Zongkai Mu1, Lei Wang1, Wei Deng2, Jiawei Wang3, Geng Wu1. 1. State Key Laboratory of Microbial Metabolism, School of Life Sciences and Biotechnology, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China. 2. National Center for Protein Science Shanghai, Shanghai, China. 3. State Key Laboratory of Membrane Biology, School of Life Sciences, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China.
Abstract
The mechanistic target of rapamycin (mTOR) signal-transduction pathway plays a key role in regulating many aspects of metabolic processes. The central player of the mTOR signaling pathway, mTOR complex 1 (mTORC1), is recruited by the pentameric Ragulator complex and the heterodimeric Rag GTPase complex to the lysosomal membrane and thereafter activated. Here, we determined the crystal structure of the human Ragulator complex, which shows that Lamtor1 possesses a belt-like shape and wraps the other four subunits around. Extensive hydrophobic interactions occur between Lamtor1 and the Lamtor2-Lamtor3, Lamtor4-Lamtor5 roadblock domain protein pairs, while there is no substantial contact between Lamtor2-Lamtor3 and Lamtor4-Lamtor5 subcomplexes. Interestingly, an α-helix from Lamtor1 occupies each of the positions on Lamtor4 and Lamtor5 equivalent to the α3-helices of Lamtor2 and Lamtor3, thus stabilizing Lamtor4 and Lamtor5. Structural comparison between Ragulator and the yeast Ego1-Ego2-Ego3 ternary complex (Ego-TC) reveals that Ego-TC only corresponds to half of the Ragulator complex. Coupling with the fact that in the Ego-TC structure, Ego2 and Ego3 are lone roadblock domain proteins without another roadblock domain protein pairing with them, we suggest that additional components of the yeast Ego complex might exist.
The mechanistic target of rapamycin (mTOR) signal-transduction pathway plays a key role in regulating many aspects of metabolic processes. The central player of the mTOR signaling pathway, mTOR complex 1 (mTORC1), is recruited by the pentameric Ragulator complex and the heterodimeric Rag GTPase complex to the lysosomal membrane and thereafter activated. Here, we determined the crystal structure of the human Ragulator complex, which shows that Lamtor1 possesses a belt-like shape and wraps the other four subunits around. Extensive hydrophobic interactions occur between Lamtor1 and the Lamtor2-Lamtor3, Lamtor4-Lamtor5 roadblock domain protein pairs, while there is no substantial contact between Lamtor2-Lamtor3 and Lamtor4-Lamtor5 subcomplexes. Interestingly, an α-helix from Lamtor1 occupies each of the positions on Lamtor4 and Lamtor5 equivalent to the α3-helices of Lamtor2 and Lamtor3, thus stabilizing Lamtor4 and Lamtor5. Structural comparison between Ragulator and the yeastEgo1-Ego2-Ego3 ternary complex (Ego-TC) reveals that Ego-TC only corresponds to half of the Ragulator complex. Coupling with the fact that in the Ego-TC structure, Ego2 and Ego3 are lone roadblock domain proteins without another roadblock domain protein pairing with them, we suggest that additional components of the yeast Ego complex might exist.
The mechanistic target of rapamycin (mTOR) signal-transduction pathway regulates many
aspects of metabolic processes such as protein translation, lipid synthesis and autophagy
in a diverse variety of organisms from yeast to human. Deregulation of the mTOR signaling
pathway underlies many human diseases including cancer and diabetes [1-4]. The activation of mTORC1, the central
player of the mTOR signaling pathway, which consists of mTOR, Raptor and mLST8, is subject
to stringent regulation by the availability of nutrients such as amino acids [5-7]. When amino acids are abundant, mTORC1 is
translocated to the lysosomal membrane, through the mediation of the heterodimeric Rag
GTPases, which consists of RagA or RagB in complex with RagC or RagD [8, 9] and the pentameric Ragulator complex
[10, 11]. At the lysosome,
the kinase activity of mTORC1 is activated by the small GTPase Rheb, which is also located
in lysosomes [12, 13], and
then phosphorylates a variety of its target substrates such as eIF4E-binding protein 1 and
S6 kinase 1.The lysosomal membrane-attached Ragulator complex consists of five subunits: Lamtor1,
