Literature DB >> 25343477

Characterization of the binding interaction between the oncoprotein gankyrin and a grafted S6 ATPase.

Alex M Chapman1, Bryce E Rogers, Brian R McNaughton.   

Abstract

A complex with the C-terminal portion of the proteosomal subunit S6 ATPase is the only available structure of a protein-protein interaction involving the oncoprotein gankyrin. However, difficulties associated with recombinant expression of S6 ATPase alone, or truncations thereof, have limited our understanding of this assembly. We replaced the C-terminal portion of FtsH from Escherichia coli with the structurally homologous C-terminal portion of S6 ATPase and used this grafted protein to characterize the gankyrin-S6 ATPase binding interaction by isothermal titration calorimetry.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25343477      PMCID: PMC4230329          DOI: 10.1021/bi5012354

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Biochemistry        ISSN: 0006-2960            Impact factor:   3.162


Overexpression of gankyrin (Figure 1a, orange) is directly linked to the onset, proliferation, and/or metastasis of breast,[1,2] liver,[3] oral,[4] pancreatic,[5] and colorectal cancers.[6] In addition, gankyrin plays an essential role in Ras-initiated tumorigenesis, which is operative in ∼30% of all cancers.[7] Protein–protein interactions (PPIs) involving gankyrin are of great interest in basic research and as therapeutic targets.
Figure 1

(a) Complex between gankyrin (orange) and the C-terminal portion of the S6 ATPase subunit of the 26S proteosome [red, Protein Data Bank (PDB) entry 2DVW]. The direction of the arrow next to each protein indicates the direction of a 90° rotation, which reveals the binding surfaces, as shown in panel b. (b) Gankyrin and S6 ATPase binding face residues critical to complex stabilization (and mutated in this work). (c) S6 ATPase superimposed on the C-terminal domain of FtsH (PDB entry ILV7).

Gankyrin is reported to bind both cyclin-dependent kinase 4 (CDK4)[8] and MDM2,[9] resulting in increased efficiency of pRb phosphorylation and p53 polyubiquitination and degradation, respectively. However, the structural basis for these interactions has not yet been reported, and neither the targets nor their putative gankyrin binding domains are expressed as soluble recombinant proteins in Escherichia coli. A more promising venue for studying gankyrin–protein interactions is the co-crystal structure with a C-terminal portion of the S6 ATPase from the 26S proteasome, reported by Yokoyama and co-workers (Figure 1a).[10] Preliminary characterization of the recognition interface by Yokoyama and co-workers was achieved by a series of pull-down experiments with gankyrin-His6x and S6 ATPase mutants (concomitantly expressed from a pET-Duet plasmid), in which binding face residues thought to participate in complex stability were mutated to mostly alanine [R342A, R338A/R342A, R338A/R339A/R342A, E356A/E357A, D359A/D362A, and K397E in S6 ATPase and R41A, K116A, D39A/D71A, R41A/K116A, and E182A in gankyrin (highlighted in Figure 1b)]. Efforts to directly probe the gankyrin–S6 ATPase complex are hampered by the tendency of the latter to form inclusion bodies when expressed in the absence of gankyrin. In our hands, such material could not be refolded, and fusion to proteins commonly used to improve stability and solubility was likewise ineffective. An alternative strategy for the display of folded and functional S6 ATPase is protein grafting. In this approach, a protein scaffold is identified that is stable, is expressed well in E. coli, and contains a domain with excellent structural homology to S6 ATPase. If that protein is stable enough to tolerate replacement of the structurally homologous domain with S6 ATPase, it could serve as a generic platform for the display of a folded and functional variant of this otherwise inaccessible protein. Our initial efforts to identify such a scaffold relied on the recognition by Yokoyama and co-workers that, while the C-terminal portion of FtsH from E. coli has a low level of sequence homology (∼25%) with S6 ATPase, the two proteins have similar tertiary structures [root-mean-square deviation of ∼1.4 Å over 74 main chain residues (Figure 1c)]. Expanding on this finding, we set out to determine if a grafted protein, in which the C-terminal ATPase domain of FtsH is replaced with S6 ATPase, is expressed as a soluble protein in E. coli that mimics the native S6ATPase–gankyrin interaction. Grafted FtsH-S6 ATPase and wild-type FtSH (wt-FtsH) were expressed as His6x-tagged proteins in E. coli as soluble proteins (Supporting Information, Figure S1). Circular dichroism spectra of the two proteins are virtually identical (Figure 2a), suggesting no appreciable structural change to the FtsH scaffold or grafted S6 ATPase domain. The affinity of this grafted protein for gankyrin was first assessed using a pull-down assay in E. coli. Binding face residues on gankyrin or FtsH-S6 ATPase were mutated to alanine, on the basis of the findings of Yokoyama and co-workers, and their effect on complex stability was qualitatively assessed by measuring the amount of untagged FtsH-S6 ATPase co-purified with gankyrin-His6x.
Figure 2

