NMR resonance assignment and structure prediction of the C-terminal domain of the microtubule end-binding protein 3.

End-binding proteins (EBs) associate with the growing microtubule plus ends to regulate microtubule dynamics as well as the interaction with intracellular structures. EB3 contributes to pathological vascular leakage through interacting with the inositol 1,4,5-trisphosphate receptor 3 (IP3R3), a calcium channel located at the endoplasmic reticulum membrane. The C-terminal domain of EB3 (residues 200-281) is functionally important for this interaction because it contains the effector binding sites, a prerequisite for EB3 activity and specificity. Structural data for this domain is limited. Here, we report the backbone chemical shift assignments for the human EB3 C-terminal domain and computationally explore its EB3 conformations. Backbone assignments, along with computational models, will allow future investigation of EB3 structural dynamics, interactions with effectors, and will facilitate the development of novel EB3 inhibitors.

Introduction

The microtubule (MT) cytoskeleton undergoes rapid remodeling in response to cellular signals, governing cell shape and polarity [1, 2], cell-cell adhesion [3], cell motility and division [4-6], and the spatial organization of intracellular signaling nodes [7, 8]. MT-associated proteins, such as EBs, accumulate at the growing plus ends of MTs and regulate MT dynamics [9-12]. EBs constitute the essential core of the complex of plus-end tracking proteins (+TIPs) [13-17] that establish interactions of MTs with cellular structures [18, 19] and distribute signaling molecules to the cell periphery in a motor-independent manner [20].

In mammals, the EB family consists of three paralogues, EB1, EB2 and EB3, which share a high degree of sequence homology [21]. They are comprised of 260–300 residues organized into the N- and C-terminal domains connected with a variable linker. The N-terminal region presented by the calponin-homology domain binds the MT tip [22], whereas the C-terminal region is required for dimerization [23-25]. Dimerization of EBs is a prerequisite for binding to growing MTs as well as interaction with other +TIPs [26-28]. Additionally, the C-terminal region contains the SxIP and LxxPTPh motifs, which are necessary for specific binding of EB partners [24, 29–31], and the EE(Y/F) sequence that is recognized by other cytoskeleton-associated proteins [32-34], including cytoplasmic linker proteins [35], and kinesin [36]. Hence, the C-terminus likely plays a pivotal role in multiple diverse cellular processes.

Despite significant sequence conservation between EBs, they have distinct functions in cells [21, 37, 38]. EBs differ in their expression patterns throughout mammalian tissues and have unique binding partners [7, 21]. EB3, for example, associates with the F-actin-binding protein drebrin and with the E3 ubiquitin ligase SIAH-1, while EB1 and EB2 do not interact with these proteins [39, 40]. Additionally, EB3 but not EB1 interacts with IP3R3 in endothelial cells [38]. Remarkably, genetic ablation of EB3 in endothelial cells protects from pathological vascular leakage and pulmonary edema, suggesting that targeting its function with pharmacological agents might provide a novel strategy for treating inflammatory lung diseases [38]. However, there is little information on EB3 structure to guide drug discovery efforts. Here, we present NMR assignments and in silico protein structure prediction of the human EB3 C-terminus (residues 200–281). Our results will provide a structural basis for design of novel EB3 inhibitors.

