Molecular mechanism of Afadin substrate recruitment to the receptor phosphatase PTPRK via its pseudophosphatase domain

  1. Iain M Hay
  2. Katie E Mulholland
  3. Tiffany Lai
  4. Stephen C Graham
  5. Hayley J Sharpe  Is a corresponding author
  6. Janet E Deane  Is a corresponding author
  1. University of Cambridge, United Kingdom
  2. Babraham Institute, United Kingdom

Abstract

Protein tyrosine phosphatase receptor-type kappa (PTPRK) is a transmembrane receptor that links extracellular homophilic interactions to intracellular catalytic activity. Previously we showed that PTPRK promotes cell-cell adhesion by selectively dephosphorylating several cell junction regulators including the protein Afadin (Fearnley et al., 2019). Here we demonstrate that Afadin is recruited for dephosphorylation by directly binding to the PTPRK D2 pseudophosphatase domain. We mapped this interaction to a putative coiled coil (CC) domain in Afadin that is separated by more than 100 amino acids from the substrate pTyr residue. We identify the residues that define PTP specificity, explaining how Afadin is selectively dephosphorylated by PTPRK yet not by the closely related receptor tyrosine phosphatase PTPRM. Our work demonstrates that PTP substrate specificity can be determined by protein-protein interactions distal to the active site. This explains how PTPRK and other PTPs achieve substrate specificity despite a lack of specific sequence context at the substrate pTyr. Furthermore, by demonstrating that these interactions are phosphorylation-independent and mediated via binding to a non-catalytic domain, we highlight how receptor PTPs could function as intracellular scaffolds in addition to catalyzing protein dephosphorylation.

Data availability

All structural models predicted using AlphaFold have been deposited in the University of Cambridge Data Repository: https://doi.org/10.17863/CAM.82741.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Iain M Hay

    Cambridge Institute for Medical Research, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-5451-1768
  2. Katie E Mulholland

    Signalling Programme, Babraham Institute, Cambridge, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Tiffany Lai

    Signalling Programme, Babraham Institute, Cambridge, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Stephen C Graham

    Department of Pathology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-4547-4034
  5. Hayley J Sharpe

    Signalling Programme, Babraham Institute, Cambridge, United Kingdom
    For correspondence
    hayley.sharpe@babraham.ac.uk
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-4723-298X
  6. Janet E Deane

    Cambridge Institute for Medical Research, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
    For correspondence
    jed55@cam.ac.uk
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-4863-0330

Funding

Wellcome Trust (109407/Z/15/Z)

  • Hayley J Sharpe

Wellcome Trust (219447/Z/19/Z)

  • Janet E Deane

Royal Society (219447/Z/19/Z)

  • Janet E Deane

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

Copyright

© 2022, Hay 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

  • 1,359
    views
  • 189
    downloads
  • 1
    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. Iain M Hay
  2. Katie E Mulholland
  3. Tiffany Lai
  4. Stephen C Graham
  5. Hayley J Sharpe
  6. Janet E Deane
(2022)
Molecular mechanism of Afadin substrate recruitment to the receptor phosphatase PTPRK via its pseudophosphatase domain
eLife 11:e79855.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.79855

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.79855

Further reading

    1. Biochemistry and Chemical Biology
    Gabriella O Estevam, Edmond Linossi ... James S Fraser
    Research Article

    Mutations in the kinase and juxtamembrane domains of the MET Receptor Tyrosine Kinase are responsible for oncogenesis in various cancers and can drive resistance to MET-directed treatments. Determining the most effective inhibitor for each mutational profile is a major challenge for MET-driven cancer treatment in precision medicine. Here, we used a deep mutational scan (DMS) of ~5764 MET kinase domain variants to profile the growth of each mutation against a panel of 11 inhibitors that are reported to target the MET kinase domain. We validate previously identified resistance mutations, pinpoint common resistance sites across type I, type II, and type I ½ inhibitors, unveil unique resistance and sensitizing mutations for each inhibitor, and verify non-cross-resistant sensitivities for type I and type II inhibitor pairs. We augment a protein language model with biophysical and chemical features to improve the predictive performance for inhibitor-treated datasets. Together, our study demonstrates a pooled experimental pipeline for identifying resistance mutations, provides a reference dictionary for mutations that are sensitized to specific therapies, and offers insights for future drug development.

    1. Biochemistry and Chemical Biology
    2. Genetics and Genomics
    Kira Breunig, Xuifen Lei ... Luiz O Penalva
    Research Article

    RNA binding proteins (RBPs) containing intrinsically disordered regions (IDRs) are present in diverse molecular complexes where they function as dynamic regulators. Their characteristics promote liquid-liquid phase separation (LLPS) and the formation of membraneless organelles such as stress granules and nucleoli. IDR-RBPs are particularly relevant in the nervous system and their dysfunction is associated with neurodegenerative diseases and brain tumor development. Serpine1 mRNA-binding protein 1 (SERBP1) is a unique member of this group, being mostly disordered and lacking canonical RNA-binding domains. We defined SERBP1’s interactome, uncovered novel roles in splicing, cell division and ribosomal biogenesis, and showed its participation in pathological stress granules and Tau aggregates in Alzheimer’s brains. SERBP1 preferentially interacts with other G-quadruplex (G4) binders, implicated in different stages of gene expression, suggesting that G4 binding is a critical component of SERBP1 function in different settings. Similarly, we identified important associations between SERBP1 and PARP1/polyADP-ribosylation (PARylation). SERBP1 interacts with PARP1 and its associated factors and influences PARylation. Moreover, protein complexes in which SERBP1 participates contain mostly PARylated proteins and PAR binders. Based on these results, we propose a feedback regulatory model in which SERBP1 influences PARP1 function and PARylation, while PARylation modulates SERBP1 functions and participation in regulatory complexes.