Peptides that Mimic RS repeats modulate phase separation of SRSF1, revealing a reliance on combined stacking and electrostatic interactions

Abstract

Phase separation plays crucial roles in both sustaining cellular function and perpetuating disease states. Despite extensive studies, our understanding of this process is hindered by low solubility of phase-separating proteins. One example of this is found in SR and SR-related proteins. These proteins are characterized by domains rich in arginine and serine (RS domains), which are essential to alternative splicing and in vivo phase separation. However, they are also responsible for a low solubility that has made these proteins difficult to study for decades. Here, we solubilize the founding member of the SR family, SRSF1, by introducing a peptide mimicking RS repeats as a co-solute. We find that this RS-mimic peptide forms interactions similar to those of the protein's RS domain. Both interact with a combination of surface-exposed aromatic residues and acidic residues on SRSF1's RNA Recognition Motifs (RRMs) through electrostatic and cation-pi interactions. Analysis of RRM domains from human SR proteins indicates that these sites are conserved across the protein family. In addition to opening an avenue to previously unavailable proteins, our work provides insight into how SR proteins phase separate and participate in nuclear speckles.

Data availability

NMR assignment has been deposited to BMRB (ID: 51299).

The following data sets were generated

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Talia Fargason

    Department of Chemistry, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-6888-0356
  2. Naiduwadura Ivon Upekala De Silva

    Department of Chemistry, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Erin Powell

    Department of Chemistry, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Zihan Zhang

    Department of Chemistry, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Trenton Paul

    Department of Chemistry, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Jamal Shariq

    Department of Chemistry, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Steve Zaharias

    Department of Chemistry, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Jun Zhang

    Department of Chemistry, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, United States
    For correspondence
    zhanguab@uab.edu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-5842-7424

Funding

National Science Foundation (MCB2024964)

  • Jun Zhang

National Institutes of Health (R35GM147091)

  • Jun Zhang

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

Copyright

© 2023, Fargason 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

  • 1,740
    views
  • 251
    downloads
  • 13
    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. Talia Fargason
  2. Naiduwadura Ivon Upekala De Silva
  3. Erin Powell
  4. Zihan Zhang
  5. Trenton Paul
  6. Jamal Shariq
  7. Steve Zaharias
  8. Jun Zhang
(2023)
Peptides that Mimic RS repeats modulate phase separation of SRSF1, revealing a reliance on combined stacking and electrostatic interactions
eLife 12:e84412.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.84412

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.84412

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.