition events are, in most cases, driven by the interaction of hydrophobic SLiM residues that bind deep hydrophobic pockets on the PPPs (Peti et al., 2013). Single SLiMs typically bind to their cognate PPPs with moderate affinities (Li et al., 2007). However, the existence of multiple SLiMs within a single regulator/substrate, coupled with post-translational modifications like phosphorylation, can greatly alter their affinity for their respective PPP (Bajaj et al., 2018; Grigoriu et al., 2013; Kumar et al., 2016; Nasa et al., 2018).

More recently, it has been discovered that IDPs can also form high affinity complexes that are dynamic; that is, in which the IDPs simultaneously retain their intrinsic structural disorder (Borgia et al., 2018). In these cases, binding is typically driven by electrostatics (Borgia et al., 2018; Hendus-Altenburger et al., 2019; Luo et al., 2016). That is, multiple residues of opposite charge facilitate binding while the lack of a requirement for deep pockets allows the IDPs to retain their inherent dynamics. This emerging paradigm for biomolecular interactions may explain, in part, why hundreds of IDPs have long stretches of positive (lys, arg) and and/or negative (asp, glu) residues (Borgia et al., 2018). Namely, that they dynamically contribute to intermolecular interactions.

Recently, the first PP2A:B56 specific SLiM, the LxxIxE motif, was identified (Hertz et al., 2016; Wang et al., 2016; Wu et al., 2017). Proteins containing validated LxxIxE motifs bind B56, an all α-helical heat repeat protein, in a deep, highly conserved hydrophobic pocket. Most LxxIxE motifs bind PP2A:B56 with moderate affinities (low micromolar KD), similar to those observed for other PPP-specific SLiMs. However, for PP1 and CN, enhanced affinities are achieved by exploiting avidity; namely, regulators and substrates contain two or more distinct SLiMs which, together, result in tight affinities for their cognate PPP (Choy et al., 2014; Grigoriu et al., 2013). Thus far, no such enhancement has been identified for PP2A:B56 as only the LxxIxE motif has been identified. Whether PP2A:B56 uses a similar mechanism to enhance and or modulate the affinities of LxxIxE containing regulators/substrates is thus a major outstanding question.

Results

A subset of PP2A:B56 specific substrates depend on a conserved acidic patch in B56 for PP2A:B56 binding

An analysis of the amino acid conservation among 150 distinct B56 sequences shows that the residues that comprise the concave surface of B56 are exceptionally conserved (Figure 1A). This conserved region includes the deep, hydrophobic binding pocket that specifically binds the LxxIxE SLiM (Figure 1A; Hertz et al., 2016; Wang et al., 2016). However, the conserved region is much larger, suggesting that regions adjacent to the LxxIxE pocket might also contribute to regulator/substrate binding. An examination of the electrostatic potential of the same region led to the identification of a surface adjacent to the LxxIxE pocket that is not hydrophobic, but instead is highly negatively charged (Figure 1B). This surface is defined by multiple acidic residues that are perfectly conserved in B56, both among its various isoforms and throughout evolution (Figure 1A, Figure 1—figure supplement 1).

Figure 1 with 2 supplements see all
Download asset Open asset
The PP2A:B56 holoenzyme uses a conserved acidic patch to bind to B56-specific interactors.

(A) PP2A:B56γ holoenzyme (PDBID 2NPP): scaffolding subunit A (beige) and catalytic subunit C (grey; bound metals shown as pink spheres) illustrated as cartoons with transparent surfaces. The regulatory B subunit, B56, is shown as a surface and colored by sequence conservation. An LxxIxE peptide (RepoMan: 588PLLpSPIPELPE598; p indicates residue is phosphorylated) bound to B56γ is shown in green (PDBIDs 5SW9 and 2NPP superimposed using B56). The location of the conserved acidic patch in B56 (see B) is highlighted with a dashed, yellow square. (B) The B56γ:LxxIxE complex (PDBID 5SW9) colored according to electrostatic potential; LxxIxE peptide is in green. The B56 residues that comprise the conserved acidic patch (yellow dashed square) are shown as sticks and labeled (right; residues mutated in the ‘2R’ mutants underlined). (C) Sequences of B56α and B56γ that comprise the acidic patch, with the acidic residues colored red. The B56 ‘2R’ variants indicate the acidic residues mutated to arginine ‘R’. (D) Volcano plot representing the mass spectrometry-identified proteins co-purifying with YFP-B56α versus YFP-B56α2R (E335R/D338R) from mitotic HeLa cells expressing YFP-B56α or YFP-B56α2R. PPP2R1A (PP2A regulatory subunit A, α isoform), PPP2CA (PP2A catalytic subunit, α isoform) are labeled in grey. Predicted and confirmed LxxIxE containing proteins (Hertz et al., 2016; Wang et al., 2016) are highlighted in orange. Four of the six most significantly affected LxxIxE containing B56 interactors selected for further study [NHS, AIM1, CDCA2 (RepoMan) and KIF4A] are labeled. (E) Same as (D) except for YFP-B56γ versus YFP-B56γ2R (E310R/D313R).

Figure 1—source data 1

List of B56 acidic patch dependent interactors.

https://cdn.elifesciences.org/articles/55966/elife-55966-fig1-data1-v2.xlsx

To identify if PP2A:B56 substrates/regulators are affected by mutating the conserved B56 acidic patch, we mutated two acidic amino acids in this negatively charged area to arginines (B56α2R: E335R/D338R, B56γ2R: E310R/D313R; Figure 1C) and identified proteins associated with YFP-B56α/γ or YFP-B56α/γ2R from mitotic HeLa cells using quantitative label free mass spectrometry (MS). The MS analysis shows that a subset of the LxxIxE-containing B56 interactors are regulated specifically by the acidic patch for B56 binding in both isoforms. This includes the mitotic regulators KIF4A, RepoMan (CDCA2), Nance-Horan syndrome protein (NHS) and absent in melanoma 1 protein (AIM1), (ratio WT/2R > 9, p-value<0.05; Figure 1D,E, Figure 1—source data 1). While the perturbation of these interactions is not sufficient to perturb B56 function in supporting mitotic timing in HeLa cells (Figure 1—figure supplement 2A,B,C), it does reveal that the B56 acidic patch is a key binding determinant for a subset of LxxIxE containing PP2A-B56 interactors (Figure 1D,E).

To delineate the contribution of the acidic patch, we investigated the molecular site in KIF4A, RepoMan, NHS and AIM1 that is responsible for binding the B56 acidic patch. We reasoned that the B56 acidic patch interacts with a complementary basic patch in B56 interactors. Analysis of the primary sequences of these regulators highlighted the presence of a conserved basic charged rich region within ~15 amino acid N-terminal to an established LxxIxE motif, which we defined as a basic patch (Figure 2A, Figure 2—figure supplement 1). To measure the contribution of each basic patch to B56 binding, we used isothermal titration calorimetry (ITC). The data showed that mutating the KIF4A basic patch (bpm, basic patch mutant: 1208KKK1210 to AAA) reduced the affinity of KIF4A1192-1232 for B56γ by ~4 fold (Figure 2B,C,D, Table 1, Figure 2—figure supplement 2A,B). Similarly statistically significant reduced affinities were observed when the basic patch motif of RepoMan, NHS and AIM1 were mutated (CDCA2/RepoMan 563RKKK566 to AAAA; NHS 1618RCR1620 to ACA; AIM1 716KRKKAR721 to AAAAAA; Table 1, Figure 2—figure supplement 2C–H). Together, these data illustrate that the key role of proximally located basic patches for B56 binding.

Figure 2 with 3 supplements see all
Download asset Open asset
KIF4A binds to B56 via a conserved basic patch and an LxxIxE motif.

(A) B56 interactors with the basic patch (blue) and LxxIxE motif (green) sequences shown; Δ indicates the number of residues between the basic patch and the LxxIxE motif. (B) Binding isotherm of WT KIF4A1192-1232 with B56γ. (C) Binding isotherm of KIF4A1192-1232,bpm (1208KKK1210 to AAA) with B56γ. (D) Cartoon representation of the effect of mutating the basic patch (BP) of the bp-dependent interactors on their interaction with B56 (AP, acidic patch). (E) Immunoprecipitation of YFP-B56α from cells stably expressing YFP-B56α and transfected with the indicated myc-tagged full-length KIF4A variants; asterisk indicates YFP, which was used as a control. The amounts of myc-KIF4AFL co-purified with YFP-B56α were normalized to the band intensity of YFP. The wt is set to 1. (F) Immunoprecipitation of YFP-B56α from cells stably expressing YFP-B56α and transfected with the indicated myc-tagged AIM1625-900 variants. The amounts of myc- AIM1625-900 co-purified with YFP-B56α were normalized to the band intensity of YFP. (G) Immunoprecipitation of YFP-B56α from cells stably expressing YFP-B56α and transfected with the indicated myc-tagged NHS1419-1631 variants. The amounts of myc-NHS1419-1631 co-purified with YFP-B56α were normalized to the band intensity of YFP.

Table 1
Isothermal titration calorimetry (ITC) measurements between B56γ and KIF4A.
B56γ12-380TitrantKD (µM)*ΔH (kcal/mol)TΔS (kcal/mol)
WTKIF4A‡ WT15.2 ± 0.1−11.7 ± 0.7−5.1 ± 0.7
WTKIF4Abpm† (K1208A/K1209A/K1210A)55.6 ± 16.8−11.5 ± 2.2−5.6 ± 2.4
WTKIF4ALE (C1224L/S1225E)0.32 ± 0.01−10.0 ± 0.1−2.0 ± 0.1
WTKIF4ALE,PE (C1224L/S1225E/A1231P/H1232E)0.10 ± 0.01−13.1 ± 1.1−3.6 ± 1.1
WTKIF4ALE,PE,bpm (K1208A/K1209A/K1210A/C1224L/
S1225E/A1231P/H1232E)		0.22 ± 0.02−10.7 ± 0.1−1.6 ± 0.3
E310R
D313R		KIF4ALE,PE (C1224L/S1225E/A1231P/H1232E)0.19 ± 0.01−11.7 ± 0.1−2.5 ± 0.1
E276R E310R
D313R		KIF4ALE,PE (C1224L/S1225E/A1231P/H1232E)0.21 ± 0.01−8.2 ± 0.4−0.9 ± 0.3
WTRM§ WT0.13 ± 0.01−6.0 ± 0.13.3 ± 0.1
WTRMbpm (R563A/K564A/K565A/K566A)0.28 ± 0.01−7.5 ± 0.11.4 ± 0.1
WTNHSWT4.9 ± 0.9−17.0 ± 2.2−9.8 ± 2.1
WTNHSbpm
(R1618A/R1620A)		54.5 ± 16.9−18.1 ± 2.7−12.2 ± 2.5
WTAIM1** WT0.80 ± 0.09−9.2 ± 0.4−0.9 ± 0.5
WTAIM1bpm
(K716A/R717A/K718A/K719A/K721A)		14.9 ± 1.8−8.2 ± 0.2−1.6 ± 0.2

  1. *All reported measurements are performed with ITC buffer (50 mM sodium phosphate pH 7.5, 150 mM NaCl, 0.5 mM TCEP). Errors are from duplicate or triplicate measurements.

    † bpm, basic patch mutant.

  2. ‡KIF4A variants, KIF4A1192-1232.

    §RepoMan (RM) variants, RM533-603.

  3. NHS variants, NHS1616-1635.

    **AIM1 variants, AIM1716-741.

To determine if this change in affinity also alters B56 binding in cells, we generated myc-tagged constructs of KIF4A, NHS and AIM1 either as WT or a version where the basic patch was mutated (bpm). For KIF4A, we also mutated the LxxIxE motif by mutating the key Ile residue to Ala (I1227A). We then expressed these variants in a cell line stably expressing inducible YFP-B56α and the binding to the myc-tagged variants monitored by affinity purifying YFP-B56α and blotting against the myc-tag. Although all three KIF4A variants (wt, bpm and I1227A) expressed to similar levels, only the WT KIF4A co-purified efficiently with B56α (Figure 2E). Similar results were obtained for a myc-tagged basic patch and LxxIxE containing fragment of KIF4A1001-1232 (Figure 2—figure supplement 3A), AIM1625-900 (Figure 2F) and NHS1419-1631 (Figure 2G). Together, these data show that, for a subset of PP2A-B56 interactors, the basic patch motif contributes significantly to B56 binding.