Lamtor2, Lamtor3, Lamtor4 and Lamtor5 (which are also known as p18, p14, MP1, C7orf59 and
HBXIP, respectively). The N-terminal region of Lamtor1 contains myristoylation and
palmitoylation sites, which anchors the Ragulator complex to the lysosomal membrane
[14]. Lamtor2, Lamtor3, Lamtor4 and Lamtor5 all contain
roadblock domains [11]. The Rag GTPase complex may interact
with the Ragulator complex through the C-terminal domains of RagA/B and RagC/D, which are
also roadblock domains [15]. In addition, it was reported
that the Ragulator complex serves as a guanine nucleotide exchange factor for RagA and
RagB, promoting their GTP binding in exchange of GDP.Most of the key players of humanmTOR signaling pathway are conserved in yeasts. For
example, there are two yeastmTOR homologs, TOR1 and TOR2 [16]. The yeast counterparts for humanRagA/RagB and RagC/RagD have been
identified to be Gtr1 and Gtr2, respectively[17]. In
addition, three yeast proteins, Ego1, Ego2 and Ego3, have been found to interact with each
other and might function as components of a Ragulator-like complex (known as Ego-TC
presently) in yeasts [18-20]. However,
given the fact that human Ragulator is a pentameric complex, whereas yeastEgo-TC is only
a ternary complex, it is not yet clear all the components of yeast Ragulator-like complex
have been identified.Although the crystal structures of the humanLamtor2-Lamtor3 complex [21, 22] and the yeastGtr1-Gtr2
complex [15, 23] have been
reported, the structural assembly of the holo-Ragulator complex still remains elusive. In
this work, we determined the crystal structures of both the humanLamtor4-Lamtor5 complex
and the human pentameric Ragulator complex. Our structure shows that Lamtor1 exhibits a
belt-like structure and wraps around Lamtor2, Lamtor3, Lamtor4 and Lamtor5. There exist
extensive interactions between Lamtor1 and all the other four subunits. Lamtor4 associates
with Lamtor5 through β-sheet formation and hydrophobic interactions, similar to the
association between Lamtor2 and Lamtor3. Interestingly, both Lamtor4 and Lamtor5 lack the
α3-helix feature which are present in Lamtor2 and Lamtor3. Assembly of the Ragulator
complex brings an α-helix of Lamtor1 to each of the positions on Lamtor4 and Lamtor5
equivalent to the α3-helices of Lamtor2 and Lamtor3, and thus stabilizing Lamtor4
and Lamtor5. In addition, comparison of the structure of the Ragulator complex and that of
the previously reported Ego-TC indicates that the three components of Ego-TC, Ego1, Ego2
and Ego3, are equivalent to Lamtor1-α3, Lamtor5 and Lamtor2, in terms of their
spatial positions. This suggests that other components of the yeast Ragulator-like complex
might exist.
Results
Overall structure of the Ragulator complex
We first determined the crystal structure of the humanLamtor4-Lamtor5 complex to
2.03 Å resolution by the molecular replacement method, using the structure
of the previously reported Lamtor2-Lamtor3 complex as a searching model (Table 1). With the structures of the Lamtor2-Lamtor3 and the
Lamtor4-Lamtor5 complexes as searching models, we then determined the crystal structure
of the human pentameric Ragulator complex to 3.01 Å resolution also by the
molecular replacement method, with the
Rwork/Rfree factors being 22.27%/28.33%
(Table 1).
Table 1
Data collection and refinement statistics
Lamtor4-Lamtor5
The Ragulator complex
Data collection
Beamline
BL19U1
BL19U1
Space group
P32
P6122
Cell dimensions
a, b, c (Å)
76.67, 76.67, 52.94
126.68, 126.68, 614.51
α, β, γ
(deg.)
90, 90, 120
90, 90, 120
Resolution (Å)
50–2.03 (2.10–2.03)
50–3.10 (3.21–3.10)
Rmerge (%)
9.0 (>100.0)
20.1 (>100.0)
I/σI
20.5 (1.75)
28.5 (2.25)
CC1/2
0.548
0.797
Completeness (%)
100.0 (100.0)
100.0 (100.0)
Redundancy
10.3 (9.2)
34.6 (20.3)
Wilson-plot B factor
24.5
52.1
Molecules/asymmetric unit
2 complexes
3 complexes
Refinement
Resolution (Å)
50–2.03
50–3.10
Number of reflections
19 847
47 579
Rwork/Rfree
21.64%/26.24%
22.27%/28.33%
No. of atoms
Protein
2 542
11 608
Solvent
68
0
B factors (Å2)
Overall
13.53
58.51
Protein
13.13
58.51
Solvent
28.53
N/A
RMSD bond length (Å)
0.0070
0.0056
RMSD bond angles (deg.)
