Membrane-binding mechanism of the EEA1 FYVE domain revealed by multi-scale molecular dynamics simulations.

Early Endosomal Antigen 1 (EEA1) is a key protein in endosomal trafficking and is implicated in both autoimmune and neurological diseases. The C-terminal FYVE domain of EEA1 binds endosomal membranes, which contain phosphatidylinositol-3-phosphate (PI(3)P). Although it is known that FYVE binds PI(3)P specifically, it has not previously been described of how FYVE attaches and binds to endosomal membranes. In this study, we employed both coarse-grained (CG) and atomistic (AT) molecular dynamics (MD) simulations to determine how FYVE binds to PI(3)P-containing membranes. CG-MD showed that the dominant membrane binding mode resembles the crystal structure of EEA1 FYVE domain in complex with inositol-1,3-diphospate (PDB ID 1JOC). FYVE, which is a homodimer, binds the membrane via a hinge mechanism, where the C-terminus of one monomer first attaches to the membrane, followed by the C-terminus of the other monomer. The estimated total binding energy is ~70 kJ/mol, of which 50-60 kJ/mol stems from specific PI(3)P-interactions. By AT-MD, we could partition the binding mode into two types: (i) adhesion by electrostatic FYVE-PI(3)P interaction, and (ii) insertion of amphipathic loops. The AT simulations also demonstrated flexibility within the FYVE homodimer between the C-terminal heads and coiled-coil stem. This leads to a dynamic model whereby the 200 nm long coiled coil attached to the FYVE domain dimer can amplify local hinge-bending motions such that the Rab5-binding domain at the other end of the coiled coil can explore an area of 0.1 μm2 in the search for a second endosome with which to interact.

Introduction

Early Endosomal Antigen 1 (EEA1) acts as a connecter between the early endosomal membrane and Rab GTPase effector proteins [1,2]. Thereby, it plays a key role in endosomal trafficking. Autoantibodies to EEA1 have been implicated in several autoimmune diseases, such as subacute cutaneous systemic lupus erythematosus, polyarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis [3,4]. EEA1 is also implicated in neurological diseases [5] and therefore provides a potential drug target.

EEA1 is homodimeric, composed of a FYVE (Fab1, YOTB, Vac1, EEA1) domain located at the C-terminus of a ~200 nm long coiled-coil. At the N-terminus of the coiled coil, there is a Rab5-binding domain [6-8] (Fig 1). The FYVE domain interacts with the cytosolic face of early endosomal membranes, which contain phosphatidylinositol-3-phosphate (PI(3)P) [9]. Dimeric FYVE domain binds PI(3)P [9-11]. The binding site was identified by X-ray crystallography of Ins(1,3)P2 bound to dimeric FYVE (PDB: 1JOC) [7] and by NMR of monomeric FYVE in a complex with Ins(1,3)P2 (PDB: 1HYI) [6,12,13].

Fig 1

Structure of EEA1 and the FYVE domain.

(A) Schematic of the full-length structure of dimeric EEA1, with the crystal structure of the FYVE domain dimer plus start of the coiled coil (PDB ID 1JOC) in yellow, followed by a ~200 nm coiled coil (dotted line) and a Rab5-binding domain. (B) The FYVE domains of the dimer, with four zinc ions (dark spheres) bound by 4-cysteine zinc fingers. Two bound inositol (1,3)-bisphosphate molecules (red/orange/green) are shown.

The interaction of a FYVE domain with a membrane containing PI(3)P molecules has previously been investigated with molecular dynamics (MD) simulations [14], demonstrating the short timescale (30 ns) stability of monomeric domain docked onto a membrane in an orientation consistent with experimental results [6,7,12]. There have been a number of developments in MD simulations which enable improved sampling of protein/membrane interactions, both at the atomistic [15-17] and coarse-grained (CG) level [18-22]. We have simulated binding of a larger dimeric construct of FYVE in 1.5 μs coarse-grain simulations followed by a 500 ns atomistic simulation to refine the bound pose. In these simulations the dimeric FYVE domain was positioned in different orientations at least 10 nm above the membrane, thus avoiding bias in sampling of possible binding modes of the protein. Analysis of these simulations provides a detailed and dynamic model of how dimeric FYVE binds to target membranes.

