Michael D Crabtree1, Wade Borcherds2,3, Anusha Poosapati2,3, Sarah L Shammas1, Gary W Daughdrill2,3, Jane Clarke1. 1. Department of Chemistry, University of Cambridge , Cambridge CB2 1EW, U.K. 2. Department of Cell Biology, Microbiology and Molecular Biology, University of South Florida , Tampa, Florida 33620, United States. 3. Florida Center for Drug Discovery and Innovation, University of South Florida , Tampa, Florida 33612, United States.
Abstract
Appropriate integration of cellular signals requires a delicate balance of ligand-target binding affinities. Increasing the level of residual structure in intrinsically disordered proteins (IDPs), which are overrepresented in these cellular processes, has been shown previously to enhance binding affinities and alter cellular function. Conserved proline residues are commonly found flanking regions of IDPs that become helical upon interacting with a partner protein. Here, we mutate these helix-flanking prolines in p53 and MLL and find opposite effects on binding affinity upon an increase in free IDP helicity. In both cases, changes in affinity were due to alterations in dissociation, not association, rate constants, which is inconsistent with conformational selection mechanisms. We conclude that, contrary to previous suggestions, helix-flanking prolines do not regulate affinity by modulating the rate of complex formation. Instead, they influence binding affinities by controlling the lifetime of the bound complex.
Appropriate integration of cellular signals requires a delicate balance of ligand-target binding affinities. Increasing the level of residual structure in intrinsically disordered proteins (IDPs), which are overrepresented in these cellular processes, has been shown previously to enhance binding affinities and alter cellular function. Conserved proline residues are commonly found flanking regions of IDPs that become helical upon interacting with a partner protein. Here, we mutate these helix-flanking prolines in p53 and MLL and find opposite effects on binding affinity upon an increase in free IDP helicity. In both cases, changes in affinity were due to alterations in dissociation, not association, rate constants, which is inconsistent with conformational selection mechanisms. We conclude that, contrary to previous suggestions, helix-flanking prolines do not regulate affinity by modulating the rate of complex formation. Instead, they influence binding affinities by controlling the lifetime of the bound complex.
Intrinsically
disordered proteins
(IDPs) or intrinsically disordered regions of proteins (IDRs) lack
a well-defined three-dimensional fold and exist as ensembles of conformations
with variable levels of transient structure.[1] A subset of IDRs fold upon binding to their partner macromolecule.[2] For IDRs that form α-helices upon coupled
folding and binding, increasing the residual helicity of the free
IDR has been shown to increase the affinity for the partner protein.[3−5] Conserved proline residues are commonly found flanking transiently
helical binding segments of IDRs[6,7] (Figure ). The abundance and conservation of helix-flanking
prolines in IDPs point toward an important biological function. Proline
residues are known helix breakers, and these conserved helix-flanking
prolines may act to restrict the transient residual helicity of the
free IDR[6,7] and consequently the affinity for the partner
protein. We have previously shown that this is the case for the disordered
transactivation domain of p53, where mutation of conserved helix-flanking
prolines increases the peak residual helicity of the free state by
approximately 40%.[3] When the proline 27
to alanine (P27A) mutation is present, this increase in residual helicity
is accompanied by a 10-fold increase in affinity for its ordered binding
partner, MDM2.
Figure 1
Position and conservation of helix-flanking prolines in
IDRs. Bound
structures of IDPs/IDRs that undergo coupled folding and binding to
form α-helices that are flanked by prolines. From top to bottom:
p53:MDM2 [Protein Data Bank (PDB) entry 1YCR], MLL:CBP KIX (PDB entry 2LXS), c-Myb:CBP KIX
(PDB entry 1SB0), CREB:CBP KIX (PDB entry 1KDX), SHP-1:SF-1 (PDB entry 1YMT), and PGC-1 α:PPARγ (PDB
entry 3CS8),
respectively. Folded partner proteins are colored gray and IDPs and
IDRs red. Helix-flanking prolines are represented as cyan spheres.