1.4407
1.2122
Ramachandran plot
Favored (%)
93.4
94.8
Allowed (%)
6.3
4.9
Disallowed (%)
0.3
0.3
Abbreviations: ASU, asymmetric unit; N/A, not applicable; RMSD, root-mean-square
deviations from ideal geometry.
Rmerge=ΣΣ
|I−I|/ΣΣ
I for the intensity (I) of observation i of
reflection h. R
factor=Σ||Fobs|−|Fcalc||/Σ|Fobs|,
where Fobs and Fcalc are the observed and
calculated structure factors, respectively. Rfree=R
factor calculated using 5% of the reflection data chosen randomly and omitted from
the start of refinement. Data for the highest resolution shell are shown within
parentheses.
There are three Ragulator complexes in the crystallographic asymmetric unit (Supplementary Figure S1). However, the Ragulator complex behaves
to be monomeric in solution, as assayed by the size exclusion chromatography-multiangle
light scattering method (Supplementary Figure S2),
suggesting that trimerization of the Ragulator complexes in crystals might result from
crystal packing.In the crystal structure, Lamtor1 displays a belt-like shape, and wraps the other four
subunits around (Figure 1). Lamtor2 and Lamtor3 form a
semi-independent subcomplex, and so are Lamtor4 and Lamtor5. There is little contact
between Lamtor2-Lamtor3 and Lamtor4-Lamtor5 subcomplexes, while there are extensive
interactions between Lamtor1 and both.
Figure 1
Overall structure of the Ragulator complex. The Lamtor1, Lamtor2, Lamtor3, Lamtor4 and
Lamtor5 subunits are colored in green, magenta, cyan, yellow and red, respectively. Each
successive panel (a, b) is rotated as indicated.
Structure of Lamtor1
The N-terminal region of Lamtor1 serves as a lipidation site for attaching to the
lysosomal membrane and does not participate in the assembly of the Ragulator complex, so
we did not include it in our Lamtor1 construct for coexpression with the other four
subunits. Although we used Lamtor1 (residues 41–161) for assembling the Ragulator
complex and for crystallization, only residues 78–161 can be seen in the crystal
structure. Residues 41–77 of Lamtor1 are possibly disordered in the crystals, and
thus do not contribute clearly observable electron density. Lamtor1 contains three
α-helices, but possesses neither tertiary structure nor hydrophobic core on its
own (Figure 2a and b). This provides an explanation for our
difficulty of expressing and purifying good-behaving monomeric Lamtor1 protein by itself
(data not shown).
Figure 2
Lamtor1 does not have a stably folded structure on its own, but adopts an extended
conformation and enwraps the other four subunits around. (a) Structure-based
sequence alignment of Lamtor1. Secondary structure elements and residue numbers are
indicated above the sequence. Conserved residues of Lamtor1 are shaded in pink. Residues
of Lamtor1 interacting with Lamtor2, Lamtor3, Lamtor4 and Lamtor5 are indicated by
magenta, cyan, brown and red arrows, respectively. The places that contain loop
insertions are marked with orange ovals. (b) Lamtor1 adopts an extended
conformation and does not have a hydrophobic core on its own. (c) Interactions
among the five subunits of the Ragulator complex. Interactions are represented as
double-sided arrows. (d) Interaction interface between Lamtor1 (colored in green)
and Lamtor2 (colored in magenta). (e) Interaction interface between Lamtor1
(colored in green) and Lamtor3 (colored in cyan). (f) Interaction interface
between Lamtor1 (colored in green) and Lamtor4 (colored in yellow). (g)
Interaction interface between Lamtor1 (colored in green) and Lamtor5 (colored in
salmon). Hydrogen bonds are indicated as black dashed lines.