The binding contribution of the basic patch motif is independent of the strength of the LxxIxE motif

One possible role of the basic patch motif is to selectively enhance B56 affinity for more weakly binding LxxIxE motifs. The LxxIxE motifs have a range of affinities for B56, from stronger (i.e., TLSIKKL(pS)PIIEDDREADH, phosphorylated BUBR1: KD, 0.55 μM) to weaker (i.e., LSTLREQSSQS, Emi2: KD,41 μM) (Hertz et al., 2016). The KIF4A LxxIxE motif peptide (CSPIEEEAH), like that of Emi2, was previously shown to bind B56 weakly (KD, 32 μM) (Hertz et al., 2016). The basic charged motif may not contribute significantly to B56 binding in presence of a tight LxxIxE motif. In order to test this, the KIF4A sequence was mutated to the stronger LxxIxE motif by mutating 1224CS1225 to LE (KIF4ALE; the structures of B56γ:LxxIxE complexes show that the ‘L, Leu’ binds the deep hydrophobic pocket on B56γ while the ‘E, Glu’ mimics a phosphorylated Ser, which forms multiple salt bridges with B56γ residues H187, R188 [these residues are conserved in all B56 isoforms]). The affinity of KIF4A1192-1232,LE for B56γ increased 50-fold compared to WT KIF4A (Table 1, Figure 2—figure supplement 2I; KD of 0.32 μM). Mutating KIF4ALE residues 1231AH1232 to PE (KIF4ALE,PE: the ‘P, Pro’ positions the ‘E, Glu’ to form a bidentate salt bridge with B56γ R201 Wang et al., 2016) further enhanced KIF4A binding (KD of 0.10 µM; Table 1, Figure 2—figure supplement 2J). To determine if the basic patch also contributed to B56γ-KIF4A binding in a tight LxxIxE background, we used ITC. Mutating the KIF4ALE,PE basic patch (1208KKK1210 to AAA) again reduced the binding affinity by ~2 fold (KD of 0.22 µM; Table 1, Figure 2—figure supplement 2K), a reduction similar to that observed for WT KIF4A (Table 1, Figure 2B,C, Figure 2—figure supplement 2A,B). This was further confirmed with myc-tagged KIF4ALE and KIF4ALE,bpm variants in cells, showing that while the KIF4ALE variant binds more tightly to B56α compared to WT, mutating the basic patch (KIF4ALE,bpm) again reduced binding (Figure 2—figure supplement 3B). Together, these data show that the basic patch, together with the LxxIxE motif, are critical for a subset of regulators, including KIF4A, to stably interact with B56, independent of the strength of the LxxIxE motif.

The basic patch retains its structural disorder when bound to PP2A:B56

To understand how, at a molecular level, the 1208KKKKR1212 basic patch binds B56, we used NMR spectroscopy. An overlay of the 2D [1H,15N] HSQC spectra of 15N-labeled KIF4A1192-1232,LE,PE in the presence and absence of B56γ showed that multiple peaks disappear upon complex formation (Figure 3A). Specifically, KIF4A residues 1207 to 1232, which includes the basic patch and the LxxIxE motif, were broadened beyond detection upon binding B56γ. The peaks corresponding to the residues between the two motifs (residues 1213 to 1224) were also broadened beyond detection, indicating this region either is involved in binding or that the conformational freedom of the linker is limited, due to the anchoring of the basic patch and the LxxIxE motifs to B56γ. A crystal structure of the KIF4A1192-1232,LEPE:B56γ complex (Figure 3—figure supplement 1; Table 2) showed that while the LxxIxE motif is well-ordered, electron density corresponding to a single conformation of the basic patch bound to B56 was, as expected, not observed. A crystal structure of the AIM1716-741:B56γ complex (Figure 3—figure supplement 1; Table 2) was similar. Namely, while the AIM1 LxxIxE motif was well-ordered, electron density corresponding to a single conformation of the basic patch bound to B56 was not observed. Together, these data, coupled with the ITC results, show that the KIF4A basic patch interaction with B56 belongs to an emerging class of biomolecular complexes in which one or more partners of the complex retains their structural disorder upon complex binding. That is, the basic charged patch of KIF4A binds B56γ but does so via dynamic, rapidly interchanging conformations even when bound to B56.

Figure 3 with 3 supplements see all
Download asset Open asset
The basic patch in B56-specific regulators binds B56 via a dynamic charge-charge interaction.

(A) Overlay of the 2D [1H,15N] HSQC spectra of 15N-labeled KIF4A1192-1232,LE,PE in the presence (red) and absence (black) of B56γ (1:1 ratio); basic patch and LxxIxE residues labeled blue and green, respectively. (B) Overlay of the 2D [1H,15N] HSQC spectra of 15N-labeled KIF4A1192-1232,LE,PE in the presence (red) and absence (black) of B56γ3R E276R/E310R/E316R (1:1 ratio); basic patch and LxxIxE residues highlighted in blue and green, respectively. (C) [1H,15N] HSQC peak intensity ratios for spectra shown in A, B (black, red, respectively). (D) Cartoon representation of the effect of mutating the acidic patch (AP) of B56 on KIF4A:B56 binding (AP: acidic patch, BP: basic patch). (E) Immunoprecipitation of stably expressed YFP-B56α variants (wt, B56α2R: E335R/D338R, and B56α3R E301R/E335R/D338R and probed for endogenous KIF4A, PP2AC (PP2A catalytic subunit) and GFP (YFP-B56α). (F) Immunoprecipitation of transiently transfected myc-tagged KIF4A1001-1232 C-terminal variants (A1: K1208A; A2: 1208KK1209 to AA; A3: 1208KKK1210 to AAA; A4: 1208KKKK1211 to AAAA) from cells stably expressing YFP-B56α or YFP-B56γ. The amounts of myc-KIF4A co-purified with YFP-B56 were normalized to the band intensity of YFP.

Table 2
Data collection and refinement statistics.
B56:KIF4ALE,PE*,†B56:AIM1*,‡
PDB
Data collection		6OYL6VRO
Space groupP 21 21 21I4
Cell dimensions
a, b, c (Å)53.3, 108.0, 117.8111.0, 111.0, 108.9
Α, β, γ(°)90, 90, 9090, 90, 90
Resolution (Å)39.52–3.1539.26–2.45
Rmerge0.100 (1.104)0.091 (1.721)
Mean I /σI11.5 (1.8)12.4 (1.2)
Completeness (%)96.6 (83.1)99.8 (99.4)
Multiplicity8.2 (7.7)7.0 (7.0)
CC1/20.999 (0.730)0.999 (0.673)
Refinement
Resolution (Å)39.52–3.15 (3.26–3.15)38.88–2.45 (2.54–2.45)
No. reflections1186824208
Rwork/Rfree0.22 (0.36)/0.24 (0.41)0.22 (0.33)/0.23 (0.38)
No. atoms
Protein27962777
Water736
B-factors
Protein66.470.1
Water60.462.1
RMS deviations
Bond lengths (Å)0.0020.002
Bond angles (°)0.540.54
Ramachandran
Outliers (%)0.30.9
Allowed (%)5.83.4
Favored (%)93.995.7
Clashscore4.32.7

  1. *Data was collected from a single crystal.

    †KIF4ALE,PE 1192ELKHVATEYQENKAPGKKKKRALASNTSFFSGLEPIEEEPE1232.

  2. ‡AIM1 716KRKKARMPNSPAPHFAMPPIHEDHLE741.

    *Values in parentheses are for highest-resolution shell.

The current data suggest that this emerging class of biomolecular interactions is driven almost exclusively by electrostatics (Borgia et al., 2018). To confirm that the KIF4A basic patch interacts dynamically with the conserved acidic patch on B56 (Figure 1B), we used mutagenesis coupled with NMR spectroscopy. Specifically, the interaction of 15N-labeled KIF4A1192-1232,LE,PE with four distinct B56γ acidic patch variants was tested: (1) B562R, E310R/D313R, (2) B562Rb, E276R/E316R, (3) B563R, E276R/E310R/E316R and (4) B564R, E276R/D313R/E310R/E316R (Figure 3B, Figure 3—figure supplement 2). The NMR data showed that the peaks corresponding to the KIF4A basic patch residues are present only with B56 variants with mutated acidic patch residues (Figure 3B,C). That is, they no longer interact with these variants of B56 (Figure 3D). Consistent with these results, ITC showed that KIF4A binds the B56γ acidic patch variants more weakly (Table 1, Figure 2—figure supplement 2L,M). Interestingly, mutating only E310R/D313R was sufficient to reduce the binding affinity to the same extent as mutating the basic patch in KIF4A (KD: 0.19 ± 0.01 μM and 0.21 ± 0.01 μM for B56γ2R:KIF4ALEPE, and B56γ:KIF4ALEPE,bpm, respectively, Table 1, Figure 2—figure supplement 2L); additional mutations (i.e., E276R/E310R/D313R) did not further affect the binding (Table 1, Figure 2—figure supplement 2M). In agreement with this result, we found that the binding of KIF4A and other bp-containing B56 interactors to B56 in cells was dependent on both an intact acidic patch in B56 (Figure 3E, Figure 3—figure supplement 3) and an intact basic patch in KIF4A, as even single amino acid substitutions in the KIF4A basic patch lowered binding (Figure 3F). This requirement of the acidic patch for binding is consistent with a charge-charge interaction where KIF4A interacts with B56 in a dynamic manner and each amino acid contributes similarly to the overall KD. Together, these data show that the KIF4A basic patch interacts directly with the B56 conserved acidic patch and this interaction is critical for KIF4A binding.

KIF4A dephosphorylation by PP2A:B56 requires the KIF4A basic patch

To determine if the basic charge motif in KIF4A affects dephosphorylation of KIF4A T799, a residue phosphorylated by Aurora B kinase during cytokinesis, we generated a T799 phospho-specific antibody (Bastos et al., 2014). Strikingly, the observed phosphorylation level of T799 was inversely correlated with affinities of PP2A-B56 for the different KIF4A variants in mitotic cells (Figure 4A). Specifically, mutating either the LxxIxE motif (I1227A) or the basic patch (1209KKK1211 to AAA) resulted in an increase of phosphorylation of T799, as less PP2A-B56 was recruited to counteract the activity of Aurora B kinase. Further, this phenotype was rescued by enhancing the LxxIxE motif binding affinity; namely, introducing the 1224CS1225 to LE mutation in KIF4Abpm (KIF4ALE,bpm) increased the amount of PP2A recruited and, in turn, the amount of KIF4A dephosphorylated. Together, these data show that the dephosphorylation of KIF4A T779 by PP2A-B56 requires the basic patch as the PP2A-B56 dephosphorylation efficacy is directly correlated with PP2A-B56 affinity.

Figure 4
Download asset Open asset
The basic patch regulates KIF4A dephosphorylation by PP2A, as well as KIF4A localization in cells.

(A) The indicated YFP-KIF4A constructs were purified using GFP-Trap and analyzed for phosphorylation by immunoblotting. The T799-phospho signal was normalized to YFP. YFP only was used as a control. (B) Endogenous KIF4A was depleted by RNAi and complemented with the indicated YFP-KIF4A variants. (C) Live cell imaging of cells expressing YFP-KIF4A variants as they go through mitosis. The beginning of the NEBD was considered as time 0 (min). Bar represents 5 μm. CFP, cyan fluorescent protein. (D) Quantification of mitotic duration. Circles represent single cells. The number of cells and median (red line) times are indicated from at least two independent experiments. Mann-Whitney test was used to determine the p-values indicated. ∗∗∗∗ p<0.0001; *p<0.05; ns, not significant. (E) The mass spectrometry-identified condensin complex associated proteins co-purifying with YFP-KIF4Awt versus KIF4Abpm or KIF4AI1227A from mitotic HeLa cells stably expressing YFP-KIF4A variants. (F) The binding of chromosome and B56 to KIF4A is mutually exclusive because both binding events strictly require the basic patch.

Figure 4—source data 1

Separate excel.

https://cdn.elifesciences.org/articles/55966/elife-55966-fig4-data1-v2.xlsx

KIF4A chromosome targeting and PP2A-B56 binding are mutually exclusive as both KIF4A functions strictly require the basic patch

KIF4A is a chromosome-binding kinesin that is important for maintaining normal chromosome architecture during cell division (Mazumdar et al., 2004). To determine if the KIF4A basic patch has a mitotic function, we performed RNAi complementation assays in cells where we depleted KIF4A and hKid and then induced the expression of the different YFP-tagged KIF4A variants (Figure 4B,C,D; KIF4A and hKid are simultaneously depleted because they have nearly fully redundant functions during mitosis Wandke et al., 2012). Depleting both KIF4A and hKid resulted in a strong mitotic delay, with multiple unaligned chromosomes. As expected, this phenotype was fully rescued by complementation with WT YFP-KIF4A. However, mutating the basic patch (bpm) resulted in a non-functional KIF4A and this variant failed to localize to mitotic chromosomes (Figure 4C, bottom panel). Further analysis revealed that this defect in KIF4A function due to the bpm was not due to a lack of PP2A-B56 binding, as evidenced by the observation that the I1127A variant fully rescued both the mitotic timing and the chromosome alignment phenotypes (Figure 4C, middle panel, Figure 4D). This demonstrates that the KIF4A basic patch has a function in mitosis, which is distinct from its role in PP2A-B56 binding.

To determine if additional proteins bind specifically to the KIF4A basic patch, we purified the different KIF4A mutants from mitotic arrested cells and identified the interacting proteins using MS. These data showed that the abundance of all components of the condensin I complex were strongly reduced in the KIF4A bpm variant (Figure 4E, Figure 4—source data 1), data that are consistent with the observation that this variant does not localize to chromosomes (Figure 4C, bottom panel). In contrast, the abundance of the components of the condensin I complex with the I1227A variant was unaffected, consistent with the ability of this variant to properly target chromosomes during mitosis (Figure 4C, middle panel). These data confirm that the basic patch has a second, independent function; namely, it targets KIF4A to chromosomes by binding condensin I. Because we show that both condensin I and PP2A-B56 binding strictly require the basic patch, KIF4A cannot bind both proteins simultaneously, that is, condensin I and PP2A-B56 binding by KIF4A is mutually exclusive (Figure 4F). These data reveal how additional motifs in PP2A-B56 substrates can modulate PP2A-B56 binding to control phospho-dependent signaling in cells.