Materials and methods

Protein expression and purification

Preparation of EB3-C-terminus (200–281) with an N-terminal 6X His-tag was performed as described previously [38]. Briefly, the DNA sequence encoding the last 81 amino acids of the EB3 C-terminus was cloned into a pET42a vector and transformed into the BL21 (DE3) strain of E. coli (Invitrogen). Bacteria were grown at 37°C in M9 media containing 15N and 13C stable isotopes and 50 μg/ml kanamycin. Protein expression was induced at an OD600 of 0.6–0.7, by 250 μM isopropyl 1-thio-β-D-galactopyranoside, after which the cells were cultured at 30°C for 4 hr. Bacteria were harvested by low-speed centrifugation, and the pellets lysed by sonication in the buffer containing 150 mM NaCl, 5 mM 2-mercaptoethanol, 2 mM CaCl2, 10 mM imidazole, 2 mM phenylmethylsulfonyl fluoride (PMSF), 25 mM Tris HCl, pH 7.4. 6X. His-EB3-C-terminal domain was purified using Ni-NTA beads (Thermo Scientific) equilibrated with 50 column-volumes of binding buffer (25 mM Tris HCl, pH 7.4, 300 mM NaCl, 5 mM 2-mercaptoethanol, 2 mM PMSF). Bacterial lysate (50 ml) was added to the column and the beads were washed with 150 column-volumes of wash buffer (PBS supplemented with 2 mM CaCl2 and the protease inhibitor cocktail (Sigma). After washing, 6X His-EB3-C-terminus was eluted with 150 mM imidazole. Imidazole was removed using a PD-10 desalting column (GE Life Sciences), and concentrated in an Amicon Ultra-15 with 10 kDa cut-off concentrator unit (Millipore, Inc.). The 6X His-tag was cleaved by 1.5% (w/w) recombinant TEV protease at 4°C for 16 hr. Cleaved EB3-C-terminus was then subjected to gel filtration chromatography over tandem Superdex 200 HR 10/30 columns connected in series and controlled by an AKTA FPLC (GE Life Sciences).

NMR spectroscopy

HNCO, HNCA, HNCACB, HN(CO)CA, and HN(CO)CACB 3D triple resonance correlation experiments [41] and a 150 ms 15N-edited NOESY were used for sequential 1H/13C/15N backbone assignment of the EB3 C-terminal domain. All NMR samples were prepared in buffer containing 1X PBS, and 10% D2O (v/v). The final protein concentration was 0.35 mM or 1mM. NMR spectra were acquired at 25°C on a Bruker 800 MHz spectrometer. Spectra were processed using NMRPipe [42] and analyzed with SPARKY (http://www.cgl.ucsf.edu/home/sparky) [43].

Results and discussion

Backbone assignments for the human EB3 C-terminal domain (200–281) were obtained using 350 μM uniformly 13C and 15N-labeled protein and triple resonance NMR experiments [44]. These data were subsequently deposited in the Biological Magnetic Resonance Databank (http://www.bmrb.wisc.edu/) [45] under the BMRB accession code 50003.

The 1H, 15N-HSQC spectrum of the EB3 C-terminus showed dispersed peaks indicative of a well-folded protein (). The signal intensities were not uniform, suggestive of self-association or conformational dynamics in parts of the protein. We assigned 90% of 15N and 1HN resonances, as well as 89% of 13Cα, and 54% of 13Cβ signals. Assignment of all backbone resonances was precluded by inefficient transfers in three-dimensional experiments that were likely affected by undesirable relaxation processes. The glycine resonances in the C-terminal region were assigned based on 15N-edited NOESY, as no signals for these residues were observed in the three-dimensional resonance assignment experiments.

1H, 15N HSQC spectra of 0.30 mM EB3 C-terminus (200–281).

The spectra show assigned well-dispersed signals.

Secondary structure prediction analysis was performed using the TALOS+ web server (https://spin.niddk.nih.gov/bax/nmrserver/talos/) [46]. The TALOS+ results indicated significant α-helical content in protein regions including residues 202 to 205, 209 to 210, 215 to 225, 227 to 231, 235 to 237, 246 to 247, 254 to 256, and 273 to 274 (); the rest of the protein contained loops.

Secondary structure predictions for EB3 (200–281).

A) Predicted S2 values for the backbone amide groups by the random coil index (RCI) approach indicates varying levels of backbone flexibility. B) Deviation from random coil values for Cα chemical shifts indicates the presence of helical elements. C) Automated neural network (ANN)-predicted values for the helical region (blue) and loops (red) of the C-terminal domain of EB3. Predicted secondary structure elements are shown using blue arrows for α helices and red lines for coils. RCI S2 and ANN-predicted values were calculated using the TALOS+ web server based on experimental NMR chemical shifts.

