The metal cofactor zinc and interacting membranes modulate SOD1 conformation-aggregation landscape in an in vitro ALS Model

  1. Achinta Sannigrahi
  2. Sourav Chowdhury
  3. Bidisha Das
  4. Amrita Banerjee
  5. Animesh Halder
  6. Mohammed Saleem
  7. Athi N Naganathan
  8. Sanat Karmakar
  9. Krishnananda Chattopadhyay  Is a corresponding author
  1. CSIR-Indian Institute of Chemical Biology, India
  2. Harvard University, United States
  3. Jadavpur University, India
  4. National Institute of Science Education and Research (NISER), India
  5. Indian Institute of Technology Madras, India

Abstract

Aggregation of Cu-Zn superoxide dismutase (SOD1) is implicated in the motor neuron disease, ALS. Although more than 140 disease mutations of SOD1 are available, their stability or aggregation behaviors in membrane environment are not correlated with disease pathophysiology. Here, we use multiple mutational variants of SOD1 to show that the absence of Zn, and not Cu, significantly impacts membrane attachment of SOD1 through two loop regions facilitating aggregation driven by lipid induced conformational changes. These loop regions influence both the primary (through Cu intake) and the gain of function (through aggregation) of SOD1 presumably through a shared conformational landscape. Combining experimental and theoretical frameworks using representative ALS disease mutants, we develop a 'co-factor derived membrane association model' wherein mutational stress closer to the Zn (but not to the Cu) pocket is responsible for membrane association mediated toxic aggregation and survival time scale after ALS diagnosis.

Data availability

All data generated or analyzed during this study are included in the manuscript and supporting files

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Achinta Sannigrahi

    Structural Biology and Bioinformatics, CSIR-Indian Institute of Chemical Biology, Kolkata, India
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Sourav Chowdhury

    Chemistry and Chemical Biology, Harvard University, Cambridge, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Bidisha Das

    Structural Biology and Bioinformatics, CSIR-Indian Institute of Chemical Biology, Kolkata, India
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Amrita Banerjee

    Structural Biology and Bioinformatics, CSIR-Indian Institute of Chemical Biology, Kolkata, India
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Animesh Halder

    Department of Physics, Jadavpur University, Kolkata, India
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Mohammed Saleem

    School of Biological Sciences, National Institute of Science Education and Research (NISER), Bhubaneshwar, India
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Athi N Naganathan

    Biotechnology, Indian Institute of Technology Madras, Chennai, India
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-1655-7802
  8. Sanat Karmakar

    Department of Physics, Jadavpur University, Kolkata, India
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-7627-8904
  9. Krishnananda Chattopadhyay

    Structural Biology and Bioinformatics, CSIR-Indian Institute of Chemical Biology, Kolkata, India
    For correspondence
    krish@iicb.res.in
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-1449-8909

Funding

University Grants Commission (Fellowship)

  • Achinta Sannigrahi

University Grants Commission (Fellowship)

  • Sourav Chowdhury

Department of Biotechnology, Ministry of Science and Technology, India (BT/PR8475/BRB/10/1248/2013)

  • Sanat Karmakar

Science and Engineering Research Board (EMR/2016/000310)

  • Krishnananda Chattopadhyay

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

Copyright

© 2021, Sannigrahi et al.

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

Metrics

  • 3,772
    views
  • 441
    downloads
  • 25
    citations

Views, downloads and citations are aggregated across all versions of this paper published by eLife.

Download links

A two-part list of links to download the article, or parts of the article, in various formats.

Downloads (link to download the article as PDF)

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

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

  1. Achinta Sannigrahi
  2. Sourav Chowdhury
  3. Bidisha Das
  4. Amrita Banerjee
  5. Animesh Halder
  6. Mohammed Saleem
  7. Athi N Naganathan
  8. Sanat Karmakar
  9. Krishnananda Chattopadhyay
(2021)
The metal cofactor zinc and interacting membranes modulate SOD1 conformation-aggregation landscape in an in vitro ALS Model
eLife 10:e61453.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.61453

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.61453

Further reading

    1. Biochemistry and Chemical Biology
    2. Structural Biology and Molecular Biophysics
    Yamato Niitani, Kohei Matsuzaki ... Michio Tomishige
    Research Article

    The two identical motor domains (heads) of dimeric kinesin-1 move in a hand-over-hand process along a microtubule, coordinating their ATPase cycles such that each ATP hydrolysis is tightly coupled to a step and enabling the motor to take many steps without dissociating. The neck linker, a structural element that connects the two heads, has been shown to be essential for head–head coordination; however, which kinetic step(s) in the chemomechanical cycle is ‘gated’ by the neck linker remains unresolved. Here, we employed pre-steady-state kinetics and single-molecule assays to investigate how the neck-linker conformation affects kinesin’s motility cycle. We show that the backward-pointing configuration of the neck linker in the front kinesin head confers higher affinity for microtubule, but does not change ATP binding and dissociation rates. In contrast, the forward-pointing configuration of the neck linker in the rear kinesin head decreases the ATP dissociation rate but has little effect on microtubule dissociation. In combination, these conformation-specific effects of the neck linker favor ATP hydrolysis and dissociation of the rear head prior to microtubule detachment of the front head, thereby providing a kinetic explanation for the coordinated walking mechanism of dimeric kinesin.

    1. Structural Biology and Molecular Biophysics
    Christopher T Schafer, Raymond F Pauszek III ... David P Millar
    Research Article

    The canonical chemokine receptor CXCR4 and atypical receptor ACKR3 both respond to CXCL12 but induce different effector responses to regulate cell migration. While CXCR4 couples to G proteins and directly promotes cell migration, ACKR3 is G-protein-independent and scavenges CXCL12 to regulate extracellular chemokine levels and maintain CXCR4 responsiveness, thereby indirectly influencing migration. The receptors also have distinct activation requirements. CXCR4 only responds to wild-type CXCL12 and is sensitive to mutation of the chemokine. By contrast, ACKR3 recruits GPCR kinases (GRKs) and β-arrestins and promiscuously responds to CXCL12, CXCL12 variants, other peptides and proteins, and is relatively insensitive to mutation. To investigate the role of conformational dynamics in the distinct pharmacological behaviors of CXCR4 and ACKR3, we employed single-molecule FRET to track discrete conformational states of the receptors in real-time. The data revealed that apo-CXCR4 preferentially populates a high-FRET inactive state, while apo-ACKR3 shows little conformational preference and high transition probabilities among multiple inactive, intermediate and active conformations, consistent with its propensity for activation. Multiple active-like ACKR3 conformations are populated in response to agonists, compared to the single CXCR4 active-state. This and the markedly different conformational landscapes of the receptors suggest that activation of ACKR3 may be achieved by a broader distribution of conformational states than CXCR4. Much of the conformational heterogeneity of ACKR3 is linked to a single residue that differs between ACKR3 and CXCR4. The dynamic properties of ACKR3 may underly its inability to form productive interactions with G proteins that would drive canonical GPCR signaling.