Cyan circles indicate helix-flanking prolines that are not present
in the structure. N denotes the N-terminus of the IDP/IDR. For each
IDP/IDR, the sequences from Homo sapiens, Mus musculus, Gallus gallus, and Danio rerio were aligned using Clutsal Omega.[11,12] The p53 alignment is from ref (3). The peptide region used in the structure is highlighted
in gray, with residues that form α-helices upon binding highlighted
in red. Helix-flanking prolines are highlighted. As determined with
Clustal Omega, positions of full residue conservation are indicated
with an asterisk, a colon indicates conservation of strongly similar
amino acid properties, and weakly similar properties are specified
with a period.
Position and conservation of helix-flanking prolines in
IDRs. Bound
structures of IDPs/IDRs that undergo coupled folding and binding to
form α-helices that are flanked by prolines. From top to bottom:
p53:MDM2 [Protein Data Bank (PDB) entry 1YCR], MLL:CBP KIX (PDB entry 2LXS), c-Myb:CBP KIX
(PDB entry 1SB0), CREB:CBP KIX (PDB entry 1KDX), SHP-1:SF-1 (PDB entry 1YMT), and PGC-1 α:PPARγ (PDB
entry 3CS8),
respectively. Folded partner proteins are colored gray and IDPs and
IDRs red. Helix-flanking prolines are represented as cyan spheres.
Cyan circles indicate helix-flanking prolines that are not present
in the structure. N denotes the N-terminus of the IDP/IDR. For each
IDP/IDR, the sequences from Homo sapiens, Mus musculus, Gallus gallus, and Danio rerio were aligned using Clutsal Omega.[11,12] The p53 alignment is from ref (3). The peptide region used in the structure is highlighted
in gray, with residues that form α-helices upon binding highlighted
in red. Helix-flanking prolines are highlighted. As determined with
Clustal Omega, positions of full residue conservation are indicated
with an asterisk, a colon indicates conservation of strongly similar
amino acid properties, and weakly similar properties are specified
with a period.It has been suggested
that observing a concomitant enhancement
in IDR residual helicity and IDR:target partner protein affinity,
will lead to an increase in the proportion of binding competent species
within the conformational ensemble and, thus, an increase in the rate
of complex formation.[4,8] However, kinetic information is
required to justify such mechanistic conclusions.[9,10] Here
we determine the mechanism behind the increase in the affinity of
p53 for MDM2 upon proline to alanine mutation (PtoA). We then investigate
helix-flanking prolines in the transactivation domain of MLL, another
IDR, to determine the commonality of this mechanism. We demonstrate
that the principal effect is on complex lifetime, rather than rate
of formation, but that conserved helix-flanking prolines have more
subtlety in the way that they can control affinity than a simple model
might predict.
Materials and Methods
Methods for
protein expression, purification and labeling, circular
dichroism, and equilibrium binding experiments are described in the Supporting Information.
Peptides
MLLpeptides
were synthesized by Biomatik
and purchased as trifluoroacetate salts with a fluorescein isothiocyanate
(FITC)-labeled or free N-terminus. Wild-type (WT) MLL consisted of
31 amino acids: residues 2838–2869 (Uniprot entry Q03164) with
residue C2841 removed to avoid disulfide bond formation. p53peptides
were produced recombinantly and labeled with Alexa Fluor dyes, as
described in the Supporting Information.
Biophysical Buffer
Biophysical buffer for p53 and MDM2
consisted of 50 mM sodium phosphate, 100 mM NaCl, 1 mM EDTA, 2 mM
DTT, and 0.02% sodium azide (pH 6.8). Biophysical buffer for MLL and
KIX consisted of 100 mM sodium phosphate and 0.05% Tween 20 (pH 7.4).
