Khuram Shahzad1, Abdul Hai, Asifa Ahmed, Nadeem Kizilbash, Jamal Alruwaili. 1. Illinois Informatics Institute, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, Illinois, U.S.A ; Department of Biosciences, COMSATS Institute of Information Technology, Islamabad, Pakistan.
Abstract
The structure of human Methylenetetrahydrofolate Reductase (MTHFR) is not known either by NMR or by X-ray methods. Phosphorylation seems to play an important role in the functioning of this flavoprotein. MTHFR catalyzes an irreversible reaction in homocysteine metabolism. Phosphorylation decreases the activity of MTHFR by enhancing the sensitivity of the enzyme to SAdenosylmethione. Two common polymorphisms in MTHFR, Ala222Val and Glu429Ala, can result in a number of vascular diseases. Effects of the Glu429Ala polymorphism on the structure of human MTHFR remain undetermined due to limited structural information. Hence, structural models of the MTHFR mutants were constructed using I-TASSER and assessed by PROCHECK, DFIRE and Verify3D tools. A mechanism is further suggested for the decreased activity of the Ala222Val and Glu429Ala mutants due to a decrease in number of serine phosphorylation sites using information gleaned from the molecular models. This provides insights for the understanding of structure-function relationship for MTHFR.
The structure of humanMethylenetetrahydrofolate Reductase (MTHFR) is not known either by NMR or by X-ray methods. Phosphorylation seems to play an important role in the functioning of this flavoprotein. MTHFR catalyzes an irreversible reaction in homocysteine metabolism. Phosphorylation decreases the activity of MTHFR by enhancing the sensitivity of the enzyme to SAdenosylmethione. Two common polymorphisms in MTHFR, Ala222Val and Glu429Ala, can result in a number of vascular diseases. Effects of the Glu429Ala polymorphism on the structure of humanMTHFR remain undetermined due to limited structural information. Hence, structural models of the MTHFR mutants were constructed using I-TASSER and assessed by PROCHECK, DFIRE and Verify3D tools. A mechanism is further suggested for the decreased activity of the Ala222Val and Glu429Ala mutants due to a decrease in number of serine phosphorylation sites using information gleaned from the molecular models. This provides insights for the understanding of structure-function relationship for MTHFR.
Methylenetetrahydrofolate reductase (MTHFR) plays an
important role in processing of amino acids. It converts 5, 10
Methylenetetrahydrofolate to 5-Methyltetrahydrofolate which
provides the methyl group for methylation of homocysteine to
methionine by the enzyme Methionine Synthase [1]. High
plasma homocysteine levels (hyperhomocysteinemia) are
associated with increased risk for cardiovascular disease and
neural tube defects in humans. Treatment with Folic Acid
decreases homocysteine levels and dramatically reduces the
incidence of neural tube defects. The flavoprotein, MTHFR is a
likely target for the action of Folic Acid. MTHFR is a
homodimer. Each domain can be separated by partial digestion
of the native enzyme with trypsin. It contains a bound FAD
prosthetic group on each domain and uses NADPH as reducing
agent. An S-adenosylmethione-binding site is present in the
regulatory domain. The binding of S-adenosylmethione
allosterically inhibits the activity of the enzyme.MTHFR gene codes for a protein of 656 amino acids with a
predicted molecular mass of 74.5 kDa [2]. MTHFR uses NADPH
as a reducing agent and FAD as a cofactor in mammalian cells
[3]. Eukaryotic MTHFR comprises a catalytic domain of about
40 kDa at the N-terminus and a C-terminus regulatory domain
of about 37 kDa. The C-terminus of humanMTHFR contains the
S-Adenosylmethionine-binding site which regulates the
Methionine level in cells [4]. This C-terminus domain is not
present in MTHFR from E. coli. Hence, NADH-dependent
MTHFR from E. coli is insensitive to S-Adenosylmethionine
[5].Both human and other eukaryotic MTHFR exist as homodimers,
whereas MTHFR of E. coli is a homotetramer
[6-7]. The
homodimers can be separated by partial digestion of the native
enzyme with trypsin [6]. Each homodimer contains two noncovalently
bound FAD molecules per dimer. SAdenosylmethionine
plays an important role in keeping the
enzyme in dimeric form [8]. MTHFR can also be
phosphorylated which decreases its activity by ~20% and allows
it to be more easily inhibited by the S-Adenosylmethionine
[9].