Due to severe loss of signal in our NOESY experiments, we did not observe sufficient numbers of NOEs for NOE-based protein structure determination. Thus, the three-dimensional structure of the C-terminal domain of EB3 was modeled based on the highly homologous structure of the C-terminal domain of EB1 and the TALOS+ secondary structure results, using the iterative threading assembly refined algorithm on of I-TASSER web server (https://zhanglab.ccmb.med.umich.edu/I-TASSER/) [47-49]. Consistent with the TALOS results and based on EB1 structure (PDB ID: 3GJO), five models generated here described the C-terminal domain of EB3 as an arrangement of three helices (). Helices 1 (residues 202–237) and 2 (residues 246–256) had a fixed relative orientations, whereas helix 3 (residues 267–274 in models 1, residues 268–274 in model 2, residues 264–271 in model 3, residues 265–270 in model 4, and residues 265–280 in model 5) possessed a variable position and length (). Further validation by comparing experimental and predicted 15N chemical shifts of the five models was made using SHIFTX 2.0 (http://www.shiftx2.ca/) [50]. Using this comparison, we found that model 2 was the most consistent with experimental results presented here (. Similar calculations were made for the EB1 crystal structure (PDB ID: 3GJO). The latter showed agreement between the experimentally-derived and predicted 15N chemical shifts with R2 correlation coefficients of 0.67 and 0.84 for BMRB depositions 34191 and 18371, respectively (). Since the C-terminal domains of EB1 (191–268 aa) and EB3 (200–281 aa) share significant amino acid sequence identity of 62.82% as calculated by Protein Blast [21, 51, 52], we generated additional models in I-TASSER based on the structure of EB1 alone (PDB ID: 3GJO) (), secondary structure restraints alone (), or without either EB1 homology or secondary structure information (). The best models based on the structure of EB1 with and without NMR-derived secondary structure restraints had comparable correlation coefficients of 0.68 and 0.69 for the predicted versus experimental 15N chemical shifts, respectively (Figs ), while removing EB1 homology restraints reduced these correlations (). This suggests that the structure of EB1 is essential for modelling plausible topology of the C-terminal domain of EB3.

Computationally predicted structures of the C-terminal domain (200–281) of EB3 and the X-ray structure of C-terminal domain (192–256) of EB1.

Based on secondary structure predictions and the crystal structure of EB1 (PDB ID: 3GJO), five models were generated using the I-TASSER web server. N- and C-termini are marked with N and C, respectively.

Validation of in silico structure predictions for the C-terminal domain of EB3 based on secondary structure and EB1 (PDB ID: 3GJO) homology restraints, using SHIFTX2.

A-E) Comparisons of experimental 15N chemical shifts for the C-terminal domain of EB3 plotted along the Y-axis with the corresponding 15N chemical shifts calculated by SHIFTX 2.0 plotted along the X-axis; correlation coefficients are shown for each comparison. Model 2 of the C-terminal domain of EB3 exhibits the highest correlation coefficient, which is comparable to the correlation coefficients for the X-ray structure of the C-terminal domain of EB1 determined using the two sets of 15N chemical shift values with BMRB deposition numbers 34191 (F) and 18371 (G). Hence, Model 2 is a plausible conformation of the C-terminal domain of EB3 in solution.

In silico modeling of the C-terminal domain of EB3 based on the structure of EB1 alone (PDB ID: 3GJO) provides an additional plausible conformation.

A-E) Comparisons of experimental 15N chemical shifts for the C-terminal domain of EB3 plotted along the Y-axis with the corresponding 15N chemical shifts calculated by SHIFTX 2.0 plotted along the X-axis; correlation coefficients are shown for each comparison. (F) Model 4 exhibits the highest R2 correlation coefficient of 0.69 for experimental versus calculated 15N chemical shifts. N- and C-termini are marked.

Furthermore, analysis of signal intensities in the 1H, 15N HSQC spectrum of the C-terminal domain of EB3 indicated that enhanced relaxation processes might occur in the α-helix 3 region of the protein (), suggesting that this region likely samples multiple conformations. For instance, the signal intensities for H273, Q274, and Q275 were low, suggesting increased rigidity in this region of helix 3. Additionally, we have observed concentration dependent changes in the overlaid 1H, 15N HSQC spectrum of EB3 at 0.30 mM and 1mM (). These changes involve residues Q201, N206, V216, D224, Y226, K229, R231, E239, S242, E243, N244, V247, I248; G261, A263, I270, H273, and Q275. Residues 201–256 are the part of helix 1 and 2 as well as the flexible loop between these helixes in both selected Models (Figs ). These three regions correspond to the dimeric interface in the C-terminal domain of EB1 (PDB ID: 3GJO). Hence, it is likely that the concentration dependent spectral changes can potentially reflect the chain exchange between EB3 dimers as observed with dimerization of the C-terminal domain of EB1 [25, 26, 31] and EB3 [23, 37].