Nuclear Magnetic Resonance (NMR) Data Collection and Analysis
NMR experiments for WT MLL and the P9/21A mutant were performed
using uniformly 15N- and 13C-labeled samples
at 160 and 155 μM, respectively, at 10 °C on a Varian VNMRS
800 MHz spectrometer equipped with a triple-resonance pulse field Z-axis gradient cold probe. To make the amide 1H and 15N as well as 13Cα, 13Cβ, and 13CO resonance assignments,
sensitivity-enhanced 1H–15N HSQC and
three-dimensional HNCACB and HNCO experiments were performed on the
uniformly 15N- and 13C-labeled samples in 90%
H2O/10% D2O, 50 mM phosphate buffer with 50
mM NaCl, 1 mM EDTA, and 0.02% NaN3 (pH 6.8). For the HNCACB
experiment, data were acquired in the 1H, 13C, and 15N dimensions using 9689.9 (t3) Hz × 14074.1 (t2)
Hz × 1944.5 (t1) Hz sweep widths
and 1024 (t3) × 128 (t2) × 32 (t1) complex
data points. For the HNCO, the sweep widths were 9689.9 (t3) Hz × 3770.1 (t2) Hz
× 1944.5 (t1) Hz, and complex data
points were identical to those of the HNCACB.[13−15] The sweep widths
and complex points of the HSQC were 9689.9 (t2) Hz × 1944.5 (t1) Hz and
1024 (t2) × 128 (t1), respectively. For WT MLL, processing and analysis
of the HNCACB data resulted in 28 non-proline, amide 1H, 15N, 13Cα, and 26 13Cβ resonance assignments and three proline13Cα and 13Cβ resonance
assignments. Twenty-seven 13CO resonance assignments were
made using the HNCO data. For mutant MLL, processing and analysis
of the HNCACB data resulted in 30 non-proline, amide 1H, 15N, 13Cα, and 28 13Cβ resonance assignments and one proline13Cα and 13Cβ resonance
assignment. Twenty-nine 13CO resonance assignments were
made using the HNCO data.All NMR spectra were processed with
NVFx and analyzed using nmrViewJ.[16,17] Apodization
was achieved in the 1H, 13C, and 15N dimensions using a squared sine bell function shifted by 70°.
Apodization was followed by zero filling to double the number of real
data points, and linear prediction was used in the 15N
dimension. The 1H carrier frequency was set on 4,4-dimethyl-4-silapentane-1-sulfonic
acid (DSS was used as the reference frequency).[18] Secondary chemical shift values were calculated by subtracting
the residue specific random coil chemical shifts in the neighbor-corrected
IDP chemical shift library (ncIDP) from the measured chemical shifts.[19] Secondary structure populations were calculated
with d2D using the measured proton, nitrogen, and α, β,
and carbonyl carbon chemical shifts.[20] The
overall helicity was calculated as the mean of the per residue d2D
helical population estimates.
Binding Kinetics
Binding kinetics were followed using
SX18 or SX20 stopped-flow spectrometers (Applied Photophysics). Temperatures
were maintained at 25 or 5 °C for p53:MDM2 or MLL:KIX, respectively.
The lower temperatures were required to follow the fast observed rates
of MLL:KIX. Excitation wavelengths of 493 and 593 nm were used in
conjunction with 515 and 610 nm long pass filters, respectively. Data
within the dead time of mixing (the first 1 ms) were removed before
fitting.Association experiments were performed under pseudo-first-order
conditions, such that the concentration of the partner protein was
at least 10-fold higher than the concentration of the peptide. For
each concentration of excess protein, 30–70 traces for p53
were collected and averaged. Kinetic traces were fit to a single-exponential
decay function to extract observed association rate constants (kobs). Association rate constants (kon) were obtained from the gradient of the straight line
fit of the observed rate versus the concentration of excess protein
(Figures S1a and S3b).For dissociation
experiments, 0.25–0.5 μM labeled
peptide was pre-equilibrated with 1–2.5 μM partner protein
and mixed with various concentrations (0–50 μM) of unlabeled
ligand. Kinetic traces were fit to a single-exponential decay function
to extract kobs. p53P27A (Alexa 594-labeled)
fit poorly to a single exponential and was instead fit to a double-exponential
function. Two dissociation rates were also observed with p53P27A
labeled with another dye, Alexa 488, suggesting dye-specific causes
were not responsible for the observed biphasic dissociation kinetics.