Discussion

The traditional view of protein binding is one in which the interacting proteins have well-defined, complementary interfaces (Lee and Richards, 1971). However, an emerging mode of binding is that in which one or both proteins exhibit different degrees of disorder in the bound complex (Berlow et al., 2015). In particular, the role of highly dynamic, charge-charge interactions that lack well-defined complementary interfaces are becoming increasingly recognized for their central roles in biomolecular interactions and, in turn, a diversity of biological processes like signaling (Borgia et al., 2018). The advantage of such a dynamic interaction is that it facilitates fast and responsive regulation. Further, the associated conformational fluctuations also provide ready access for enzymes that mediate post-translational modifications. Because IDPs are not only widely prevalent in eukaryotic genomes (Brown et al., 2002), but also unusually enriched in charged amino acids (Habchi et al., 2014), the emerging view is that electrostatically-driven dynamic protein:protein interactions are critical for many biological functions.

Here we describe a novel dynamic, charge-charge interaction for a major protein phosphatase, PP2A-B56, which significantly contributes to our understanding of the diversity of mechanisms used by this phosphatase to select its substrates. This novel interaction is mediated by a patch of basic residues that dynamically bind a highly conserved acidic surface present on all B56 isoforms and therefore constitutes a novel pan PP2A-B56 binding motif (Figure 5). Charge-charge interactions are generally weak (low µM to mM), yet are becoming increasingly recognized for their importance in increasing the binding affinity of protein:protein interactions, in part by lowering entropy (Bertran et al., 2019; Borgia et al., 2018; Luo et al., 2016; Sharma et al., 2015). Further, their emerging role in regulating the protein:protein interactions of PPPs with their substrates and regulators is only now beginning to be fully understood. For example, the unrelated B55 subunit also recognizes basic stretches of residues in substrates (Cundell et al., 2016) but clearly the substrates for PP2A-B55 and PP2A-B56 are distinct. Thus, additional interactions confer specificity. In the case of PP2A-B56 the binding affinity provided by the basic patch motif is insufficient for B56 binding and requires the presence of an LxxIxE motif, which is specific for B56, in the interactor as well. Thus, the function of the dynamic basic patch is to modulate and enhance the interactions mediated by the LxxIxE motif. It may also facilitate LxxIxE binding by providing an initial docking interaction after which the stronger LxxIxE stabilizes substrate binding; this is consistent with the view that long-range dynamic electrostatic interactions may function as an initial ‘tether’, after which the specific hydrophobic interactions that, in this case, define the LxxIxE-B56 complex, stabilize binding (Borgia et al., 2018). Finally, we show that the presence and contribution of the basic patch is important for a number of interaction partners to bind PP2A-B56 underscoring its relevance and generality.

Figure 5
Download asset Open asset
Model of the dynamic interaction between the KIF4A basic patch (BP) and the B56 acidic patch.

B56 is shown as an electrostatic surface with KIF4A and NHS shown as cartoons. The LxxIxE sequences of KIF4A and NHS bind B56 in a single conformation in the LxxIxE binding pocket (NHS sequence in this pocket modeled using the KIF4A structure, PDBID). As can be seen by these models (generated using COOT and PYMOL), the KIF4A (KKKKR) and NHS (RCR) basic patches (bp, colored dark blue) are optimally positioned to interact dynamically with the B56 acidic patch (ap, red). The dots reflect that these sequences do not adopt a single conformation, but instead retain their intrinsic disorder when bound to the acidic patch.

In the case of KIF4A, we also show that the basic patch motif has a second function. Namely, it is strictly required for KIF4A association with chromatin via condensin I binding;see also Poser et al. (2019). Because both KIF4A functions, binding to PP2A-B56 and condensin, strictly require the basic patch, the binding of both proteins to KIF4A is mutually exclusive. This implies that KIF4A only binds PP2A-B56 upon dissociation from chromosomes, consistent with the reported function of the KIF4A-PP2A-B56 complex in regulating the anaphase central spindle (Bastos et al., 2014). Since basic patch motifs resemble nuclear localization motifs (NLSs) recognized by importin α/β, the basic patch motifs would also be inaccessible for PP2A-B56 binding during nuclear transport (Lange et al., 2007). Thus, the accessibility of basic patch motifs provide an additional layer of regulation that shapes the PP2A-B56 interaction and dephosphorylation landscape in cells. Together, these discoveries are advancing our understanding of how, at a molecular level, PP2A-B56 engages its substrates and how these interactions are subject to additional regulation via competition for other binding interactions, which has broad implications for understanding cellular signaling.

Materials and methods

Sequence alignment

Request a detailed protocol

The ConSurf server (using 150 unique B56 sequences with the lowest E values) was used to calculate the conservation scores illustrate in Figure 1A (Ashkenazy et al., 2016). Clustal Omega (Madeira et al., 2019) was used to generate sequence alignments in Figure 1C, Figure 1—figure supplement 1 and Figure 2—figure supplement 2. The following species are included in Figure 1—figure supplement 1: Homo sapiens (human), Mus musculus (mouse), Gallus gallus (chicken), Danio rerio (fish), and Xenopus laevis (frog), Candida albicans (Candida), Arabidopsis thaliana (A. thaliana), Chlamydomonas reinhardtii (Algae).

Cloning and expression

Request a detailed protocol

Human B56γ1 (B56γ12-380 and B56γ31-380) was sub-cloned into the pRP1b vector (Peti and Page, 2007). B56γ12-380 and B56γ31-380 were expressed in E. coli BL21 (DE3) (Agilent). Cells were grown in Luria Broth in the presence of selective antibiotics at 37°C to an OD600 of ~0.8, and expression was induced by the addition of 0.5 mM isopropyl β-D-thiogalactoside (IPTG). Induction proceeded for ~18–20 hr at 18°C prior to harvesting by centrifugation at 6000 xg. Cell pellets were stored at −80°C until purification. Human KIF4A (KIF4A1192-1232) and RepoMan (RepoMan560-603) were sub-cloned into a MBP-fusion vector. Mutants were generated using the QuikChange site-directed mutagenesis kit (Agilent) and sequence confirmed. KIF4A1192-1232 and RepoMan560-603 variants were expressed in E. coli BL21 (DE3-RIL) (Agilent). Cells were grown in Luria Broth in the presence of selective antibiotics at 37°C to an OD600 of ~0.6, and expression was induced by the addition of 0.5 mM isopropyl β-D-thiogalactoside (IPTG). Induction proceeded for 5 hr at 37°C prior to harvesting by centrifugation at 6000 xg. Cell pellets were stored at −80°C until purification.

Mammalian expression constructs were cloned into pcDNA5/FRT/TO and derivatives of this vector using standard cloning procedures. Point mutations were introduced by whole plasmid PCR using complementary primers containing the mutations and confirmed by full sequencing of insert. YFP tagged versions of B56α and B56γ were described previously (Kruse et al., 2013).

Generation of stable cell lines

Request a detailed protocol

The generation of stable HeLa cell lines expressing constructs under the control of a doxycycline-inducible promoter was carried out as previously described (Hein and Nilsson, 2014).

Cell culture

Request a detailed protocol

HeLa-FRT stable cell lines and HeLa cells were passaged in DMEM supplemented with 10% fetal bovine serum (FBS, HyClone) and 1% penicillin-streptomycin (Life Technologies). Protein expression was induced by the addition of doxycycline (Clontech Laboratories) at final concentration of 4 ng/ml.

Transfection and RNAi

Request a detailed protocol

For biochemical experiments cells were transfected with 1.5 µg plasmid and Lipofectamine 2000 (2 μl/ml) for 5 hr, where applicable.

B56 RNAi rescue

Request a detailed protocol

B56 RNAi depletion was done using the following protocol: 250 μl transfection mix with 2 μl siRNA Max (Invitrogen) and 1 μl siRNA oligo (stock concentration 10 μmol) in Optimem (Life Technologies) was added to 750 μl Optimem in 6-well dishes with cells. After 5–6 hr of treatment, FBS was added (10%) until the medium was changed the next day. B56 isoforms were depleted using Dharmacon oligonucleotides against B56α (UGAAUGAACUGGUUGAGUAUU), B56γ (GGAAGAUGAACCAACGUUAUU), B56δ (UGACUGAGCCGGUAAUUGUUU) and B56ε (GCACAGCUGGCAUAUUGUAUU) and used at final concentration of 20 nmol (80 nmol total for all four isoforms). Luciferase (Sigma) was used as control. In live cell experiments, YFP-B56 expressing Hela FRT cell lines were depleted by RNAi 48 hr and 24 hr prior to filming. For KIF4A live cell experiments cells were treated with RNAi 48 hr prior to imaging. YFP-tagged proteins were induced before imaging by the addition of 0.5 ng/ml Doxycycline.

KIF4A RNAi rescue

Request a detailed protocol

HeLa cells were seeded in 6-well plates and synchronized by thymidine the day before transfection. Double RNAi against Kid (CAAGCUCACUCGCCUAUUGTT) and KIF4A (GAAAGATCCTGGCTCAAGA) were performed at 48 and 24 hr before live cell imaging analysis. 800 ng of YFP-tagged wild type KIF4A and mutant plasmids were co-transfected with 30 ng of CFP-Histone3 and RNAi oligos in the first RNAi. Thymidine was added again in the second transfection. After the second RNAi, the cells were re-seeded into 8-well chamber dishes (Ibidi). Cells were released from thymidine in the morning for live cell imaging, which was performed 5 hr later on a DeltaVision Microscope (GE Healthcare).

Microscopy

Request a detailed protocol

Cells were seeded in an 8-well chamber dishes (Ibidi) the day before imaging. After changing the medium to L-15 (Life Technologies) supplemented with 10% FBS and 0.5 ng/ml Doxycycline (where applicable) cells were imaged on a DeltaVision Elite microscope (GE Healthcare) using a 40 × oil immersion objective (1.35 NA, WD 0.10). DIC and YFP channels where imaged with 5 min intervals for 17 hr, taking three z-stacks 5 μm apart. SoftWork software (GE Healthcare) was used for data analysis. Cells expressing within a certain YFP expression window was all analyzed while cells expressing high levels of YFP tagged proteins was excluded from the analysis. ImageJ (NIH) was used to extract still images.

Immunoprecipitation

Request a detailed protocol

Cells were seeded and transfected with myc-tagged constructs (where applicable) on the day after seeding. Following 24 hr thymidine (2.5 mM) block, cells were released into Nocodazole (200 ng/ml) overnight. Inducible cell-lines (YFP-B56, YFP-KIF4A or YFP) were induced 24 hr prior collection with 4 ng/ml Doxycycline. Mitotic cells were collected by shake-off. Cells were lysed in low salt lysis buffer (50 mM Tris pH 7.4, 50 mM NaCl, 1 mM EDTA, 1 mM DTT, 0.1% vol/vol NP40), supplemented with protease and phosphatase inhibitors (Roche) for 25 min on ice. Lysates were cleared for 15 min at 20,000 xg. Lysates were incubated with 10 μl pre-equilibrated GFP-trap beads (Chromotek) for 1 hr at 4°C and rotation. Beads were washed three times with lysis buffer and eluted in 25 μl 2x LSB (Life Technology) supplemented with 10% β-mercaptoethanol.

Western blotting

Request a detailed protocol

Following SDS–PAGE separation, gels were blotted onto Immobilion FL membrane (Millipore). Membranes were incubated with the indicated primary antibody and subsequently with IRDye 800 or 680 secondary antibodies (Li-Cor). Membranes were scanned using the Odyssey Sa imaging system (Li-Cor) and quantification was carried out using the Odyssey Sa Application software (Li-Cor). Representative images from at least two independent experiments is shown in all figures.

Antibodies

The following antibodies were used for western-blotting: KIF4A rabbit (Cat# A301-074A; 1:1000, Bethyl laboratories), KIF4A T799 rabbit (raised against peptide CLRRR(pT)FSLT, 1:100, Moravian biotechnology), PP2A-C mouse monoclonal (Cat# 05–421, 1:2,000, Merck), C-myc mouse monoclonal (Cat# SC-40, 1:1000, Santa Cruz), GFP rabbit (raised against full length GFP, 1:10000, Moravian Biotechnology), GFP mouse monoclonal (Cat# 11814460001, 1:1000, Roche), B56α mouse monoclonal (Cat# 610615, 1:1000, BD Transduction Laboratories), BubR1 mouse monoclonal (raised against BubR1 TPR domain, 1:1000, BRIC monoclonal antibody facility), CDC2A rabbit (Cat# HPA030049, 1:1000, Sigma).

Protein purification

Request a detailed protocol

B56γ cell pellets were resuspended in ice-cold lysis buffer (50 mM Tris pH 8.0, 0.5 M NaCl, 5 mM imidazole, 0.1% Triton X-100 containing EDTA-free protease inhibitor tablet [Sigma]), lysed by high-pressure cell homogenization (Avestin C3 Emulsiflex) and centrifuged (35,000 xg, 40 min, 4°C). The supernatant was loaded onto a HisTrap HP column (GE Healthcare) pre-equilibrated with Buffer A (50 mM Tris pH 8.0, 500 mM NaCl and 5 mM imidazole) and was eluted using a linear gradient of Buffer B (50 mM Tris pH 8.0, 500 mM NaCl, 500 mM imidazole). Fractions containing the protein were pooled and dialyzed overnight at 4°C (50 mM Tris pH 8.0, 500 mM NaCl) with TEV protease to cleave the His6-tag. The cleaved protein was incubated with Ni2+-NTA beads (GEHealthcare) and the flow-through collected. The protein was concentrated and purified using size exclusion chromatography (SEC; Superdex 75 26/60 [GE Healthcare]) pre-equilibrated in ITC buffer (50 mM sodium phosphate pH 7.5, 150 mM NaCl, 0.5 mM TCEP) or crystallization buffer (20 mM HEPES pH 7.8, 500 mM NaCl, 0.5 mM TCEP). Fractions were pooled, concentrated to designated concentration for experiments or stored at −80 °C. KIF4A1192-1232 was purified similarly except that it was heated at 80°C for 10 min and centrifuged (15,000 xg, 10 min, 4°C) prior to SEC purification (SEC buffer: 20 mM HEPES pH 7.8, 500 mM NaCl, 0.5 mM TCEP).

