Structural basis for the phase separation of the chromosome passenger complex

  1. Nikaela W Bryan
  2. Aamir Ali
  3. Ewa Niedzialkowska
  4. Leland Mayne
  5. P Todd Stukenberg
  6. Ben E Black  Is a corresponding author
  1. University of Pennsylvania, United States
  2. University of Virginia, United States

Abstract

The physical basis of phase separation is thought to consist of the same types of bonds that specify conventional macromolecular interactions yet is unsatisfyingly often referred to as 'fuzzy'. Gaining clarity on the biogenesis of membraneless cellular compartments is one of the most demanding challenges in biology. Here, we focus on the chromosome passenger complex (CPC), that forms a chromatin body that regulates chromosome segregation in mitosis. Within the three regulatory subunits of the CPC implicated in phase separation - a heterotrimer of INCENP, Survivin, and Borealin - we identify the contact regions formed upon droplet formation using hydrogen/deuterium-exchange mass spectrometry (HXMS). These contact regions correspond to some of the interfaces seen between individual heterotrimers within the crystal lattice they form. A major contribution comes from specific electrostatic interactions that can be broken and reversed through initial and compensatory mutagenesis, respectively. Our findings reveal structural insight for interactions driving liquid-liquid demixing of the CPC. Moreover, we establish HXMS as an approach to define the structural basis for phase separation.

Data availability

Source data are provided with this paper. The HXMS data in this study has been deposited in the Pride database under accession code PXD034374. The structure 2QFA [https://doi.org/10.2210/pdb2QFA/pdb] from the Protein Data Bank (www.rcsb.org) was used inthis study. An AlphaFold prediction for the Borealin protein (primary accession number Q53HL2) was used in this study.

The following data sets were generated

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Nikaela W Bryan

    Department of Biochemistry and Biophysics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-5293-5145
  2. Aamir Ali

    Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Genetics, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Ewa Niedzialkowska

    Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Genetics, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Leland Mayne

    Department of Biochemistry and Biophysics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-6969-0474
  5. P Todd Stukenberg

    Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Genetics, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-6788-2111
  6. Ben E Black

    Department of Biochemistry and Biophysics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, United States
    For correspondence
    blackbe@mail.med.upenn.edu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-3707-9483

Funding

National Institute of General Medical Sciences (GM130302)

  • Ben E Black

National Institute of General Medical Sciences (GM134591)

  • Nikaela W Bryan

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

Reviewing Editor

  1. Silke Hauf, Virginia Tech, United States

Version history

  1. Preprint posted: May 22, 2023 (view preprint)
  2. Received: September 13, 2023
  3. Accepted: March 7, 2024
  4. Accepted Manuscript published: March 8, 2024 (version 1)
  5. Version of Record published: March 28, 2024 (version 2)

Copyright

© 2024, Bryan 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

  • 753
    views
  • 140
    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. Nikaela W Bryan
  2. Aamir Ali
  3. Ewa Niedzialkowska
  4. Leland Mayne
  5. P Todd Stukenberg
  6. Ben E Black
(2024)
Structural basis for the phase separation of the chromosome passenger complex
eLife 13:e92709.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.92709

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.92709

Further reading

    1. Structural Biology and Molecular Biophysics
    Hitendra Negi, Aravind Ravichandran ... Ranabir Das
    Research Article Updated

    The proteasome controls levels of most cellular proteins, and its activity is regulated under stress, quiescence, and inflammation. However, factors determining the proteasomal degradation rate remain poorly understood. Proteasome substrates are conjugated with small proteins (tags) like ubiquitin and Fat10 to target them to the proteasome. It is unclear if the structural plasticity of proteasome-targeting tags can influence substrate degradation. Fat10 is upregulated during inflammation, and its substrates undergo rapid proteasomal degradation. We report that the degradation rate of Fat10 substrates critically depends on the structural plasticity of Fat10. While the ubiquitin tag is recycled at the proteasome, Fat10 is degraded with the substrate. Our results suggest significantly lower thermodynamic stability and faster mechanical unfolding in Fat10 compared to ubiquitin. Long-range salt bridges are absent in the Fat10 structure, creating a plastic protein with partially unstructured regions suitable for proteasome engagement. Fat10 plasticity destabilizes substrates significantly and creates partially unstructured regions in the substrate to enhance degradation. NMR-relaxation-derived order parameters and temperature dependence of chemical shifts identify the Fat10-induced partially unstructured regions in the substrate, which correlated excellently to Fat10-substrate contacts, suggesting that the tag-substrate collision destabilizes the substrate. These results highlight a strong dependence of proteasomal degradation on the structural plasticity and thermodynamic properties of the proteasome-targeting tags.

    1. Biochemistry and Chemical Biology
    2. Structural Biology and Molecular Biophysics
    Kien Xuan Ngo, Huong T Vu ... Taro Uyeda
    Research Article

    The mechanism underlying the preferential and cooperative binding of cofilin and the expansion of clusters toward the pointed-end side of actin filaments remains poorly understood. To address this, we conducted a principal component analysis based on available filamentous actin (F-actin) and C-actin (cofilins were excluded from cofilactin) structures and compared to monomeric G-actin. The results strongly suggest that C-actin, rather than F-ADP-actin, represented the favourable structure for binding preference of cofilin. High-speed atomic force microscopy explored that the shortened bare half helix adjacent to the cofilin clusters on the pointed end side included fewer actin protomers than normal helices. The mean axial distance (MAD) between two adjacent actin protomers along the same long-pitch strand within shortened bare half helices was longer (5.0–6.3 nm) than the MAD within typical helices (4.3–5.6 nm). The inhibition of torsional motion during helical twisting, achieved through stronger attachment to the lipid membrane, led to more pronounced inhibition of cofilin binding and cluster formation than the presence of inorganic phosphate (Pi) in solution. F-ADP-actin exhibited more naturally supertwisted half helices than F-ADP.Pi-actin, explaining how Pi inhibits cofilin binding to F-actin with variable helical twists. We propose that protomers within the shorter bare helical twists, either influenced by thermal fluctuation or induced allosterically by cofilin clusters, exhibit characteristics of C-actin-like structures with an elongated MAD, leading to preferential and cooperative binding of cofilin.