Results and discussion

CG-MD simulations of FYVE binding to membranes

Coarse-grained MD simulations were performed to investigate the binding of the dimeric EEA1 FYVE domain to a simple model of an endosomal membrane composed of PC (95%) plus 5% PI(3)P which is known to bind FYVE. A truncated version of the crystal structure of EEA1 FYVE (PDB 1JOC) was used, with a shorter coiled-coil stalk (see Methods for details). Fifteen repeats of the simulation, each of duration 1.5 μs, were performed with different randomly selected starting orientations of the FYVE with respect to the membrane, and with a minimum distance of 10 nm between protein and membrane (Figs 2A and S1). The minimum distance between the protein and the bilayer was monitored as a function of time for each simulation (Fig 2B). In 8/15 repeats, the FYVE domain bound to the membrane within the 1.5 μs of the simulations. In the remaining 7/15 repeats, the FYVE domain did not approach close enough to the bilayer to experience an electrostatic interaction, i.e. the minimum distance remained larger than the cutoff distance (see Methods), and so no binding event occurred. For 6 of the binding events, the FYVE domain bound in a ‘canonical’ manner, with the C-termini of each chain bound to the membrane (Fig 2B), whereas two resulted in non-canonical binding (Figs 2B and S2). Intriguingly, we observed a two-stage mechanism of binding, for the canonical binding events, where FYVE first attached to the membrane via the C-terminus of one chain, then made a rotation around the point-of-contact such that the second C-terminus bound as well (Fig 2C). Once this canonical binding mode was established, the FYVE dimer remained in this pose for the duration of the simulation. In control simulations using a PC bilayer with no PI(3)P present, none of the simulations resulted in a canonical interaction. Of the 15 PC-only repeats, 8 showed non-canonical binding, of which 3 subsequently dissociated from the membrane (S3 Fig).

Fig 2

Coarse-grained simulations.

(A) Set-up of the CG simulation, with the truncated FYVE dimer (yellow) placed at a minimum distance of 10 nm from the lipid bilayer (blue; orange PI(3)P molecules) and rotated at random. (B) Minimum distance for each of the 15 repeats, showing repeats without binding (grey, 7/15), with canonical binding (similar to the binding mode of the crystal structure, orange, 6/15) and with non-canonical binding (blue, 2/15). (C) Two snapshots from one of the repeats with canonical binding, after 800 and 911 ns. The snapshots show the hinge-mechanism by which FYVE binds to the membrane. Sketches below for clarity. (D) Potential of mean force (PMF) calculations for the binding of FYVE to a lipid membrane containing PC and PI(3)P, in the canonical binding mode, showing mean (dark blue line), standard deviation (shaded area) as well as minimum and maximum values (dotted lines). The PMF well depth is 67 ± 2 kJ/mol.

Returning to the FYVE dimers bound to the PI(3)P membrane in a canonical pose, these often revealed between 5 to 10 PI(3)P molecules interacting with the FYVE dimer in this binding pose, in contrast to two Ins(1,3)P2 molecules bound in the dimeric crystal structure (PDB: 1JOC; one bound per monomer). The NMR structure of the FYVE monomer also had just one diC4-PI(3)P molecule bound (PDB: 1HYI) [13]. We suggest that multiple PI(3)P lipids are likely to interact with FYVE in vivo, but only one binding site/monomer has sufficiently high affinity to retain bound PI(3)P in the absence of a membrane. This is in line with previous studies of other PIP-binding domains, e.g. PH [23] and C2 [24], which interact with multiple PIPs and other anionic lipids.

Strength of FYVE/PI(3)P interactions

To investigate the strength of the predicted FYVE/PI(3)P interactions, we undertook both potential of mean force (PMF) and free energy perturbation (FEP) calculations to estimate the free energy of PI(3)P interactions with the protein as estimated by the CG forcefield [25,26]. For the energy calculations, a representative frame of the bound structure in a canonical pose, with six PI(3)P molecules interacting with the dimeric FYVE domain was used. A PMF, using the bilayer to protein centre of mass distance as a reaction coordinate, was estimated by umbrella sampling (Fig 2D). The depth of the energy well, corresponding to the membrane bound FYVE dimer interacting with six PI(3)P molecules, was -67 ± 2 kJ/mol. The free energy of binding must, however, be found by integration over the PMF (see Methods). This leads to a slightly larger free energy of binding of -74 kJ/mol. The free energy associated with the headgroup of each bound PI(3)P molecule was calculated via FEP calculations [25], whereby each of the six bound PI(3)P headgroups were changed into PC headgroups (S4 Fig). The free energy of this perturbation varied between 6 and 12 kJ/mol for each PI(3)P molecule converted to PC, summing to a total perturbation energy of +55 ± 2 kJ/mol (S4A Fig). Thus, the InsP headgroups comprise about 75% of the total membrane binding free energy as estimated by the PMF. Furthermore, the FEP calculations suggest a twofold range in interaction free energies for the different PI(3)P sites.

The dissociation constant (K) of a EEA1 FYVE monomer with a PI(3)P-containing membrane has been estimated experimentally to ~50 nM [27] at room temperature, corresponding to a binding free energy of -42 kJ/mol. If we make the simple assumption that the binding energies are additive, when going from monomer to dimer, this corresponds to -84 kJ/mol for the dimer, i.e. slightly greater than the PMF from the simulations. A later study has shown that K is pH-dependent: ~50 nM (42 kJ/mol) at pH 6.0; ~500 nM (36 kJ/mol) at pH 7.4; and ~1200 nM at pH 8.0 (34 kJ/mol) [28]. Again, these numbers are for monomeric FYVE. Given the latter, it would be attractive to calculate the free energy of dimerization of FYVE, but this is made rather challenging by the involvement of the coiled coil stalk in dimer stabilization. The protonation states in our simulations are designed to match the conditions at neutral pH. We note that the free energy estimated from the PMF, -74 kJ/mol is consistent with two times the value reported for the monomer at pH 7.4 (-72 kJ/mol) [28].

