From the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Department of Molecular and Cellular Physiology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California 94305-5428
![]() |
ABSTRACT |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
The SNARE hypothesis proposes that membrane
trafficking specificity is mediated by preferential high affinity
interactions between particular v (vesicle membrane)- and t (target
membrane)-SNARE combinations. The specificity of interactions among a
diverse set of SNAREs, however, is unknown. We have tested the SNARE
hypothesis by analyzing potential SNARE complexes between five proteins
of the vesicle-associated membrane protein (VAMP) family, three members of the synaptosome-associated protein-25 (SNAP-25) family and three
members of the syntaxin family. All of the 21 combinations of SNAREs
tested formed stable complexes. Sixteen were resistant to SDS
denaturation, and most complexes thermally denatured between 70 and
90 °C. These results suggest that the specificity of membrane fusion
is not encoded by the interactions between SNAREs.
Membrane compartments in eukaryotic cells are in constant dynamic
flux. Transport vesicles emerge from donor compartments and are
specifically targeted to acceptor compartments where they deliver cargo
through membrane fusion (1). The ability of transport vesicles to
specifically recognize appropriate acceptor membrane targets underlies
the organization of the secretory pathway (2-5). The
SNARE1 hypothesis proposes
that membrane target recognition can be attributed to the specific
pairing of SNARE proteins (6, 7). SNAREs, which are believed to mediate
aspects of vesicle docking, priming, and membrane fusion, are common to
vesicular trafficking in organisms as diverse as yeast and humans (8).
SNARE proteins belonging to the VAMP (synaptobrevin), SNAP-25, and
syntaxin families form heteromeric complexes that consist of extended,
parallel four-helical bundles (9, 10). Interestingly, a set of
absolutely conserved polar residues is buried at the center of the
helical bundle (9, 11). VAMP contributes a single helix to the
structure with a central, buried arginine residue. Syntaxin contributes
one helix and SNAP-25 provides two helices, each contributing a buried
glutamine residue. Syntaxin and VAMP are anchored to opposite membranes through single transmembrane-spanning helices. Thus, formation of a
stable SNARE complex brings membranes into direct opposition and may
result in membrane fusion or an activated docked state (12-14).
Following membrane fusion, the SNARE complex is dissociated through the
action of If SNARE complex formation is responsible for the specificity of
membrane fusion in mammalian cells, several criteria must be met.
First, there should be a sufficient number of SNARE proteins to account
for constitutive membrane trafficking as well as the specialized and
regulated secretory processes found in differentiated cell types.
Second, the localization of arginine and glutamine classes of SNAREs
(r-SNARE and q-SNARE, respectively) should make possible the formation
of proper four-helix bundle structures across opposing membranes.
Finally, trafficking pathways should be accounted for by the
specificity of SNARE pairing. A compilation of SNARE proteins localized
within the secretory pathway of a typical eukaryotic cell is depicted
in Fig. 1. Both r- and q-SNARE proteins
are specifically localized to a variety of membrane compartments throughout the secretory pathway (17-22). The number and localization of SNARE proteins indeed suggest that high affinity interactions between sets of SNAREs could account for aspects of the specificity of
membrane organization. Therefore, only the final criterion remains: do SNAREs interact specifically?
INTRODUCTION
Top
Abstract
Introduction
References
-SNAP and the ATPase NSF, allowing the proteins to recycle
(15, 16). The structure of the SNARE complex suggests an attractive
model whereby specificity could be generated through specific helical interactions.
View larger version (84K):
[in a new window]
Fig. 1.
Localization of SNARE proteins within the
secretory pathway of a typical eukaryotic cell. r-SNAREs are
colored red. q-SNAREs from the syntaxin family are
blue. q-SNAREs from the SNAP-25 family are light
blue. Other q-SNAREs are black. The SNARE
proteins used in this study are underlined (see text for
references). N, nucleus; ER, endoplasmic
reticulum; IC, intermediate compartment; TGN,
trans-Golgi network; V, vesicles; DCV, dense core
vesicles; EE, early endosome; LE, late endosome;
L, lysosome; CV, clathrin-coated vesicles.