Crystallization and structure determination

Request a detailed protocol

Pooled B56γ31-380 (hereafter, B56) in SEC buffer was concentrated and combined with KIF4A1192-1232,LE,PE or AIM1 peptide (716KRKKARMPNSPAPHFAMPPIHEDHLE741, Bio-Synthesis Inc), in the same buffer at a 1:5 molar ratio to a final concentration of 10 mg/ml. Crystals of the complex were identified in 0.1 M HEPES pH 7.75, 0.8 M LiCl and 8% PEG8K (B56: KIF4A1192-1232,LE,PE) or 0.1 M Tris pH 8.0, 0.9 M LiCl and 9% PEG6K (B56: AIM1) using vapor diffusion hanging drops. Crystals were cryo-protected by a 30 s soak in mother liquor with 30% glycerol and immediately flash frozen. Data were collected at SSRL beamline 12.2 at 100 K and a wavelength of 0.98 Å using a Pilatus 6M PAD detector. The data were processed using XDS (Kabsch, 2010), Aimless (Evans and Murshudov, 2013) and truncate (French and Wilson, 1978). The structures of the complexes were solved by molecular replacement using Phaser (Adams et al., 2010), using B56 (PDBID 5K6S) as the search model (Wang et al., 2016). A solution was obtained in space group P212121 (B56: KIF4A1192-1232,LE,PE) or I4 (B56: AIM1); strong electron density for both peptides was visible in the initial maps. The initial models of the complex were built without the peptide using AutoBuild, followed by iterative rounds of refinement in PHENIX and manual building using Coot (Emsley and Cowtan, 2004). The peptide coordinates were then added followed by iterative rounds of refinement in PHENIX and manual building using Coot. Data collection and refinement details are provided in Table 2.

Isothermal titration calorimetry

Request a detailed protocol

SEC was performed to polish B56γ12-380, RepoMan, KIF4A and exchange into ITC Buffer (50 mM sodium phosphate pH 7.5, 150 mM NaCl, 0.5 mM TCEP). Purified or purchased peptides were titrated into B56γ12-380 (30 µM) using an Affinity ITC SV microcalorimeter at 25°C (TA Instruments). Data were analyzed using NITPIC, SEDPHAT and GUSSI (Scheuermann and Brautigam, 2015; Zhao et al., 2015).

Nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy

Request a detailed protocol

NMR data were recorded at 283 K using a Bruker Neo 600 MHz (1H Larmor frequency) NMR spectrometer equipped with a HCN TCI active z-gradient cryoprobe. NMR Measurements of KIF4A were recorded using either 15N- or 15N,13C-labeled protein at a final concentration of 0.1 or 3 mM in NMR buffer (20 mM sodium phosphate pH 6.8, 200 or 50 mM NaCl, 0.5 mM TCEP) and 90% H2O/10% D2O. Unlabeled B56γ12-38 and 1H,15N-labeled KIF4A complex was formed via co-SEC (20 mM sodium phosphate pH 6.8, 200 mM NaCl, 0.5 mM TCEP). The sequence-specific backbone assignments of KIF4A and variants were achieved using 3D triple resonance experiments including 2D [1H,15N] HSQC, 3D HNCA, 3D HN(CO)CA, 3D HN(CO)CACB and 3D HNCACB. All NMR data were processed using Topspin 4.0.5 and analyzed using Cara. NMR chemical shifts have been deposited in the BioMagResBank (BMRB: 27913).

Mass spectrometry

Request a detailed protocol

Pulldowns were performed in triplicates and analyzed by SDS gel electrophoresis followed by label-free LC-MS/MS on a Q-Exactive Plus quadrupole Orbitrap mass spectrometer (ThermoScientific) equipped with an Easy-nLC 1000 (ThermoScientific) and nanospray source (ThermoScientific) as previously described (Petrone et al., 2016). Peptides were resuspended in 5% methanol/1.5% formic acid and loaded on to a trap column (1 cm length, 100 μm inner diameter trap packed with ReproSil C18 AQ 5 μm 120 Å pore beads (Dr. Maisch, Ammerbuch, Germany)) vented to waste via a micro-tee and eluted across a fritless analytical resolving column (35 cm length, 100 μm inner diameter fused silica packed with ReproSil C18 AQ 3 μm 120 Å pore beads) pulled in-house (Sutter P-2000, Sutter Instruments, San Francisco, CA) with a 60 min gradient of 5–30% LC-MS buffer B (LC-MS buffer A: 0.0625% formic acid, 3% ACN; LC-MS buffer B: 0.0625% formic acid, 95% ACN). The Q-Exactive Plus was set to perform an Orbitrap MS scan (R = 70K; AGC target = 3e6) from 350 to 1500 Thomson, followed by HCD MS2 spectra on the 10 most abundant precursor ions detected by Orbitrap scanning (R = 17.5K; AGC target = 1e5; max ion time = 75 ms) before repeating the cycle. Precursor ions were isolated for HCD by quadrupole isolation at width = 0.8 Thomson and HCD fragmentation at 26 normalized collision energy (NCE). Charge state 2, 3 and 4 ions were selected for MS2. Precursor ions were added to a dynamic exclusion list +/- 20 ppm for 20 s. Raw data were searched using COMET in high resolution mode (Eng et al., 2013) against a target-decoy (reversed)(Elias and Gygi, 2007) version of the human (UniProt; downloaded 2/2013, 40482 entries of forward and reverse protein sequences) with a precursor mass tolerance of +/- 1 Da and a fragment ion mass tolerance of 0.02 Da, and requiring fully tryptic peptides (K, R; not preceding P) with up to three mis-cleavages. Static modifications included carbamidomethyl cysteine and variable modifications included: oxidized methionine. Searches were filtered using orthogonal measures including mass measurement accuracy (+/- 3 ppm), Xcorr for charges from +two through +4, and dCn targeting a < 1% FDR at the peptide level. Quantification of LC-MS/MS spectra was performed using MassChroQ (Valot et al., 2011) and the iBAQ method (Schwanhäusser et al., 2011). Keratin and proteins with a maximum total peptide count of 1 were removed from further analysis. IBAQ quantifications were imported into Perseus (Tyanova et al., 2016), and log2 transformed. Missing values were imputed from a normal distribution to enable statistical analysis and visualization by volcano plot. Statistical analysis of protein quantification was carried out in Perseus by two-tailed Student’s t-test.

Data and software availability

Request a detailed protocol

All NMR chemical shifts have been deposited in the BioMagResBank (BMRB 27913). Atomic coordinates and structure factors have been deposited in the Protein Data Bank (6OYL, 6VRO). The mass spectrometry proteomics data have been deposited to the ProteomeXchange Consortium (Vizcaíno et al., 2014) through the PRIDE partner repository (PXD013886).

Data availability

All NMR chemical shifts have been deposited in the BioMagResBank (BMRB 27913). Atomic coordinates and structure factors have been deposited in the Protein Data Bank (6OYL, 6VRO). The mass spectrometry proteomics data have been deposited to the ProteomeXchange Consortium (Vizcaíno et al., 2014) through the PRIDE partner repository (PXD013886).

The following data sets were generated
    1. Page R
    2. Peti W
    3. Wang X
    (2020) RCSB Protein Data Bank
    ID 6OYL. The Structure of the PP2A B56 subunit KIF4A complex.
    http://www.rcsb.org/structure/6OYL
    1. Page R
    2. Peti W
    3. Wang X
    (2020) RCSB Protein Data Bank
    ID 6VRO. The structure of the PP2A B56 subunit AIM1 complex.
    http://www.rcsb.org/structure/6VRO
    1. Wang X
    2. Garvanska D
    3. Kettenbach A
    4. Peti W
    5. Nilsson J
    6. Page R
    (2020) Biological Magnetic Resonance Data Bank
    Backbone 1H, 13C, and 15N Chemical Shift Assignments for the C-terminal Fragment of a Kinesin KIF4A Variant.
    http://bmrb.wisc.edu/data_library/summary/index.php?bmrbId=27913
The following previously published data sets were used
    1. Kettenbach A
    (2019) MassIVE
    ID MSV000083785. A dynamic charge:charge interaction modulates PP2A:B56 interactions.
    https://massive.ucsd.edu/ProteoSAFe/dataset.jsp?task=9a6d3fdf30db4f6db9243d3d3cc07058

References

    1. Emsley P
    2. Cowtan K
    (2004) Coot: model-building tools for molecular graphics
    Acta Crystallographica. Section D, Biological Crystallography 60:2126–2132.
    https://doi.org/10.1107/S0907444904019158
    1. Evans PR
    2. Murshudov GN
    (2013) How good are my data and what is the resolution?
    Acta Crystallographica Section D Biological Crystallography 69:1204–1214.
    https://doi.org/10.1107/S0907444913000061
    1. Kabsch W
    (2010) XDS
    Acta Crystallographica. Section D, Biological Crystallography 66:125–132.
    https://doi.org/10.1107/S0907444909047337

Decision letter

  1. Tony Hunter
    Reviewing Editor; Salk Institute for Biological Studies, United States
  2. David Ron
    Senior Editor; University of Cambridge, United Kingdom

In the interests of transparency, eLife publishes the most substantive revision requests and the accompanying author responses.

Acceptance summary:

The concept that multisite interactions are the important for the recognition of substrates by protein kinases and phosphatases is gaining traction. It was already known that the B56 regulatory subunit of the PP2A phosphatase ternary complex can recognize substrates for dephosphorylation through binding to an LXXIXE short motif in the substrate. Here the authors have defined a second substrate recognition mechanism acting in concert with the LXXIXE motif, which involves interaction between a negatively charged groove on the surface of B56 and a basic patch on the substrate protein. They demonstrated that a bidentate substrate interaction involving both the LXXIXE motif and the basic patch is important for PP2A-mediated dephosphorylation of the KIF4A mitotic kinesin and is functionally relevant in mitosis. These findings represent an important advance in our understanding of how PP2A can recognize its phosphoprotein substrates with high affinity and specificity.

Decision letter after peer review:

[Editors’ note: the authors submitted for reconsideration following the decision after peer review. What follows is the decision letter after the first round of review.]

Thank you for submitting your work entitled "A dynamic charge:charge interaction modulates PP2A:B56 interactions" for consideration by eLife. Your article has been reviewed by three peer reviewers, including Tony Hunter as the Reviewing Editor and Reviewer #1, and the evaluation has been overseen by a Senior Editor.

Our decision has been reached after consultation between the three reviewers. Based on these discussions and the individual reviews below, we regret to inform you that your work will not be considered further for publication in eLife.

The reviewers expressed interest in the possibility that the acidic surface patch adjacent to the LpSPIxE SLiM-binding groove in the B56 PP2A holoenzyme regulatory subunit might serve as an additional substrate recognition motif for PP2A/B56 protein phosphatase substrates possessing a basic patch adjacent to the SLiM. The structural and biochemical data you present are largely consistent with the idea that the B56 acidic patch promotes its interaction with KIF4A via its basic patch both in vitro and in vivo and thereby facilitates KIF4A dephosphorylation, although the proposed charge-charge interaction was not evident in the KIF4A/B56 structure you present. The main issue is that you provide no convincing evidence that the B56 acidic patch/KIF4A basic patch interaction is essential for PP2A/B56's or KIF4A biological function in vivo, and this type of evidence would need to be presented for at least one PP2A/B56 substrate of this type. Thus, while the conserved nature of the B56 acidic patch suggests it could be important in PP2A/B56 substrate selection, a stronger example where this is functionally important needs to be established. Whilst the reviewers recognise the potential importance of your findings they concur that as it presently stands your paper does not provide enough new biological insight into PP2A substrate selection to be considered further by eLife.

Reviewer #1:

The authors have previously defined LpSPIxE as short linear interacting motif (SLiM) through which the PP2A/B56 protein phosphatase complex targets a subset of its phosphoprotein substrates, such as RepoMan and BubR1. Here, they have extended their investigation of how PP2A-B56 recognizes its substrates. In their original report, three structures of B56 associated with SLiM phosphopeptides from RepoMan and BubR1 were solved to define the mode of LpSPIxE binding to B56. A study of these PP2A/B56/LpSPIxE structures combined with evolutionary analysis of B56 sequences revealed an acidic surface patch adjacent to the hydrophobic pocket that binds the LpSPIxE motif. To investigate a possible functional role of this acidic patch in PP2A/B56 substrate selection, they stably expressed WT and E335R/D338R acidic patch mutant B56α-YFP in HeLa cells, and used MS analysis to compare the repertoire of proteins pulled down with the WT and mutant B56α proteins from nocodazole-arrested mitotic cells. They found several proteins, including RepoMan and KIF4A, that were more weakly associated with the acidic patch B56α mutant. Both B56α and B56γ isoform acidic patch mutants, however, were able to support mitotic progression in HeLa cells depleted of B56α or B56γ, indicating that the mitotic function of PP2A/B56 was not severely perturbed. They then focused on the KIF4A mitotic kinesin as a PP2A/B56 substrate, and investigated the importance of the acidic patch in interaction and dephosphorylation of KIF4A. When KKK in the basic patch N-terminal to the LXXIXE motif was mutated to AAA, they found this reduced the affinity of recombinant KIF4A for recombinant B56 by ~4 fold in vitro. A parallel analysis carried out by mutating the basic patch upstream of the LXXIXE in RepoMan yielded a similar decline in binding to B56. By coexpression in HeLa cells, they observed that unlike basic patch or LXXIXE KIF4A mutants only WT KIF4A was efficiently coprecipitated with B56. By making mutations in the KIF4A LXXIXE motif, they showed that the affinity of the LXXIXE motif for B56 did not affect the contribution of the basic patch to the interaction of the substrate protein with B56 in vitro. Next, they investigated the consequences of mutating the KIF4A basic patch on its T799 phosphorylation status in cells, finding that mutation of either the LXXIXE motif or the basic patch increased pT799 levels, but did not affect the time taken for cells to move from NEBD to anaphase, consistent with the fact that KIF4A depletion also did not affect mitotic timing. However, they did note that KIF4A basic patch mutant failed to associate with mitotic chromosomes, while retaining the ability to localize to the spindle midzone. On this basis, they argue that the KIF4A basic patch will not be accessible to PP2A/B56 when it is associated with chromosomes. Finally, they investigated the dynamics of B56α-KIF4A interaction using NMR perturbation analysis, and found that the basic patch in KIF4A binds the acidic patch of B56 in a dynamic fashion via a charge-charge interaction between the acidic patch n B56 and the basic patch in KIF4A.