We further analysed the binding sites using the program PyLipID [29], which can identify protein-lipid binding sites based on residence time in CG-MD simulations. The three main binding sites for PI(3)P on the dimeric FYVE domain were found to be (S4 Fig): (i) residues 1348–1352 (KWAED), where residues 1349–1352 (WAED) form a conserved WxxD motif, and where a W1349A mutation has been shown to substantially reduce PI(3)P binding [27]; (ii) a second site made up primarily of residues 1397–1400 (KPVR), where R1400 is part of a conserved RVC motif of FYVE, mutation of which (R1400A) leads to 6-fold decrease in PI(3)P binding affinity [27]; and (iii) a third site which includes residues 1368–1373 (TVRRH) at the core of a conserved motif spanning residues 1371 to 1376 (RRHHCR), and mutations of which lead to impaired PI(3)P affinity [27]. The first and second binding sites are both placed centrally (S4 Fig), just below the stem of the FYVE domain, similar to the binding sites from the crystal structure complexed with Ins(1,3)P2 (PDB ID 1JOC) [7] and the NMR structure, complexed with diC4-PI(3)P (PDB ID 1HYI) [13].

Atomistic MD simulations

Using atomistic MD simulations, we analysed the mode of interaction of the FYVE dimer with the membrane in more detail. Starting from a representative pose of the membrane-bound protein from one of the CG simulations (Fig 3), we simulated three repeats, each 0.5 μs in length. The AT-MD simulation showed that the two “heads” (i.e. C terminal domains) of the FYVE dimer did not remain equally close to the membrane throughout the duration of the simulations but was slightly tilted with respect to the bilayer (Fig 3). The COM distance for each head was monitored. In the first two repeats, head 1 (C terminus of the first monomer) was systematically further away from the membrane than head 2 (Figs 4A and S5). In repeat 3, the order changed during the simulation, as anticipated from the symmetry of the dimeric protein. However, the tilted binding orientation was conserved, with one head closer to the membrane than the other. The number of H-bonds to PI(3)P lipids was seemingly independent on the COM distance (Figs 4B and S5) across the repeats. Hence, we suggest two modes of interaction for the FYVE heads: (i) mode 1, where the head is relatively far from the membrane and H-bond formation is the major component of binding and (ii) mode 2, where the head is closer to the membrane, with a loop inserted into the bilayer (Fig 3).

Fig 3

Atomistic simulations.

Snapshots from a representative simulation at 0, 50, 100, 200, 300 and 500 ns. Heads 1 and 2 of the FYVE domain are highlighted (dotted circles) for the 100 ns snapshot. The inserted loop as seen at 100 ns shown in in green stick representation in the final panel.

Fig 4

Atomistic simulations: distances, H-bonds and stalk tilt angle.

(A) Centre-of-mass distance between the membrane and each of the FYVE heads as function of time. (B) Number of H-bonds with PI(3)P headgroups for the FYVE heads. (C) Angle between the stalk axis and the bilayer normal as a function of time.

In the coarse-grain simulations, secondary and tertiary structure was restrained with an elastic network (see Methods). This was not the case in the AT simulations, and so possible large scale conformational changes could thus be observed. From analysis of RMSDs (S6 Fig) we noted that the heads and likewise the coiled coil (stalk) behaved individually as semi-rigid bodies, as reflected in Cα RMSDs of 0.30 ± 0.03 nm for the heads and 0.47 ± 0.05 nm for the stalk (S6 Fig). However, there was substantial hinge-bending flexibility between heads and stalk.

The hinge-bending motion could be observed via visual inspection (Fig 3). By calculating the angle between the stalk axis and the plane of the bilayer (Figs 4C and S5) we can see the local consequence of these fluctuations, with tilt angles up to ~50°. This could be even greater if one allows for bending of the coiled coil, and indeed recent evidence [30] suggests that binding of Rab5:GTP may increase the flexibility of the EEA1 coiled coil. We note that the angle varies among the repeats and the maximum angle of around 50° is merely an approximate value. As the coiled coil in the full-length EEA1 protein is more than 200 nm long, the flexibility of the link of early endosome PI(3)P-bound FYVE dimer to the coiled coil would provide a search area of at least 0.09 μm2 at the other end of the EAA1 molecule for a Rab5 molecule attached to a second early endosome (Fig 5). This emphasizes the importance of considering molecular flexibility when relating static domain structures to dynamic tethering within a cell. We conjecture that mutations in this hinge region could modulate the flexibility, and thus alter the ability of early endosome PI(3)P-bound EEA1 to capture adjacent endosomes.

Fig 5

Vesicle tethering and title of EAA1 coiled coil stalk relative to the bilayer normal.

The FYVE dimer is shown interacting with two PI(3)P molecules (orange) in a cell membrane (blue lines). Based on the analysis of our simulations this allows the coiled coil to tilt by up to 50° relative to the bilayer normal. Thus, the Rab5-binding domain (green) is able to search an area of ~0.09 μm2 for a contact to the target vesicle.

