The ubiquitin specific protease 11 (USP11) is implicated in DNA repair, viral RNA replication, and TGFβ signaling. We report the first characterization of the USP11 domain architecture and its role in regulating the enzymatic activity. USP11 consists of an N-terminal "domain present in USPs" (DUSP) and "ubiquitin-like" (UBL) domain, together referred to as DU domains, and the catalytic domain harboring a second UBL domain. Crystal structures of the DU domains show a tandem arrangement with a shortened β-hairpin at the two-domain interface and altered surface characteristics compared to the homologues USP4 and USP15. A conserved VEVY motif is a signature feature at the two-domain interface that shapes a potential protein interaction site. Small angle X-ray scattering and gel filtration experiments are consistent with the USP11DU domains and full-length USP11 being monomeric. Unexpectedly, we reveal, through kinetic assays of a series of deletion mutants, that the catalytic activity of USP11 is not regulated through intramolecular autoinhibition or activation by the N-terminal DU or UBL domains. Moreover, ubiquitin chain cleavage assays with all eight linkages reveal a preference for Lys(63)-, Lys(6)-, Lys(33)-, and Lys(11)-linked chains over Lys(27)-, Lys(29)-, and Lys(48)-linked and linear chains consistent with USP11's function in DNA repair pathways that is mediated by the protease domain. Our data support a model whereby USP11 domains outside the catalytic core domain serve as protein interaction or trafficking modules rather than a direct regulatory function of the proteolytic activity. This highlights the diversity of USPs in substrate recognition and regulation of ubiquitin deconjugation.
The ubiquitin specific protease 11 (USP11) is implicated in DNA repair, viral RNA replication, and TGFβ signaling. We report the first characterization of the USP11 domain architecture and its role in regulating the enzymatic activity. USP11 consists of an N-terminal "domain present in USPs" (DUSP) and "ubiquitin-like" (UBL) domain, together referred to as DU domains, and the catalytic domain harboring a second UBL domain. Crystal structures of the DU domains show a tandem arrangement with a shortened β-hairpin at the two-domain interface and altered surface characteristics compared to the homologues USP4 and USP15. A conserved VEVY motif is a signature feature at the two-domain interface that shapes a potential protein interaction site. Small angle X-ray scattering and gel filtration experiments are consistent with the USP11DU domains and full-length USP11 being monomeric. Unexpectedly, we reveal, through kinetic assays of a series of deletion mutants, that the catalytic activity of USP11 is not regulated through intramolecular autoinhibition or activation by the N-terminal DU or UBL domains. Moreover, ubiquitin chain cleavage assays with all eight linkages reveal a preference for Lys(63)-, Lys(6)-, Lys(33)-, and Lys(11)-linked chains over Lys(27)-, Lys(29)-, and Lys(48)-linked and linear chains consistent with USP11's function in DNA repair pathways that is mediated by the protease domain. Our data support a model whereby USP11 domains outside the catalytic core domain serve as protein interaction or trafficking modules rather than a direct regulatory function of the proteolytic activity. This highlights the diversity of USPs in substrate recognition and regulation of ubiquitin deconjugation.
Ubiquitin
specific proteases
(USPs) contain a diverse range of ancillary domains,[1−4] whose roles are poorly characterized for the majority of USPs. They
are likely to hold the key to specificity in terms of targeting these
proteases to protein complexes and cellular compartments, serve regulatory
functions, and play a role in substrate selectivity such as in the
most well studied member of the USP family USP7/HAUSP.[5,6] The 105 kDa ubiquitin specific protease 11 (USP11) regulates vital
signaling pathways in the nucleus. For example, USP11 acts as an upstream
regulator of an IKKα-p53 signaling pathway[7] and interacts with the NF-κB transcription factor
RelB. The scaffolding protein RanBPM and the breast cancer type 2
susceptibility protein (BRCA2) have been identified as a substrate
for deubiquitination and an interaction partner respectively,[8,9] implicating USP11 in DNA damage repair. Indeed, USP11 exhibits pro-survival
functions in the cellular response to DNA damage,[9] and RNA interference studies revealed that repair of DNA
double-strand breaks by homologous recombination is defective in USP11-silenced
cells.[10] A role of USP11 in transcriptional
regulation by interacting with Polycomb complexes has also been identified,[11] and viral proteins such as human papillomavirus
HPV-16E7 and influenza A viral RNA replication complex proteins interact
with and can be substrates for USP11 deubiquitination.[12,13] Importantly, USP11 has been shown to exhibit altered expression
levels in several types of cancers such as lung and breast cancer,[14,15] and the enzymatic activity of USP11 is inhibited by mitoxantrone
which affects pancreatic cancer cell survival.[16] There is currently no structure for USP11 domains or information
on how its catalytic activity is regulated and substrate is recognized.USP11 is related by sequence to USP15 and USP4 referred to as the
DUSP-UBL (DU) family of ubiquitin specific proteases that are predicted
to share the same domain architecture harboring two internal ubiquitin-like
(UBL) domains and an N-terminal domain present in ubiquitin-specific
proteases (DUSP)[17] as shown in Figure 1A. The cysteine protease domains contain an insertion
with a nested UBL domain (UBL2), which was proposed to possess an
autoinhibitory function in USP4,[18] although
the study supporting this has recently been retracted.[19] On the basis of these data and the role of UBL
domains in USP7, it has been proposed that USP11 may also be regulated
through its two internal UBL domains.[18] The N-terminal DUSP and UBL domains are more divergent than the
catalytic core domains between USP4, USP11, and USP15 sequences and
may additionally be involved in protein–protein interactions
and targeting these proteases to different cellular compartments.
In USP4 these domains mediate interactions with the spliceosomal recycling
factor SART3[20] and the proteasomal subunit
S9/Rpn6.[21] In USP15 an interaction with
the E3 ligase BRAP was reported.[22] The
crystal structures of the USP4 (Structural Genomics Consortium, unpublished)
and USP15 N-terminal DU domains have been determined revealing a close
association of the DUSP and UBL domains via a number of contacts and
a β-hairpin DU finger structure.[23,24] In the more
distantly related USP11, the predicted DUSP domain shares a moderate
39% sequence identity with the DUSP domains of USP15 and USP4 and
the adjacent UBL domain only 32% sequence identity. A low resolution
molecular envelope of these domains appears more extended compared
to USP4 and USP15,[24] and it has been suggested
that these domains adopt a different arrangement in USP11.[24] We were therefore interested in elucidating
the atomic resolution structure of the USP11 DU domains. Although
a number of USPs show only moderate ubiquitin chain specificity,[1] it is likely that both ubiquitin chain and target
protein contribute to the overall specificity, and USPs may also aid
in the recycling of these chains. It has been observed that USP11
can cleave isopeptide linked ubiquitin chains, but not linear diubiquitin.[1] How the USP11 DUSP and two internal UBL domains
that may act as ubiquitin mimics contribute to catalysis and whether
they possess a regulatory function are currently unknown. Tight regulation
of USP activity is vital for the control of signaling pathways and
protein degradation,[1,25] but research into USP regulation
mechanisms is at an early stage. In this study we undertook the first
examination of the domain structure of USP11 and determined crystal
structures of the human (hUSP11) and rat (rUSP11) USP11 N-terminal
DU domains, analyzed potential interaction surfaces, USP11’s
oligomerization state and investigated the role of the ancillary domains
in the catalytic activity and chain selectivity of USP11.