Dynamic Nature and flexibility of the EB3 C-terminal domain.

A) Analysis of NMR amide signal intensities for the C-terminal domain of EB3. Significant signal intensities observed within the region of 259 to 281 amino acids suggest flexibility of helix 3. The red line represents the peak intensity mean + one standard deviation. Asterisk signs refer to residues that were not assigned. B) 1H, 15N overlaid HSQC spectra of the C-terminal domain of EB3 at 0.30 mM (Black) and 1mM (red) show a concentration-dependent chemical shift perturbations (residues Q201; N206; V216; D224; Y226; K229; E239; S242; E243; V247; I248; G261; A263; I270; and H273) and signals broadening (residues R231; N244; and Q275). These changes likely reflect enhanced exchange of EB3 chains at increased protein concentrations. Green arrows show the directionality of the chemical shift change.

In summary, we provide assignments for the backbone resonances of the C-terminal domain of EB3. Chemical shift index analysis and molecular modeling suggest that the C-terminal domain of EB3 is highly helical and structurally similar to the C-terminal domain of EB1. The most distal C-terminal portion of EB3 significantly differs from the corresponding portion of EB1 in its amino acid sequence and forms a short helix that likely samples multiple positions relative to α-helices 1 and 2. These models of the C-terminal domain of EB3 can be useful for drug discovery effort.

In silico structure predictions based on secondary structure restraints show poor agreement with 15N chemical shift data.

A-E) Comparisons of experimental 15N chemical shifts for the C-terminal domain of EB3 plotted along the Y-axis with the corresponding 15N chemical shifts calculated by SHIFTX 2.0 plotted along the X-axis; correlation coefficients are shown for each comparison. Models 3 and 5 of the C-terminal domain of EB3 exhibit the highest R2 correlation coefficients of 0.58.

(TIF)

Click here for additional data file.

In silico structure predictions without secondary structure and EB1 homology restraints yield low correlations with 15N chemical shift data.

A-E) Comparisons of experimental 15N chemical shifts for the C-terminal domain of EB3 plotted along the Y-axis with the corresponding 15N chemical shifts calculated by SHIFTX 2.0 plotted along the X-axis; correlation coefficients are shown for each comparison. Model 2 of the C-terminal domain of EB3 exhibits the highest R2 correlation coefficient of 0.6.

(TIF)

Click here for additional data file.

21 Nov 2019

PONE-D-19-29724

NMR Resonance Assignment and Structure Prediction of the C-Terminal Domain of the Microtubule End-Binding Protein 3

PLOS ONE

Dear Professor Gaponenko,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Jan 05 2020 11:59PM. When you are ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Michael Massiah

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

1. When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager. Please see the following video for instructions on linking an ORCID iD to your Editorial Manager account: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xcclfuvtxQ

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: I Don't Know

Reviewer #2: I Don't Know

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The authors report backbone chemical shift assignments and present in silico structure prediction for the C-terminal domain of the human end binding protein EB3. Overall, the manuscript is clearly written, and the experiments appear to be suitably conducted. The reviewer has several comments (listed below) that should be addressed prior to publication.

Major Comments: -

1. There’s another BMRB file: ID ‘27311’ for NMR assignments of CTD of EB3 (residues 200-281) submitted by the same authors on 2017/11/13. Does the old submission contain incomplete assignments for the same protein fragment? How is the new submission (ID 50003, not available yet on BMRB) different from the old?

2. Figure 4 and page 6: There’s no BMRB file with ID 341191. Please fix to the correct ID: ‘34191’ in figure and text. Also, the R2 correlation coefficients are listed as 0.67 and 0.84 for IDs 18371 and 341191, respectively, in the text. However, these numbers are reversed in the figure. Please correct it.