(a) Circular dichroism spectra of wild-type FtsH (wt-FtsH, top) and FtsH-S6 ATPase (bottom). (b) Co-purification of wild-type gankyrin-His6x and FtsH-S6 ATPase mutants: wt-S6 FtsH-S6 ATPase (lane 1), R342A (lane 2), R338A/R342A (lane 3), R338A/R339A/R342A (lane 4), E356A/E357A (lane 5), D359A/D362A (lane 6), and K397E (lane 7). (c) Co-purification of wild-type S6 ATPase and gankyrin-His6x mutants: wt-gankyrin (lane 1), R41A (lane 2), K116A (lane 3), R41A/K116A (lane 4), D39A/D71A (lane 5), and E182A (lane 6).

(a) Complex between gankyrin (orange) and the C-terminal portion of the S6 ATPase subunit of the 26S proteosome [red, Protein Data Bank (PDB) entry 2DVW]. The direction of the arrow next to each protein indicates the direction of a 90° rotation, which reveals the binding surfaces, as shown in panel b. (b) Gankyrin and S6 ATPase binding face residues critical to complex stabilization (and mutated in this work). (c) S6 ATPase superimposed on the C-terminal domain of FtsH (PDB entry ILV7). Most notably, FtsH-S6 ATPase R338A/R339A/R342A (Figure 2b, lane 4), FtsH-S6 ATPase D359A/D362A (Figure 2b, lane 6), FtsH-S6 ATPase R41A (Figure 2c, lane 2), gankyrin R41A/K116A (Figure 2c, lane 4), and gankyrin D39A/D71A (Figure 2c, lane 5) appear to form complexes that are significantly less stable than the native proteins. This is in contrast to Yokoyama’s original pull-down assay, in which all mutants but R342A S6 ATPase were not appreciably co-purified with gankyrin-His6x. This highlights a potential virtue of our grafting approach. It is unclear if mutations to this unstable form of S6 ATPase appreciably modulate, or abolish, gankyrin–S6 ATPase complex stability or simply further decrease the level of structure and stability of the C-terminal S6 ATPase fragment. While the FtsH scaffold displays S6 ATPase in a manner that faithfully mimics the native protein (facilitates binding to gankyrin), no information about the exact differences in binding energies can be obtained using the pull-down assay. Moreover, mutational effects that do not dramatically lower, or completely abolish, complex stability cannot be probed using this assay. Only through the described grafting strategy are we able to create a soluble and stable mimic of S6 ATPase, which permits the use of more sensitive biophysical methods for probing this important binding interaction. We used isothermal titration calorimetry (ITC) to obtain the full thermodynamic signature (ΔH, −TΔS, and ΔG) and stoichiometry (N value) of this interaction, as well as characterize mutational effects on complex stability. Gankyrin binds the grafted FtsH-S6 ATPase with a dissociation constant (KD) of ∼67 nM (Table 1, entry 1). The observed changes in enthalpy (ΔH) and entropy (−TΔS) for this binding interaction were −28.7 and 19.0 kcal/mol, respectively. Gankyrin does not bind wild-type FtsH with any appreciable affinity (Supporting Information, Figure S2), which is unsurprising, given that the S6 and FtsH ATPase subdomains share only ∼24% sequence homology.
Table 1