We have investigated the specificity of SNARE interactions by testing
the ability of the core, interacting domains from a diverse set of
SNARE proteins to form stable SNARE complexes. Every combination that
included a syntaxin, VAMP, and SNAP-25 family member formed a highly
stable SNARE complex. These results suggest that the core interactions
between SNAREs are not the source of specificity in membrane trafficking.
![]() |
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES |
---|
Plasmids and Plasmid Construction-- Plasmids encoding the syntaxin-1A H3 domain (amino acids 191-266), SNAP-25 N-terminal domain (amino acids 1-82) and C-terminal domain (amino acids 141-206), VAMP2 cytoplasmic domain (amino acids 25-94), VAMP7 cytoplasmic domain (amino acids 1-182), and VAMP8 cytoplasmic domain (amino acids 2-75) were prepared as described previously (10, 17, 18). DNA fragments encoding the syntaxin-4 H3 domain (amino acids 200-273), syntaxin-13 H3 domain (amino acids 170-243), SNAP-23 C-terminal domain (amino acids 148-211), SNAP-29 N-terminal domain (amino acids 50-132), SNAP-29 C-terminal domain (amino acids 198-258), VAMP4 (amino acids 2-115), and rSec22b C-terminal domain (amino acids 126-195) were amplified using the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and subcloned into the pGEX-KG vector (24). A plasmid encoding the N-terminal domain of SNAP-23 (amino acids 1-78) was generated by introducing a premature stop codon using PCR-based mutagenesis. All coding regions were sequenced to confirm the absence of PCR-induced errors.
Protein Expression and Purification-- With the exception of the N-terminal domain of SNAP-25, which was expressed with a N-terminal 6-histidine tag (His6) using the pQE-30 vector system (Qiagen), all recombinant proteins were expressed as GST fusions from the pGEX-KG vector (24). The His6-tagged protein was expressed in Escherichia coli strain M15[pREP4] and purified using nickel-nitrilotriacetic acid-agarose (Qiagen). GST fusion proteins were expressed in E. coli AB1899 cells and purified using glutathione-agarose as described previously (17, 18). Soluble proteins were liberated by thrombin cleavage of the GST fusions immobilized on glutathione-agarose (Sigma). Protein concentrations were estimated using the Bio-Rad dye binding assay with bovine serum albumin as a standard.
Analysis of SDS Resistance--
The ability of SNARE proteins to
form SDS-resistant complexes was analyzed by SDS-PAGE (25).
Preincubated mixtures of the SNARE proteins were solubilized in SDS
containing sample buffer (final concentrations of 100 mM
Tris-HCl, pH 6.9, 2% SDS, 100 mM sucrose, and 1%
-mercaptoethanol), incubated either at room temperature (not boiled)
or at 95 °C (boiled) for 5 min before loading onto a 16%
polyacrylamide gel, and electrophoresed at 25 mA. Gels were stained
with Coomassie Blue.
Preparation of SNARE Complexes--
SNARE complexes were formed
by mixing approximately equal molar amounts of the relevant proteins
and incubating at 4 °C overnight. Complexes were purified by
preparative gel filtration (Superdex 75-HiLoad 16/60; Amersham
Pharmacia Biotech) using PBS buffer (10 mM
K2PO4, 100 mM KF, pH 7.6, 5 mM -mercaptoethanol). Fractions were analyzed by
SDS-PAGE or, in cases were the complex was not SDS-resistant, by
Western blotting against VAMP and concentrated to approximately
10 µM (Ultrafree-4, Millipore).
Circular Dichroism Spectroscopy--
Circular dichroism (CD)
spectra and thermal melts were recorded with an Aviv 62DS CD
spectrophotometer equipped with a thermoelectric temperature
controller. Measurements were made using a 0.1-cm pathlength quartz
cuvette. Thermal unfolding experiments were performed by measuring the
CD signal at 222 nm (1-min averaging time) in 2 °C steps (2-min
equilibration). Data were converted to a fraction of unfolded protein
by fitting the lower and upper base lines to 0 and 100% unfolded,
respectively. The Tm values were taken as the
temperature at which 50% of the signal remained. Tm
values were largely insensitive to concentration, indicating that the
SNARE complexes are not in fast exchange with their constituent monomers.