Conclusions

We have investigated the membrane-binding model for FYVE proposed by e.g. Dumas et al. [7]. Using MD simulations, we have verified that the dominant binding mode is with the C-terminus of each chain of the homodimeric FYVE domain facing the membrane. We have described different modes of binding for the FYVE domain, either driven by electrostatic interactions with PI(3)P headgroups, or driven by insertion of loops in the hydrophobic bilayer. We have shown that FYVE binds multiple PI(3)Ps, albeit more weakly to some of them. Moreover, we have shown that there is hinge-bending flexibility in the linker between the PI(3)P-bound FYVE domain heads and the coiled-coil stalk, thus facilitating search and capture of adjacent early endosomal membranes. A future challenge will be to build a (CG) model of a complete EAA1 molecule linking two vesicles to more fully explore the role of hinge-bending and coiled-coil flexibility in vesicle tethering. This would be a large simulation but not impossible (see e.g. [31,32]).

From a more methodological perspective it is important to understand to what extent the use of CG simulations influences e.g. the probability of observing different binding modes of the FYVE domain dimer to PIP-containing membranes. Possible limitations of the Martini 2 model used in the current CG simulations have been addressed with the release of Martini 3 [33]. However, the new version of the CG forcefield will require careful evaluation using well documented test systems (e.g. PH domains [34]) of the Martini 3 parameters for protein/PIP interactions [35].

Overall, our simulations provide a dynamic model of how FYVE binds to target PIP-containing membranes to facilitate the tethering of early endosomes. This interaction is brought about by a dimeric recognition domain connected to a locally rigid stalk via a flexible hinge. The stalk is part of a ~200 nm long coiled coil which amplifies local hinge-bending motions such that the Rab5-binding C2H2 finger at the opposite end of the coiled coil can explore an area of ~0.1 μm2 in the search for a second endosome with which to interact.

Methods

Coarse-grained simulations

The crystal structure of the EEA1 FYVE domain in complex with 1,3-diphosphate (PDB ID 1JOC) was used to generate the initial structure for the simulations (Fig 1). The wildtype EEA1 has a ~200 nm long coiled-coil stalk, running from residues 74 to 1348, followed by a FYVE domain (residues 1352–1411). The crystal structure of the dimer (1JOC) has a truncated coiled-coil stalk formed by residues 1289–1348. Initial simulations of this construct resulted in biologically unrealistic interactions of the cationic N-terminal region (residues 1289–1322) of this stalk with the bilayer. We therefore further shortened the stalk in the simulations so that it started at residue 1323, which resulted in biologically realistic interactions with the bilayer via the FYVE domain rather than the stalk. The truncated construct was coarse-grained using the Martinize script [36] to a construct compatible with the Martini2.1 force field [37]. Zinc ions and bound 1,3-diphosphate were removed during the coarse-graining of the initial structure. An elastic network [38] was applied to conserve secondary and tertiary structure, which maintained the CG protein fold in the absence of explicit zinc ions. A simulation box with the coarse-grained protein, water, ions and a lipid membrane was constructed using the insane script [39]. The initial box size was 16x16x32 nm3 and had periodic boundary conditions. 10% anti-freeze water were added to avoid frozen water [37], and 0.15 M NaCl ions was included. The protein was placed with a minimum distance of 10 nm from the membrane to avoid any initial binding bias (Figs 2A and S1). The membrane was symmetric and had a lipid composition of 95% 1-palmitoyl-2-oloyl-sn-glyecero-3-phosphocholine (POPC) [39] and 5% 1-palmitoyl-2-oloyl-sn-glyecero-3-phosphatidylinositol-3-phosphate (POP(3)P) [20], giving a lipid composition of 418:22 (POPC:POP(3)P) in each leaflet.

Simulations were performed in GROMACS 2018 [40]. The protein was first rotated randomly, then minimised with the steepest decent method, equilibrated for 300 ps and finally simulated for 1500 ns. Both equilibration and production were in the NPT ensemble with a semi-isotropic Parinello-Rahman barostat [41] with 12 ps time constant. Lateral and normal compressibility of 3⋅10−4 bar-1 was used to keep pressure at 1.0 bar, and a v-rescale thermostat with a 1 ps time constant kept the temperature at 323 K. The integration timestep was 30 fs. Long range electrostatics were calculated using particle mash Ewald (PME) [42] with a cut-off of 1.1 nm. Non bonded van der Waals bonds likewise had a 1.1 nm cut-off. The initial position of the protein had a minimum protein-lipid distance of 10 nm, i.e. multiple times the cutoff-distances. 15 repeats were made, each with individual rotation, minimisation and equilibration. The minimum protein-membrane distance was monitored using built-in GROMACS tool gmx mindist. Lipid contacts were analysed using PyLipID [29]. Contacts were measured from their residence time [43].