The evidence that the acidic patch on the surface of the PP2A B56 regulatory subunit is important for recognition of a subset of PP2A/B56 substrates is reasonably strong, and supported by the structural, biophysical and in vivo data. The disappointing aspect of these studies is that the activity of the single PP2A/B56 substrate they analyzed in depth, i.e. the KIF4A kinesin, that potentially requires the acidic patch for PP2A/B56 recognition, does not exhibit an obvious in vivo phenotype when its basic patch is mutated.

1) Figure 1A, B: The authors need to define the sequence(s) of the LXXIXE peptide(s) displayed in the structure in the figure legend (was this a pSer.Pro-containing peptide).

2) Figure 2C: The binding studies were done with bacterially-expressed MBP-KIF4A1192-1232. Presumably this protein was not phosphorylated at S1225 – what difference does the phosphate at S1225 make to binding affinity, and how does the affinity of a pSer-containing motif compare to the affinity when the Ser is changed to the phosphomimic Glu (this is relevant to the B56/KIF4A structure shown in Figure 4—figure supplement 1, where the LE,PE high affinity LXXIXE mutant version of KIF4A was used)?

3) Figure 3B: The myc-KIF4A pT799 bands need quantifying to demonstrate the magnitude of the effects of mutating either the basic patch or the LXXIXE motif on KIF4A dephosphorylation.

4) Figure 4—figure supplement 1: The authors show the crystal structure of the KIF4A basic patch-LEPIEEEPEE motif peptide bound to the B56 HEAT repeat region, where FSGLEPIEEEEPE residues are observed binding between heat repeats 3 and 4, but the atomic level interactions are not shown, and panel with these should be included. A surface representation of the complex like that in Figure 1A, B would also be helpful. Apparently, the KIF4A KKKKR basic patch did not make a stable enough interaction with the B56 acidic patch to be detected in the crystal structure. The NMR perturbation data in Figure 4—figure supplement 1 indicate that K1208 makes the strongest interaction, consistent with the effect of K2208A mutation on binding affinity, while K1209, K1210, K1211 and R1212 interactions are less prominent. Conversely, one would like to know which of the acidic patch residues in B56 are most important. For instance, what is the role of the E335 and D338 B56 residues that were mutated in interacting with the basic patch residues, and which of the five basic residues interact with the four acidic residues (four residues in the B56 acidic patch were mutated to Arg in Figure 4—figure supplement 1)? Can the authors model the basic patch residues into their structure, and, if so, what sort of turn would the intervening sequence between the LXXIXE motif and the basic motif have to make for both motifs to be bound simultaneously (also see point 8).

5) It is not always clear which isoform of B56 was used in different experiments, and this should be indicated e.g. B56γ was used for the crystal studies shown in Figure 4—figure supplement 1.

6) Did the authors try a charge reversal experiment in which they mutated the basic patch in KIF4A to an acidic patch based on their structural information, and test whether this restores KIF4A dephosphorylation mediated by the E335R/D338R acidic patch mutant B56α-YFP in HeLa cells.

7) Could the dynamic basic patch-acidic patch interaction be used as an initial docking interaction between a in a candidate substrate protein that collides with PP2A/B56 and PP2A/B56, which could then allow stabilization of substrate binding by the LXXIXE motif, if one is present adjacent to the basic patch?

8) The number of residues between the LXXIXE motif and the basic motif differs significantly between RepoMan and KIF4A, and this should be discussed. Based on analysis of other PP2A/B56 substrates that might use an analogous basic motif, can the authors deduce rules for how close and how far away the two motifs can be?

9) What does the basic patch of KIF4A interact with on chromosomes – is it an acidic patch on another chromosomal protein or perhaps DNA itself?

Reviewer #2:

The manuscript from groups doing leading work in understanding how serine-threonine phosphatases interact with their substrates. A high affinity interaction site on the 'B56' family of PP2A subunits has previously been identified. Here, they demonstrate a highly conserved acidic patch on the surface of B56 subunits, and mutation of this patch affects the affinity of a few selected substrates of B56 containing PP2A holoenzymes. In the case of the most markedly modified interaction, with KIF4A, the effect of the mutation on affinity is 4-fold, with changes documented with several diverse techniques. The limitation of the impact of this result is that the mutation has biochemical consequences but no detectable effect of the mutants on mitotic timing. The binding affinity effect size is smaller with a second substrate, RepoMan, at only two-fold. A crystal structure of the B56 and KIF4A peptide apparently fails to identify the interaction, which they suggest might be due to the dynamic nature of the interaction. So in the end, there is a small quantitative effect of this acidic patch on the one best substrate, and no biological consequence detected. The findings will be of interest to PP2A aficionados but do not rise to the level of broad biological significance.

Figure 1: There is no table detailing the other proteins that were differentially affected in the pulldown in Figure 1C, D. Shouldn't this data be presented in the appendix? How many of these have SLiM domains and basic patches?

Also, how were the P values calculated and what method was used to correct for multiple comparisons?

There is no alignment of RepoMan identifying its basic patch. Did other interactions from the experiments in Figure 1C, D have basic patches?

The legend for Figure 1C states the 2R mutant B56α is E335R/D338R. Figure 1B shows neither of these as being labelled in the acidic patch. I found this confusing. Is this just a nomenclature/numbering issue? 2NPP and 5SW9 structures both are with B56γ – it would be helpful to label it as such in Figure 1A, and identify the specific amino acids mutated in Figure 1C, D instead of the non-obvious 2R.

The authors use an unconventional naming criteria for PP2A subunits, adding to the nomenclature confusion in the field. The Aa subunit is PPP2R1A, not 2AAA. 2AAA is meaningless. If they need shorthand, why not just use 2R1A? Similarly, PP2AA should be PPP2CA, and if they need 4 letter shorthand, why not use P2CA?

There is a 4-fold effect of mutating the KIF4A patch; there is a twofold effect of mutating the RepoMan patch. This twofold effect is not claimed by the authors to be significant, and I see no statistical test. Please explain.

Figure 3F: No indication of significance is given on the figure, just noted in legend. Please clarify. The text indicates there is no significant effect of the mutants on mitotic timing. Also, the labelling of the figure is out of register.

Figure 3E: The statement that mutating the basic patch on KIF4A abolishes chromosome association goes beyond the data presented here. Additional assays would be needed to show this was not just a problem with the assay or selection of specific images. And that it was due to the binding to B56 rather than to another chromatin binding partner. This section should temper its conclusions or provide additional data.

Figure 4: the text suggest the NMR data is with full length KIF4A. "15N-labeled KIF4A in the presence and absence of B56". However, this may be misleading, as the figure legend and figure suggest a different experiment, a small fragment of KIF4A that is mutated to bind B56 with high affinity. Please be careful in the text to describe this accurately. Please explain in the text why the mutant KIF4A fragment was used, if this is indeed the case. Please help me understand why the results with mutant KIF4A should be applicable to non-mutant KIF4A? Does the dynamic interaction with the basic patch require the high-affinity mutation of KIF4A?

If I understand correctly, the crystal of the peptide of KIF4A with B56 did not resolve the interaction of the basic patch with the conserved acidic groove, thus not providing support for the model.

Results paragraph two: “These mutants were able to support normal mitotic timing in B56 RNAi…” So how biologically important can this patch be? It's confusing to me that they find the mutation alters binding of two mitotic regulators yet there is normal timing?

Reviewer #3:

The manuscript by Wang et al., "A dynamic charge:charge interaction modulates PP2A:B56 interactions", presents some novel observations, about substrate binding to PP2A:B56, with most of the experiments focusing on a single protein, KIF4A. Authors identify a conserved acidic groove on B56 (PPP2R5A-E) and show that it binds a basic patch in KIF4A through interaction studies with wild type proteins and mutants in both the B56 acidic groove and the KIF4A basic patch. NMR analyses further demonstrate the presence of this interaction. The experimental results presented are generally of high quality, and this paper will be of interest to anyone studying PP2A. Main weaknesses are the lack of biological impact of the B56 mutants with disruptions in the acidic groove, lack of in vitro dephosphorylation kinetics, and narrow focus on the KIF4A protein, which limits the authors' ability to make broad conclusions about the significance of this interaction. Also, much of the data presented in the manuscript is in the form of immunoblots which should be quantified, and presented with statistical analysis of the results.

Specific comments:

1) Figure 1: Authors provide very limited analysis/discussion of the interaction studies carried out with B56α and B56γ (WT vs. 2R mutant), mentioning only KIF4A and RepoMan. However, there are many orange dots in Figure 1C, D (proteins containing LxxIxE motifs), some of which also show significantly altered interactions. The story would be significantly strengthened by making this story more general: Are there basic patches present in LxxIxE containing proteins that are disrupted by the 2R mutations as compared to proteins that are not disrupted? For KIF4A the basic patch is 8 amino acids N terminal to LxxIxE. Is this spacing similar in RepoMan? If so, how many other candidates similarly display the presence of a basic patch close to LxxIxE (again vs. proteins whose interaction was not disrupted). Does addition of a strongly basic peptide selectively elute these interactors from B56?

– Furthermore, many proteins that do show significant changes with WT vs. 2R mutants do not have predicted LxxIxE motifs. Authors should comment on this. Are they indirect interactors? Do they have LxxIxE motifs not previously identified? Or another B56 binding motif?

– Authors state that the acidic patch in B56 is conserved, but Figure 1—figure supplement 1 shows an alignment of human sequences only. This should be modified to include a broader evolutionary distribution-is this acid groove conserved in lower eukaryotes? Plants?

2) In Figure 2E, F, Myc KIF4A FL containing the basic patch mutations (bpm) shows reduced interaction with B56. However, the KIF4A fragment (1001-1232) is expressed at much higher levels than full length in vivo, contains both basic patch and LxxIxE motifs, and shows complete loss of binding when the basic patch is mutated. Does this indicate the presence of additional interactions between KIF4A and B56 beyond the basic patch and LxxIxE motif? Authors should comment.

3) In Figure 3B a phospho-specific antibody is used to look at steady state phosphorylation levels in vivo, which could be due to altered phosphorylation and/or dephosphorylation. In vitro dephosphorylation assays should be included to determine if the basic patch influences dephosphorylation kinetics.

4) Figure 3E: Authors state that mutating the basic patch in KIF4A abolished chrosmosome association but not localization to the midzone, however the images shown are difficult to interpret as there is no co-staining with chromosomal or kinetochore proteins. There is clearly a bright blob that is present in all images except those for the KIF4A basic patch mutant. What does this blob represent? How many cells were analyzed?

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.55966.sa1

Author response

[Editors’ note: the authors resubmitted a revised version of the paper for consideration. What follows is the authors’ response to the first round of review.]

The reviewers expressed interest in the possibility that the acidic surface patch adjacent to the LpSPIxE SLiM-binding groove in the B56 PP2A holoenzyme regulatory subunit might serve as an additional substrate recognition motif for PP2A/B56 protein phosphatase substrates possessing a basic patch adjacent to the SLiM. The structural and biochemical data you present are largely consistent with the idea that the B56 acidic patch promotes its interaction with KIF4A via its basic patch both in vitro and in vivo and thereby facilitates KIF4A dephosphorylation, although the proposed charge-charge interaction was not evident in the KIF4A/B56 structure you present. The main issue is that you provide no convincing evidence that the B56 acidic patch/KIF4A basic patch interaction is essential for PP2A/B56's or KIF4A biological function in vivo, and this type of evidence would need to be presented for at least one PP2A/B56 substrate of this type. Thus, while the conserved nature of the B56 acidic patch suggests it could be important in PP2A/B56 substrate selection, a stronger example where this is functionally important needs to be established. Whilst the reviewers recognise the potential importance of your findings they concur that as it presently stands your paper does not provide enough new biological insight into PP2A substrate selection to be considered further by eLife.