Figure 1
Structure of
USP11 N-terminal DUSP-UBL domains. (A) Schematic representation
of the USP11 domain structure. (B) Cartoon representation depicting
human USP11DU in a dimeric domain swapped arrangement as observed
in the crystallographic asymmetric unit. The second copy is labeled
as ′. The DUSP domains from each chain are shown in green,
the UBL domains are in purple, and the linker region, residues 141–152,
is shown in cyan. (C) Close-up view of the DUSP–linker interaction
in hUSP11. Note the VEVY motif, part of the linker region shown in
cyan and the hydrophobic nature of side chains in the DUSP domain,
shown in green. H-bonding interactions are indicated as dashed lines.
(D) Cartoon depicting monomeric rat USP11DU in the same orientation
as hUSP11DU in (B). The DUSP domain depicted in green stacks against
the UBL domain from the same chain, shown in purple. This arrangement
is mediated by the linker region, residues 133–144, which forms
a β-hairpin structure denoted the DU finger. Key residues and
sequence segments are labeled. (E) Cartoon depicting the hydrophobic
DUSP-linker interface. The rUSP11 DUSP surface is colored according
to sequence conservation between USP11 from human and rat. Identical
residues are colored orange, residues that display similar properties
are shown in yellow, and residues that are weakly similar in light
gray and dissimilar in dark gray.
Structure of
USP11 N-terminal DUSP-UBL domains. (A) Schematic representation
of the USP11 domain structure. (B) Cartoon representation depicting
human USP11DU in a dimeric domain swapped arrangement as observed
in the crystallographic asymmetric unit. The second copy is labeled
as ′. The DUSP domains from each chain are shown in green,
the UBL domains are in purple, and the linker region, residues 141–152,
is shown in cyan. (C) Close-up view of the DUSP–linker interaction
in hUSP11. Note the VEVY motif, part of the linker region shown in
cyan and the hydrophobic nature of side chains in the DUSP domain,
shown in green. H-bonding interactions are indicated as dashed lines.
(D) Cartoon depicting monomeric rat USP11DU in the same orientation
as hUSP11DU in (B). The DUSP domain depicted in green stacks against
the UBL domain from the same chain, shown in purple. This arrangement
is mediated by the linker region, residues 133–144, which forms
a β-hairpin structure denoted the DU finger. Key residues and
sequence segments are labeled. (E) Cartoon depicting the hydrophobic
DUSP-linker interface. The rUSP11 DUSP surface is colored according
to sequence conservation between USP11 from human and rat. Identical
residues are colored orange, residues that display similar properties
are shown in yellow, and residues that are weakly similar in light
gray and dissimilar in dark gray.
Experimental Procedures
Cloning, Expression and Purification
Full-length human
USP11, residues 1–920 (FL-USP11), and a range of deletion mutants
including 24–244 (hUSP11DU), 1–445/736–920 (FLΔUBL2),
and 252–445/736–893 (CatΔUBL2) were amplified
from I.M.A.G.E. clone 4180680. In the ΔUBL2 constructs a 290-residue
deletion is substituted by a short linker, based on USP8 (PDB code 2GFO) residues 957–961
ASTSK, which connects residues 445 and 736. The N-terminal region
from the rat USP11 gene encoding residues 19–236 (rUSP11DU)
was amplified from I.M.A.G.E. clone 7190710. CatΔUBL2, hUSP11DU,
and rUSP11DU were cloned into pET26b using NdeI and XhoI restriction
sites. FL-USP11 and FLΔUBL2 were cloned into pCold1 using NdeI
and HindIII restriction sites. The human ubiquitin
sequence was inserted into pRSF-13 (Arie Geerlof, EMBL Hamburg, Germany)
using NcoI and HindIII restriction sites. Protein
expression was induced by adding 0.5 mM IPTG to BL21-CodonPlus cells
grown at 37 °C in 2xYT medium to mid log phase. Cells harboring
the hUSP11DU plasmid were harvested after 4 h. For rUSP11DU and CatΔUBL2
expression, cells were grown at 20 °C for 16 h before harvesting,
and for FL-USP11 coexpressed with ubiquitin and FLΔUBL2 expression,
cells were grown for 72 h at 10 °C prior to centrifugation. For
rUSP11DU, hUSP11DU, and the CatΔUBL2 construct, cells were lysed
by sonication in 20 or 50 mM Tris-Cl pH 7.5, 150 mM NaCl, 20 mM imidazole.
Cells containing FL-USP11 and FLΔUBL2 were lysed in 50 mM Tris-Cl,
300 mM NaCl, 5% (v/v) glycerol, 20 mM imidazole. Samples were purified
using HiTrap chelating columns (GE Healthcare) precharged with nickel
sulfate. rUSP11DU, hUSP11DU, and CatΔUBL2 were further purified
by size exclusion chromatography on a Superdex 75 16/60 column (GE
Healthcare) pre-equilibrated with 50 mM Tris-Cl, pH 7.5, and 150 mM
NaCl. FL-USP11 and FLΔUBL2 were further purified using a Superdex
200 16/60 column (GE Healthcare), pre-equilibrated with 50 mM Tris-Cl,
pH 7.5, 300 mM NaCl, and 1% glycerol.
Crystallization
Crystallization trials of hUSP11DU
and rUSP11DU were carried out using the hanging drop vapor diffusion
method. The best diffracting crystals for hUSP11DU grew in Morpheus
screen[26] condition C4 containing 0.1 M
MES/imidazole pH 6.5, 30 mM sodium nitrate, 30 mM sodium phosphate,
and 30 mM sodium sulfate, 12.5% (w/v) PEG1000, 12.5% (w/v) PEG3350,
12.5% (v/v) MPD at a protein concentration of 10 mg mL–1. The crystals grew in less than 1 week and had a plate-like morphology.
The best diffracting rUSP11DU crystals grew within 2 days at 7.5 mg
mL–1 in a condition based on JCSG+ condition G8
containing 0.15 M malic acid pH 6.8, 24% (w/v) PEG3350, and 10 mM
strontium chloride hexahydrate.
Data Collection, Structure
Determination, and Refinement
Data from hUSP11DU crystals
were collected on the microfocus beamline
ID23-2 at the ESRF, France. Data were processed using iMosflm, and
four data sets from the same crystal were scaled together using Aimless
(CCP4 suite[27]). The structure was solved
by molecular replacement in Phaser using the USP4 DUSP and UBL domains
(PDB code 3JYU; SGC) as search models.[28] The final model
was generated through iterative rounds of model building in COOT and
refinement using Phenix,[29] with noncrystallographic
symmetry restraints (NCS) and translation/libration/screw (TLS) groups
from the TLSMD server used in the final rounds of refinement.[30] The first nine residues and the His-tag of the
hUSP11DU construct were not observed in the density and omitted from
the final model. Nine surface residue side chains could not confidently
be modeled and were truncated at the Cβ position; these comprise
residues Gln95, Arg101, Asn203, Lys235, Lys236 from chain A and residues Glu187, Arg188, Asn203, Lys236 from chain
B.Data from a rUSP11DU crystal were collected at beamline ID29
at the ESRF, France. Data were processed using XDS[31] and scaled using Aimless.[27] The
structure was solved by molecular replacement with Phaser using the
DUSP and UBL domains from the hUSP11DU structure individually as search
models. Restrained refinement using TLS groups was carried out in
Refmac and Phenix[27,29] using NCS restraints. The first
seven and eight residues in chain A and B, respectively, were not
clearly defined in the electron density and therefore not modeled.