Potential of mean force estimation

A frame from the coarse-grained simulations was selected for calculations of free energies, corresponding the dominant membrane binding mode and with 6 bound PIP(3)P molecules. For the PMF calculations, the protein was pulled away from the membrane using steered MD and a pulling force of 1000 kJ/mol/nm, along a reaction coordinate perpendicular to the membrane plane, employing the GROMACS pull code. The reaction coordinate was the centre-of-mass distance between the lipid bilayer and the protein. Position restraints were applied to PI(3)P heads to prevent these from being pulled out of the membrane. Snapshot were retrieved every 0.5 nm along the reaction coordinate. These were used for umbrella sampling, consisting of 1000 ns simulations with an applied position restraint of 1000 kJ/mol/nm on the protein. From the umbrella sampling, a 1D energy profile was calculated using the built-in weighted histogram method gmx wham [44], employing 200 rounds of bootstrapping.

The dissociation constant can be determined from the PMF by integration [45-47]: where C is the standard concentration (eliminated in the next equation), r is the binding distance (at the minimum of the PMF), and r is the distance at which FYVE does not “feel” the membrane anymore, i.e., the bulk, where the PMF has converged. Thus, r defines the “range” of the binding interaction and thus affects the free energy of binding. The binding free energy is given by:

We used T = 300 K, r = 3.9 nm, and r = 7.0 nm to calculate the reported binding free energy.

Free energy perturbation

In six independent simulations, one bound PI(3)P headgroup was alchemically transformed into a PC headgroup, by changing the CG bead properties. First the Coulombic interactions were perturbed in 20 steps of 100 ps, and in 20 subsequent steps, the Lennard Jones properties were perturbed. One simulation was also run with free PI(3)P being transformed into PC, and free energy was calculated as the difference between the perturbation energy of bound and free PI(3)P [25], using the alchemical analysis package [48].

Atomistic simulations

A frame from the coarse-grained simulations corresponding the dominant membrane binding mode and with 6 bound PIP(3)P molecules (as used for energetic calculations–see above) was converted using CG2AT [49] to atomistic resolution and prepared for simulations in the CHARMM36m force field with TIP3P water. Zn2+ ions were inserted in the zinc-finger sites in accordance with the crystal structure (PDB: 1JOC). The four cysteines in each zinc fingers were converted to deprotonated cysteine (topology CYM). Zinc ions were restraint with 1000 kJ/mol/nm2 bonds to the neighbouring cysteines using the pull code in GROMACS. The system was neutralised by converting four Na+ ions to Cl-. The system was equilibrated for 10 ns in the NVT ensemble and for 20 ns in the NPT ensemble, then simulated for 500 ns. Both equilibration and production run were kept at 300 K using a v-rescale thermostat with a 0.1 ps time constant. NPT equilibration and production run were kept at 1.0 bar using a semi-isotropic Parrinello-Rahmen barostat [41] with a 5 ps time constant and 4.5⋅10−4 bar-1 isothermal compressibility. LINCS constraints were applied on the H-bonds, so the simulation could be run with 2 fs time steps with a leap-frog integrator. Electrostatics were included using particle mesh Ewald (PME) [42] for long range electrostatics, and a cut-off of 1.2 nm. The van der Waals cut-off for non-bonded interactions was also 1.2 nm. H-bonds were analysed using the gmx hbonds tool in GROMACS. COM distances were calculated using gmx distance, with the distance defined between the lipids and the protein as separate groups.

Visualisation of CG simulations used VMD [50], and of atomistic simulations used PyMOL (The PyMOL Molecular Graphics System, Version 1.2, Schrödinger, LLC). Scripts and input files for the simulations are available via github.com/andreashlarsen/Larsen-Tata2021-FYVE (DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.5048289). Simulation trajectories are deposited at Zenodo: https://zenodo.org/record/5362218#.YTDSpS0Rpqs (DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.5362218).

Initial CG-MD snapshots.

Snapshots from the 15 repeats of the CG-MD, taken after equilibration. FYVE (yellow) is in a random orientation above the membrane composed of POPC (blue) and POPI(3)P (orange).

(TIF)

Click here for additional data file.

Non-canonical binding modes.

Snapshots of the non-canonical binding modes seen in repeat 11 and repeat 14. FYVE (yellow) bound to the lipid membrane composed of POPC (blue) and POPI(3)P (orange).

(TIF)

Click here for additional data file.

Coarse-grained simulations of the association of the truncated FYVE dimer with a bilayer containing only PC lipids.

The minimum distance between the protein and bilayer is shown as a function of time for each of the 15 repeat simulations, showing no binding (blue, 7/15), non-canonical binding followed by dissociation (red 3/15), or non-canonical binding (yellow, 5/15).

(TIF)

Click here for additional data file.

PI(3)P contacts.

(A) Table of free energies for conversion of PI(3)P to PC at 6 selected sites (shown in (B) where the FYVE dimer, yellow, is viewed from the membrane facing side) where PI(3)P was seen bound in CG simulations. The table lists the corresponding FEP estimates for PI(3)P conversion to PC at each site. (C) Crystal structure (PDB ID 1JOC) of the FYVE dimer with two bound inositol (1,3)-biphosphates (red/orange/grey) and zinc ions (blue/purple spheres). (D) Binding sites on the FYVE dimer structure from CG simulations with the two most prominent binding sites on each monomer shown as coloured spheres. (E) Sequence of chains A and B from dimeric FYVE, highlighting the lipid contact sites using the same residue colours as in panel D, with conserved sequence motifs underlined.