Analysis of Binding Interactions between Gankyrin and FtsH-S6 ATPase Proteins by ITCa

entrygankyrinFtsH-S6 ATPaseKD (nM)ΔG (kcal/mol)ΔH (kcal/mol)TΔS (kcal/mol)
1wild-typewild-type67.3 ± 5.7–9.8 ± 0.1–28.7 ± 0.519.0 ± 0.6
2wild-typeR342A216.6 ± 25.8–9.1 ± 0.1–22.0 ± 0.812.9 ± 0.8
3wild-typeR338A/R342A2549 ± 353–7.6 ± 0.1–6.1 ± 0.7–1.5 ± 0.8
4wild-typeR338A/R339A/R342A7471 ± 301–7.0 ± 0.1–2.2 ± 0.1–4.7 ± 0.1
5wild-typeE356A/E357A71.8 ± 5.9–9.8 ± 0.1–27.3 ± 0.917.5 ± 0.8
6wild-typeD359A/D362Ano binding
7wild-typeK397E95.2 ± 12.2–9.7 ± 0.2–25.6 ± 2.515.9 ± 2.7
8R41Awild-type313.3 ± 17.6–8.1 ± 1.2–17.1 ± 1.79.0 ± 2.8
9K116Awild-type71.3 ± 15.5–9.7 ± 0.2–24.0 ± 0.914.3 ± 1.1
10D39A/D71Awild-type93.0 ± 5.6–9.7 ± 0.2–25.0 ± 0.715.4 ± 0.8
11R41A/K116Awild-type3633 ± 404–7.4 ± 0.1–4.9 ± 0.6–2.5 ± 0.7
12E182Awild-type140.6 ± 9.7–9.4 ± 0.1–28.2 ± 2.118.8 ± 2.0

All errors represent the standard deviation of three separate experiments. ITC conditions were as follows: 20 mM sodium phosphate, 150 mM NaCl, and 2.5 mM 2-mercaptoethanol (pH 7.4) at 25 °C.