Interactions between Lamtor1 and the other four subunits of Ragulator
Lamtor1 interacts with all the other four subunits, and is the major contributor of
holding up the Ragulator complex together (Figure 2c). It
uses its C-terminal tail to bind to Lamtor2 (Figure 1a and
Supplementary Figure S3), uses its α1-helix to
associate with Lamtor3 (Figure 1a and Supplementary Figure S4), interacts with Lamtor4 using its α2-helix
(Figure 1a and Supplementary Figure
S5) and recognizes Lamtor5 through the mediation of its α3-helix
(Figure 1a and Supplementary Figure
S6).At the Lamtor1-Lamtor2 interface, I146, V148, L154, V155 and V156 of Lamtor1 pack with
M1, L2, A6, L7, V10, M103, A106, A110, Y114 and P118 of Lamtor2 through hydrophobic
interactions. Besides, the side chain of Lamtor1-E152 forms a salt bridge with that of
Lamtor2-R3, and the main chain of Lamtor1-D149 makes hydrogen bond with the side chain
of Lamtor2-Q13 (Figure 2a, d and Supplementary Figure S7).At the interface between Lamtor1 and Lamtor3, Lamtor1 residues Y81, M82, A85, Y88, L92,
L95, L99, W102 and L105 at the α1-helix or the loop immediately following α1
make hydrophobic interactions with Lamtor3 residues A2, L5, F8, V30, P31, V32, I33,
L113, L117, V120 and V121. In addition, there is electrostatic interaction between
Lamtor1-R84 and Lamtor3-D28, and a hydrogen bond between Lamtor1-Y88 and Lamtor3-D26
(Figure 2a, e and Supplementary Figure
S8).For the Lamtor1-Lamtor4 contacting interface, there exist hydrophobic interactions
between Lamtor1-L108, -L111, -P115, -L119, -A120, -I124, -L129 and Lamtor4-L9, -I12,
-F63, -V69, -L76, -T78, -V79, -F85, -V87. Moreover, the main chains of Lamtor1-L119 and
-E122 form a couple of hydrogen bonds with the guanidinium group of the side chain of
Lamtor4-R65 (Figure 2a, f and Supplementary Figure S9).At the binding interface between Lamtor1 and Lamtor5, extensive hydrophobic
interactions occur between residues I124, L129, V132, I135, A136, A137, A139, Y140,
A142, L143 and L146 on the α3-helix of Lamtor1 and residues T4, L5, H8, T12, I18,
V21, C23, V64, C66, M75, I82, V84 and V86 on the α1-helix and the β1,
β3, β4 and β5 strands of Lamtor5. Meanwhile, the side-chain amide
group of Lamtor1-Q131 and the side-chain carboxyl group of Lamtor1-D128 form
charge-stabilized hydrogen bonds with the amino group of Lamtor5-K88 side chain (Figure 2a, g and Supplementary Figure
S10).
Lamtor1 stabilizes Lamtor4 and Lamtor5 by filling up the gaps corresponding to
the positions of the α3-helices of Lamtor2 and Lamtor3
Within the Ragulator complex, Lamtor4 and Lamtor5 form a subcomplex (Figure 3a), through β-sheet formation between their β3 strands
(Figure 3b), as well as extensive hydrophobic interactions
between their α2-helices as well as β3 and β4 strands (Figure 3c). The mode of their interaction is very similar to that
of the interaction between Lamtor2 and Lamtor3 (Supplementary Figure
S11).
Figure 3
The Lamtor4-Lamtor5 subcomplex is stabilized through association with Lamtor1.
(a) Structure of the Lamtor4-Lamtor5 subcomplex. (b, c)
Main-chain interactions (b) and side-chain interactions (c) between
Lamtor4 and Lamtor5. Carbon atoms of Lamtor4 and Lamtor5 are colored in yellow and
salmon, respectively. Hydrogen bonds are indicated as black dashed lines. (d)
Structure of the Lamtor2-Lamtor3 subcomplex. Note that both Lamtor4 and Lamtor5 lack the
α3-helix features present in Lamtor3 and Lamtor2. (e) The α2- and
α3-helices of Lamtor1 fill in the gaps on Lamtor4 and Lamtor5, respectively, as
compared with the Lamtor2-Lamtor3 complex. Therefore, the Lamtor4-Lamtor5 subcomplex is
stabilized.
Interestingly, both Lamtor4 and Lamtor5 only possess two α-helices, whereas
Lamtor2 and Lamtor3 contain three. Comparison between the Lamtor4-Lamtor5 subcomplex and
the Lamtor2-Lamtor3 subcomplex shows that Lamtor4 and Lamtor5 lack the feature of the
α3-helix, which is present in both Lamtor2 and Lamtor3 (Figure
1a and d, note the orange ovals in Figure 1d). On
the other hand, within the Ragulator complex, an α-helix from Lamtor1 fills in
each of the gaps on Lamtor4 and Lamtor5 corresponding to the positions of
α3-helices of Lamtor2 and Lamtor3: the α2-helix of Lamtor1 fills in the gap
on Lamtor4, whereas the α3-helix of Lamtor1 fills in the gap on Lamtor5 (Figure 3d). In this way, the Lamtor4-Lamtor5 subcomplex is
stabilized by Lamtor1, and by their assembly into the Ragulator complex.