![]() |
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION |
---|
If r- and q-SNARE interactions impart specificity in trafficking,
specific combinations of SNAREs should form stable complexes whereas
others should not. To test this hypothesis, we took advantage of the
observation that syntaxin-1A, SNAP-25, and VAMP2 form a highly stable
ternary complex that is resistant to SDS denaturation (12). To simplify
the interpretation of our results, we focused on the interacting SNARE
domains previously identified by mutagenesis and proteolytic mapping
(26, 27). This complex, which can be dissociated by -SNAP/NSF,
comprises the C-terminal H3 region of syntaxin-1A (amino acids
191-266), the VAMP homologous region (amino acids 25-94), and two
separate domains from SNAP-25 (the N-terminal domain, amino acids
1-82, and the C-terminal domain, amino acids 141-206). Using the
separate domains of SNAP-25 eliminates higher order multimerization
that might complicate binding measurements (26). Also, the potential
complication of the N-terminal domain of syntaxin regulating the
kinetic rate of SNARE association is eliminated (28). Importantly,
however, the N-terminal domain of syntaxin and the other protein
regions not included in the analysis do not contribute to the
associated SNARE complex structurally or thermodynamically (26-28).
For example, thermal unfolding of the complex containing the
full-length syntaxin can be deconvoluted into two separate unfolding
events, one representing the N-terminal domain of syntaxin and the
second representing the melting of the core SNARE complex. Furthermore,
the thermal stability of the core complex is virtually identical to the
complex formed using the full cytoplasmic regions, indicating that
regions outside the interacting domains do not contribute to the SNARE
interactions and therefore do not contribute to specificity.
SDS-resistant SNARE complexes between syntaxin-1A, SNAP-25 (N- and
C-terminal domains), and VAMP2 require all four domains. Any
combination of three of the four domains is not sufficient to confer
SDS resistance (Fig. 2A).
These results attest to the importance of each of the four SNARE
helical regions in forming a highly stable association.
|
Using this SDS resistance assay, we were able to test the ability of various r-SNAREs to substitute for VAMP2 in forming stable complexes. VAMP4, -7, and -8 and rSec22b were chosen as representative r-SNAREs that localize to various cellular compartments (Fig. 1) and that should, according to the SNARE hypothesis, interact with only specific q-SNAREs. Surprisingly, we found that all four VAMPs were able to confer SDS resistance (Fig. 2B).
These results imply that there is little selectivity in the interactions between r- and q-SNAREs. Nevertheless, it is possible that in synaptic exocytosis the q-SNARE complex, syntaxin-1A and SNAP-25, is exceptional in its ability to bind multiple VAMPs. To test this possibility, two additional q-SNARE complexes were chosen for analysis. The combination of syntaxin-4 and SNAP-23 was selected because of their ubiquitous, non-neuronal expression (19, 29), whereas the combination of syntaxin-13 and SNAP-29 was chosen because of their higher sequence divergence relative to syntaxin-1A and SNAP-25, respectively (17, 18). Like the synaptic exocytosis complex, syntaxin-13 and SNAP-29 were able to form SDS-resistant complexes with every VAMP tested (data not shown). The syntaxin-4·SNAP-23 complex, however, only formed SDS-resistant complexes with VAMP4 and VAMP7. Twelve of the 15 complexes tested were SDS-resistant, demonstrating that an overwhelming number of SNARE combinations form extremely stable structures. Thus, in contrast to the SNARE hypothesis, SNARE interactions are highly promiscuous.