The most likely explanation is therefore that p53P27A follows a three-state
reaction, as discussed in Figure . We note that WT p53 may also follow this pathway,
but with rates or amplitudes that cannot be detected by stopped-flow
methods. We note that this does not affect our conclusions. Dissociation
rate constants (koff) were obtained either
from the fit of dissociation kobs, as
a function of the unlabeled ligand concentration, as described previously,[21] or from the mean of the kobs obtained at concentrations of competing peptide at which kobs was essentially concentration-independent,
as described previously.[22]
Figure 2
Observed rate constants
for the interaction between p53 and MDM2.
(A) Observed rate constants (kobs) from
pseudo-first-order association binding experiments, with MDM2 in excess.
The association rate constant (kon) is
given by the gradient of the straight line fit. (B) Dissociation kobs from competition dissociation studies. Biphasic
dissociation kinetics for p53 P27A may be due to either the presence
of an intermediate on the dissociation pathway or a secondary binding
event. The dissociation rate constant (koff) is given by the asymptote. Error bars, representing the error of
the fit, are smaller than the data points.
Observed rate constants
for the interaction between p53 and MDM2.
(A) Observed rate constants (kobs) from
pseudo-first-order association binding experiments, with MDM2 in excess.
The association rate constant (kon) is
given by the gradient of the straight line fit. (B) Dissociation kobs from competition dissociation studies. Biphasic
dissociation kinetics for p53P27A may be due to either the presence
of an intermediate on the dissociation pathway or a secondary binding
event. The dissociation rate constant (koff) is given by the asymptote. Error bars, representing the error of
the fit, are smaller than the data points.
Fitting MLL P9/20A and L8A Binding Kinetics
Between
60 and 120 traces were collected for each concentration of excess
partner protein/peptide. Each trace was individually fit to a single-exponential
decay function. The individual rate constants obtained for single
traces (at each concentration of excess partner protein) were plotted
as histograms and fit to a Gaussian function (eq ) to extract an average rate:where a is a scaling constant,
μ is the mean, and σ is the standard deviation.To assist Gaussian fitting, only individual fitted rates between
0 and 1000 s–1 were included: rates below 0 s–1 have no physical meaning, and rates above 1000 s–1 cannot be feasibly detected with the stopped-flow
setup used to collect these data.To uncover and minimize any
potential dependence of the extracted
rate on the chosen bin size, 10 bin sizes (from 5 to 50 in increments
of 5) were used to generate histograms. kobs was determined as the mean μ over all bin sizes. kon was obtained from the gradient of the straight line
fit of kobs versus partner protein concentration.
Dissociation kobs values at each concentration
of excess peptide were determined as described above. koff was then obtained by taking the mean of dissociation kobs at different concentrations of out-competitor.These described data analyses for MLL P9/20A and L8 were performed
using a bespoke script created in Mathematica (Wolfram).
Results
and Discussion
Using stopped-flow fluorescence, we investigated
the kinetic basis
for the increase in affinity of p53 for MDM2, upon mutation of helix-flanking
prolines to alanine (PtoA). If the increased level of residual structure
increased the proportion of binding competent p53, i.e., a conformational
selection mechanism, the PtoA mutations would be expected to increase
the association rate constant (kon), yet
despite increasing the residual helicity within the region that becomes
helical upon binding by 2.5-fold,[3] an only
1.23 ± 0.06-fold increase in kon (Figure A) was observed for
the P27A mutant. Clearly, an enhanced rate of complex formation does
not therefore explain the 10-fold increase in affinity for p53P27A.[3] All other p53proline to alanine (PtoA) mutants
displayed similarly small changes in kon (Table ). Two dissociation
rate constants (koff) were observed for
the P27Ap53 mutant compared to one for WT p53 (Figure B). An approximate 12-fold reduction in koff was observed for the faster of the two rates,
while the slower rate was around 60-fold lower than that of the WT
(Figure B). Thus,
the PtoA mutation increases the stability of p53:MDM2 by reducing
the dissociation rate constant, suggesting that the influence of conserved
helix-flanking prolines is on the stability of the bound complex.