The side chain of Glu197 was truncated due to flexibility.
The two copies in the asymmetric unit are linked by a nonphysiological
disulfide bond formed between Cys204 in both copies. Data
collection and refinement statistics are listed in Table 1. Atomic coordinates and structure factor files
were deposited at a member site of the Protein Data Bank (www.rcsb.org) under accession codes 4MEL (hUSP11DU) and 4MEM (rUSP11DU).
Table 1
X-ray Data
Collection and Refinement
Statistics
data set
hUSP11DU
rUSP11DU
space group
P21
P22121
a, b, c (Å)
27.7, 132.0, 72.0
37.3, 80.2, 149.3
α, β, γ (deg)
90, 96.7, 90
90, 90, 90
all
outer shell
all
outer shell
resolution (Å)
48.51–2.90
3.06–2.90
54.62–2.34
2.42–2.34
Rmergea
0.116
0.83
0.152
0.963
Rpimb
0.040
0.290
0.049
0.300
CC1/2c
0.998
0.881
0.998
0.62
no. of total reflections
104271
15039
225549
22220
no. of unique reflections
11440
1689
19 709
1860
mean ((I)/sd(I))
13.9
3.3
13.1
2.9
completeness (%)
100
100
100
100
multiplicity
9.1
8.9
11.4
11.9
Rwork/Rfreed
0.231/0.297
0.221/0.264
bonds (Å)
0.003
0.004
angles (deg)
0.641
0.916
Ramachandran outliers (%)
0
0
Ramachandran favored (%)
95.5
97.7
no. of residues
426
428
average B factor protein (Å2)
71.6
57.6
no. of waters
4
53
average B factor
waters (Å2)
56.8
56.9
MolProbity score
1.73
1.41
Rmerge = ∑ ∑ |I – I̅(|/∑ ∑I.
Rpim = ∑ (1/N –
1)1/2 ∑ |I – I̅(|/∑ ∑Ih is the given reflection, I̅( is the average intensity of each reflection and i is the ith measurement of reflection h.
CC1/2 is the
Pearson correlation
coefficient between random half-data sets.
Rwork = ∑ |Fobs( – Fcalc(|/∑Fobs(; Rfree corresponds
to the Rwork based
on 5% of the data excluded from refinement.
Rmerge = ∑ ∑ |I – I̅(|/∑ ∑I.Rpim = ∑ (1/N –
1)1/2 ∑ |I – I̅(|/∑ ∑Ih is the given reflection, I̅( is the average intensity of each reflection and i is the ith measurement of reflection h.CC1/2 is the
Pearson correlation
coefficient between random half-data sets.Rwork = ∑ |Fobs( – Fcalc(|/∑Fobs(; Rfree corresponds
to the Rwork based
on 5% of the data excluded from refinement.
Small Angle X-ray Scattering and Differential Scanning Calorimetry
Data of hUSP11DU samples were collected at 7.6, 3.8, and 1.9 mg
mL–1 in 50 mM Tris-Cl, pH 7.4, 150 mM NaCl at beamline
X33 at the DORIS-III storage ring at DESY, Germany. Buffer subtracted
curves were processed using the program Primus.[32] The radius of gyration, Rg,
was determined using the Guinier approximation at very low scattering
angles using 64 data points (72–135) from the merged buffer
subtracted curves which fell within the accepted range of 0.6 < qRg < 1.3. The Dmax was determined from the distance distribution p(r) function using the program Gnom.[33]Ab initio model building was
carried out using the program DAMMIN. The DAMAVER program was used
to produce an average model and create a solvent reduced molecular
envelope from 15 independent ab initio models built
in DAMMIN followed by DAMFILT for filtering to obtain a representative
dummy atom model.[32] The hUSP11DU crystal
structure with the domain swapped dimer and a monomeric model was
used to generate theoretical scattering curves in CRYSOL. The hUSP11DU
monomeric model was created to generate a single chain with a DU finger
β-hairpin by superimposing the individual DUSP and UBL domains
onto the rUSP11DU structure and replacing the coordinates of hUSP11DU
residues 143–148 with the coordinates of residues 135–140
from rat with the human sequence. These models were fitted into the ab initio molecular envelope using the program Chimera.[34]For differential scanning calorimetry
(DSC), 2 mg mL–1 h USP11DU, hUSP15DU, and hUSP4DU
were dialyzed into PBS buffer, 10 mM phosphate buffer, 2.7 mM KCl,
137 mM NaCl pH 7. Data were collected on a Microcal VP-DSC calorimeter
at a scan rate of 1 °C min–1 with a low feedback
mode/gain. Data were analyzed using the Origin 7.0 software (MicroCal).
All DU domain samples unfolded irreversibly and visibly aggregated
following thermal denaturation.
Kinetic Assays and Diubiquitin
Chain Selectivity Assay
Deubiquitination assays were performed
with human FL-USP11, FLΔUBL2,
and CatΔUBL2 at a concentration of 75 nM enzyme and 0.1 μM
to 1.5 μM ubiquitin-AMC (7-amino-4-methylcoumarin) as the fluorogenic
substrate. Reactions were carried out in 150 mM NaCl, 50 mM Tris-Cl
pH 7.5, 1 mM DTT, in 384-well black plates (Nunc) with 30 μL
final volumes in triplicate. Plates were read with an EnVision 2104
multilabel plate reader at 25 °C using excitation wavelength
355 nm and emission wavelength 426/428 nm. Measurements were taken
every minute for the first 20 min, then every 2 min for the next 30
min, and subsequently at increasing intervals of 5, 10, and 20 min.
Curves containing 15 data points measured in triplicate were fitted
using nonlinear regression analysis in GraphPad prism software to
establish Km and kcat values.Diubiquitin chain cleavage assays were performed
with all three proteins at a concentration of 75 nM enzyme with 5
μM of the eight diubiquitin linkage types: linear, Lys6, Lys11, Lys27, Lys29, Lys33, Lys48, and Lys63 (Viva Bioscience). Reactions
were carried out in 150 mM NaCl, 50 mM Tris-Cl pH 7.5, 1 mM DTT at
23 °C in duplicate. Five microliter samples were taken at 0,
5, 10, 30, 60, 120, and 180 min with a final sample taken at 19 h.
Reactions were stopped by the addition of SDS-PAGE loading buffer
and analyzed on Novex Tris-Glycine 18% SDS-PAGE. Gels were stained
with Coomassie blue followed by EZBlue. Gels were scanned and then
analyzed with the ImageJ software where relative amounts of diubiquitin
and monoubiquitin for each time point were determined. The mean diubiquitin
percentage was calculated from duplicate SDS-PAGE gels and plotted
using GraphPad Prism software using nonlinear regression analysis.