Minor Comments: -

1. Abstract: Please include abbreviation ‘IP3R3’ for ‘inositol 1,4,5-triphosphate receptor 3, especially since the abbreviation is being directly used by the authors in the introduction afterwards.

2. Figure 1 shows poor resolution in this pdf file. Please check and provide a high-resolution image for the assignments.

3. Figure 2: Please correct the typographical error on the X-axis of all three panels to read ‘Residue Number’.

4. Figure 4: Please correct the typographical error on the X-axis of panels A, C, D, F, and G to read ‘15N, ppm (Calc)’.

5. Figure 5, panel B: Please use uppercase ‘EB3’ instead of lowercase.

Reviewer #2: The manuscript describes partial backbone atoms assignments of cEB3 (200 – 281) using established NMR experiments and modeled structures of cEB3 using available homologous structure of cEB1 supplemented with TALOS+ secondary structural information employing I-TASSER software. I recommend this manuscript for publication provided the authors address the following points:

1) Sequence homology is very high between cEB1 and cEB3 – how different are the calculated structures generated using homology modeling solely based on sequence homology vs model structures reported in the manuscript. This is to show is there any contribution incorporating TALOS+ structural information in structure calculation?

2) The authors observed concentration-dependent chemical shift change for several residues. Are these residues responsible for dimerization?

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files to be viewed.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

22 Mar 2020

Reviewer # 1 (Remarks to Authors)

Minor Comments

5. Figure 5, panel B: Please use uppercase ‘EB3’ instead of lowercase.

Figure 5 is now numbered Figure 6 in the revised manuscript. We have also made sure the uppercase is used for EB3 everywhere in the manuscript.

Reviewer # 2 (Remarks to Authors)

1) Sequence homology is very high between cEB1 and cEB3 – how different are the calculated structures generated using homology modeling solely based on sequence homology vs model structures reported in the manuscript. This is to show is there any contribution incorporating TALOS+ structural information in structure calculation?

We have generated models of cEB3 based on the structure of cEB1 (PDB ID: 3GJO) alone, TALOS+ alone, or without homology and secondary structure restraints. Comparison of experimental and predicted 15N chemical shifts has shown that inclusion of cEB1 homology restraints alone (Fig. 5) or in combination with secondary structure restraints (Fig. 4) leads to the best agreement of the structural models with our NMR experimental data. However, the use of secondary structure restraints alone (S1 Fig.) or excluding secondary structure and cEB1 homology restraints (S2 Fig.) significantly reduced the agreement of structural models with the experimental data. Therefore, the best models could be built either using cEB1 homology restraints alone or in combination with TALOS+-derived secondary structure restraints.

2) The authors observed concentration-dependent chemical shift change for several residues. Are these residues responsible for dimerization?

We have clarified our statement that the residues exhibiting concentration-dependent chemical shift changes are found in helix 1, helix 2, and the loop region of cEB3. The corresponding regions in the structure of cEB1 (PDB ID: 3GJO) are involved in the homo-dimer interface.

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.doc

Click here for additional data file.

14 Apr 2020

NMR Resonance Assignment and Structure Prediction of the C-Terminal Domain of the Microtubule End-Binding Protein 3

PONE-D-19-29724R1

Dear Dr. Gaponenko,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it complies with all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you will receive an e-mail containing information on the amendments required prior to publication. When all required modifications have been addressed, you will receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will proceed to our production department and be scheduled for publication.

Shortly after the formal acceptance letter is sent, an invoice for payment will follow. To ensure an efficient production and billing process, please log into Editorial Manager at https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the "Update My Information" link at the top of the page, and update your user information. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, you must inform our press team as soon as possible and no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

With kind regards,

Michael Massiah

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: N/A

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes: TAPAS K MAL

5 May 2020

PONE-D-19-29724R1

NMR Resonance Assignment and Structure Prediction of the C-Terminal Domain of the Microtubule End-Binding Protein 3

Dear Dr. Gaponenko:

I am pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper at this point, to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

For any other questions or concerns, please email plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE.

With kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Michael Massiah

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE