Abstract

Phosphoribosyl pyrophosphate (PRPP) is a key intermediate in the biosynthesis of purine and pyrimidine nucleotides, histidine, tryptophan, and cofactors NAD and NADP. Abnormal regulation of PRPP synthase (PRPS) is associated with human disorders, including Arts syndrome, retinal dystrophy and gouty arthritis. Recent studies have demonstrated that PRPS can form filamentous cytoophidia in eukaryotes. Here we show that PRPS forms cytoophidia in prokaryotes both in vitro and in vivo. Moreover, we solve two distinct filament structures of E. coli PRPS at near-atomic resolution under Cryo-EM. The formation of the two types of filaments is controlled by the binding of different ligands. One filament type is resistant to allosteric inhibition. The structural comparison reveals conformational changes of a regulatory flexible loop, which may regulate the binding of the allosteric inhibitor and the substrate ATP. A noncanonical allosteric AMP/ADP binding site is identified to stabilize the conformation of the regulatory flexible loop. Our findings not only explore a new mechanism of PRPS regulation with structural basis, but also propose an additional layer of cell metabolism through PRPS filamentation.

Data availability

Atomic models generated in this study have been deposited at thePDB under the accession codes 7XMU, 7XMV, 7XN3. Cryo-EMmaps deposited to EMDB as: EMD-33305, EMD-33306, EMD-33309.

The following data sets were generated

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Huanhuan Hu

    School of Life Science and Technology, ShanghaiTech University, Shanghai, China
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-5997-530X
  2. Guangming Lu

    School of Life Science and Technology, ShanghaiTech University, Shanghai, China
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Chia-Chun Chang

    School of Life Science and Technology, ShanghaiTech University, Shanghai, China
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Yilan Li

    School of Life Science and Technology, ShanghaiTech University, Shanghai, China
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Jiale Zhong

    School of Life Science and Technology, ShanghaiTech University, Shanghai, China
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-5873-0450
  6. Chen-Jun Guo

    School of Life Science and Technology, ShanghaiTech University, Shanghai, China
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Xian Zhou

    School of Life Science and Technology, ShanghaiTech University, Shanghai, China
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Boqi Yin

    School of Life Science and Technology, ShanghaiTech University, Shanghai, China
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Tianyi Zhang

    School of Life Science and Technology, ShanghaiTech University, Shanghai, China
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-4632-6298
  10. Ji-Long Liu

    School of Life Science and Technology, ShanghaiTech University, Shanghai, China
    For correspondence
    liujl3@shanghaitech.edu.cn
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-4834-8554

Funding

Ministry of Science and Technology of the People's Republic of China (2021YFA0804701-4)

  • Ji-Long Liu

National Natural Science Foundation of China (31771490)

  • Ji-Long Liu

Shanghai Science and Technology Commission (20JC1410500)

  • Ji-Long Liu

Medical Research Council (MC_UU_12021/3; MC_U137788471)

  • Ji-Long Liu

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

Copyright

© 2022, Hu 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

  • 1,284
    views
  • 307
    downloads
  • 18
    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. Huanhuan Hu
  2. Guangming Lu
  3. Chia-Chun Chang
  4. Yilan Li
  5. Jiale Zhong
  6. Chen-Jun Guo
  7. Xian Zhou
  8. Boqi Yin
  9. Tianyi Zhang
  10. Ji-Long Liu
(2022)
Filamentation modulates allosteric regulation of PRPS
eLife 11:e79552.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.79552

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.79552

Further reading

    1. Structural Biology and Molecular Biophysics
    Jinsai Shang, Douglas J Kojetin
    Research Advance

    Peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor gamma (PPARγ) is a nuclear receptor transcription factor that regulates gene expression programs in response to ligand binding. Endogenous and synthetic ligands, including covalent antagonist inhibitors GW9662 and T0070907, are thought to compete for the orthosteric pocket in the ligand-binding domain (LBD). However, we previously showed that synthetic PPARγ ligands can cooperatively cobind with and reposition a bound endogenous orthosteric ligand to an alternate site, synergistically regulating PPARγ structure and function (Shang et al., 2018). Here, we reveal the structural mechanism of cobinding between a synthetic covalent antagonist inhibitor with other synthetic ligands. Biochemical and NMR data show that covalent inhibitors weaken—but do not prevent—the binding of other ligands via an allosteric mechanism, rather than direct ligand clashing, by shifting the LBD ensemble toward a transcriptionally repressive conformation, which structurally clashes with orthosteric ligand binding. Crystal structures reveal different cobinding mechanisms including alternate site binding to unexpectedly adopting an orthosteric binding mode by altering the covalent inhibitor binding pose. Our findings highlight the significant flexibility of the PPARγ orthosteric pocket, its ability to accommodate multiple ligands, and demonstrate that GW9662 and T0070907 should not be used as chemical tools to inhibit ligand binding to PPARγ.

    1. Structural Biology and Molecular Biophysics
    Yuanyuan Wang, Fan Xu ... Yongning He
    Research Article

    SCARF1 (scavenger receptor class F member 1, SREC-1 or SR-F1) is a type I transmembrane protein that recognizes multiple endogenous and exogenous ligands such as modified low-density lipoproteins (LDLs) and is important for maintaining homeostasis and immunity. But the structural information and the mechanisms of ligand recognition of SCARF1 are largely unavailable. Here, we solve the crystal structures of the N-terminal fragments of human SCARF1, which show that SCARF1 forms homodimers and its epidermal growth factor (EGF)-like domains adopt a long-curved conformation. Then, we examine the interactions of SCARF1 with lipoproteins and are able to identify a region on SCARF1 for recognizing modified LDLs. The mutagenesis data show that the positively charged residues in the region are crucial for the interaction of SCARF1 with modified LDLs, which is confirmed by making chimeric molecules of SCARF1 and SCARF2. In addition, teichoic acids, a cell wall polymer expressed on the surface of gram-positive bacteria, are able to inhibit the interactions of modified LDLs with SCARF1, suggesting the ligand binding sites of SCARF1 might be shared for some of its scavenging targets. Overall, these results provide mechanistic insights into SCARF1 and its interactions with the ligands, which are important for understanding its physiological roles in homeostasis and the related diseases.