Results
Structures of Human and Rat USP11 N-Terminal DU Domains
To investigate the structure of USP11, we initially focused our attention
on the N-terminal DU domains as we observed these domains as a common
breakdown product during expression and in limited proteolysis experiments
with full-length USP11. We therefore cloned human USP11 N-terminal
constructs spanning residues 1–244 and 24–244 harboring
the predicted DUSP and UBL domains. The first 23 residues are highly
alanine rich and are predicted to be disordered using the RONN server,[35] and we only obtained crystals with the latter
construct. In order to potentially obtain a higher resolution structure
and investigate the evolutionary conservation of USP11, we also designed
an analogous N-terminal construct for the rat ortholog (residues 19–236)
for which we also obtained diffraction quality crystals. The structures
were solved using molecular replacement and statistics are summarized
in Table 1.The 2.9 Å structure
of hUSP11DU shows that the two copies in the asymmetric unit pack
in a domain swapped dimeric arrangement (Figure 1B) via an extended linker region (residues 141–152) in the
crystal. The first ∼110 N-terminal residues adopt a three helix
bundle stacked against a three-strand antiparallel β-sheet adopting
the DUSP fold first characterized in USP15.[36] A distinctive feature in the DUSP domain of hUSP11 compared to other
DUSP structures is that in the N-terminal helix 1 residues 45–48,
GESG, break the helix after two turns creating a short loop where
Glu46 and Ser47 are solvent exposed and not
engaged in crystal contacts. Loop 2 (L2) comprising residues Gly76-Asp111 in hUSP11 (Figure 1B) is tethered to the DUSP surface by interactions from residues
Pro85 and Ile88 with Trp66 from α-helix
2. These residues form part of the signature PGPI sequence identified
by bioinformatic analysis as being shared by DUSP domains from seven
distinct USPs,[36] but the second proline
is substituted by Cys87 in hUSP11DU. Prior to strand S2
there is a turn spanning residues Glu108-Asp111 that contains several acidic residues with the sequence EGED. This
loop forms the central feature of a cleft, which involves residues
on the surface of the DUSP domain and includes part of the interface
between the DUSP and the interdomain linker region (Figures 1 and 3F). In the crystal,
the linkers between the DUSP and UBL domains form an antiparallel
β-sheet which is interrupted at the center by Pro144 in such a way that the DUSP domain from one chain stacks against
the UBL domain from the other (Figure 1B,C).
Representative electron density for the linker region is shown in
Figure S1A (Supporting Information). The
DUSP domain is anchored to the linker region by an extensive predominantly
hydrophobic interface which involves 14 residues covering 1508 Å2 in hUSP11DU (PISA server at the EBI[37]). The interaction is dominated by a conserved VEVY motif in the
linker where the two valine residues, Val149 and Val151, are almost completely buried (Figure 1C).
Figure 3
Structural features of USP11, USP4, and USP15 DU domains.
(A) Superposition
of the structures of hUSP11DU (green), rUSP11DU (blue), hUSP15DU (dark
gray, PDB code 3T9L(23)), mUSP4 (light gray, PDB code 3JYU, SGC). The structures
are aligned using the DUSP domain as reference and show that the relative
orientation of the UBL domain varies by approximately 15 degrees.
Several important surface features are highlighted in close-up views
in B, C, and D. (B) Loop 2 following helix 2 in the DUSP domain is
locally the most structurally diverse region in members of the DU
family. (C) The DU finger region in rUSP11 is three residues shorter
than in USP15 and USP4 and is capped by a proline and glycine residue,
whereas in USP15 and USP4 the fingertip harbors phenylalanine and
valine residues. (D) Helix 1 in the DUSP domain is three residues
longer in hUSP11 compared to rUSP11 and other members of the DU family.
A GESG motif breaks the helix. Residues in helix 1 may be functionally
significant as they contribute to a hydrophobic cleft on the DUSP
surface in hUSP15 and mUSP4. The presence of an arginine (R49) and
two glutamic acid residues (E43, E50) significantly alter the physicochemical
properties of this surface feature in hUSP11DU. (E) Surface representation
of the rUSP11DU structure colored according to sequence conservation
in USP11, USP4, and USP15. Identical residues are colored orange,
similar residues yellow, weakly similar in light gray, and dissimilar
in dark gray. (F) Surface representations colored according to electrostatic
potential of the DUSP domain cleft region in hUSP11, rUSP11, hUSP15,
and mUSP4 with the same face of the DUSP domain shown as in (D) and
(E). Residues not conserved between the structures that contribute
to different surface characteristics are labeled as well as the deep
hydrophobic pocket in USP4.
Residues 154–244 adopt a β-grasp ubiquitin-like
fold
with a second short helical turn inserted between strands 4′
and 5′ comprising residues 218–220 (Figure 1B). The UBL domain is anchored to the linker region
by Glu150 from this VEVY motif (Figure 1C) through side chain mediated hydrogen bonds with Ser173 and the backbone amine of the upstream residue His174. Residue Tyr152 from the VEVY motif positioned
prior to the bridging residue to the UBL domain, Pro153, forms hydrogen bonding interactions with main chain groups from
Lys103 and Leu106. The side chain of His174 forms a hydrogen bond with the main chain carbonyl of Tyr152 (Figure 1C). Interchain interactions
between Ile141, Leu143, and Thr175, Leu219 are also seen. These interactions are the only
contacts between the UBL domain to either the linker or the DUSP domain.Clearly identifiable USP11 orthologues are only found in vertebrates,
and USP11 is less conserved across species compared to USP4 and USP15
(Figure 2A,B). hUSP11DU and rUSP11DU share
76.1% sequence identity, and the two DUSP domains can be aligned with
an RMSD of 0.7 Å and the UBL domains with an RMSD of 1.5 Å.
Interestingly, in the 2.3 Å crystal structure of USP11 from rat
(rUSP11DU) the linker region (residues 133–144) forms a β-hairpin
capped by a type II β-turn with residues Pro136 and
Gly137 at its center (highlighted in cyan in Figures 1D,E and Figure S1B, Supporting
Information). This turn causes the DUSP and UBL domains to
pack in a side by side tandem arrangement mediated by a small interface
comprising ∼200 Å2 (Figure 1D,E). Nevertheless, in rUSP11DU, the DUSP and linker region
form an equivalent interface to that of hUSP11DU (Figure 1C,E). In the rUSP11DU structure, this involves residues
from the same chain due to the formation of the β-hairpin DU
finger (termed in analogy to the homologue USP15[23]) as opposed to involving a second chain in the domain swapped
arrangement of the hUSP11DU crystal structure. The majority of structural
features are conserved such as the acidic loop in the DUSP domain
(residues 100–103 EGDD) and hydrophobic contacts at the two
domain interface involving Ile133 and Leu135 from the DU finger region and Ser167 and Leu211 in the UBL domain in rUSP11. hUSP11DU His174 is replaced
by Tyr166 in the rUSP11DU structure at the interface, but
the VEVY motif is conserved. However, despite the significant sequence
similarities, some DU surface features are not conserved. In the rUSP11DU
structure, Pro136 and Gly137 form the DU finger
β-turn, whereas the equivalent hUSP11DU residues Pro144 and Asn145 are at the center of the linker in the crystal
structure. The hUSP11 DUSP domain contains a three residue insertion
in the N-terminal α-helix, not present in known USP11 sequences
from most other species including rat (Figure 2A). In rUSP11DU, α-helix 1 has three turns, lacking this insertion.
