Cryo-EM structure of the yeast TREX complex and coordination with the SR-like protein Gbp2

  1. Yihu Xie  Is a corresponding author
  2. Bradley P Clarke
  3. Yong Joon Kim
  4. Austin L Ivey
  5. Pate S Hill
  6. Yi Shi
  7. Yi Ren  Is a corresponding author
  1. Vanderbilt University, United States
  2. University of Pittsburgh, United States
  3. University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, United States

Abstract

The evolutionarily conserved TREX complex plays central roles during mRNP (messenger ribonucleoprotein) maturation and export from the nucleus to the cytoplasm. In yeast, TREX is composed of the THO sub-complex (Tho2, Hpr1, Tex1, Mft1, and Thp2), the DEAD box ATPase Sub2, and Yra1. Here we present a 3.7 Å cryo-EM structure of the yeast THO•Sub2 complex. The structure reveals the intimate assembly of THO revolving around its largest subunit Tho2. THO stabilizes a semi-open conformation of the Sub2 ATPase via interactions with Tho2. We show that THO interacts with the SR-like protein Gbp2 through both the RS domain and RRM domains of Gbp2. Crosslinking mass spectrometry analysis supports the extensive interactions between THO and Gbp2, further revealing that RRM domains of Gbp2 are in close proximity to the C-terminal domain of Tho2. We propose that THO serves as a landing pad to configure Gbp2 to facilitate its loading onto mRNP.

Data availability

The cryo-EM density maps have been deposited in the Electron Microscopy Data Bank under the accession number EMD-23527. The coordinates of the THO•Sub2 complex has be deposited in the Protein Data Bank under the accession number 7LUV.

The following data sets were generated

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Yihu Xie

    Department of Biochemistry, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, United States
    For correspondence
    yihu.xie@vanderbilt.edu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Bradley P Clarke

    Department of Biochemistry, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-9413-9905
  3. Yong Joon Kim

    Department of Cell Biology, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Austin L Ivey

    Department of Biochemistry, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Pate S Hill

    Department of Biochemistry, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-9550-2713
  6. Yi Shi

    Department of Cell Biology, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-2761-8324
  7. Yi Ren

    Department of Biochemistry, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, United States
    For correspondence
    yi.ren@vanderbilt.edu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-4531-0910

Funding

National Institute of General Medical Sciences (GM133743)

  • Yihu Xie
  • Bradley P Clarke
  • Austin L Ivey
  • Pate S Hill
  • Yi Ren

National Institute of General Medical Sciences (GM137905)

  • Yong Joon Kim
  • Yi Shi

National Cancer Institute (T32CA119925)

  • Bradley P Clarke

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

Copyright

© 2021, Xie 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

  • 3,689
    views
  • 446
    downloads
  • 30
    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. Yihu Xie
  2. Bradley P Clarke
  3. Yong Joon Kim
  4. Austin L Ivey
  5. Pate S Hill
  6. Yi Shi
  7. Yi Ren
(2021)
Cryo-EM structure of the yeast TREX complex and coordination with the SR-like protein Gbp2
eLife 10:e65699.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.65699

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.65699

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.