Table 1
Peptide Helicities and Equilibrium
and Rate Constantsa
peptide
helicity (NMR) (%)
helicity (CD) (%)
equilibrium Kd (nM)
kinetic Kd (nM)
kon (×106 M–1 s–1)
koff (s–1)
p53 WT
3
ndb
240 ± 60
176 ± 8
25 ± 1
4.40 ± 0.03
p53 P27A
6
ndb
25 ± 3
ndb
30.7 ± 0.7
fast, 0.37 ± 0.01
slow, 0.072 ± 0.005
p53 P12/13A
3
ndb
220 ± 30
ndb
22 ± 2
ndb
p53 P12/13/27A
6
ndb
17 ± 6
ndb
32.4 ± 0.9
ndb
MLL WT
2
13
660 ± 60
530 ± 30
24 ± 1
12.4 ± 0.3
MLL P21A
ndb
14
700 ± 120
560 ± 15
22.0 ± 0.6
12.22 ± 0.08
MLL P9/21A
3
16
17000 ± 2000
9000 ± 6000
20 ± 14
200 ± 16
MLL L8A
ndb
12
35000 ± 4000
ndb
ndb
170 ± 14
The percent helicity values reported
in this table were calculated as described in Materials
and Methods and represent the change across the entire peptide
sequence. Overall changes in helicity are predominantly due to increased
helicity within the binding region (Figure ). Errors for equilibrium Kd measurements represent the standard error of the mean
(SEM; n = 3). Errors for rate constants represent
the error of the fit, except for MLL P9/21A and MLL L8A, where the
error represents the SEM (n = 7 and 5, respectively).
Kinetic Kd was calculated as koff/kon, with the errors propagated
using standard methods. Data for p53 equilibrium Kd and helicity (NMR) were taken from ref (3). A recent mutational analysis
of MLL showed that the equivalent leucine to alanine mutation (L8A)
was stabilizing at pH 4,[23] although the
authors could not measure the effects at pH 7.2 and noted that several
residues displayed different behaviors with a change in pH, which
might explain the differing result.
Not determined.
The percent helicity values reported
in this table were calculated as described in Materials
and Methods and represent the change across the entire peptide
sequence. Overall changes in helicity are predominantly due to increased
helicity within the binding region (Figure ). Errors for equilibrium Kd measurements represent the standard error of the mean
(SEM; n = 3). Errors for rate constants represent
the error of the fit, except for MLL P9/21A and MLL L8A, where the
error represents the SEM (n = 7 and 5, respectively).
Kinetic Kd was calculated as koff/kon, with the errors propagated
using standard methods. Data for p53 equilibrium Kd and helicity (NMR) were taken from ref (3). A recent mutational analysis
of MLL showed that the equivalent leucine to alanine mutation (L8A)
was stabilizing at pH 4,[23] although the
authors could not measure the effects at pH 7.2 and noted that several
residues displayed different behaviors with a change in pH, which
might explain the differing result.
Figure 3
Helix-flanking prolines modulate residual structure in p53 and
MLL. Change in per residue fractional helicity estimates upon PtoA
mutation for (A) p53 P27A and (B) MLL P9/21A. WT residues that become
helical upon binding are underlined. Conserved helix-flanking prolines
are highlighted. p53 NMR helicity data are from ref (3). Individual fractional
helicity plots for MLL WT and P9/21A are shown in Figure S2B. Estimates from NMR and CD gave similar changes
in overall MLL helicity (Table ). Note that the mean helicity within the region that becomes
helical upon binding was increased by 2.5-fold in p53 P27A and 1.4-fold
in MLL P9/21A, compared to that of the WT. Helix-flanking prolines
are shown as cyan spheres in the structures of (A) p53:MDM2 (PDB entry 1YCR) and (B) MLL:KIX
(PDB entry 2LXS). Cyan circles represent helix-flanking prolines that are not present
in the structure.
