Abstract

Dephosphorylation of eukaryotic translation initiation factor 2a (eIF2a) restores protein synthesis at the waning of stress responses and requires a PP1 catalytic subunit and a regulatory subunit, PPP1R15A/GADD34 or PPP1R15B/CReP. Surprisingly, PPP1R15-PP1 binary complexes reconstituted in vitro lacked substrate selectivity. However, selectivity was restored by crude cell lysate or purified G-actin, which joined PPP1R15-PP1 to form a stable ternary complex. In crystal structures of the non-selective PPP1R15B-PP1G complex, the functional core of PPP1R15 made multiple surface contacts with PP1G, but at a distance from the active site, whereas in the substrate-selective ternary complex, actin contributes to one face of a platform encompassing the active site. Computational docking of the N-terminal lobe of eIF2a at this platform placed phosphorylated serine 51 near the active site. Mutagenesis of predicted surface-contacting residues enfeebled dephosphorylation, suggesting that avidity for the substrate plays an important role in imparting specificity on the PPP1R15B-PP1G-actin ternary complex.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Ruming Chen

    Cambridge Institute for Medical Research, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  2. Cláudia Rato

    Cambridge Institute for Medical Research, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  3. Yahui Yan

    Cambridge Institute for Medical Research, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  4. Ana Crespillo-Casado

    Cambridge Institute for Medical Research, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  5. Hanna J Clarke

    Cambridge Institute for Medical Research, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  6. Heather P Harding

    Cambridge Institute for Medical Research, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  7. Stefan J Marciniak

    Cambridge Institute for Medical Research, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  8. Randy J Read

    Cambridge Institute for Medical Research, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  9. David Ron

    Cambridge Institute for Medical Research, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
    For correspondence
    dr360@medschl.cam.ac.uk
    Competing interests
    David Ron, Reviewing editor, eLife.

Reviewing Editor

  1. W James Nelson, Stanford University, United States

Version history

  1. Received: September 23, 2014
  2. Accepted: March 12, 2015
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: March 16, 2015 (version 1)
  4. Version of Record published: April 13, 2015 (version 2)

Copyright

© 2015, Chen 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

  • 3,284
    views
  • 753
    downloads
  • 66
    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. Ruming Chen
  2. Cláudia Rato
  3. Yahui Yan
  4. Ana Crespillo-Casado
  5. Hanna J Clarke
  6. Heather P Harding
  7. Stefan J Marciniak
  8. Randy J Read
  9. David Ron
(2015)
G-actin provides substrate-specificity to eukaryotic initiation factor 2α holophosphatases
eLife 4:e04871.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.04871

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.04871

Further reading

    1. Biochemistry and Chemical Biology
    2. Cell Biology
    Joseph E Chambers, Lucy E Dalton ... Stefan J Marciniak
    Research Article Updated

    Four stress-sensing kinases phosphorylate the alpha subunit of eukaryotic translation initiation factor 2 (eIF2α) to activate the integrated stress response (ISR). In animals, the ISR is antagonised by selective eIF2α phosphatases comprising a catalytic protein phosphatase 1 (PP1) subunit in complex with a PPP1R15-type regulatory subunit. An unbiased search for additional conserved components of the PPP1R15-PP1 phosphatase identified monomeric G-actin. Like PP1, G-actin associated with the functional core of PPP1R15 family members and G-actin depletion, by the marine toxin jasplakinolide, destabilised the endogenous PPP1R15A-PP1 complex. The abundance of the ternary PPP1R15-PP1-G-actin complex was responsive to global changes in the polymeric status of actin, as was its eIF2α-directed phosphatase activity, while localised G-actin depletion at sites enriched for PPP1R15 enhanced eIF2α phosphorylation and the downstream ISR. G-actin's role as a stabilizer of the PPP1R15-containing holophosphatase provides a mechanism for integrating signals regulating actin dynamics with stresses that trigger the ISR.

    1. Biochemistry and Chemical Biology
    2. Structural Biology and Molecular Biophysics
    Damien M Rasmussen, Manny M Semonis ... Nicholas M Levinson
    Research Article

    The type II class of RAF inhibitors currently in clinical trials paradoxically activate BRAF at subsaturating concentrations. Activation is mediated by induction of BRAF dimers, but why activation rather than inhibition occurs remains unclear. Using biophysical methods tracking BRAF dimerization and conformation, we built an allosteric model of inhibitor-induced dimerization that resolves the allosteric contributions of inhibitor binding to the two active sites of the dimer, revealing key differences between type I and type II RAF inhibitors. For type II inhibitors the allosteric coupling between inhibitor binding and BRAF dimerization is distributed asymmetrically across the two dimer binding sites, with binding to the first site dominating the allostery. This asymmetry results in efficient and selective induction of dimers with one inhibited and one catalytically active subunit. Our allosteric models quantitatively account for paradoxical activation data measured for 11 RAF inhibitors. Unlike type II inhibitors, type I inhibitors lack allosteric asymmetry and do not activate BRAF homodimers. Finally, NMR data reveal that BRAF homodimers are dynamically asymmetric with only one of the subunits locked in the active αC-in state. This provides a structural mechanism for how binding of only a single αC-in inhibitor molecule can induce potent BRAF dimerization and activation.