(TIF)

Click here for additional data file.

500-ns AT-MD, repeats 2 and 3.

(A-C) repeat 2, (D-F) repeat 3. (A, D), centre of mass distance between each FYVE head and the membrane. (B, E) Number of H-bonds between each FYVE head and PI(3)P headgroups. (C, F) Angle between the coiled coil stalk axis and the membrane normal.

(TIF)

Click here for additional data file.

RMSD analysis of rigid body motions in AT-MD simulations.

Cα RMSDs from the atomistic simulations are shown for the FYVE dimer heads aligned to the initial structure of the heads (black), for the coiled-coil stalk aligned to the stalk (purple), and for the heads with the dimer structures aligned to the stalk (gold). This demonstrates the rigid body motions between stalk and heads observed during the simulation.

(TIF)

Click here for additional data file.

20 Mar 2021

Dear Dr. Sansom,

Thank you very much for submitting your manuscript "Membrane-binding mechanism of the EEA1 FYVE domain revealed by multi-scale molecular dynamics simulations" for consideration at PLOS Computational Biology.

As with all papers reviewed by the journal, your manuscript was reviewed by members of the editorial board and by several independent reviewers. In light of the reviews (below this email), we would like to invite the resubmission of a significantly-revised version that takes into account the reviewers' comments. Reviewer #1 in particular has several comments where clarification would be useful.

For the revised submission, it is also important that all data and input files necessary to reproduce the work is available in a public repository (such as Zenodo) according to the PLoS data sharing policies, and that the article contains a link to this repository.

We cannot make any decision about publication until we have seen the revised manuscript and your response to the reviewers' comments. Your revised manuscript is also likely to be sent to reviewers for further evaluation.

When you are ready to resubmit, please upload the following:

[1] A letter containing a detailed list of your responses to the review comments and a description of the changes you have made in the 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.

[2] Two versions of the revised manuscript: one with either highlights or tracked changes denoting where the text has been changed; the other a clean version (uploaded as the manuscript file).

Important additional instructions are given below your reviewer comments.

Please prepare and submit your revised manuscript within 60 days. If you anticipate any delay, please let us know the expected resubmission date by replying to this email. Please note that revised manuscripts received after the 60-day due date may require evaluation and peer review similar to newly submitted manuscripts.

Thank you again for your submission. We hope that our editorial process has been constructive so far, and we welcome your feedback at any time. Please don't hesitate to contact us if you have any questions or comments.

Sincerely,

Erik Lindahl

Guest Editor

PLOS Computational Biology

Nir Ben-Tal

Deputy Editor

PLOS Computational Biology

***********************

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Authors:

Please note here if the review is uploaded as an attachment.

Reviewer #1: The manuscript by Sansom and co-workers describes atomistic and coarse-grained (CG) simulations of the C-terminal FYVE domain of EEA1 in the presence of membranes mimicking an endosome. The subject is of high biological interest, as the protein is involved in several diseases. The methodology is well-established and appropriate for the problem at hand. The manuscript is very clear in all parts. The general conclusions are supported by the data. I very much enjoyed reading the manuscript, however I would like to indicate a few points that should be improved:

1. On calculating the protein-lipid binding affinity from a PMF: the correct way to do it was established by Shoup and Szabo (Biophys. J. 40, 33–39 (1982)), and has been reported by several others (see, for example, eq. 44 in DOI:10.1002/jcc.21776). Using the correct equations, the results will probably be similar - most likely this will not change dramatically the results.

2. Page 6: "As the coiled coil in the full-length EEA1 protein is more than 200 nm long, and will be locally rigid, a tilt of up to ~50° relative to the bilayer normal would result in a later displacement of the Rab5 binding domain at the opposite end of nearly 2000 nm". I cannot follow the math. It seems to me that, if the stalk is about 200 nm in length, and Rab5 is attached to the opposite end of the FYVE heads, tilting the stalk by whatever amount would move Rab5 by 200 nm at maximum (provided that the stalk does not go through the membrane, does not unfold, and behaves as a rigid body). I also do not follow the math for the reachable area, that seems to be pi*(200 nm * (sin theta))^2 if theta is small (i.e., one can assume that the searchable area is a circle). If theta is large, the searchable area should be represented as a spherical cap [ area = 2*pi*r^2(1 - cos theta) ]. In any case, with theta = 50 degrees, the result I get for the searchable area is much less than 0.12 um^2.

Other points:

- On protein-lipid binding modes explored in AA simulations: it is apparent that the sampling achieved in the AA simulations is insufficient to assess the binding modes in a quantitative way. That is expected, considering the kinetics of protein binding/unbinding. I wonder if differences in binding modes were observed also in CG simulations. In that case, extension of the CG simulations would allow a more quantitative assessment of the probability of the different binding modes. If instead the CG model is not accurate enough in this respect, it would be interesting to determine which features/ingredients are missing in the CG model to enable mimicking the AA binding modes (electrostatics or hydrogen bonding too primitive? Shape of the binding pockets too different/smooth compared to AA? Other reasons?). In general, it would be interesting to make a more quantitative comparison between AA and CG binding modes.