As mentioned before, MTHFR contains a bound flavin cofactor
and uses NADPH. A→V mutation in human (A222V) and in E.
coli (A177V) increases the rate of dissociation of FAD leading to
the structural changes in the enzyme [10]. Structural changes in
the MTHFR enzyme lead to many diseases such as
Homocystinuria [11], Coronary artery disease
[12], Neural tube
defects [13], thyroid dysfunction
[14] and colorectal cancer
[15],
etc. Protein structure prediction is one of the most important
areas in the fields of structural bioinformatics, computational
biology and drug design. The current study was carried out to
predict the structure of humanMTHFR for a better
understanding of the mechanism of the enzyme. The structure
of humanMTHFR was predicted using different online servers
and then evaluated for further analysis.
Methodology
Sequence of MTHFR and Template Selection:
The sequence of MTHFR (P42898) was retrieved from Expasy
server [16] in FASTA format. PSI BLAST
[17] was used to
retrieve homologous sequences of existing protein structures in
the Protein Data Bank. Fifteen sequences of different species
showing some homology were retrieved using PSI-BLAST.
Phylogenetic analysis was carried out to obtain information
about evolutionary relationship between the different species
and as well as to find out if structural homologs were available
in PDB for template-based modeling using the ClustalW server
[18].
Homology modeling:
For tertiary structure prediction of humanMTHFR, different
methodologies were adopted. Homology modeling was
performed using different online servers for 3D structure
prediction such as CPH Models [19], EsyPred3D
[20],
HMMstr/Rosetta [21-22], Swiss Model
[23] and Protein
Structure Prediction Server (PS) [24]. Then I-TASSER
[25-27]
server was used for threading purposes. In this method the
target sequences are first threaded using a representative PDB
structure library to search for the possible folds by Profile-
Profile Alignment (PPA), Hidden Markov Model, PSI-BLAST
profiles, Needleman-Wunch and Smith-Waterman alignment
algorithms. I-TASSER server predicted the humanMTHFR
protein models from which five best models were selected after
refinement.
Model Validation:
For evaluation purposes, we used DFIRE [28],
Verify3D [29],
and Procheck [30-31] programs. DFIRE is a statistical, potentialbased
program that uses a distance-scaled finite ideal-gas
reference state. DFIRE is used to assess non-bonding
interactions in the protein model. A lower energy indicates that
a model is closer to the native conformation. The Verify3D
method analyzes the compatibility of an atomic model of the
protein with its amino acid sequence. The scores range from -1
to +1 (-1 being unacceptable and +1 being an acceptable score).
The PROCHECK suite of program was used to assess the
stereochemical quality of a given protein structure. The results
were also confirmed using the link:
http://nihserver.mbi.ucla.edu /SAVES/.
Model Analysis:
For the predicting the number of domains, DOMAC server
[32-35]
was used. The humanMTHFR was predicted to have two
domains. To predict phosphorylation sites, Netphos 2.0
[36]
sever was used. Also identified in the structure are Tryptic
cleavage site, FAD binding site at the N-terminus, NADPH and
S-Adenosylmethionine-binding sites. Amino acid sequences of
mutant proteins were obtained by introducing mutations in the
sequence of the wild type manually. The three mutant
sequences were constructed: (a) by replacing Alanine with
Valine at position 222 in the protein sequence; (b) by replacing
Glutamate with Alanine at the position 429 in the protein
sequence; and (c) by replacing both Alanine at position 222 and
Glutamate at position 429 with Valine and Alanine,
respectively. After introducing the mutations in the sequences,
the tertiary structures were predicted by I-TASSER. The protein
models were visualized by the use of VMD software [37].