The yeast Ego-TC complex only corresponds to half of the human Ragulator
complex
The Ego-TC, comprising of Ego1, Ego2 and Ego3, has been identified to be the yeast
counterpart of the Ragulator complex [16-18]. In the structure of the Ego-TC complex, Ego1 contains a
single long α-helix and a short β strand, and interacts with both Ego2 and
Ego3, which are also roadblock domain-containing proteins. On the other hand, there is
no contact between Ego2 and Ego3 (Figure 4a). A comparison
between the Ego-TC and Ragulator structures reveals that the overall assembly of Ego-TC
as well as the spatial position of every one of its subunits is strikingly similar to
those of half of the Ragulator complex. Ego1 corresponds to the C-terminal half of
Lamtor1 including its α3-helix and the C-terminal tail, Ego2 is equivalent to
Lamtor5 and Ego3 is the counterpart of Lamtor2 (Figure 4b).
The C-terminal half of Lamtor1 also links Lamtor5 and Lamtor2 together, which do not
have direct association with each other. Considering the fact that Ragulator possesses
five subunits while Ego-TC only has three, as well as the fact that roadblock domain
proteins usually exist in pairs such as the Lamtor2-Lamtor3 pair and the Lamtor4-Lamtor5
pair, it is very probable that additional components of the Ego complex remain to be
discovered.
Figure 4
The Ego-TC complex corresponds to half of the Ragulator complex. (a) Structure
of the previously reported Ego-TC complex. The Ego1, Ego2 and Ego3 subunits are colored
in limon, orange and pink, respectively. (b) Structure of the
Lamtor1-α3-Lamtor5-Lamtor2 subcomplex, which is highly similar in the overall
assembly of the Ego-TC complex. Lamtor1-α3, Lamtor5 and Lamtor2 are colored in
green, red and magenta, respectively, and their spatial positions correspond to those of
Ego1, Ego2 and Ego3, respectively.
Mutating or deleting the C-terminal conserved LVVxF motif of Lamtor1 does not
affect the interaction between Ragulator and the Rag GTPase complex in
vitro
One of the major functions of the Ragulator complex is to serve as a lysosome anchor,
which recruits the heterodimeric Rag GTPase and its associated mTORC1 complex to the
lysosomal surface [10]. The N-terminal region of Lamtor1
contains the lipidation sites [10] and is not supposed to
be involved in associating with the Rag GTPase complex. Indeed, purified Ragulator
complex with residues (1–40) of Lamtor1 deleted associated with the RagA/RagC
complex, as demonstrated through the Ni2+-NTA affinity chromatography assay
(Figure 5a and Supplementary Figure
S13a). The C-terminal domains of both RagA and RagC are roadblock domains,
and have been previously suggested to mediate the association with the Ragulator complex
[15]. In support of this notion, purified
RagA-CTD/RagC-CTD complex interacted with the Ragulator complex (Figure 5b and Supplementary Figure S13a).
Figure 5
Mutation or deletion of the C-terminal conserved LVVxF motif of Lamtor1 did not affect
the association between Ragulator and the RagA-RagC GTPase complex in vitro.
(a) Our purified Ragulator complex interacted with the RagA-RagC complex, as
examined by the Ni2+-NTA affinity chromatography assay. (b) The
Ragulator complex also associated with the RagA-CTD-RagC-CTD complex. (c)
Deletion of residues 151–161 of Lamtor1 did not apparently disrupt the complex
formation between Ragulator and the RagA-RagC complex. (d) Point mutation of
residues L154VVQF158 to D154DDQD158 also did
not substantially affect the binding between Ragulator and the RagA-RagC complex. The
‘*’ symbol stands for a nonspecific band copurified with our target
proteins. FT, flow-through.
Examination of the Ragulator structure shows that the C-terminal part of Lamtor1,
especially residues L154VVQF158, is solvent exposed and is among
the most conserved parts of the Ragulator surface (Figure 2a
and Supplementary Figure S12). To investigate the functional
importance of this motif, we either deleted residues 151–161 of Lamtor1 or
mutated L154VVQF158 to D154DDQD158, and
investigated whether the resulting Lamtor1 mutants could still support the association
between Ragulator and the Rag GTPases. To our surprise, deleting or mutating the highly
conserved C-terminal region of Lamtor1 did not appreciably affect the Ragulator-Rag
complex formation (Figure 5c, d and Supplementary Figure S13b). Presumably, other subunits of the Ragulator
complex besides Lamtor1, such as Lamtor2 and Lamtor3, contribute to the binding between
Ragulator and the Rag GTPases.