- On the hinge-bending motion observed in AA simulations: it is very unlikely that AA simulations converged or explored all thermodynamically accessible states in such short amount of simulation time (although, of course, it is recognised that these are computationally very expensive simulations). At the same time, it is also unlikely that the CG model will reproduce such motion realistically - because it is difficult to calibrate the elastic network. Perhaps a word of caution on the AA results should warn the reader that the 50 degree estimate is just an educated guess.

Reviewer #2: Larsen & Tata et al. present a computational study on how the FYVE domain of EEA1 binds to PI3P-containing membranes such as those in endosomes. The computational work is solid (I only have one comment regarding the atomistic simulation), and the paper is clearly organized.

Main comments:

- Was there only one atomistic simulation? I think the atomistic simulation should be repeated at least two more times (or more, depending on the results of the two additional simulation runs), as it is hard to draw conclusions from a single simulation.

- It would be great to see the 15 starting orientations for the coarse-grained simulations in a supplemental figure.

- In the Methods: "This crystal structure is positively charged at its N-terminal region (i.e. the start of the coiled coil stalk, residues 1289-1322 of EEA1), which resulted in artefactual binding of the N-terminus to the anionic lipid bilayer membrane. Therefore, we used a truncated version of the protein with a shorter coiled-coil stalk consisting of residues 1323-1411."---This is a bit confusing; please clarify exactly how the simulated system differs from the crystal structure and from wildtype EEA1.

- I think it would be good to briefly comment on the more general biological significance of the findings in the conclusions and/or abstract.

Minor comments:

- In the abstract, I would change "... total binding energy is ..." to "estimated total binding energy" or similar

Reviewer #3: The paper describes an interesting attempt to simulate the binding of the EEA1 FYVE domain binds to endosomal membranes. The simulations are done by multiscale approach and seems to give reasonable results.

I only have a few comments.

1)I am not sure about the assessment of the dimerization effect. This should involve calculations of the dimerization free energy. This issue should be addressed.

2) Other approaches for CG and MD simulations of insertion of membrane proteins into membranes should have been mentioned and discussed.

Including , Roux , Warshel (CG) , Ben-tal, Lindahl and others

Reviewer #4: This manuscript describes atomistic (AT) and coarse-grained (CG) simulations aimed at understanding how the protein EEA1, specifically its C-terminal FYVE domain, binds to PI-containing membranes. From the CG simulations, they find that binding occurs via a hinge mechanism with a total free-energy gain of 67 kJ/mol, in reasonable agreement with experiments. AT simulations of the bound-state resolves binding into two types as well as demonstrates significant flexibility of the stem domain.

I found this manuscript very clear and well reasoned. My only suggestion is to include some snapshots in the SI of the non-canonical binding events. Currently, only a graph of distance is shown in Figure S1.

Minor points

Page 3: "was identified determined by" - remove one identified/determined

Page 6: "head one bind" - binds

Figure 4C: the time axis is incorrect; it's stated to be ns but is actually microseconds.

**********

Have all data underlying the figures and results presented in the manuscript been provided?

Large-scale datasets should be made available via a public repository as described in the PLOS Computational Biology data availability policy, and numerical data that underlies graphs or summary statistics should be provided in spreadsheet form as supporting information.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No: It sounds like the authors are planning share simulation trajectories on Zenodo, which is great.

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: None

**********

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

Reviewer #3: Yes: Arieh Warshel

Reviewer #4: No

Figure Files:

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, . PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. 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 .

Data Requirements:

Please note that, as a condition of publication, PLOS' data policy requires that you make available all data used to draw the conclusions outlined in your manuscript. Data must be deposited in an appropriate repository, included within the body of the manuscript, or uploaded as supporting information. This includes all numerical values that were used to generate graphs, histograms etc.. For an example in PLOS Biology see here: http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.1001908#s5.

Reproducibility:

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, PLOS recommends that you deposit 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, please see

Submitted filename: Plos ,3,6,21.docx

Click here for additional data file.

2 Jul 2021

Submitted filename: responses v7.docx

Click here for additional data file.

28 Jul 2021

Dear Prof. Sansom,

Thank you very much for submitting your manuscript "Membrane-binding mechanism of the EEA1 FYVE domain revealed by multi-scale molecular dynamics simulations" for consideration at PLOS Computational Biology. As with all papers reviewed by the journal, your manuscript was reviewed by members of the editorial board and by several independent reviewers. The reviewers appreciated the attention to an important topic. Based on the reviews, we are likely to accept this manuscript for publication, providing that you modify the manuscript according to the review recommendations.

The revised version addresses virtually all comments by the reviewers.

However, as pointed out by reviewer #2 there are several public and free repositories that allow depositions up to 50GB (and even more if one has a good reason), and since it is an explicit PLoS editorial policy that snapshots from trajectories must be available in a public FAIR repository ( as described e.g. in https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.1006649 ), this must be added before we can finally accept the paper. The exact repository used does not matter - a few possible examples include Zenodo, OSF, Dryad or NOMAD, so the authors can choose whatever suits them best.