It is possible that these residues mediate protein–protein
interactions specific to hUSP11. Glu43 in hUSP11DU preceding
this insertion in α-helix 1 is substituted by a glycine, Gly38, in rat. The acidic residue contributes to this otherwise
conserved DUSP surface cleft formed by α-helix 1, α-helix
3, and β-strand, S2 (Figures 3D,F and S2B). The surface exposed loop which connects
strand S1′ and S2′ in the UBL domain is also variable
in sequence and surface charge (Figure 2A)
between rat and human USP11. The position of the UBL domain relative
to the DUSP domain varies by up to 15 degrees between molecules, mainly
mediated through a hinge point at the start of the UBL domain following
a proline (Pro145 in rat or Pro153 in human),
Figure 3A.
Figure 2
Sequence conservation in USP11 and the
homologues USP15 and USP4.
(A) Multiple sequence alignment of the N-terminal DUSP-UBL domain
region of human USP11 (UniProt P51784), porcine USP11 (UniProt F1RWV6), mouse
USP11 (UniProt Q99K46), bovine USP11 (UniProt A5PKF9), rat USP11 (UniProt Q5D006), zebrafish
USP11 (UniProt F1QPF4), human USP15 (UniProt Q9Y4E8), mouse USP15 (UniProt Q8R5H1), human
USP4 (UniProt Q13107) and mouse USP4 (UniProt P35123) generated using Clustal Omega.
Residue numbers and secondary structure elements are based on the
structure of hUSP11DU assigned using the PDBsum server at the EBI.
Sequence identity of respective sequences shared with human USP11
are given in brackets. α-Helices (H) and β-strands (S)
from the UBL domain are renumbered to match nomenclature for ubiquitin
and as such are denoted S′ or H′. Residues involved
in the DUSP-linker interface described in Figure 1C are highlighted in green. The loop connecting strand S1′
and S2′ of the UBL domain (shown in blue) is not conserved
in other USP11 sequences. (B) Phylogenetic analysis of members of
the DU family show that the evolutionary divergence is greater among
USP11 orthologues compared to USP15 and USP4 orthologues.
Sequence conservation in USP11 and the
homologues USP15 and USP4.
(A) Multiple sequence alignment of the N-terminal DUSP-UBL domain
region of human USP11 (UniProt P51784), porcine USP11 (UniProt F1RWV6), mouse
USP11 (UniProt Q99K46), bovine USP11 (UniProt A5PKF9), rat USP11 (UniProt Q5D006), zebrafish
USP11 (UniProt F1QPF4), human USP15 (UniProt Q9Y4E8), mouse USP15 (UniProt Q8R5H1), human
USP4 (UniProt Q13107) and mouse USP4 (UniProt P35123) generated using Clustal Omega.
Residue numbers and secondary structure elements are based on the
structure of hUSP11DU assigned using the PDBsum server at the EBI.
Sequence identity of respective sequences shared with human USP11
are given in brackets. α-Helices (H) and β-strands (S)
from the UBL domain are renumbered to match nomenclature for ubiquitin
and as such are denoted S′ or H′. Residues involved
in the DUSP-linker interface described in Figure 1C are highlighted in green. The loop connecting strand S1′
and S2′ of the UBL domain (shown in blue) is not conserved
in other USP11 sequences. (B) Phylogenetic analysis of members of
the DU family show that the evolutionary divergence is greater among
USP11 orthologues compared to USP15 and USP4 orthologues.Structural features of USP11, USP4, and USP15 DU domains.
(A) Superposition
of the structures of hUSP11DU (green), rUSP11DU (blue), hUSP15DU (dark
gray, PDB code 3T9L(23)), mUSP4 (light gray, PDB code 3JYU, SGC). The structures
are aligned using the DUSP domain as reference and show that the relative
orientation of the UBL domain varies by approximately 15 degrees.
Several important surface features are highlighted in close-up views
in B, C, and D. (B) Loop 2 following helix 2 in the DUSP domain is
locally the most structurally diverse region in members of the DU
family. (C) The DU finger region in rUSP11 is three residues shorter
than in USP15 and USP4 and is capped by a proline and glycine residue,
whereas in USP15 and USP4 the fingertip harbors phenylalanine and
valine residues. (D) Helix 1 in the DUSP domain is three residues
longer in hUSP11 compared to rUSP11 and other members of the DU family.
A GESG motif breaks the helix. Residues in helix 1 may be functionally
significant as they contribute to a hydrophobic cleft on the DUSP
surface in hUSP15 and mUSP4. The presence of an arginine (R49) and
two glutamic acid residues (E43, E50) significantly alter the physicochemical
properties of this surface feature in hUSP11DU. (E) Surface representation
of the rUSP11DU structure colored according to sequence conservation
in USP11, USP4, and USP15. Identical residues are colored orange,
similar residues yellow, weakly similar in light gray, and dissimilar
in dark gray. (F) Surface representations colored according to electrostatic
potential of the DUSP domain cleft region in hUSP11, rUSP11, hUSP15,
and mUSP4 with the same face of the DUSP domain shown as in (D) and
(E). Residues not conserved between the structures that contribute
to different surface characteristics are labeled as well as the deep
hydrophobic pocket in USP4.Ubiquitin (DALI Z score 11.3, PDB code 1TBE, 15% seq id.) and
the related modifier
ISG15 (Dali Z-score 11.7, PDB code 3PHX, 18% seq id., 1.4 Å RMSD) are identified
as the closest structural neighbors to the USP11 UBL domain excluding
the homologous USP4 and USP15 UBL structures using a database search
with DALI.[38] Despite poor sequence conservation,
15.8% and 11.8% sequence identity with the human and rat USP11 UBL
domain respectively, the domains align to ubiquitin (PDB code 1UBQ(39)) with an RMSD of 1.6 Å over 70 Cα positions.
The main structural difference between the USP11 UBL domain and ubiquitin
involves the presence of a longer loop region between strands S3′
and S4′ comprising the sequence SEGS (Figure 1B,D). This loop region is often involved in protein–protein
interactions in UBL domains.[40]None
of the lysine residues or surface features described in ubiquitin
are well conserved in the USP11 UBL domain of the DU module. Asp220 in hUSP11 occupies a structurally equivalent position as
Asp58 in ubiquitin, but other residues in the polar patch
are not conserved. At the position of residues equivalent to the hydrophobic
patch in ubiquitin, Ile44 is substituted by a bulky tryptophan
residue, Trp200, while other residues in this hydrophobic
patch region are buried by the hUSP11 C-terminus of the UBL domain.
In contrast to the ubiquitin C-terminal diglycine motif, the hUSP11
UBL C-terminus adopts a turn involving the sequence DGTWP where Trp240 forms a π-stacking interaction against the side chain
of Arg198 (Figure 1B).
Comparison
of USP11 with the Homologues USP4 and USP15
USP4 and USP15
are overall less than 40% identical in sequence to
USP11, but there is some functional overlap in the involvement of
these enzymes in TGFβ signaling.[41−44] Common binding partners between
USP11, USP15, and USP4 are not known at present.[45] The two USP11 DU structures allow us to define hallmarks
of the DUSP-UBL module in USP4, USP15, and USP11 as well as delineating
the characteristics of USP11. The structure of the hUSP11 DUSP domain
can be superimposed onto the structure of hUSP15DU, PDB code 3T9L(23) with an RMSD of 1.2 Å over 103 Cα positions
(seq id. 44%) and the UBL domains with an RMSD of 1.1 Å over
98 Cα positions (seq id. 34%). Similarly, the hUSP11 DUSP domain
aligns to the structure of murine USP4DU, PDB code 3JYU (SGC) with an RMSD
of 1.3 Å over 103 Cα positions (seq id. 41%) and an RMSD
of 1.6 Å over 99 Cα positions for the UBL domain (seq id.
33%), respectively.We reported a β-hairpin structure
at the interface of the two domains denoted the DU finger in USP15,[23] which is also observed in the USP4DU structure
(PDB code 3JYU, SGC). Unexpectedly, in the rUSP11DU structure a tight turn is observed
aided by Pro136 and Gly137 to preserve the β-hairpin
despite a three residue deletion in the DU finger region compared
to USP15 and USP4. In USP15 and USP4 the turn involves five residues
and is topped by phenylalanine residues that are conserved among USP15
and USP4 orthologues[23,24] (Figure 3C). A domain swapped dimeric arrangement has been observed in one
of the available hUSP15DU structures (PDB code 3PV1(24)), highlighting that under certain conditions DU finger
opening can occur, and a strand from another molecule can complete
the antiparallel β-sheet of the β-hairpin. It is curious
that in our USP11 as well as a USP15 DU structure, this opening is
observed through “peeling off” of the VEVY motif to
be replaced by the same motif of another molecule independent of the
different lengths of the DU finger. Whether this purely represents
a crystallographic artifact or has any functional significance remains
to be determined.Eight out of nine hydrophobic residues defining
the DUSP domain-linker
interactions including the VEVY motif are absolutely conserved in
all of the USP15, USP4, and USP11 sequences (Figure 2A). The only other absolutely conserved region in the USP11,
USP15, and USP4 N-terminal domains not contributing to the hydrophobic
core constitutes the C-terminal DGTWP motif that loops back onto the
UBL domain (Figures 1B,D and 3E). Loop 2 is one of the most variable regions among the DU
family of USPs (Figures 2A, 3B, and S2A; Supporting Information) and is six residues shorter in USP11 compared to USP15 and USP4.
USP11 thus lacks solvent exposed tryptophan and tyrosine residues
present in USP4 and USP15.A relatively hydrophobic crescent
shaped cleft (Figure 3F) may constitute a potential
protein–protein
interaction site in the USP4 and USP15 DUSP domain structures.[23,24] In USP4, Phe127 at the tip of the DU finger extends into
a deeper hydrophobic pocket at this location in a second copy of the
protein in the asymmetric unit (Figure 3F).
In hUSP11 this region is also predominantly hydrophobic, but several
surface exposed residues from helix 1, helix 2 and surrounding residues
are not identical in this region (Figures 3D,F and S2B; Supporting Information).
These include Tyr67, which is substituted by Phe38 and Phe42 in USP15 and USP4, respectively, and forms
a hydrogen bond with Glu43 and Arg49 in hUSP11
(Leu20 and Met24 in USP15 and USP4 respectively)
and Glu46. In USP11, the side chain of Arg49 fills the respective deep hydrophobic pocket where in USP4 the side
chain of Phe127 is buried (Figures 3D and S2B; Supporting Information). In
this area, there are also differences in charge whereby Glu71 (USP15 Lys42, USP4 Lys46) forms an additional
hydrogen bond to the conserved surface exposed Lys68 in
USP11. At the position of Gly109, USP15 and USP4 harbor
glutamic acid residues.In order to better understand the solution
behavior of the DU domains,
we conducted thermal unfolding studies using differential scanning
calorimetry (Figure S3F, Supporting Information). USP11, USP15, and USP4 DU domains each display a melting transition
with a single peak, suggesting that the dissociation between the DUSP
and UBL domains either produces insufficient heat to be measured by
the method or occurs simultaneously with thermal unfolding of both
domains. Notably, the melting transition was significantly different
between USP15 and the closely related USP4 constituting a 7 °C
shift in temperature and thus was not dependent on the DUSP-UBL interface
area.
The USP11 DUSP-UBL Domains and Full-Length USP11 Are Monomeric
in Solution
The occurrence of the domain swapped dimeric
arrangement in the human USP11DU crystal structure raised the question
about the predominant form in solution. During purification USP11DU
elutes on size exclusion column at a volume consistent with a monomer
in agreement with SEC-MALLS experiments.[24] At concentrations associated with crystallization we see a small,
about 5%, fraction of dimeric hUSP11DU on gel filtration. In order
to further investigate the oligomeric state of hUSP11DU in solution,
we used small-angle X-ray solution scattering. USP11DU has a radius
of gyration (Rg), calculated from the
Guinier plot, of 27.8 Å. From a p(r) function a maximum dimension (Dmax)
of 97.2 Å was estimated. Ab initio model building
resulted in molecular envelopes consistent with a two domain structure
of a hUSP11DU monomer, with insufficient space to accommodate a dimer.
Using the hUSP11 structure, where a DU finger β-hairpin based
on the rUSP11DU structure was modeled, resulted in a good fit, and
the theoretical and experimental scattering curves agree (Figure S3A–E, Supporting Information). The additional volume
in the molecular envelope can be explained by the hydration shell
and flexible residues at the N- and C-termini that are not present
in the crystal structure.For hUSP15DU, an Rg of 26.6 Å and a Dmax of 81 Å have been reported.[23] The
presence of a DU finger β-hairpin in the rUSP11DU structure
and the conservation of the DUSP-linker interface in the hUSP11DU
structure suggest that the differences are most likely due to the
relative orientation of the UBL domain, an additional four residues
at the N-terminus compared to USP15, and a flexible C-terminal His-tag
that all contribute to the apparent Dmax and Rg. Furthermore, we investigated
the oligomerization state of full-length hUSP11 using gel filtration
which showed that full-length hUSP11 is monomeric in solution (Figure
S3G, Supporting Information).
Influence of
the USP11 DUSP-UBL and UBL2 Domains on the Catalytic
Function
As UBL domains have been shown to modulate USP activity,[5,18,46,47] we were interested in whether the DUSP-UBL module or the UBL2 domain
of USP11 have an effect on the catalytic activity. In order to investigate
the role of USP11 ancillary domains in regulating the catalytic activity,
we designed and cloned several deletion constructs of USP11 that contain
the protease domain (Figure 4A). The overall
yield for full-length USP11 (FL-USP11) was poor, but pure and stable
protein suitable for assays was obtained (Figure 4B). Deletion constructs lacking either the DUSP domain alone
or the N-terminal DUSP-UBL domains had a very low level of expression
and were prone to precipitation and as such were not further utilized.
However, we obtained pure protein of around 2 mg L–1 of culture by replacing the UBL2 containing insert with a short
linker. A further construct suitable for assays was obtained by removal
of the DUSP-UBL domain from the ΔUBL2 fusion construct (Figure 4A,B).
Figure 4
Kinetic parameters for USP11 and deletion mutants.
(A) Schematic
representation of the hUSP11 constructs used in the activity assays.
FL-USP11: full-length enzyme; FLΔUBL2: missing the UBL2 and
insert nested in the catalytic domain; CatΔUBL2: additionally
lacking the N-terminal DUSP and UBL domains. Deletion mutants lacking
the UBL2 and insert have been replaced with a linker from USP8. (B)
SDS-PAGE analysis of samples of FL-USP11 (107 kDa, lanes 2 and 3),
FLΔUBL2 (77 kDa; lanes 4 and 5) and CatΔUBL2 (42 kDa;
lanes 6 and 7), before the assays (time 0) and after the assay (time
36 h). (C) Graph of rate of reaction against substrate concentration
for FL-USP11 (green), FLΔUBL2 (red) and CatΔUBL2 (blue).
