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.

Reviewing Editor

  1. Andrew P Carter, MRC Laboratory of Molecular Biology, United Kingdom

Version history

  1. Received: July 27, 2020
  2. Accepted: November 28, 2020
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: November 30, 2020 (version 1)
  4. Version of Record published: December 17, 2020 (version 2)

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

  • 3,371
    views
  • 419
    downloads
  • 16
    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. Structural Biology and Molecular Biophysics
    Marco van den Noort, Panagiotis Drougkas ... Bert Poolman
    Research Article

    Bacteria utilize various strategies to prevent internal dehydration during hypertonic stress. A common approach to countering the effects of the stress is to import compatible solutes such as glycine betaine, leading to simultaneous passive water fluxes following the osmotic gradient. OpuA from Lactococcus lactis is a type I ABC-importer that uses two substrate-binding domains (SBDs) to capture extracellular glycine betaine and deliver the substrate to the transmembrane domains for subsequent transport. OpuA senses osmotic stress via changes in the internal ionic strength and is furthermore regulated by the 2nd messenger cyclic-di-AMP. We now show, by means of solution-based single-molecule FRET and analysis with multi-parameter photon-by-photon hidden Markov modeling, that the SBDs transiently interact in an ionic strength-dependent manner. The smFRET data are in accordance with the apparent cooperativity in transport and supported by new cryo-EM data of OpuA. We propose that the physical interactions between SBDs and cooperativity in substrate delivery are part of the transport mechanism.

    1. Structural Biology and Molecular Biophysics
    Xiao-Ru Chen, Karuna Dixit ... Tatyana I Igumenova
    Research Article

    Regulated hydrolysis of the phosphoinositide phosphatidylinositol(4,5)-bis-phosphate to diacylglycerol and inositol-1,4,5-P3 defines a major eukaryotic pathway for translation of extracellular cues to intracellular signaling circuits. Members of the lipid-activated protein kinase C isoenzyme family (PKCs) play central roles in this signaling circuit. One of the regulatory mechanisms employed to downregulate stimulated PKC activity is via a proteasome-dependent degradation pathway that is potentiated by peptidyl-prolyl isomerase Pin1. Here, we show that contrary to prevailing models, Pin1 does not regulate conventional PKC isoforms α and βII via a canonical cis-trans isomerization of the peptidyl-prolyl bond. Rather, Pin1 acts as a PKC binding partner that controls PKC activity via sequestration of the C-terminal tail of the kinase. The high-resolution structure of full-length Pin1 complexed to the C-terminal tail of PKCβII reveals that a novel bivalent interaction mode underlies the non-catalytic mode of Pin1 action. Specifically, Pin1 adopts a conformation in which it uses the WW and PPIase domains to engage two conserved phosphorylated PKC motifs, the turn motif and hydrophobic motif, respectively. Hydrophobic motif is a non-canonical Pin1-interacting element. The structural information combined with the results of extensive binding studies and experiments in cultured cells suggest that non-catalytic mechanisms represent unappreciated modes of Pin1-mediated regulation of AGC kinases and other key enzymes/substrates.