Please prepare and submit your revised manuscript within 30 days. If you anticipate any delay, please let us know the expected resubmission date by replying to this email.

Thank you again for your submission to our journal. We hope that our editorial process has been constructive so far, and we welcome your feedback at any time. Please don't hesitate to contact us if you have any questions or comments.

Sincerely,

Erik Lindahl

Guest Editor

PLOS Computational Biology

Nir Ben-Tal

Deputy Editor

PLOS Computational Biology

***********************

A link appears below if there are any accompanying review attachments. If you believe any reviews to be missing, please contact ploscompbiol@plos.org immediately:

[LINK]

Thank you for the revised version, which addresses virtually all comments by the reviewers.

However, as pointed out by reviewer #2 there are several public and free repositories that allow depositions up to 50GB (and even more if one has a good reason), so to adhere to the PLoS data sharing policies (as described e.g. in https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.1006649 ) representative downsampled trajectories must be deposited with a link in the data availability section before we can finally accept the paper.

The exact repository used does not matter - a few possible examples include Zenodo, OSF, Dryad or NOMAD.

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Authors:

Please note here if the review is uploaded as an attachment.

Reviewer #2: The authors have addressed my main comments, and I think the paper can be accepted for publication.

Regarding data availability, the authors correctly point out that there is no standard repository for MD simulations. However, data of any type can be deposited on Zenodo, which I believe has a limit of 50 GB per submission, so I don't see why simulation trajectories could not be uploaded there (or to a similar repository). If the size limit is an issue, the trajectories could be downsampled or otherwise reduced.

A minor additional comment:

Figure 3 caption reads "from the simulation"; since there are now 3 atomistic simulations, shouldn't this read "a representative simulation" or similar?

Reviewer #3: The curent version followed my comment

Reviewer #4: Looks great!

**********

Have the authors made all data and (if applicable) computational code underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data and code 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 and code 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 or code —e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #2: No: See comment to authors.

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: None

**********

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 #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

Reviewer #4: No

Figure Files:

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. 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.

Data Requirements:

Please note that, as a condition of publication, PLOS' data policy requires that you make available all data used to draw the conclusions outlined in your manuscript. Data must be deposited in an appropriate repository, included within the body of the manuscript, or uploaded as supporting information. This includes all numerical values that were used to generate graphs, histograms etc.. For an example in PLOS Biology see here: http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.1001908#s5.

Reproducibility:

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that 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. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option to publish peer-reviewed clinical study protocols. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols

References:

Review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript.

If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

3 Sep 2021

Submitted filename: Data deposition.docx

Click here for additional data file.

14 Sep 2021

Dear Prof. Sansom,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript 'Membrane-binding mechanism of the EEA1 FYVE domain revealed by multi-scale molecular dynamics simulations' has been provisionally accepted for publication in PLOS Computational Biology.

Before your manuscript can be formally accepted you will need to complete some formatting changes, which you will receive in a follow up email. A member of our team will be in touch with a set of requests.

Please note that your manuscript will not be scheduled for publication until you have made the required changes, so a swift response is appreciated.

IMPORTANT: The editorial review process is now complete. PLOS will only permit corrections to spelling, formatting or significant scientific errors from this point onwards. Requests for major changes, or any which affect the scientific understanding of your work, will cause delays to the publication date of your manuscript.

Should you, your institution's press office or the journal office choose to press release your paper, you will automatically be opted out of early publication. We ask that you notify us now if you or your institution is planning to press release the article. All press must be co-ordinated with PLOS.

Thank you again for supporting Open Access publishing; we are looking forward to publishing your work in PLOS Computational Biology.

Best regards,

Erik Lindahl

Guest Editor

PLOS Computational Biology

Nir Ben-Tal

Deputy Editor

PLOS Computational Biology

***********************************************************

17 Sep 2021

PCOMPBIOL-D-21-00195R2

Membrane-binding mechanism of the EEA1 FYVE domain revealed by multi-scale molecular dynamics simulations

Dear Dr Sansom,

I am pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been formally accepted for publication in PLOS Computational Biology. Your manuscript is now with our production department and you will be notified of the publication date in due course.

The corresponding author will soon be receiving a typeset proof for review, to ensure errors have not been introduced during production. Please review the PDF proof of your manuscript carefully, as this is the last chance to correct any errors. Please note that major changes, or those which affect the scientific understanding of the work, will likely cause delays to the publication date of your manuscript.

Soon after your final files are uploaded, unless you have opted out, the early version of your manuscript will be published online. The date of the early version will be your article's publication date. The final article will be published to the same URL, and all versions of the paper will be accessible to readers.

Thank you again for supporting PLOS Computational Biology and open-access publishing. We are looking forward to publishing your work!

With kind regards,

Andrea Szabo

PLOS Computational Biology | Carlyle House, Carlyle Road, Cambridge CB4 3DN | United Kingdom ploscompbiol@plos.org | Phone +44 (0) 1223-442824 | ploscompbiol.org | @PLOSCompBiol