We appreciate the concerns of the reviewers. As described above, we have performed scores of additional experiments and also made key changes to the manuscript figures and text that reveal the broad relevance of this discovery not only for those interested in PP2A or the family of ser/thr phosphoprotein phosphatases specifically, but also phosphorylation signaling and IDP interactions, generally. Our data now show that the basic patch is critical for binding for multiple interactors, revealing the broad relevance of these interactions. Further, our molecular data (ITC, NMR and the crystal structure) demonstrate conclusively that this interaction between KIF4A and B56 is dynamic, in which the basic patch retains its structural disorder upon complex formation (this is further supported by a new crystal structure of the AIM1:B56γ complex, which, again, demonstrates that the basic patch retains its intrinsic disorder upon complex formation). Thus, this study of the molecular basis of the KIF4A-B56 interactions is one of the most thoroughly characterized for this novel paradigm of dynamic charge-charge based biomolecular binding. Finally, we also discovered that the KIF4A basic patch is strictly required for condensin binding. Because of this, the binding of KIF4A to condensin and B56 is mutually exclusive, and thus the requirement of this basic patch provides a novel mechanism for controlling KIF4A-B56 binding in both space and time. These results will be of interest for a broad scientific audience.

Reviewer #1:

[…]

The evidence that the acidic patch on the surface of the PP2A B56 regulatory subunit is important for recognition of a subset of PP2A/B56 substrates is reasonably strong, and supported by the structural, biophysical and in vivo data.

We thank the reviewer for the recognition of the strength of the structural, biophysical and in vivo data of the manuscript.

The disappointing aspect of these studies is that the activity of the single PP2A/B56 substrate they analyzed in depth, i.e. the KIF4A kinesin, that potentially requires the acidic patch for PP2A/B56 recognition, does not exhibit an obvious in vivo phenotype when its basic patch is mutated.

In the first submission, we had analyzed the function of Kif4A in RNAi rescue experiments and, as the reviewer points out, the removal of Kif4A has limited effect on mitotic progression in HeLa cells, consistent with the literature. We have now repeated these experiments and co-depleted Kif4A and hKid that perform partly redundant functions. This co-depletion results in a strong mitotic phenotype with unaligned chromosomes that is fully rescued by Kif4A WT but not Kif4A BPM. We further analyze this function and show that the basic patch in Kif4A plays a dual function in that it is strictly required for binding both to condesin I and PP2A-B56 which is consistent with the defective localization to chromosomes of Kif4A BPM.

1) Figure 1A, B: The authors need to define the sequence(s) of the LXXIXE peptide(s) displayed in the structure in the figure legend (was this a pSer.Pro-containing peptide).

The sequence of the LxxIxE peptide shown in Figure 1A, B has now been added to the Figure 1A legend.

“An LxxIxE peptide (RepoMan: 590PLL-pS-PIPELPE595; p indicates residue is phosphorylated) bound to B56γ is shown in green (PDBIDs 5SW9 and 2NPP superimposed using B56).”

2) Figure 2C: The binding studies were done with bacterially-expressed MBP-KIF4A1192-1232. Presumably this protein was not phosphorylated at S1225 – what difference does the phosphate at S1225 make to binding affinity, and how does the affinity of a pSer-containing motif compare to the affinity when the Ser is changed to the phosphomimic Glu (this is relevant to the B56/KIF4A structure shown in Figure 4—figure supplement 1, where the LE,PE high affinity LXXIXE mutant version of KIF4A was used)?

This is correct; S1225 is not phosphorylated in the bacterially expressed and purified KIF4A 1192-1232 construct. As stated in the manuscript, the LE,PE high affinity variant was used to ensure the KIF4A affinity for B56 was in a regime suitable for quantitative measurements of affinity when the basic patch is mutated (ITC, NMR). Multiple studies, including those described in this manuscript, have investigated how changes in the LxxIxE sequence alter B56 affinity. First, as we described previously (1), the phosphorylation of S1225 increases the KIF4A affinity for B56 3-fold while changing the first position of the LxxIxE sequence from the native ‘C’ to ‘L’ increases the binding affinity 23-fold. Second, we show here that introducing the phosphomimetic Glu into the more optimal KIF4A sequence (CSPIEE to LEPIEE) results in an increase in B56 affinity to 50-fold over WT. This latter result is described in the manuscript text as follows.

“In order to test this, the KIF4A sequence was mutated to the stronger LxxIxE motif by mutating 1224CS1225 to LE (KIF4ALE; the structures of B56γ:LxxIxE complexes show that the ‘L, Leu’ binds the deep hydrophobic pocket on B56γ while the ‘E, Glu’ mimics a phosphorylated Ser, which forms multiple salt bridges with B56γ residues H187, R188 [these residues are conserved in all B56 isoforms]). The affinity of KIF4A1192-1232,LE for B56 increased 50-fold compared to WT KIF4A (Table1, Figure 2—figure supplement 2I; KD of 0.32 μM).”

3) Figure 3B: The myc-KIF4A pT799 bands need quantifying to demonstrate the magnitude of the effects of mutating either the basic patch or the LXXIXE motif on KIF4A dephosphorylation.

This is now reported below the blot. We have added quantifications to all Western blots.

4) Figure 4—figure supplement 1: The authors show the crystal structure of the KIF4A basic patch-LEPIEEEPEE motif peptide bound to the B56 HEAT repeat region, where FSGLEPIEEEEPE residues are observed binding between heat repeats 3 and 4, but the atomic level interactions are not shown, and panel with these should be included. A surface representation of the complex like that in Figure 1A, B would also be helpful.

As requested, we now include a panel illustrating the atomic level interactions of KIF4A with B56. We also include a surface representation of B56:KIF4A interaction to demonstrate the molecular details of this interaction. We have now also determined the structure of the AIM1:B56γ complex (AIM1 exhibits the greatest loss in affinity upon mutation of the basic patch). As with KIF4A, while the density for the AIM1 LxxIxE motif is well ordered, the AIM1 basic patch also retains its intrinsic disorder upon B56γ binding. We have included atomic level interactions of this new complex as well. These figures are included in the supplemental data of the current manuscript (Figure 3—figure supplement 1C, D).

Apparently, the KIF4A KKKKR basic patch did not make a stable enough interaction with the B56 acidic patch to be detected in the crystal structure. The NMR perturbation data in Figure 4—figure supplement 1 indicate that K1208 makes the strongest interaction, consistent with the effect of K2208A mutation on binding affinity, while K1209, K1210, K1211 and R1212 interactions are less prominent. Conversely, one would like to know which of the acidic patch residues in B56 are most important. For instance, what is the role of the E335 and D338 B56 residues that were mutated in interacting with the basic patch residues, and which of the five basic residues interact with the four acidic residues (four residues in the B56 acidic patch were mutated to Arg in Figure 4—figure supplement 1)? Can the authors model the basic patch residues into their structure, and, if so, what sort of turn would the intervening sequence between the LXXIXE motif and the basic motif have to make for both motifs to be bound simultaneously (also see point 8).

The reviewer is correct that the basic patch does not interact with B56 in a manner that results in a single conformation that can be readily identified by X-ray crystallography. Rather, our data collectively show that this interaction is dynamic, a hallmark of a new paradigm of biomolecular interactions defined by IDP-based charge-charge electrostatic interactions in which the IDPs retain their intrinsic disorder. Namely, the ITC data show that both the B56 acidic and KIF4A basic patch contribute to binding affinity while the NMR spectroscopy data show that the basic residues engage directly with B56 acidic patch. However, the crystal structures show that this interaction is not achieved by forming a single stable structure (i.e., with a single KIF4A basic residue interacting exclusively with a single acidic residue on B56). Instead, our data describe a model in which the KIF4A basic residues interact dynamically with the B56 acidic residues. To further demonstrate this, we now include additional data in which increasing numbers of the basic residues in the KIF4A basic patch were mutated and the mutated KIF4A variants pulled down using a GFP-trap (Figure 3F). These new data show that even the loss of even a single lysine is sufficient to disrupt B56 binding. Finally, we also determined a second crystal structure: the AIM1:B56γ complex (mutation of the AIM1 basic patch results in an 18-fold reduction in affinity of AIM1 for B56). As observed for the KIF4A:B56γ complex, while the electron density of the AIM1 LxxIxE motif is well ordered, the AIM1 basic patch retains its structural disorder upon B56 binding.

As highlighted in the Discussion, while dynamic charge-charge interactions are generally moderate (low μM to mM), they are becoming increasingly recognized for their importance in increasing the binding affinity of protein:protein interactions, in part, by lowering entropy (2–4). One of the most extreme cases was recently reported in Nature (5), in which two IDPs (histone H1 and its nuclear chaperon prothymosin-α) bind with picomolar affinity while fully retaining their structural disorder; the exceptional binding affinity is due to the large opposite net charge of the two proteins. We also recently discovered that a dynamic charge-charge interaction between NHE1 and a second PPP, calcineurin (CN), determines dephosphorylation specificity for a specific NHE1 phosphosite (6). What we have discovered here is that a subset of B56 substrates also uses dynamic charge-charge interactions to facilitate B56 binding. Further, we show that the modest changes in affinity due the presence of loss of this electrostatic interaction has profound impacts on B56 binding in vivo. Why? Because of the hundreds of additional B56 interactors that contain LxxIxE sequences that are competing for the same binding site on B56. That is, in the absence of the electrostatic interaction, KIF4A is displaced from B56 by other LxxIxE-containing interactors and thus, KIF4A is no longer a PP2A-B56 substrate. This result in profound and significant for the PPP field specifically and the signaling field generally. Namely, that a subset of substrates exploit a dynamic charge-charge interaction to enhance PP2A-B56 binding.

We now include a model that illustrates how the dynamic basic patch of these regulators binds the B56 acidic patch (in which the bp retains its intrinsic disorder) and the LxIxxE sequences binds the B56 LxIxxI binding pocket. This is now included in Figure 5.

5) It is not always clear which isoform of B56 was used in different experiments, and this should be indicated e.g. B56γ was used for the crystal studies shown in Figure 4—figure supplement 1.

This has been addressed by adding the isoform tested throughout the figures and text.

6) Did the authors try a charge reversal experiment in which they mutated the basic patch in KIF4A to an acidic patch based on their structural information, and test whether this restores KIF4A dephosphorylation mediated by the E335R/D338R acidic patch mutant B56α-YFP in HeLa cells.

Although an interesting suggestion, we have not tried this.

7) Could the dynamic basic patch-acidic patch interaction be used as an initial docking interaction between a in a candidate substrate protein that collides with PP2A/B56 and PP2A/B56, which could then allow stabilization of substrate binding by the LXXIXE motif, if one is present adjacent to the basic patch?

Yes, this is most certainly a possibility, which is consistent with the view that long-range dynamic electrostatic interactions may function as the initial ‘tether’, after which the specific hydrophobic interactions that define the LxxIxE-B56 complex stabilize binding. The potential role(s) of this newly discovered dynamic electrostatic interaction is now addressed in the Discussion.

“It may also facilitate LxxIxE binding by providing an initial docking interaction after which the stronger LxxIxE stabilizes substrate binding; this is consistent with the view that long-range dynamic electrostatic interactions may function as an initial ‘tether’, after which the specific hydrophobic interactions that, in this case, define the LxxIxE-B56 complex, stabilize binding (5).”

8) The number of residues between the LXXIXE motif and the basic motif differs significantly between RepoMan and KIF4A, and this should be discussed. Based on analysis of other PP2A/B56 substrates that might use an analogous basic motif, can the authors deduce rules for how close and how far away the two motifs can be?

The number of residues between the LxxIxE and basic patches varies depending on substrate. For example, in the substrates analyzed here, the number of residues between the motifs varies between 6 and 12 amino acids. Further, the change in binding affinity when the basic patch is mutated is not linearly correlated with the number of intervening residues Thus, while not exhaustive, our data suggests that the number of intervening residues is variable.

9) What does the basic patch of KIF4A interact with on chromosomes – is it an acidic patch on another chromosomal protein or perhaps DNA itself?

We have performed a series of MS experiments to answer this question. The MS data now shows that KIF4A interacts directly with the chromosomally associated condensin complex and, further, that this interaction strictly requires the KIF4A basic patch. This MS data is now included as Figure 4—source data 2 and also included in Figure 4E. Our new results are consistent with and, more importantly, extend a recent publication from the Barr laboratory (7) that we cite (see also response to reviewer 2’s point 7).

Reviewer #2:

The manuscript from groups doing leading work in understanding how serine-threonine phosphatases interact with their substrates. A high affinity interaction site on the 'B56' family of PP2A subunits has previously been identified. Here, they demonstrate a highly conserved acidic patch on the surface of B56 subunits, and mutation of this patch affects the affinity of a few selected substrates of B56 containing PP2A holoenzymes. In the case of the most markedly modified interaction, with KIF4A, the effect of the mutation on affinity is 4-fold, with changes documented with several diverse techniques. The limitation of the impact of this result is that the mutation has biochemical consequences but no detectable effect of the mutants on mitotic timing. The binding affinity effect size is smaller with a second substrate, RepoMan, at only two-fold. A crystal structure of the B56 and KIF4A peptide apparently fails to identify the interaction, which they suggest might be due to the dynamic nature of the interaction. So in the end, there is a small quantitative effect of this acidic patch on the one best substrate, and no biological consequence detected. The findings will be of interest to PP2A aficionados but do not rise to the level of broad biological significance.

We thank the reviewer for their positive comments on our research programs. As described in the Introduction, our previous and new experimental data show unequivocally that this basic patch is present in a subset of key PP2A-B56 substrates. Further, we show that these basic patches are critical for B56 binding both in vivo and in vitro for multiple substrates, including KIF4A, RepoMan, AIM1 and NHS. This demonstrates this is a general mechanism for modulating B56 substrate binding.