Each point represents the mean for data points measured in triplicate.
Values for Vmax and Km were used to calculate the turnover number, kcat, and catalytic efficiency kcat/Km and are listed in the
table. Errors are given as standard error mean.
Kinetic parameters for USP11 and deletion mutants.
(A) Schematic
representation of the hUSP11 constructs used in the activity assays.
FL-USP11: full-length enzyme; FLΔUBL2: missing the UBL2 and
insert nested in the catalytic domain; CatΔUBL2: additionally
lacking the N-terminal DUSP and UBL domains. Deletion mutants lacking
the UBL2 and insert have been replaced with a linker from USP8. (B)
SDS-PAGE analysis of samples of FL-USP11 (107 kDa, lanes 2 and 3),
FLΔUBL2 (77 kDa; lanes 4 and 5) and CatΔUBL2 (42 kDa;
lanes 6 and 7), before the assays (time 0) and after the assay (time
36 h). (C) Graph of rate of reaction against substrate concentration
for FL-USP11 (green), FLΔUBL2 (red) and CatΔUBL2 (blue).
Each point represents the mean for data points measured in triplicate.
Values for Vmax and Km were used to calculate the turnover number, kcat, and catalytic efficiency kcat/Km and are listed in the
table. Errors are given as standard error mean.The activity of full-length USP11 was assayed using the fluorogenic
substrate ubiquitin-AMC (Figure 4C). We observed
a Km of 0.55 μM which is consistent
with Km values reported ranging from 0.12–0.77
μM.[1,16] Comparison of FL-USP11 to the construct
lacking the catalytic domain UBL2 containing insert, FLΔUBL2,
showed that these constructs display similar kinetic parameters as
summarized in Figure 4C. Furthermore, the kinetic
parameters for FLΔUBL2 and a construct additionally missing
the N-terminal DU domains, CatΔUBL2, were comparable (Figure 4C). The Vmax and accordingly
the kcat values are slightly higher in
the FLΔUBL2 protein indicating that removal of the UBL2 insert
may lead to a marginal increase in catalytic efficiency. However,
a significant inhibitory or activating role for the UBL domains was
not observed as reported for other USPs.[47] Deletion of the DU module and UBL2, or the UBL2 containing insert
alone, did neither significantly increase nor decrease the Km compared to the full-length enzyme. Slow conformational
changes involving the active site loops are the most likely cause
for the sigmoidal kinetic behavior observed with all catalytic domain
constructs (Figure 4C), but further investigation
is needed to confirm this. This kinetic behavior has also been observed
for other USPs.[1] Moreover, we investigated
whether the DUSP-UBL domains are able to interact with ubiquitin and
did not detect any interaction using ITC or gel filtration (Figure
S4, Supporting Information). These data
suggest that the catalytic activity of the USP11 protease domain is
not modulated through ancillary domains using ubiquitin-AMC as model
substrate.
USP11 Displays Specificity for Different
Ubiquitin Chain Linkages
and This Is Mediated by the Protease Domain
We subsequently
investigated the effect of the removal of ancillary USP11 domains
on the specificity for diubiquitin substrates of all eight known linkages
occurring in the cell. On the basis of diubiquitin chain cleavage
time-courses, FL-USP11 displayed little detectable activity for linear
chains and highest activity toward Lys63- and Lys6-linked chains. Interestingly, FLΔUBL2 and CatΔUBL2 showed
these same preferences (Figure 5). On the basis
of these six independent experiments, the eight different diubiquitin
linkages can broadly be split into three main groups by preference
of all three proteins tested: Lys6- and Lys63-linked chains showed the highest levels of cleavage, Lys11- and Lys33-linked chains showed moderate cleavage, and
Lys27-, Lys29-, Lys48-linked and
linear chains demonstrated the lowest levels of cleavage. We conducted
gel image analysis to further evaluate the data (Figures 5B and S5; Supporting Information). On the basis of the results for all three USP11 catalytic domain
constructs investigated, more than 65% of Lys63- and Lys6-linked diubiquitin was cleaved within 3 h and more than 85%
after 19 h. FL-USP11 with Lys63-linked and FLΔUBL2
with Lys6-linked chains as substrates showed complete cleavage
after 19 h. Lys33- and Lys11-linked chains were
cleaved to more than 35% after 3 h and more than 45% after 19 h. Linear,
Lys48-, Lys29-, and Lys27-linked
diubiquitin chains were cleaved to less than 30% after 3 h and less
than 50% even after 19 h.
Figure 5
Ubiquitin chain selectivity. (A) SDS-PAGE analyses
of cleavage
of diubiquitin to monoubiquitin by USP11 and deletion mutants with
the eight linkage types (as labeled). Assays were performed in duplicate
and representative gels are shown. The lanes on each gel show a time
course of a reaction with 75 nM USP11 and 5 μM substrate at
0, 5, 10, 30, 60, 120, and 180 min with a final overnight sample taken
after 19 h. (B) Densitometric analysis of gels. XY scatter plots with
diubiquitin percentage plotted against time in minutes for each of
the three hUSP11 constructs (as labeled) with each of the eight diubiquitin
linkage types (colors indicated in key). Diubiquitin percentage was
calculated from ImageJ analyses of SDS-PAGE gels by quantifying the
amount of diubiquitin and monoubiquitin in each lane. The mean was
calculated from the duplicate assays, and nonlinear regression analyses
were performed on time points 0–180 min. Errors are given as
standard error mean. ON: overnight sample (not included in nonlinear
regression analyses).
Ubiquitin chain selectivity. (A) SDS-PAGE analyses
of cleavage
of diubiquitin to monoubiquitin by USP11 and deletion mutants with
the eight linkage types (as labeled). Assays were performed in duplicate
and representative gels are shown. The lanes on each gel show a time
course of a reaction with 75 nM USP11 and 5 μM substrate at
0, 5, 10, 30, 60, 120, and 180 min with a final overnight sample taken
after 19 h. (B) Densitometric analysis of gels. XY scatter plots with
diubiquitin percentage plotted against time in minutes for each of
the three hUSP11 constructs (as labeled) with each of the eight diubiquitin
linkage types (colors indicated in key). Diubiquitin percentage was
calculated from ImageJ analyses of SDS-PAGE gels by quantifying the
amount of diubiquitin and monoubiquitin in each lane. The mean was
calculated from the duplicate assays, and nonlinear regression analyses
were performed on time points 0–180 min. Errors are given as
standard error mean. ON: overnight sample (not included in nonlinear
regression analyses).Two subtle differences were observed between the different
constructs
tested. Notably, Lys27-linked diubiquitin chains were cleaved
to about 50% by FL-USP11 after 19 h. In the same time, FLΔUBL2
and CatΔUBL2 only cleaved about 32% of this substrate. Additionally,
for linear diubiquitin virtually no cleavage was observed with FLΔUBL2,
whereas FL-USP11 and CatΔUBL2 showed some residual activity
(about 10% of the linear diubiquitin was cleaved after 19 h). Taken
together, USP11 displays chain specificity, and comparison of FL-USP11
and the deletion mutants indicates that this preference for certain
chains is mediated by the protease domain core in vitro.
