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

  • 1,424
    views
  • 193
    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
    2. Genetics and Genomics
    Conor J Howard, Nathan S Abell ... Nathan B Lubock
    Research Article

    Deep Mutational Scanning (DMS) is an emerging method to systematically test the functional consequences of thousands of sequence changes to a protein target in a single experiment. Because of its utility in interpreting both human variant effects and protein structure-function relationships, it holds substantial promise to improve drug discovery and clinical development. However, applications in this domain require improved experimental and analytical methods. To address this need, we report novel DMS methods to precisely and quantitatively interrogate disease-relevant mechanisms, protein-ligand interactions, and assess predicted response to drug treatment. Using these methods, we performed a DMS of the melanocortin-4 receptor (MC4R), a G-protein-coupled receptor (GPCR) implicated in obesity and an active target of drug development efforts. We assessed the effects of >6600 single amino acid substitutions on MC4R’s function across 18 distinct experimental conditions, resulting in >20 million unique measurements. From this, we identified variants that have unique effects on MC4R-mediated Gαs- and Gαq-signaling pathways, which could be used to design drugs that selectively bias MC4R’s activity. We also identified pathogenic variants that are likely amenable to a corrector therapy. Finally, we functionally characterized structural relationships that distinguish the binding of peptide versus small molecule ligands, which could guide compound optimization. Collectively, these results demonstrate that DMS is a powerful method to empower drug discovery and development.

    1. Biochemistry and Chemical Biology
    Meina He, Yongxin Tao ... Wenli Chen
    Research Article

    Copper is an essential enzyme cofactor in bacteria, but excess copper is highly toxic. Bacteria can cope with copper stress by increasing copper resistance and initiating chemorepellent response. However, it remains unclear how bacteria coordinate chemotaxis and resistance to copper. By screening proteins that interacted with the chemotaxis kinase CheA, we identified a copper-binding repressor CsoR that interacted with CheA in Pseudomonas putida. CsoR interacted with the HPT (P1), Dimer (P3), and HATPase_c (P4) domains of CheA and inhibited CheA autophosphorylation, resulting in decreased chemotaxis. The copper-binding of CsoR weakened its interaction with CheA, which relieved the inhibition of chemotaxis by CsoR. In addition, CsoR bound to the promoter of copper-resistance genes to inhibit gene expression, and copper-binding released CsoR from the promoter, leading to increased gene expression and copper resistance. P. putida cells exhibited a chemorepellent response to copper in a CheA-dependent manner, and CsoR inhibited the chemorepellent response to copper. Besides, the CheA-CsoR interaction also existed in proteins from several other bacterial species. Our results revealed a mechanism by which bacteria coordinately regulated chemotaxis and resistance to copper by CsoR.