As we show, even though the in vitro affinity differences of the substrates for B56 with and without the basic patch are small, these differences have profound impacts on PP2A biology and PP2A-B56 recruitment, as evidenced by the loss of PP2A-B56 binding upon mutating the basic patch residues to alanines (see current Figure 3F). The observation that small affinity differences in vitro have significant effects in vivo is an emerging paradigm for all PPP interactions and thus these results are broadly relevant for multiple biological systems. Specifically, we reported one of the first examples in our eLife manuscript describing the interaction/regulation of KI-67 and RepoMan with PP1 (8). Specifically, we showed that the affinity of KI-67 for PP1α versus PP1γ differs only 5-fold in vitro. However, in vivo, this modest change in affinity results in absolutely no binding between PP1α and KI-67 (or RepoMan). Rather, it binds exclusively to PP1γ. Why? Because KI-67 is competing with 100s of other regulators for PP1α and this small difference in affinity in vitro allows all other PP1α-specific regulators to ‘outcompete’ KI-67 for PP1α.

It is also critical to also emphasize how important the PPP family of proteins are for understanding how IDPs engage and direct the activity of key signaling proteins. Our collective work over the last nearly two decades are revealing how these key signaling proteins recognize their regulators and substrates via SLiM interactions, how IDP dynamics direct PPP dephosphorylation specificity and, as also described here for the first time for PP2A-B56, the role of dynamic charge-charge interactions in modulating substrate binding and substrate function (KIF4A). These discoveries are not only relevant for the PPP family, specifically, but for IDP interactions, generally, which is why we believe that this work rises to the level of broad biological significance. We now also make these points explicitly in the Discussion.

Figure 1: There is no table detailing the other proteins that were differentially affected in the pulldown in Figure 1C, D. Shouldn't this data be presented in the appendix? How many of these have SLiM domains and basic patches?

These data were included in the original submission as an excel table (Figure 1—source data 1). The proteins previously identified as bona fide or predicted LxxIxE interactors are indicated in the last two columns of this file (i.e., those identified by Hertz, et al., 2016 (1) and those identified by Wang, et al., 2016 (9)).

Also, how were the P values calculated and what method was used to correct for multiple comparisons?

There is no alignment of RepoMan identifying its basic patch. Did other interactions from the experiments in Figure 1C, D have basic patches?

P-values were calculated in Perseus (10) using a two-tailed Student’s T-test. In the first submission, we did not include a correction for multiple comparisons. This is because we are focused on understanding the binding behavior of a specific B56 SLiM containing protein to WT and BPM mutant B56. However, in the revised manuscript, we now include an additional tab in the supplemental table (Figure 1—source data 1) where we correct p-values for multiple comparisons using the Benjamini-Hochberg procedure. This was performed in Perseus.

The sequence alignment of the substrates/regulators tested in the manuscript is now included in Figure 2A and Figure 2—figure supplement 1.

The legend for Figure 1C states the 2R mutant B56α is E335R/D338R. Figure 1B shows neither of these as being labelled in the acidic patch. I found this confusing. Is this just a nomenclature/numbering issue? 2NPP and 5SW9 structures both are with B56γ – it would be helpful to label it as such in Figure 1A, and identify the specific amino acids mutated in Figure 1C, D instead of the non-obvious 2R.

We thank the reviewer for pointing this out. We have now included a full sequence alignment of B56α and B56γ, with the key residues highlighted to demonstrate their conservation, and also labeled these amino acids in the figure directly, to make this information clearer. We also include the sequences for the 2R mutants. These sequences can now be found in Figure 1C.

The authors use an unconventional naming criteria for PP2A subunits, adding to the nomenclature confusion in the field. The Aa subunit is PPP2R1A, not 2AAA. 2AAA is meaningless. If they need shorthand, why not just use 2R1A? Similarly, PP2AA should be PPP2CA, and if they need 4 letter shorthand, why not use P2CA?

We appreciate the reviewers comment and, clearly, this was confusing. We have also used this nomenclature when PP2A is introduced (in the Introduction). We have deleted the gene name of each protein for the labels in Figures 1D and 1E to maintain the focus on B56 substrates and regulators.

“Introduction: The PP2A holoenzyme is a heterotrimer, composed of a scaffolding subunit A (PPP2R1), a regulatory subunit B (PPP2R2-PPP2R5) and a catalytic subunit C (PPP2C) (Cho and Xu, 2007; Xu et al., 2008, 2006).”

There is a 4-fold effect of mutating the KIF4A patch; there is a twofold effect of mutating the RepoMan patch. This twofold effect is not claimed by the authors to be significant, and I see no statistical test. Please explain.

This effect is statistically significant (see Table 1). We apologize for not stating this explicitly in the original submission, which clearly led to confusion. Further, we have augmented our in vitro study by also testing the role of the basic patch for two additional regulators identified using our B56-2R mutants coupled with MS: Aim1 and NHS, which also exhibit statistically significant reductions in B56 binding. These data are reported in Table 1, Figure 2, and Figure 2—figure supplement 2.

Figure 3F: No indication of significance is given on the figure, just noted in legend. Please clarify. The text indicates there is no significant effect of the mutants on mitotic timing. Also, the labelling of the figure is out of register.

We have repeated these experiments, but now we deplete both KIF4A and hKid; this is because KIF4A and hKid have a redundant functions during mitosis (11). Our data show that co-depletion results in robust and statistically significant mitotic delay, with multiple unaligned chromosomes. Further, both phenotypes were fully rescued by WT KIF4A. In this background, we then expressed the different KIF4A variants. The data revealed a clear function for the basic patch in supporting KIF4A activity. This is an important new result as, together, our data not only reveal the importance of this motif for PP2A-B56 binding and activity (via KIF4A T799 dephosphorylation) but also for chromosome targeting. Further, because both activities strictly required the basic patch, our data provides the molecular explanation for the inability PP2A-B56 to co-localize with KIF4A along chromosomes; i.e., they cannot bind KIF4A simultaneously. These data are now reported in Figure 4C, D. In particular, Figure 4D replaces the original Figure 3F.

We have confirmed that there are no panels in any current figure that are out of register. We apologize for any initial confusion this may have caused.

Figure 3E: The statement that mutating the basic patch on KIF4A abolishes chromosome association goes beyond the data presented here. Additional assays would be needed to show this was not just a problem with the assay or selection of specific images. And that it was due to the binding to B56 rather than to another chromatin binding partner. This section should temper its conclusions or provide additional data.

We have not selected specific images; rather, all our live cell recordings of Kif4A BPMs show that these variants no longer localize to chromosomes in mitosis. We have now included a chromosome marker in or live cell assays to make this clearer. To further support these data, we have now also performed mass spectrometry analysis of the different KIF4A variants. These data also show that the basic patch of KIF4A is strictly required for binding to condensin, which are consistent with results from a recent paper from the Barr laboratory (7). These data provides the molecular mechanism for why KIF4A BPM variant is not localizing to chromosomes. More importantly however, our results now explain why condensin and PP2A-B56 binding is mutually exclusive, an observation that has remained an unexplained conundrum in the field; namely, both strictly require the BPM for binding. Thus, accessibility to the basic patch provide an additional layer of regulation that shapes the PP2A-B56 interaction and dephosphorylation landscape in cells.

Figure 4: the text suggest the NMR data is with full length KIF4A. "15N-labeled KIF4A in the presence and absence of B56". However, this may be misleading, as the figure legend and figure suggest a different experiment, a small fragment of KIF4A that is mutated to bind B56 with high affinity. Please be careful in the text to describe this accurately. Please explain in the text why the mutant KIF4A fragment was used, if this is indeed the case. Please help me understand why the results with mutant KIF4A should be applicable to non-mutant KIF4A? Does the dynamic interaction with the basic patch require the high-affinity mutation of KIF4A?

As requested, the figure, legend and text have been edited to make it explicitly clear which construct was used for the experiments. The need for the higher affinity KIF4A variant is a consequence of the binding regime that is accurately monitored using both ITC and NMR. Here, we are comparing affinities with and without the basic patch. Critically, as we show in the manuscript, the affinity of the KIF4A basic patch for the B56 acidic patch is not altered by changing the affinity of the KIF4A SLiM for B56 (Results section: The binding contribution of the basic patch motif is independent of the strength of the LxxIxE motif). This demonstrates conclusively that the dynamic interaction with the basic patch does not require the high affinity mutation. However, by using the high affinity variant, the interaction is in a regime suitable for monitoring binding using NMR spectroscopy.

The in vivo analysis of Kif4A confirms that these results are relevant in the context of a non-mutant (WT) context.

If I understand correctly, the crystal of the peptide of KIF4A with B56 did not resolve the interaction of the basic patch with the conserved acidic groove, thus not providing support for the model.

In fact, this result directly supports our model. Namely, that the charge-charge interaction is dynamic and does not adopt a single, stable conformation (i.e., as one observes for interactions involving deep hydrophobic pockets such as that of the LxxIxE motif with B56). Rather, the IDP basic residues retain their dynamics (adopt multiple, interchangeable conformations) when interacting with the B56 acidic patch. The importance of dynamic charge-charge interactions between IDPs and their targets is emerging as a key mechanism by which these IDPs, which represent ~30% of the human proteome, engage and direct the activity of their interacting proteins. What we have discovered is that this is used by a subset of PP2A-B56 substrates and peptides to enhance their ability to bind B56 and, in turn, the biological processes they regulate.

Results paragraph two: “These mutants were able to support normal mitotic timing in B56 RNAi…” So how biologically important can this patch be? It's confusing to me that they find the mutation alters binding of two mitotic regulators yet there is normal timing?

We have not observed an effect on mitotic timing (NEBD-Anaphase) with the B56 mutants despite the fact that the interaction with KIF4A and RepoMan is strongly reduced. However depletion of KIF4A has no major impact on mitotic timing (data in original Figure 3F and consistent with reported literature) and abolishing the interaction of RepoMan and PP2A-B56 by mutating the LxxIxE motif does not affect the kinetics of chromosome targeting at anaphase (12). Given this data, we do not anticipate that weakening the interaction between PP2A-B56 and KIF4A/RepoMan would affect mitotic timing (NEBD-Anaphase) consistent with what we observe. Our data thus show that the acidic patch on B56 subunits is not required for mitotic timing in HeLa cells but this does not allow one to conclude that the acidic patch is not biological important. Given the exceptional conservation and the fact that other non-mitotic regulators (AIM1, NHS) depend on the acidic patch for binding it is likely that in a model organism mutation of the acidic patch would result in a phenotype but this is beyond the current scope of this manuscript.

Reviewer #3:

The manuscript by Wang et al., "A dynamic charge:charge interaction modulates PP2A:B56 interactions", presents some novel observations, about substrate binding to PP2A:B56, with most of the experiments focusing on a single protein, KIF4A. Authors identify a conserved acidic groove on B56 (PPP2R5A-E) and show that it binds a basic patch in KIF4A through interaction studies with wild type proteins and mutants in both the B56 acidic groove and the KIF4A basic patch. NMR analyses further demonstrate the presence of this interaction. The experimental results presented are generally of high quality, and this paper will be of interest to anyone studying PP2A. Main weaknesses are the lack of biological impact of the B56 mutants with disruptions in the acidic groove, lack of in vitro dephosphorylation kinetics, and narrow focus on the KIF4A protein, which limits the authors' ability to make broad conclusions about the significance of this interaction.

We appreciate the reviewer’s view that our work is of “high quality” and will be of interest to anyone studying PP2A. As indicated throughout this response, we have greatly expanded that the number of substrates investigated and now provide the data that allow us to make broad conclusions regarding the importance of the substrate basic patches for B56 binding for this set of substrates.

Also, much of the data presented in the manuscript is in the form of immunoblots which should be quantified, and presented with statistical analysis of the results.

For all Western blots, which are done using Licor technology, we now have indicated the numbers below the blots. To our knowledge there is no appropriate statistical test for these types of experiments at these sample sizes. We can inform the reviewer that a student t-test shows statistical significance for all experiments.

Specific comments:

1) Figure 1: Authors provide very limited analysis/discussion of the interaction studies carried out with B56α and B56γ (WT vs. 2R mutant), mentioning only KIF4A and RepoMan. However, there are many orange dots in Figure 1C, D (proteins containing LxxIxE motifs), some of which also show significantly altered interactions. The story would be significantly strengthened by making this story more general: Are there basic patches present in LxxIxE containing proteins that are disrupted by the 2R mutations as compared to proteins that are not disrupted? For KIF4A the basic patch is 8 amino acids N terminal to LxxIxE. Is this spacing similar in RepoMan? If so, how many other candidates similarly display the presence of a basic patch close to LxxIxE (again vs. proteins whose interaction was not disrupted).

These are very important points and we now address this directly in the text. First, it is important to note that not all proteins that show a difference interact directly with PP2A-B56. The proteins known to interact with PP2A-B56 directly (KIF4A, RepoMan, NHS, AIM1, among others) are typically 100s-1000s of amino acids long. Thus, in cells, these proteins that bind PP2A-B56 directly are also bound to a host of additional proteins. Thus, some of the observed changes are due to this indirect interaction.

However, there are also multiple proteins already demonstrated to bind PP2A-B56 directly via LxxIxE motifs (1, 9). Thus, as suggested by the reviewer, we have now expanded the number of targets investigated both in vitro and in vivo in order to further demonstrate the broad applicability of these results.

The role of the variable spacing amongst the proteins that bind directly to PP2A-B56 via LxxIxE motifs that also have basic patches is addressed in the response to reviewer 1’s eight point.

Does addition of a strongly basic peptide selectively elute these interactors from B56?