Not determined.To determine whether this is a common function of conserved proline
residues in IDPs, we investigated the interaction between the disordered
transactivation domain of MLL and the folded KIX domain of CBP (Figure ). Single (P2858A)
and double (P2846/2858A) PtoA mutants were made for MLL (Figure S1). Hereafter, these MLL mutations are
referenced to the peptide investigated in this study (P9A and P9/21A).Using circular dichroism spectroscopy (CD), an increase in helicity
upon PtoA mutation was observed (Figure S2A), consistent with both the previous p53 data[3] and the idea that helix-flanking prolines control the level of residual
helical structure.[7] Such an observation
might be due to a simple extension of the helix or, as observed in
p53, to an increase in the stability of the helical region itself
(Figure A). To confirm and locate the changes in helicity,
MLL WT and P9/21A were investigated using NMR spectroscopy. As expected,
increases in helicity were observed at and around the site of the
mutation (Figure B
and Figure S2B), with a 1.4-fold increase
in helicity observed within the region that becomes helical upon binding.
For MLL, mutation of the N-terminal helix-flanking proline increased
the helicity to an extent greater than that seen when the C-terminal
proline was mutated (Table ).Helix-flanking prolines modulate residual structure in p53 and
MLL. Change in per residue fractional helicity estimates upon PtoA
mutation for (A) p53P27A and (B) MLL P9/21A. WT residues that become
helical upon binding are underlined. Conserved helix-flanking prolines
are highlighted. p53 NMR helicity data are from ref (3). Individual fractional
helicity plots for MLL WT and P9/21A are shown in Figure S2B. Estimates from NMR and CD gave similar changes
in overall MLL helicity (Table ). Note that the mean helicity within the region that becomes
helical upon binding was increased by 2.5-fold in p53P27A and 1.4-fold
in MLL P9/21A, compared to that of the WT. Helix-flanking prolines
are shown as cyan spheres in the structures of (A) p53:MDM2 (PDB entry 1YCR) and (B) MLL:KIX
(PDB entry 2LXS). Cyan circles represent helix-flanking prolines that are not present
in the structure.Surprisingly, given the
1.4-fold increase in residual helicity,
equilibrium binding experiments demonstrated a large, approximate
25-fold, reduction in affinity for MLL P9/21A, compared to that of
the WT or P21A (Figure and Figure S3A). MLL, therefore, does
not fit the prevailing view that an increase in the level of residual
structure enhances binding affinity.[3−5] To determine the cause
of these unexpected changes, we turned again to the reaction kinetics.
As for the p53:MDM2 interaction, the association rate constant was
almost unaffected in our PtoA mutants [a <1.2 ± 0.6-fold decrease
in kon was observed for both MLL mutants
(Table , Figure , and Figure S3B)]. Again, the change in affinity for
MLL P9/21A was almost entirely due to changes in koff (Table , Figure , and Figure S3C). This observation has been made previously
in mutagenesis studies of other peptides that form simple helices
upon binding,[24] and is consistent with
an induced fit mechanism of binding. We note that the error in kon is large because of the difficulty in collecting
the data;a however, determining kon by dividing koff by Kd gave a similar 2 ± 0.3-fold decrease
in kon for MLL P9/21A.
Figure 4
Fold change in thermodynamic
and kinetic parameters upon mutation. kon not determined for MLL L8A. Kd error
bars represent the standard error of the mean
(SEM; n = 3). Error bars for kon and koff represent the error
of the fit, except for MLL P9/21A and MLL L8A, where error bars represent
the SEM (n = 7 and 5, respectively).