(a) Circular dichroism spectra of wild-type FtsH (wt-FtsH, top) and FtsH-S6 ATPase (bottom). (b) Co-purification of wild-type gankyrin-His6x and FtsH-S6 ATPase mutants: wt-S6 FtsH-S6 ATPase (lane 1), R342A (lane 2), R338A/R342A (lane 3), R338A/R339A/R342A (lane 4), E356A/E357A (lane 5), D359A/D362A (lane 6), and K397E (lane 7). (c) Co-purification of wild-type S6 ATPase and gankyrin-His6x mutants: wt-gankyrin (lane 1), R41A (lane 2), K116A (lane 3), R41A/K116A (lane 4), D39A/D71A (lane 5), and E182A (lane 6). Alanine mutation of S6 ATPase R342, which engages gankyrin through a salt bridge with gankyrin E182, modestly lowers complex stability [KD = 216.6 ± 25.8 nM (Table 1, entry 2)]. Double (R338A/R342A) and triple (R338A/R339A/R342A) mutation of a positively charged patch on the S6 ATPase face, which disrupts a salt bridge between S6ATPase R342 and gankyrin E182, dramatically lowers complex stability [KD values of 2.5 ± 0.4 and 7.5 ± 0.2 μM (Table 1, entries 3 and 4, respectively)]. Interestingly, both of these mutations result in favorable binding entropies (−TΔS values of −1.5 ± 0.8 and −4.7 ± 0.1 kcal/mol, repectively, compared to a −TΔS of 19.0 ± 0.6 for the native interaction). While the molecular mechanism for this dramatic change is unclear, one possible rationale is a lower energy of desolvation for the alanine mutants, compared to that of the native protein. While Yokoyama’s original pull-down data suggest a significant role for S6 ATPase E356/E357 in complex stability, double alanine mutation did not appreciably lower binding affinity (Table 1, entry 5). Conversely, removal of a negatively charged patch on the S6 ATPase binding face [D359A/D362A (Table 1, entry 6)] abolished binding. An E182A mutation in gankyrin, which further probes a salt bridge with S6 ATPase residue 342, was found to modestly lower bindng affinity [KD = 140.6 ± 9.7 nM (Table 1, entry 12)], further suggesting a relatively minor role of this interaction in complex stability. Residue K397 in S6 ATPase makes a salt bridge with gankyrin D39/D71. However, a mutant that reverses the ionic nature of this residue (K397E) binds gankyrin with an affinity similar to that of the native protein [KD = 95.2 ± 12.2 nM (Table 1, entry 7)], suggesting a relatively minor role of this particular salt bridge in complex stability. While gankyrin mutation K116A and double mutation D39A/D71A had minimal effects on binding affinity (Table 1, entries 9 and 10, respectively), an R41A mutation significantly decreased affinity [KD = 313.3 ± 17.6 nM (Table 1, entry 8)]. While the single K116A mutation had a minimal effect on binding, an R41A/K116A double mutation, which is designed to test the role of a larger hydrogen bond/salt bridge network, dramatically lowers affinity [KD = 3.6 ± 0.4 μM (Table 1, entry 11)]. The R41A/K116A mutant, however, binds gankyrin with a favorable binding entropy (−TΔS = −2.5 ± 0.7 kcal/mol), possibly due to the lower energy of desolvation for the alanine mutants, compared to that of the native protein. The binding stoichiometry (n) for each interaction was found to be ∼1 [n = 0.91–1.02 (Supporting Information)]. Reversing the titration did not appreciably alter the binding data (data not shown). All errors represent the standard deviation of three separate experiments. ITC conditions were as follows: 20 mM sodium phosphate, 150 mM NaCl, and 2.5 mM 2-mercaptoethanol (pH 7.4) at 25 °C. Collectively, our findings represent the first quantitative assessment of the binding interaction, and binding thermodynamics, of a physiologically relevant complex involving the oncoprotein gankyrin. These data also potentially establish a target affinity for therapeutic reagents designed to inhibit gankyrin-dependent protein–protein interactions.[11,12]
  12 in total

1.  Novel insights into the INK4-CDK4/6-Rb pathway: counter action of gankyrin against INK4 proteins regulates the CDK4-mediated phosphorylation of Rb.

Authors:  Junan Li; Ming-Daw Tsai
Journal:  Biochemistry       Date:  2002-03-26       Impact factor: 3.162

2.  Gankyrin plays an essential role in Ras-induced tumorigenesis through regulation of the RhoA/ROCK pathway in mammalian cells.

Authors:  Jiang-Hong Man; Bing Liang; Yue-Xi Gu; Tao Zhou; Ai-Ling Li; Tao Li; Bao-Feng Jin; Bing Bai; Hai-Ying Zhang; Wei-Na Zhang; Wei-Hua Li; Wei-Li Gong; Hui-Yan Li; Xue-Min Zhang
Journal:  J Clin Invest       Date:  2010-07-12       Impact factor: 14.808

3.  Discovery of multiple interacting partners of gankyrin, a proteasomal chaperone and an oncoprotein--evidence for a common hot spot site at the interface and its functional relevance.

Authors:  Padma P Nanaware; Manoj P Ramteke; Arun K Somavarapu; Prasanna Venkatraman
Journal:  Proteins       Date:  2014-01-15

4.  Gankyrin, a biomarker for epithelial carcinogenesis, is overexpressed in human oral cancer.

Authors:  Junan Li; Thomas J Knobloch; Laura A Kresty; Zhaoxia Zhang; Jas C Lang; David E Schuller; Christopher M Weghorst
Journal:  Anticancer Res       Date:  2011-09       Impact factor: 2.480

5.  Gankyrin is frequently overexpressed in breast cancer and is associated with ErbB2 expression.

Authors:  Yeong Hwa Kim; Jang-Hee Kim; Yong Won Choi; Seo Kyung Lim; Hyunee Yim; Seok Yun Kang; Yong Sik Chung; Ga-Young Lee; Tae Jun Park
Journal:  Exp Mol Pathol       Date:  2012-12-28       Impact factor: 3.362