The binding of substrates and regulators to B56 via LxxIxE motifs are dominated by the LxxIxE motifs and thus a strongly basic peptide is unlikely to selectively elute these interactors. The key is that in cells, where there are many LxxIxE motif containing substrates/interactors competing for the same site, the loss of the basic patch reduces the binding affinity allowing them to be ‘outcompeted’ by other interactors.

– Furthermore, many proteins that do show significant changes with WT vs. 2R mutants do not have predicted LxxIxE motifs. Authors should comment on this. Are they indirect interactors? Do they have LxxIxE motifs not previously identified? Or another B56 binding motif?

As discussed above, many of these are likely indirect interactors, as those interactors already demonstrated to bind directly to PP2A-B56 are known to interact with multiple additional proteins (i.e., RepoMan also binds PP1γ, CDK1, among others, which, in turn, bind additional proteins). We now point this out explicitly in the text. The proteins previously identified to have LxxIxE motifs are indicated in Figure 4—source data 1.

– Authors state that the acidic patch in B56 is conserved, but Figure 1—figure supplement 1 shows an alignment of human sequences only. This should be modified to include a broader evolutionary distribution-is this acid groove conserved in lower eukaryotes? Plants?

This has been included as requested and confirms the conservation of the acidic patch throughout evolution (Figure 1—figure supplement 1B).

2) In Figure 2E, F, Myc KIF4A FL containing the basic patch mutations (bpm) shows reduced interaction with B56. However, the KIF4A fragment (1001-1232) is expressed at much higher levels than full length in vivo, contains both basic patch and LxxIxE motifs, and shows complete loss of binding when the basic patch is mutated. Does this indicate the presence of additional interactions between KIF4A and B56 beyond the basic patch and LxxIxE motif? Authors should comment.

Although we cannot exclude additional contacts, we are quite confident that the difference reflects a detection issue, as the signal for FL KIF4A wt is stronger than KIF4A wt 1001-1232 allowing us to more readily detect the residual binding of the FL KIF4A BPM.

3) In Figure 3B a phospho-specific antibody is used to look at steady state phosphorylation levels in vivo, which could be due to altered phosphorylation and/or dephosphorylation. In vitro dephosphorylation assays should be included to determine if the basic patch influences dephosphorylation kinetics.

Given the strong correlation between the strength of the Kif4A-PP2A-B56 interaction and T799 phosphorylation level we find it most likely that this is due to the amount of PP2A-B56 activity on T799 and not a change in kinase activity. The experiments are done in nocodazole arrested cells and therefore Aurora B activity is constant in all samples.

4) Figure 3E: Authors state that mutating the basic patch in KIF4A abolished chrosmosome association but not localization to the midzone, however the images shown are difficult to interpret as there is no co-staining with chromosomal or kinetochore proteins. There is clearly a bright blob that is present in all images except those for the KIF4A basic patch mutant. What does this blob represent? How many cells were analyzed?

In response to this concern, we have greatly improved the quality of these images in revised manuscript. In addition, the co-localization with a chromatin marker is also now included. These data can be found in Figure 4C.

References

1) E. P. T. Hertz, et al., A Conserved Motif Provides Binding Specificity to the PP2A-B56 Phosphatase. Mol. Cell63, 686–695 (2016).

2) M. T. Bertran, et al., ASPP proteins discriminate between PP1 catalytic subunits through their SH3 domain and the PP1 C-tail. Nat Commun10, 771 (2019).

3) L. Luo, et al., The Binding of Syndapin SH3 Domain to Dynamin Proline-rich Domain Involves Short and Long Distance Elements. J. Biol. Chem. 291, 9411–9424 (2016).

4) R. Sharma, Z. Raduly, M. Miskei, M. Fuxreiter, Fuzzy complexes: Specific binding without complete folding. FEBS Lett. 589, 2533–2542 (2015).

5) A. Borgia, et al., Extreme disorder in an ultrahigh-affinity protein complex. Nature 555, 61–66 (2018).

6) R. Hendus-Altenburger, et al., Molecular basis for the binding and selective dephosphorylation of Na+/H+ exchanger 1 by calcineurin. Nat Commun10, 3489 (2019).

7) E. Poser, R. Caous, U. Gruneberg, F. A. Barr, Aurora A promotes chromosome congression by activating the condensin-dependent pool of KIF4A. J. Cell Biol. 219 (2019).

8) G. S. Kumar, et al., The Ki-67 and RepoMan mitotic phosphatases assemble via an identical, yet novel mechanism. eLife5 (2016).

9) X. Wang, R. Bajaj, M. Bollen, W. Peti, R. Page, Expanding the PP2A Interactome by Defining a B56-Specific SLiM. Structure 24, 2174–2181 (2016).

10) S. Tyanova, et al., The Perseus computational platform for comprehensive analysis of (prote)omics data. Nat. Methods 13, 731–740 (2016).

11) C. Wandke, et al., Human chromokinesins promote chromosome congression and spindle microtubule dynamics during mitosis. J. Cell Biol.198, 847–863 (2012).

12) J. Qian, et al., Cdk1 orders mitotic events through coordination of a chromosome-associated phosphatase switch. Nat Commun6, 10215 (2015).

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.55966.sa2

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Xinru Wang

    Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, University of Arizona, Tucson, United States
    Contribution
    Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Writing - original draft, Writing - review and editing
    Contributed equally with
    Dimitriya H Garvanska
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-5994-707X

  2. Dimitriya H Garvanska

    The Novo Nordisk Foundation Center for Protein Research, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark
    Contribution
    Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Writing - review and editing
    Contributed equally with
    Xinru Wang
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared

  3. Isha Nasa

    Department of Biochemistry and Cell Biology, Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, United States
    Contribution
    Formal analysis, Investigation, Writing - review and editing
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-7699-795X

  4. Yumi Ueki

    The Novo Nordisk Foundation Center for Protein Research, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark
    Contribution
    Investigation
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared

  5. Gang Zhang

    The Novo Nordisk Foundation Center for Protein Research, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark
    Contribution
    Investigation
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-7697-7203

  6. Arminja N Kettenbach

    1. Department of Biochemistry and Cell Biology, Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, United States
    2. Norris Cotton Cancer Center, Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Medical Center Drive, Lebanon, United States
    Contribution
    Data curation, Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Writing - review and editing
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-3979-4576

  7. Wolfgang Peti

    Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, University of Arizona, Tucson, United States
    Contribution
    Conceptualization, Resources, Data curation, Formal analysis, Supervision, Funding acquisition, Validation, Investigation, Writing - original draft, Project administration, Writing - review and editing
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared

  8. Jakob Nilsson

    The Novo Nordisk Foundation Center for Protein Research, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark
    Contribution
    Resources, Data curation, Formal analysis, Supervision, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Writing - original draft, Project administration, Writing - review and editing
    For correspondence
    jakob.nilsson@cpr.ku.dk
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-4100-1125

  9. Rebecca Page

    Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, University of Arizona, Tucson, United States
    Contribution
    Conceptualization, Resources, Data curation, Formal analysis, Supervision, Funding acquisition, Validation, Investigation, Writing - original draft, Project administration, Writing - review and editing
    For correspondence
    rebeccapage@email.arizona.edu
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-4645-1232

Funding

National Institute of General Medical Sciences (R35GM119455)

  • Arminja N Kettenbach

National Institute of General Medical Sciences (P20GM113132)

  • Arminja N Kettenbach

National Institute of General Medical Sciences (R01GM098482)

  • Rebecca Page

National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (R01NS091336)

  • Wolfgang Peti

National Institute of General Medical Sciences (R01GM134683)

  • Wolfgang Peti

Novo Nordisk (NNF14CC0001)

  • Jakob Nilsson

Independent Research Fund Denmark (DFF-7016-00086)

  • Jakob Nilsson

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

Acknowledgements

This work is supported by grants R35GM119455 and P20GM113132 from the National Institute of General Medical Sciences to ANK, grant R01NS091336 from the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke and grant R01GM134683 from the National Institute of General Medical Sciences to WP and grant R01GM098482 from the National Institute of General Medical Sciences to RP. Work at the Novo Nordisk Foundation Center for Protein Research is supported by grant NNF14CC0001 and JNI is supported by grant from the Independent Research Fund Denmark (DFF-7016–00086). This research used beamline 12.2 at the Stanford Synchrotron Radiation Lightsource. Use of the Stanford Synchrotron Radiation Lightsource, SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory is supported by the US Department of Energy, Office of Science and Office of Basic Energy Sciences under Contract No. DE-AC02-76SF00515. The SSRL Structural Molecular Biology Program is supported by the DOE Office of Biological and Environmental Research and by the National Institutes of Health, National Institute of General Medical Sciences (including P41GM103393).

Senior Editor

  1. David Ron, University of Cambridge, United Kingdom

Reviewing Editor

  1. Tony Hunter, Salk Institute for Biological Studies, United States

Publication history

  1. Received: February 12, 2020
  2. Accepted: March 14, 2020
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: March 20, 2020 (version 1)
  4. Version of Record published: March 31, 2020 (version 2)

Copyright

© 2020, Wang et al.

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.

Metrics

  • 2,994
    Page views
  • 557
    Downloads
  • 27
    Citations

Article citation count generated by polling the highest count across the following sources: Scopus, Crossref, 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)

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. Xinru Wang
  2. Dimitriya H Garvanska
  3. Isha Nasa
  4. Yumi Ueki
  5. Gang Zhang
  6. Arminja N Kettenbach
  7. Wolfgang Peti
  8. Jakob Nilsson
  9. Rebecca Page
(2020)
A dynamic charge-charge interaction modulates PP2A:B56 substrate recruitment
eLife 9:e55966.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.55966

Categories and tags

Research organisms

Further reading

    1. Biochemistry and Chemical Biology
    2. Cancer Biology

    Pancreatic tumors exhibit myeloid-driven amino acid stress and upregulate arginine biosynthesis

    Juan J Apiz Saab, Lindsey N Dzierozynski ... Alexander Muir
    Research Advance

    Nutrient stress in the tumor microenvironment requires cancer cells to adopt adaptive metabolic programs for survival and proliferation. Therefore, knowledge of microenvironmental nutrient levels and how cancer cells cope with such nutrition is critical to understand the metabolism underpinning cancer cell biology. Previously, we performed quantitative metabolomics of the interstitial fluid (the local perfusate) of murine pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) tumors to comprehensively characterize nutrient availability in the microenvironment of these tumors (M. R. Sullivan, Danai, et al., 2019). Here, we develop Tumor Interstitial Fluid Medium (TIFM), a cell culture medium that contains nutrient levels representative of the PDAC microenvironment, enabling us to study PDAC metabolism ex vivo under physiological nutrient conditions. We show that PDAC cells cultured in TIFM adopt a cellular state closer to that of PDAC cells present in tumors compared to standard culture models. Further, using the TIFM model, we found arginine biosynthesis is active in PDAC and allows PDAC cells to maintain levels of this amino acid despite microenvironmental arginine depletion. We also show that myeloid derived arginase activity is largely responsible for the low levels of arginine in PDAC tumors. Altogether, these data indicate that nutrient availability in tumors is an important determinant of cancer cell metabolism and behavior, and cell culture models that incorporate physiological nutrient availability have improved fidelity to in vivo systems and enable the discovery of novel cancer metabolic phenotypes.

    1. Biochemistry and Chemical Biology
    2. Chromosomes and Gene Expression

    An acetylation-mediated chromatin switch governs H3K4 methylation read-write capability

    Kanishk Jain, Matthew R Marunde ... Brian D Strahl
    Short Report Updated

    In nucleosomes, histone N-terminal tails exist in dynamic equilibrium between free/accessible and collapsed/DNA-bound states. The latter state is expected to impact histone N-termini availability to the epigenetic machinery. Notably, H3 tail acetylation (e.g. K9ac, K14ac, K18ac) is linked to increased H3K4me3 engagement by the BPTF PHD finger, but it is unknown if this mechanism has a broader extension. Here, we show that H3 tail acetylation promotes nucleosomal accessibility to other H3K4 methyl readers, and importantly, extends to H3K4 writers, notably methyltransferase MLL1. This regulation is not observed on peptide substrates yet occurs on the cis H3 tail, as determined with fully-defined heterotypic nucleosomes. In vivo, H3 tail acetylation is directly and dynamically coupled with cis H3K4 methylation levels. Together, these observations reveal an acetylation ‘chromatin switch’ on the H3 tail that modulates read-write accessibility in nucleosomes and resolves the long-standing question of why H3K4me3 levels are coupled with H3 acetylation.

    1. Biochemistry and Chemical Biology
    2. Medicine

    Improved isolation of extracellular vesicles by removal of both free proteins and lipoproteins

    Dmitry Ter-Ovanesyan, Tal Gilboa ... David R Walt
    Research Advance

    Extracellular vesicles (EVs) are released by all cells into biofluids such as plasma. The separation of EVs from highly abundant free proteins and similarly sized lipoproteins remains technically challenging. We developed a digital ELISA assay based on Single Molecule Array (Simoa) technology for ApoB-100, the protein component of several lipoproteins. Combining this ApoB-100 assay with previously developed Simoa assays for albumin and three tetraspanin proteins found on EVs (Ter-Ovanesyan, Norman et al., 2021), we were able to measure the separation of EVs from both lipoproteins and free proteins. We used these five assays to compare EV separation from lipoproteins using size exclusion chromatography with resins containing different pore sizes. We also developed improved methods for EV isolation based on combining several types of chromatography resins in the same column. We present a simple approach to quantitatively measure the main impurities of EV isolation in plasma and apply this approach to develop novel methods for enriching EVs from human plasma. These methods will enable applications where high-purity EVs are required to both understand EV biology and profile EVs for biomarker discovery.