Fold change in thermodynamic
and kinetic parameters upon mutation. kon not determined for MLL L8A. Kd error
bars represent the standard error of the mean
(SEM; n = 3). Error bars for kon and koff represent the error
of the fit, except for MLL P9/21A and MLL L8A, where error bars represent
the SEM (n = 7 and 5, respectively).What causes the unexpected 25-fold reduction in
affinity of MLL
for KIX upon mutation of Pro9 to Ala? Like any other mutation, the
PtoA mutation has the potential to remove interactions of the MLLproline side chain with KIX, which could explain the decrease in affinity.
However, compared to those of WT and P21A:KIX, we had noticed a change
in the maximal anisotropy of the MLL P9/21A:KIX complex (Figure S3A), and CD indicated that there was
an increase in helicity within the bound complex (Figure S4A). We thus examined the bound structure. Immediately
N-terminal of P9, a leucine (L8) of MLL packs into a hydrophobic pocket
of KIX[25] (Figure S4B). Proline residues are known to influence the conformation of preceding
residues,[26] so perhaps mutation of P9A
could be indirectly disrupting the interaction of L8A with KIX. To
test our hypothesis, we mutated L8, which we reasoned should lead
to similar changes in affinity. Accordingly, mutation of L8 to Ala
decreased the affinity for KIX approximately 53-fold (Table , Figure , and Figure S3A). Again, the decrease was predominantly explained by an increase
in koff (Table , Figure , and Figure S3C). We note
that the 13.9 ± 0.6-fold shift in koff for the MLL L8A mutants accounts for the majority of the 15.8 ±
0.5-fold change in koff observed for MLL
P9A. This indicates that the disruption of the interaction of L8 with
KIX is the predominant reason for the decrease in affinity upon P9A
mutation, rather than a loss of proline side chain interactions.
Conclusions
In contrast to the suggestion that their role is to determine the
population of structures in a binding competent state,[6,7] we find that conserved IDR helix-flanking prolines control affinity
by modulating the lifetime of the bound complex. Therefore, while
helix-flanking prolines may reduce the level of residual free IDP/IDR
helical structure, any influence on affinity occurs predominantly
through effects in the bound state of the IDP/IDR:target complex.
Remarkably, mutation of helix-flanking prolines to alanines was not
always associated with an increase in affinity, as a significant decrease
was observed for MLL:KIX. Control of IDP/IDR:target binding affinity
is crucial for cellular function.[3] Clearly,
evolution can result in helix-flanking prolines being conserved to
allow subtle, system specific, ways of controlling the affinity and
lifetime of important regulatory complexes.
Authors: Joseph M Rogers; Vladimiras Oleinikovas; Sarah L Shammas; Chi T Wong; David De Sancho; Christopher M Baker; Jane Clarke Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2014-10-13 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Wade Borcherds; François-Xavier Theillet; Andrea Katzer; Ana Finzel; Katie M Mishall; Anne T Powell; Hongwei Wu; Wanda Manieri; Christoph Dieterich; Philipp Selenko; Alexander Loewer; Gary W Daughdrill Journal: Nat Chem Biol Date: 2014-11-02 Impact factor: 15.040
Authors: James M Krieger; Giuliana Fusco; Marc Lewitzky; Philip C Simister; Jan Marchant; Carlo Camilloni; Stephan M Feller; Alfonso De Simone Journal: Biophys J Date: 2014-04-15 Impact factor: 4.033
Authors: Francois-Xavier Theillet; Lajos Kalmar; Peter Tompa; Kyou-Hoon Han; Philipp Selenko; A Keith Dunker; Gary W Daughdrill; Vladimir N Uversky Journal: Intrinsically Disord Proteins Date: 2013-04-01
Authors: Christopher T Nordyke; Yasin M Ahmed; Ryan Z Puterbaugh; Grant R Bowman; Krisztina Varga Journal: J Mol Biol Date: 2020-10-12 Impact factor: 6.151