6.  Gankyrin promotes breast cancer cell metastasis by regulating Rac1 activity.

Authors:  C Zhen; L Chen; Q Zhao; B Liang; Y-X Gu; Z-F Bai; K Wang; X Xu; Q-y Han; D-f Fang; S-x Wang; T Zhou; Q Xia; W-L Gong; N Wang; H-Y Li; B-F Jin; J-h Man
Journal:  Oncogene       Date:  2012-08-13       Impact factor: 9.867

7.  The oncoprotein gankyrin binds to MDM2/HDM2, enhancing ubiquitylation and degradation of p53.

Authors:  Hiroaki Higashitsuji; Hisako Higashitsuji; Katsuhiko Itoh; Toshiharu Sakurai; Toshikazu Nagao; Yasuhiko Sumitomo; Haruhiko Sumitomo; Tomoko Masuda; Simon Dawson; Yutaka Shimada; R John Mayer; Jun Fujita
Journal:  Cancer Cell       Date:  2005-07       Impact factor: 31.743

8.  Structure of the oncoprotein gankyrin in complex with S6 ATPase of the 26S proteasome.

Authors:  Yoshihiro Nakamura; Kazumi Nakano; Takashi Umehara; Mayumi Kimura; Yoshihide Hayashizaki; Akiko Tanaka; Masami Horikoshi; Balasundaram Padmanabhan; Shigeyuki Yokoyama
Journal:  Structure       Date:  2007-02       Impact factor: 5.006

9.  Overexpression of p28/gankyrin in human hepatocellular carcinoma and its clinical significance.

Authors:  Xiao-Yong Fu; Hong-Yang Wang; Lu Tan; Shu-Qin Liu; Hui-Fang Cao; Meng-Chao Wu
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2002-08       Impact factor: 5.742

10.  Overexpression of a novel gene gankyrin correlates with the malignant phenotype of colorectal cancer.

Authors:  Shanhong Tang; Guitao Yang; Yun Meng; Rui Du; Xiaohua Li; Rui Fan; Lina Zhao; Qian Bi; Jiang Jin; Liucun Gao; Lin Zhang; Hao Li; Meng Fan; Yingmei Wang; Kaichun Wu; Jie Liu; Daiming Fan
Journal:  Cancer Biol Ther       Date:  2010-01-09       Impact factor: 4.742

View more
  4 in total

Review 1.  Gankyrin as a potential therapeutic target for cancer.

Authors:  Chongchong Wang; Li Cheng
Journal:  Invest New Drugs       Date:  2017-05-19       Impact factor: 3.850

2.  Synthetic Proteins Potently and Selectively Bind the Oncoprotein Gankyrin, Modulate Its Interaction with S6 ATPase, and Suppress Gankyrin/MDM2-Dependent Ubiquitination of p53.

Authors:  Alex M Chapman; Brian R McNaughton
Journal:  ACS Chem Biol       Date:  2015-05-22       Impact factor: 5.100

3.  Arctigenin Inhibits Liver Cancer Tumorigenesis by Inhibiting Gankyrin Expression via C/EBPα and PPARα.

Authors:  Ying Sun; Yu-Jun Tan; Zhan-Zhao Lu; Bing-Bing Li; Cheng-Hong Sun; Tao Li; Li-Li Zhao; Zhong Liu; Gui-Min Zhang; Jing-Chun Yao; Jie Li
Journal:  Front Pharmacol       Date:  2018-03-27       Impact factor: 5.810

4.  Discovery of a small-molecule binder of the oncoprotein gankyrin that modulates gankyrin activity in the cell.

Authors:  Anasuya Chattopadhyay; Cornelius J O'Connor; Fengzhi Zhang; Celine Galvagnion; Warren R J D Galloway; Yaw Sing Tan; Jamie E Stokes; Taufiq Rahman; Chandra Verma; David R Spring; Laura S Itzhaki
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2016-04-05       Impact factor: 4.996

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.