The mechanism of kinesin inhibition by kinesin binding protein

  1. Joseph Atherton  Is a corresponding author
  2. Jessica JA Hummel
  3. Natacha Olieric
  4. Julia Locke
  5. Alejandro Peña
  6. Steven S Rosenfeld
  7. Michel O Steinmetz
  8. Casper C Hoogenraad
  9. Carolyn A Moores
  1. King's College London, United Kingdom
  2. Utrecht University, Netherlands
  3. Paul Scherrer Institute, Switzerland
  4. The Francis Crick Institute, United Kingdom
  5. Pharmidex 19 Pharmaceuticals, United Kingdom
  6. Mayo Clinic, United States
  7. Institute of Structural and Molecular Biology, Birkbeck College, United Kingdom

Abstract

Subcellular compartmentalisation is necessary for eukaryotic cell function. Spatial and temporal regulation of kinesin activity is essential for building these local environments via control of intracellular cargo distribution. Kinesin binding protein (KBP) interacts with a subset of kinesins via their motor domains, inhibits their microtubule (MT) attachment and blocks their cellular function. However, its mechanisms of inhibition and selectivity have been unclear. Here we use cryo-electron microscopy to reveal the structure of KBP and of a KBP-kinesin motor domain complex. KBP is a TPR-containing, right-handed α-solenoid that sequesters the kinesin motor domain’s tubulin-binding surface, structurally distorting the motor domain and sterically blocking its MT attachment. KBP uses its α-solenoid concave face and edge loops to bind the kinesin motor domain, and selected structure-guided mutations disrupt KBP inhibition of kinesin transport in cells. The KBP-interacting motor domain surface contains motifs exclusively conserved in KBP-interacting kinesins, suggesting a basis for kinesin selectivity.

Data availability

Cryo-EM electron density maps and models have been deposited in the electron microscopy data bank (EMDB) and protein data bank (PDB) respectively. The relevant deposition codes are provided in Table 1.

The following data sets were generated

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Joseph Atherton

    Randall Centre for Cell & Molecular Biophysics, King's College London, London, United Kingdom
    For correspondence
    joseph.atherton@kcl.ac.uk
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-6362-2347
  2. Jessica JA Hummel

    Cell Biology, Neurobiology and Biophysics, Department of Biology, Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Natacha Olieric

    Laboratory of Biomolecular Research, Division of Biology and Chemistry, Paul Scherrer Institute, Villigen, Switzerland
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Julia Locke

    Macromolecular Machines Laboratory, The Francis Crick Institute, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Alejandro Peña

    Department of In Silico Drug Discovery, Pharmidex 19 Pharmaceuticals, Hatfield, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Steven S Rosenfeld

    Department of Cancer Biology, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Michel O Steinmetz

    Laboratory of Biomolecular Research, Division of Biology and Chemistry, Paul Scherrer Institute, Villigen, Switzerland
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Casper C Hoogenraad

    Cell Biology, Neurobiology and Biophysics, Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-2666-0758
  9. Carolyn A Moores

    Biological Sciences, Institute of Structural and Molecular Biology, Birkbeck College, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-5686-6290

Funding

Medical Research Council (MR/R000352/1)

  • Joseph Atherton

Worldwide Cancer Research (16-0037)

  • Julia Locke
  • Alejandro Peña

Wellcome Trust (202679/Z/16/Z,206166/Z/17/Z and 079605/Z/06/Z)

  • Joseph Atherton
  • Julia Locke
  • Alejandro Peña

Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BB/L014211/1)

  • Joseph Atherton
  • Julia Locke
  • Alejandro Peña

National Institute of General Medical Sciences (R01GM130556)

  • Steven S Rosenfeld

Swiss National Science Foundation (31003A_166608)

  • Natacha Olieric
  • Michel O Steinmetz

Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO-ALW-VICI,CCH)

  • Jessica JA Hummel
  • Casper C Hoogenraad

European Research Council (ERC-consolidator,CCH)

  • Jessica JA Hummel
  • Casper C Hoogenraad

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

Copyright

© 2020, Atherton 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

  • 3,714
    views
  • 453
    downloads
  • 21
    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. Joseph Atherton
  2. Jessica JA Hummel
  3. Natacha Olieric
  4. Julia Locke
  5. Alejandro Peña
  6. Steven S Rosenfeld
  7. Michel O Steinmetz
  8. Casper C Hoogenraad
  9. Carolyn A Moores
(2020)
The mechanism of kinesin inhibition by kinesin binding protein
eLife 9:e61481.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.61481

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.61481

Further reading

    1. Biochemistry and Chemical Biology
    2. Structural Biology and Molecular Biophysics
    Yi-Hsuan Lin, Tae Hun Kim ... Hue Sun Chan
    Research Article

    Liquid-liquid phase separation (LLPS) involving intrinsically disordered protein regions (IDRs) is a major physical mechanism for biological membraneless compartmentalization. The multifaceted electrostatic effects in these biomolecular condensates are exemplified here by experimental and theoretical investigations of the different salt- and ATP-dependent LLPSs of an IDR of messenger RNA-regulating protein Caprin1 and its phosphorylated variant pY-Caprin1, exhibiting, for example, reentrant behaviors in some instances but not others. Experimental data are rationalized by physical modeling using analytical theory, molecular dynamics, and polymer field-theoretic simulations, indicating that interchain ion bridges enhance LLPS of polyelectrolytes such as Caprin1 and the high valency of ATP-magnesium is a significant factor for its colocalization with the condensed phases, as similar trends are observed for other IDRs. The electrostatic nature of these features complements ATP’s involvement in π-related interactions and as an amphiphilic hydrotrope, underscoring a general role of biomolecular condensates in modulating ion concentrations and its functional ramifications.

    1. Structural Biology and Molecular Biophysics
    Kingsley Y Wu, Ta I Hung, Chia-en A Chang
    Research Article

    PROteolysis TArgeting Chimeras (PROTACs) are small molecules that induce target protein degradation via the ubiquitin-proteasome system. PROTACs recruit the target protein and E3 ligase; a critical first step is forming a ternary complex. However, while the formation of a ternary complex is crucial, it may not always guarantee successful protein degradation. The dynamics of the PROTAC-induced degradation complex play a key role in ubiquitination and subsequent degradation. In this study, we computationally modelled protein complex structures and dynamics associated with a series of PROTACs featuring different linkers to investigate why these PROTACs, all of which formed ternary complexes with Cereblon (CRBN) E3 ligase and the target protein bromodomain-containing protein 4 (BRD4BD1), exhibited varying degrees of degradation potency. We constructed the degradation machinery complexes with Culling-Ring Ligase 4A (CRL4A) E3 ligase scaffolds. Through atomistic molecular dynamics simulations, we illustrated how PROTAC-dependent protein dynamics facilitating the arrangement of surface lysine residues of BRD4BD1 into the catalytic pocket of E2/ubiquitin cascade for ubiquitination. Despite featuring identical warheads in this PROTAC series, the linkers were found to affect the residue-interaction networks, and thus governing the essential motions of the entire degradation machine for ubiquitination. These findings offer a structural dynamic perspective on ligand-induced protein degradation, providing insights to guide future PROTAC design endeavors.