Results
MTHFR protein sequence was used for multiple sequence
alignment and retrieval of homologous sequences of
experimentally determined 3-D structures present in the Protein
Data Bank. Table 1 (see supplementary material) shows the
percentage identity of the similar sequences and their PDB
(Protein Data Bank) ID codes of known structures. It was
noticed that experimentally determined structures were
available for proteins sequences from E. coli and Thermus
thermophilus only in the Protein Data Bank. Figure 1 shows the
Phylogenetic relationship between the selected species. It was
found out that the acid acid sequences of both E. coli and
Thermus thermophilusMTHFR are very different from the humanMTHFR sequence. The complete models were not predicted by
homology modeling-based protein structure prediction servers
because of the unavailability of the required templates in the
Protein Data Bank (PDB). These servers were able to predict the
structure of MTHFR from residue 1 to 340, but the rest of the
structure was not predicted. Five models of the protein
structure were generated by the I-TASSER server after
refinement using the threading technique and were visualized
by VMD software (Figure 2).
Figure 1
Phylogenetic relationship of Human MTHFR protein
sequence (P42898) with MTHFR protein sequence of 15 selected
species. The phylogram shows that Human MTHFR posseses
greater similarity with Macaca fascicularis (SwissProt ID:
Q60HE5). Only two structures of MTHFR from the selected
species are experimentally determined having their structures
available in the Protein Data Bank. These two species are E. coli
(PDB code: 1b5t) and Thermus thermophilus (PDB code: 1v93).
Figure 2
The models 1-5 are generated from the I-TASSER server and visualized by the VMD.
The five complete models obtained from I-TASSER server were
evaluated for the one best model. Table 2 (see supplementary
material) shows the structural evaluation results using DFIRE,
Verify3D and Procheck. The DFIRE program uses energy value
to evaluate the structures. According to these results the lowest
energy is of model number 1. The Verify3D program assigned
the highest positive score to model number 4. To analyze the
stereochemical quality of the predicted structure Procheck
software was used. According to Procheck results, model
number 1 is the most stable because it has less area in the
disallowed region (2.3% as compared to the other models).
Model number 1 was finally used for further analysis based on
energy, stereochemical results and I-TASSER structure
prediction server ranking.Two domains were predicted by the DOMAC server. The
domain prediction was made by the template-based methods
using the protein templates available in Protein Data Bank
(figure 3A. B) shows the protein as a homodimer. The
first domain stretches from amino acid 1 to 342 while the second
domain is from amino acid 343 to 656. The phosphorylation
sites predicted by the Motif Scan servers are shown in the
figure 4 (A-B). Figure 5 (A, B) shows the FAD-binding site of the
catalytic domain, S-Adenosylmethione-binding site, Trypsin
cleavage site (KRREED) and a conserved amino acid motif
(VRPIFW) in the regulatory domain. Two possible NADPHbinding
sites are shown in (Figure 6).
Figure 3
(A) Two domains (Surf view) of wild-type Human MTHFR structure. (B) Homodimer view of Human MTHFR.
Figure 4
Phosphorylation binding sites: A) Protein Kinase C
phosphorylation sites are colored in yellow, Casein Kinase II
phosphorylation sites are colored in green, while the
overlapping phosphorylation sites of the both enzymes are
colored in cyan as show in the figure A; B) Protein Kinase C
phosphorylation sequence is colored in yellow, Casein Kinase II
phosphorylation sequence is colored in green, while the green
colored sequence highlighted with yellow background is the
overlapping sequence of both the enzymes.
Figure 5
Validation by Experimental Evidences: A) FAD
binding site at the N-terminus, S-Adenosylmethione-binding
site in the regulatory domain, tryptic cleavage, and a conserved
domain is shown in the wild type MTHFR; B) MTHFR sequence
showing the FAD binding site in yellow color, Adomet binding
site in the pink color, tryptic cleavage site in the red color and
the conserved domain in the green color.
Figure 6
NADPH-binding sites: A) Structural view of supposed
NADPH binding sites Loop 1 and Loop 2 are colored in red to
indicate the NADPH-binding sites; B) The MTHFR sequence
from 149 to 160 residues indicates the loop 1 region while
sequence from 190 to 206 residues (colored in gray) indicates the
loop 2 region.
After selecting the best 3-D model of the wild type MTHFR, its
amino acid sequence was mutated and then the structures of the
three mutated structures were predicted using the I-TASSER
server. After this step, different core sites were highlighted
which can be affected due to mutations (Figure 7). A total of 22
Serine, 6 Threonine and 3 Tyrosine phosphorylation sites were
predicted by NetPhos 2.0 server for the wild-type HumanMTHFR. There were differences found in Serine
phosphorylation sites, which were 21 in both mutated
sequences having a single amino acid mutation and 20 sites
were predicted in MTHFR sequence having both the mutations.
Figure 8 (A-D) shows the phosphorylation sites in normal and
mutated structures predicted by NetPhos 2.0 server. The FADbinding
sites in both wild type and mutant are shown in the
(Figure 9). S-Adenosylmethione-binding site mutations are also
visible in the structure (Figure 10). The complete view of the
model is shown in (Figure 11).
Figure 7
A) Structural alignment of Normal (Blue) and Mutated (Purple) amino acids of MTHFR. Residue number 222 of both
types is shown (CPK view). Normal amino acid Alanine is shown in the lime color while mutated amino acid Valine is shown in the
red color; B) Structural alignment of the normal and mutated amino acids of MTHFR. Glutamic Acid is shown in the lime color
which is replaced by Alanine in the mutated structure; C) Close look of A222V mutated structure. Blue colored helix shows the
normal structure while purple colored helix represents the mutated structure; D) Close look of E429A mutated structure. Blue
colored helix shows the normal structure while purple colored helix represents the mutated structure.
Figure 8
Comparison of Phosphorylation sites of normal and mutated sites: A) Wild-type Human MTHFR model with active
Serine Phosphorylation residue at its position 219; B) Wild type MTHFR with active Serine residue at its position 427 and 430; C)
Figure 9
Comparison of FAD-binding sites in normal and
mutated structures. FAD-binding region is highlighted in
orange color present in the catalytic region. The structural
perturbance can be seen very clearly in the figure due to the
effect of mutations.
Figure 10
S-Adenosylmethione-binding sites of both mutatnats
are shown in the figure. The difference between the two sites
can be visualized clearly. S-Adenosylmethione-binding site in
the mutated structure is distorted as compared to the normal
structure.
Figure 11
A model of the Human MTHFR structure showing
different sites by color-coding in the structure.
Discussionin silico methods were used to determine the structural
difference between the wild type and mutant humanMTHFR
enzyme. The predicted structures show β8α8 barrel catalytic
domains that bind FAD. In order to understand the underlining
factors responsible for the malfunction of mutants of MTHFR,
structural studies were carried out by using different
bioinformatics tools and software. The sequence alignment and
phylogenetic analysis was carried out using PSI-BLAST and
ClustalW software. Only two experimentally determined
structures were present in the Protein Data Bank (PDB), namely
from E. coli (PDB code: 1b5t) [38]
and from Thermus thermophilus
(PDB code:1v93) [39,
40]. Using these two known structures,
homology modeling for tertiary structure prediction was carried
out. Only the structure of first domain of HumanMTHFR was
predicted from homology modeling results based on the
available templates of E. coli and Thermus thermophilus in the
Protein Data Bank. To predict the complete structure of HumanMTHFR, the threading technique was applied. I-TASSER server
predicted the complete structural results by threading. The
models predicted by this server were used for further analysis.The X-ray analysis of E. coliMTHFR provides a model for the
catalytic domain that is shared by all MTHFRs. This domain is a
β8α8 barrel that binds FAD in a novel fashion [38]. Ala177,
which corresponds to Ala222 in humanMTHFR, is located near
the bottom of the barrel and is distant from FAD. The mutation
A177V does not affect Km or kcat but instead increases the
propensity for bacterial MTHFR to lose its essential FAD
cofactor. Folate derivatives protect the wild-type and mutant E.