Discussion
It is vital for ubiquitin specific proteases
to be able to tightly
regulate their catalytic activity as they occupy key positions in
important signaling pathways.[48] A range
of variable domains are involved in these functions in a number of
USPs. For example, UBL domains have been shown to regulate a USP through
activation[5,46] and possibly can also inhibit the catalytic
activity of USPs, although the latter remains to be confirmed.[18,19,47] The function of USP11 as an important
modulator of DNA damage repair is beginning to emerge.[9,10] Here, we undertook an analysis of the USP11 domain structure, investigated
the impact of domain deletion mutants on the catalytic function (Figures 4 and 5), and solved the crystal
structures of the human and rat USP11 N-terminal DUSP and UBL domains
(Figure 1). The monomeric state in solution,
molecular envelope, and the presence of the conserved DUSP-UBL interface
suggest the formation of the DU finger β-hairpin in hUSP11DU
in an analogous way to that observed in the structure of rat USP11DU.
Consistent with a DU finger region in hUSP11, asparagine is a favored
residue in the i+2 position of type II β-turns.[49] The absence of the protease domain may favor
domain swapped dimers under certain conditions and is unlikely to
occur in the full length protein that behaves as a monomer. We therefore
anticipate that the physiological form of USP11 is a monomer. However,
we cannot rule out that conformational changes involving DU finger
opening through detachment of the VEVY motif may occur under some
conditions as this is observed in our hUSP11 as well as one USP15
DU structure.[24] Through comparison to the
homologues USP4 and USP15 (Figures 2 and 3), we have highlighted several novel features in
USP11 including: (i) the absence of a pronounced hydrophobic DUSP
pocket previously predicted to constitute a protein binding site due
to sequence variations in the N-terminal helix and surrounding residues.
Differences in this region were even observed between the structures
of the closely related species human and rat due to the presence of
an additional three residues in the N-terminal helix of human USP11;
(ii) significant surface loop variations, especially in the DUSP domain
including regions L1 and L2. Although most insertions/deletions occur
in the DUSP domain, the adjacent UBL domain is overall even less conserved;
(iii) a shortened DU finger region (L4) that lacks a phenylalanine
at the tip that may be involved protein–protein interactions
in USP4 and USP15. In USP11, residues at the tip of the DU finger
are also not conserved across species. These variations are consistent
with functional differences, since many of the binding partners for
USP4 have also been identified for USP15, whereas binding partners
of USP11 are more unique.[45]Two common
structural signature motifs of the DU module found in
USP11, USP4, and USP15 can be defined. First, 14 conserved residues
including a VEVY motif locate to the interface formed between the
linker region and the DUSP domain, highlighting the importance of
this interface as a key feature of the DU domain module. USP DU domains
are predominantly monomeric in solution and adopt a tandem arrangement
of the DUSP and UBL domains including a DU finger β-hairpin.
The inherent moderate flexibility between the two domains may indicate
that they can have discrete functions as well as acting as one functional
unit. Second, the C-terminal part of the UBL domains is characterized
by a distinctive loop region not present in other UBL domains including
the conserved DGTWP sequence in all members of the DU family.In total, 7 human USPs harbor DUSP domains[36] and 16 USPs harbor UBL domains, whereby UBL domains nested within
the catalytic core are present in eight USPs.[17] UBL domains found in USPs are relatively poorly conserved and a
common function is not known. The DUSP domains, although exclusively
found in ubiquitin specific proteases, also display a great diversity.
and the only common stretch of sequence identified previously, the
PGPI motif,[36] does not seem to be important
other than for the fold of the DUSP domain.We show that the
USP11 UBL domain displays distinct surface characteristics
compared to ubiquitin, but ubiquitin is still a relatively close structural
neighbor, despite poor sequence conservation. Since USPs often contain
additional ubiquitin binding domains,[3] we
also investigated ubiquitin binding to the N-terminal domains. The
experiments revealed that the USP11 DU domains do not bind ubiquitin
with detectable affinities (Figure S4, Supporting
Information) or affect the catalytic efficiency of the enzyme
using ubiquitin-AMC as substrate (Figure 4).
In addition to N- or C-terminal additional domains, the catalytic
core domain of USP family members often contains insertions that encode
variable domains.[2] A common insertion point
lies close to the distal ubiquitin binding site and was proposed to
include an autoinhibitory UBL domain in hUSP4.[18,19] We did not observe an autoregulatory role for the equivalent region
in hUSP11 as a construct missing this insert displayed broadly similar
kinetic parameters for cleavage of the model substrate Ub-AMC. This
shows that in USP11 these domains are not directly involved in regulating
the enzymatic activity of the enzyme and highlights the diversity
of regulatory mechanisms in USPs. It is still possible that these
additional domains of hUSP11 may have a regulatory role through the
interaction with other proteins. Such a regulatory function through
accessory proteins has been described for some USPs such as USP7,
USP1, USP12, and USP46.[1,50,51] The USP11 DU domains and internal UBL2 may also be involved in trafficking
or recruiting specific substrates to the catalytic domain.We
show that USP11 preferably cleaves Lys63-, Lys6-, Lys33-, and Lys11-linked ubiquitin
chains over Lys27-, Lys29-, Lys48-linked and linear chains. Interestingly, all deletion constructs
employed displayed a marked preference for Lys63- and Lys6-linked chains in vitro. This is consistent
with the DU domains not forming significant interactions with ubiquitin
during the catalytic cycle and locates this chain preference to the
core protease domain. The ubiquitin chains preferentially cleaved
by USP11 adopt quite different conformations. Lys63-linked
chains tend to adopt extended conformations,[52,53] whereas Lys6-linked chains are more compact.[54,55] Both, Lys63-linked and linear chains generally adopt
relatively open conformations. A high degree of flexibility and the
linkage surrounding residues, e.g., the relatively bulky methionine
in the linear chain, are likely to account for the differences observed.
Interestingly, Lys63- and Lys6-linked ubiquitin
chains have been associated with pathways that USP11 has been implicated
in,[7,9] namely, DNA damage repair and inflammation,[56] but the functional significance of this in vivo remains to be determined. USP11’s preferential
cleavage of ubiquitin chains is not comparable to the specificity
of other deubiquitinating enzymes such as some OTU proteases[57] in that we observed cleavage to some extent
with all chains except linear diubiquitin that displayed little cleavage
even upon incubation overnight. However, all USP11 constructs consistently
showed less activity toward Lys27-, Lys29-,
and Lys48-linked and linear chains and as such a clear
preference for some chains over others. Taken together, these data
advance our understanding of USP11 regulation and function in DNA
damage repair pathways and viral infection.
Authors: Long Zhang; FangFang Zhou; Yvette Drabsch; Rui Gao; B Ewa Snaar-Jagalska; Craig Mickanin; Huizhe Huang; Kelly-Ann Sheppard; Jeff A Porter; Chris X Lu; Peter ten Dijke Journal: Nat Cell Biol Date: 2012-06-17 Impact factor: 28.824
Authors: David Komander; Francisca Reyes-Turcu; Julien D F Licchesi; Peter Odenwaelder; Keith D Wilkinson; David Barford Journal: EMBO Rep Date: 2009-04-17 Impact factor: 8.807
Authors: Tyler B Faust; Yang Li; Gwendolyn M Jang; Jeffrey R Johnson; Shumin Yang; Amit Weiss; Nevan J Krogan; Alan D Frankel Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2017-03-27 Impact factor: 4.379