Discussion
The pentameric Ragulator complex plays a critical role in the mTOR signal-transduction
pathway by bringing the mTORC1 complex to the lysosomal surface through the mediation of
the Rag GTPases, thus mTORC1 can be activated by the lysosome-located small GTPase Rheb.
Our structure of the Ragulator complex reveals that Lamtor1 possesses a belt-like shape
and encircles the two subcomplexes, Lamtor2-Lamtor3 and Lamtor4-Lamtor5. Extensive
associations, predominantly being hydrophobic interactions, occur between Lamtor1 and
every one of the other four subunits. Interestingly, two helices from Lamtor1 fill up the
gaps on Lamtor4 and Lamtor5, which correspond to the positions of the α3-helices of
Lamtor2 and of Lamtor3, thereby stabilizing the Lamtor4-Lamtor5 subcomplex.A comparison between the Ragulator pentameric complex and the Ego-TC trimeric complex
shows that Ego-TC only accounts for half of the Ragulator complex. Ego1, Ego2 and Ego3 are
equivalent to the C-terminal half of Lamtor1, Lamtor5 and Lamtor2, respectively. As a rule
of thumb, roadblock domain proteins usually exist in pairs, such as the Lamtor2-Lamtor3
pair, the Lamtor4-Lamtor5 pair and the RagA-CTD-RagC-CTD pair. In the roadblock domain
protein pairs, their central β-sheets merge together to form a more extensive
β-sheet, thus stabilizing each other. However, in the Ego-TC complex, the roadblock
domain proteins Ego2 and Ego3 have no contact with each other and apparently exist as two
lone roadblock domains. These facts prompt us to propose that there might be additional
components of the Ego complex. For example, there might be a roadblock domain protein
pairing with Ego2, and another roadblock domain protein pairing with Ego3. Interestingly,
it has been suggested previously that Ego3 might function as a homodimer to mediate the
interaction between the Gtr1-Gtr2 complex and Ego1 so as to activate the TORC1 complex
[18]. Considering the similarity between Ego2 and Ego3,
it is quite likely that Ego2 also forms a homodimer. Therefore, in addition to the
hypothesis of there existing additional components of the Ego complex, there lies another
possibility that Ego1, the Ego2 homodimer and the Ego3 homodimer assemble into a
pentameric Ego1-(Ego2)2-(Ego3)2 complex. Presumably, the N-terminal
region of Ego1, which was disordered and could not be observed in the crystal structure of
the Ego-TC complex [19], interacts with these additional
roadblock domain components of the Ego complex. In this way, Ego1 enwraps Ego2, Ego3 and
the additional roadblock domain components together, as Lamtor1 does in the Ragulator
complex.In the mean time when this manuscript was being prepared, a report on the crystal
structures of Ragulator and the Ragulator-RagA-CTD-RagC-CTD complex was published by
Scheffzek and co-workers [24]. The structural assembly of
the Ragulator complex in their report was similar to ours. However, they found that
mutation or deletion of the C-terminal L154VV156 motif of Lamtor1
disrupted the association between Ragulator and the Rag GTPase complex, both by the
co-immunoprecipitation and by the immunofluorescence approaches. The discrepancy between
our result and theirs might be due to the fact that we used purified recombinant protein
to perform the interaction assay in vitro, whereas they used in vivo
methods to examine protein interactions in cells. It is likely that there exist
post-translational modifications on components of Ragulator or the Rag GTPase complex
besides lipidation of the N terminus of Lamtor1, so that the interaction between Ragulator
and the Rag GTPase complex is weakened compared with unmodified proteins as we have used.
Certainly, other possibilities might also exist which await further investigations.
Materials and Methods
Purification and crystallization of the Lamtor4-Lamtor5 complex
The cDNAs of full-length humanLamtor4 and residues 83–173 of humanLamtor5 were
subcloned into a pRSFDuet-1 vector (Novagen, Darmstadt, Germany) with a tobacco etch
virus (TEV) protease cleavage site between the 6×His tag and the N terminus of
Lamtor5 for recombinant protein expression in the Escherichia coli strain
BL21(DE3). The Lamtor4-Lamtor5 protein complex was purified using Ni2+-NTA
affinity chromatography (GE Healthcare, Little Chalfont, UK), and the eluted protein was
incubated with the TEV protease (1:50 ratio, w w−1) at
4 °C for 12 h to remove the 6×His tag in the presence of
β-mercaptoethanol (1:1 000 ratio, v v−1). The
protein was further purified by anion exchange chromatography, followed by gel
filtration chromatography in 10 mM Tris-HCl, pH 8.0,
100 mM NaCl and 2 mM dithiothreitol. The crystals
were obtained using the hanging-drop vapor-diffusion method with reservoir solution
containing 0.1 m Tris-HCl, pH 8.0, 3.5 m sodium
formate at 287 K for 2 days.
Purification and crystallization of the Ragulator complex
Three two-promoter coexpression vectors were used to coexpress the five subunits of
Ragulator complex. Lamtor1 (residues 41–161) was cloned into the multiple cloning
sites 1 of pETDuet-1 (Novagen) with a TEV protease cleavage site after the N-terminal
6×His tag. Meanwhile, full-length Lamtor2 and Lamtor3 were subcloned into the two
multiple cloning sites of the pACYCDuet-1 vector (Novagen), whereas full-length Lamtor4
and Lamtor5 (residues 83–173) were subcloned into the two multiple cloning sites
of the pRSFDuet-1 vector (Novagen). None of these four proteins carry tags. The
Ragulator protein complex was expressed in the Escherichia coli BL21(DE3)
strain. Cells were grown at 37 °C in Luria Broth medium and induced when the
optical density at 600 nm became 1.0 by adding 0.3 mM isopropyl
thiogalactoside at 23 °C for 12 h. The cultures were harvested by
centrifugation and resuspended in 25 mM Tris-HCl, pH 8.0,
20 mM imidazole and 300 mM NaCl. The protein
complex was first purified using the Ni2+-NTA affinity chromatography, and
the eluted protein was incubated with TEV protease (1:50 ratio,
w w−1) at 4 °C for 12 h to remove the
6×His tag in the presence of β-mercaptoethanol (1:1 000 ratio,
v v−1). The protein was further purified by anion exchange
chromatography, followed by gel filtration chromatography in 10 mM
Tris-HCl, pH 8.0, 100 mM NaCl and 2 mM
dithiothreitol. Before crystallization, the Ragulator protein complex was concentrated
by ultrafiltration to 15 mg ml−1. Crystallization was
carried out at 287 K by using the hanging-drop vapor-diffusion method. Crystals
were grown at 287 K after 1 week by mixing 1 μl of protein with
1 μl of crystallization solution containing 0.1 M CHES
(2-[N-cyclohexylaminolethanesul-phonic acid), pH 9.5,
0.56 m sodium citrate tribasic and 1.4 m sodium
chloride.For purification of the Ragulator complex assembled with Lamtor1 C-terminal deletion or
point mutation mutants, only Lamtor1 (residues 41–161) was replaced by either
Lamtor1 (residues 41–150) or Lamtor1 (residues 41–161,
L154VVQF158 mutated to D154DDQD158), and
other procedures remained the same.
Data collection and structure determination
Crystals were cryoprotected in the crystallization buffer supplemented with 25%
glycerol. One set of diffraction data of the Lamtor4-Lamtor5 complex at
2.03 Å resolution and one set of diffraction data of the Ragulator complex
at 3.01 Å resolution were collected at the beamline BL19U1 of National
Center for Protein Sciences Shanghai at 100 K [25]. Data reduction was performed with the HKL3000 software (Charlottesville,
VA, USA) [26]. Phases were determined using the Phaser
program [27] in the CCP4 package [28]. Model building was performed using COOT [29], and refinement was performed by the REFMAC5 program [30] in the CCP4 package [28]. The
final refined models have Rwork/Rfree factors of
21.03%/26.27% and 22.50%/28.54% for the Lamtor4-Lamtor5 and the Ragulator complexes,
respectively. The quality of the structure models were checked with the CCP4 program
PROCHECK [28], which showed good stereochemistry
according to the Ramachandran plot.
Purification of the RagA-RagC complex
HumanRagA (residues 6–302, with the point mutation T21N) and humanRagC
(residues 60–375, with the point mutation Q120L) were subcloned into the
pETDuet-1 vector (Novagen) for recombinant protein expression in the Escherichia
coli strain BL21(DE3). RagA carries an N-terminal 6×His tag, whereas RagC
has no tag. Bacteria cells were incubated at 37 °C until the optical density
(OD) at 600 nm reached 1.0. Protein expression was induced with
0.2 mM isopropyl thiogalactoside and the cells were further
incubated at 16 °C for 16–20 h. The cultures were harvested by
centrifugation and resuspended using 25 mM Tris-HCl, pH 8.0,
20 mM imidazole and 300 mM NaCl. After lysis of
bacterial cells with a cell homogenizer (JNBIO, Guangzhou, China) and centrifugation,
the RagA-RagC protein complex was purified using Ni2+-NTA affinity
chromatography and anion exchange chromatography, followed by gel filtration
chromatography in 15 mM Tris-HCl, pH 8.0, 150 mM
NaCl and 4 mM dithiothreitol. The same procedure was used to purify
the RagA-CTD (residues 183–302)-RagC-CTD (residues 239–375) protein
complex.
Ni2+-NTA affinity chromatography assay between the Ragulator complex
and the RagA-RagC GTPase complex
Ni2+-NTA affinity chromatography pull-down assay was performed using
purified 6×His-tagged RagA (residues 6–302, T21N)-RagC (residues
60–375, Q120L) complex and untagged Ragulator complex, with the 6×His tag on
Lamtor1 already removed by the TEV protease. The 6×His-tagged RagA (6–302,
T21N)-RagC (60–375, Q120L) protein complex was diluted to
1 mg ml−1. The Ragulator complex was diluted to
0.5 mg ml−1. 6×His-tagged RagA (6–302,
T21N)-RagC (60–375, Q120L) was first loaded onto the Ni2+-NTA affinity
column. The flow-through was collected and the Ni2+-NTA affinity column was
washed with 20 column volumes of equilibrium buffer (25 mM Tris-HCl,
pH 8.0, 300 mM NaCl and 20 mM imidazole). Untagged
Ragulator was then loaded onto the Ni2+-NTA column and the flow-through was
collected. The column was washed with another 20 column volumes of equilibrium buffer,
and then eluted with 3 column volumes of the elution buffer (25 mM
Tris-HCl, pH 8.0, 300 mM NaCl and 300 mM imidazole).
Ni2+-NTA affinity chromatography pull-down assay between 6×His-tagged
RagA-CTD (residues 183–302)−RagC-CTD (residues 239–375) complex and
untagged Ragulator complex was performed using the same method.
Molecular graphics
All the protein structure figures were generated by the PyMOL program [31].
Accession codes
The structural coordinates and structural factors have been deposited into the Protein
data Bank (PDB) with codes of 5YK3 and 5YK5 for human Ragulator complex and humanLamtor4-Lamtor5 complex, respectively.
Authors: Mariana E G de Araujo; Andreas Naschberger; Barbara G Fürnrohr; Taras Stasyk; Theresia Dunzendorfer-Matt; Stefan Lechner; Stefan Welti; Leopold Kremser; Giridhar Shivalingaiah; Martin Offterdinger; Herbert H Lindner; Lukas A Huber; Klaus Scheffzek Journal: Science Date: 2017-09-21 Impact factor: 47.728
Authors: Suchithra Menon; Christian C Dibble; George Talbott; Gerta Hoxhaj; Alexander J Valvezan; Hidenori Takahashi; Lewis C Cantley; Brendan D Manning Journal: Cell Date: 2014-02-13 Impact factor: 41.582
Authors: Robert Kurzbauer; David Teis; Mariana E G de Araujo; Sebastian Maurer-Stroh; Frank Eisenhaber; Gleb P Bourenkov; Hans D Bartunik; Mirko Hekman; Ulf R Rapp; Lukas A Huber; Tim Clausen Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2004-07-19 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Christian C Dibble; Winfried Elis; Suchithra Menon; Wei Qin; Justin Klekota; John M Asara; Peter M Finan; David J Kwiatkowski; Leon O Murphy; Brendan D Manning Journal: Mol Cell Date: 2012-07-12 Impact factor: 17.970
Authors: Airlie J McCoy; Ralf W Grosse-Kunstleve; Paul D Adams; Martyn D Winn; Laurent C Storoni; Randy J Read Journal: J Appl Crystallogr Date: 2007-07-13 Impact factor: 3.304
Authors: Kacper B Rogala; Xin Gu; Jibril F Kedir; Monther Abu-Remaileh; Laura F Bianchi; Alexia M S Bottino; Rikke Dueholm; Anna Niehaus; Daan Overwijn; Ange-Célia Priso Fils; Sherry X Zhou; Daniel Leary; Nouf N Laqtom; Edward J Brignole; David M Sabatini Journal: Science Date: 2019-10-10 Impact factor: 47.728