coli enzymes against the loss of FAD and also against thermal
inactivation.According to the known structure of bacterial MTHFR enzyme,
FAD-binding residues are located near the N-terminus of
MTHFR [38]. It was observed that these FAD-binding residues
have a compact structure for binding of FAD cofactor in the
wild-type humanMTHFR. When these residues were colorcoded
in the predicted structure of Ala222Val mutant, it was
observed that the FAD-binding groove appeared broadened.
This result indicates that FAD binding in the catalytic domain
was disturbed which resulted in the distortion of the original
structure of wild-type humanMTHFR. Trypsin cleavage of
native enzyme was also shown in the wild-type humanMTHFR
structure, which also confirmed the two domains in the
structure.According to Yamada et al [9], phosphorylation is crucial for the
regulation of humanMTHFR. It acts as an on and off switch for
the expression of MTHFR. NetPhos 2.0 server was used for the
prediction of phosphorylation sites and it predicted a total of 22
Serine, 6 Threonine and 3 Tyrosine sites. It was analyzed that
there was no change in the phosphorylation sites of Threonine
and Tyrosine residues and only the Serine phosphorylation sites
were perturbed. In mutated Ala222Val and Glu429Ala mutants,
a total of 21 Serine active sites were predicted which were one
less than the total sites predicted in the wild type MTHFR
enzyme. It was found that double mutants, containing both
Ala222Val and Glu429Ala mutations, a lower number of serine
phosphorylation sites are present as compared to the singly
mutated structures mentioned before. Cysteine phosphorylation
sites were also affected by mutations. These sites were absent in
the mutated region.
Conclusion
It has been shown that the mutated amino acids of humanMTHFR affect the phosphorylation sites in the protein structure
by affecting the FAD-binding sites. Phosphorylation seems to
play a significant role in the functioning of the wild-type
enzyme. However, the structural basis for this observation is
not clear. Hence, molecular models of the MTHFR mutants
were developed to elucidate the thermodynamically
unfavorable observations in comparison to the wild type. This
provides insights to the understanding of structure-function
relationship of MTHFR mutants and its wild type for
developing treatments in hyperhomocysteinemia,
homocystinuria, thyroid dysfunction and colorectal cancer.
Authors: Sanja Roje; Sherwin Y Chan; Fatma Kaplan; Rhonda K Raymond; Donald W Horne; Dean R Appling; Andrew D Hanson Journal: J Biol Chem Date: 2001-11-29 Impact factor: 5.157
Authors: Kazuhiro Yamada; John R Strahler; Philip C Andrews; Rowena G Matthews Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2005-07-15 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: P F Jacques; A G Bostom; R R Williams; R C Ellison; J H Eckfeldt; I H Rosenberg; J Selhub; R Rozen Journal: Circulation Date: 1996-01-01 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Adana A M Llanos; Catalin Marian; Theodore M Brasky; Ramona G Dumitrescu; Zhenhua Liu; Joel B Mason; Kepher H Makambi; Scott L Spear; Bhaskar V S Kallakury; Jo L Freudenheim; Peter G Shields Journal: Epigenetics Date: 2015 Impact factor: 4.528
Authors: Rebecca A Jackson; Mai Linh Nguyen; Angela N Barrett; Yuan Yee Tan; Mahesh A Choolani; Ee Sin Chen Journal: Cell Mol Life Sci Date: 2016-05-31 Impact factor: 9.261