To gain a more quantitative understanding of the relative stabilities of SNARE complexes, we used circular dichroism to measure thermal denaturation profiles (Fig. 3, A-C, Table I). Under the conditions used for our measurements, the midpoint of the unfolding transition, Tm, for the neuronal complex consisting of syntaxin-1A, SNAP-25, and VAMP2 was 90 °C. Substituting VAMP2 with VAMP4, -7, or -8 had a relatively minor effect on the denaturation profiles; all melted within a 5 °C range. However, the Tm of the complex was reduced by 13 °C when rSec22b was the r-SNARE. It is expected that rSec22b would have the lowest thermal stability given that, relative to the other r-SNAREs examined, the VAMP homologous region of rSec22b is the least conserved. Indeed, modeling the rSec22b sequence in place of VAMP2 in the syntaxin-1A·SNAP-25·VAMP2 crystal structure suggests that rSec22b would be unable to form many of the same salt-bridge interactions (9).
|
|
Complexes formed using the syntaxin-4·SNAP-23 pair and VAMP4, -7, or -8 all had similar Tm values, ranging from 85 to 88 °C. Compared with the syntaxin-1A·SNAP-25-containing complexes (Table I, first column), the Tm values of the syntaxin-4·SNAP-23 complexes containing VAMP8 and rSec22b were only reduced by 2 and 1 °C, respectively. Interestingly, however, unlike the syntaxin-1A·SNAP-25 complexes, the syntaxin-4·SNAP-23 complexes with VAMP8 and rSec22b were not SDS-resistant, suggesting that SDS resistance is not a strict measure of complex stability.
Of the SNARE complexes formed with syntaxin-13·SNAP-29 and the various VAMP homologues, the complex containing VAMP7 was the most stable, melting ~9 °C higher than the next two most stable complexes, those containing VAMP4 and -8. The syntaxin-13·SNAP-29 complex with VAMP2 had a Tm that was 15 °C lower relative to VAMP7, whereas the rSec22b-bound complex had the lowest Tm. In general, the syntaxin-1A·SNAP-25 q-SNARE combination resulted in the highest average SNARE complex thermal stabilities, followed by syntaxin-4·SNAP-23 and syntaxin-13·SNAP-29. For the r-SNARE family, VAMP7 generated the highest average thermal stabilities, whereas rSec22b generated the lowest. These results demonstrate that although there is variability in the thermal stabilities, all the VAMPs tested can bind a variety of q-SNARE combinations to generate very stable structures.
Finally, we examined the effect of varying the q-SNARE on complex stability. With the r-SNARE VAMP2 constant, we tested the nine q-SNARE combinations for SDS resistance. All the combinations that included SNAP-25 or SNAP-29 formed SDS-resistant complexes (Table II); only the SNAP-23-containing complexes were not SDS-resistant. It is interesting that SNAP-23 and SNAP-25 display different SDS resistance properties, as they are highly conserved in their interacting domains (67% identical), whereas SNAP-23 and SNAP-29 are only 32% identical and SNAP-25 and SNAP-29 are only 33% identical. In terms of thermal stability of all the q-SNARE combinations only the syntaxin-13·SNAP-23 pair was particularly unfavorable (Fig. 4, A-C, Table II). Indeed, complexes containing syntaxin-13 in combination with SNAP-23, -25, or -29 were in general the least stable, with an average melting temperature of 66 °C compared with 83 and 84 °C for complexes containing syntaxin-1A and -4, respectively (Table II). It is not obvious from the sequences or the crystal structure why the syntaxin-13·SNAP-23·VAMP2 complex is less stable (9). For example, many of the salt-bridge interactions are conserved. There are, however, a few changes in the core residues, such as an alanine (SNAP-23) to valine (SNAP-25) substitution, that could result in destabilizing side chain packing defects.
|
|
Importantly, from these data we can conclude that the stability patterns are not consistent with protein localization and known trafficking pathways. For example, rSec22b is the r-SNARE responsible for endoplasmic reticulum and Golgi trafficking, yet it forms stable complexes with combinations of syntaxins-1, -4, and -13 and SNAP-23, -25 and -29, q-SNAREs that function in post-Golgi trafficking. Furthermore, syntaxin-13 functions in recycling of plasma membrane proteins and is localized to the tubular vesicular endosomes, and syntaxin-4 is localized to the plasma membrane where it functions in exocytosis (30, 31). These q-SNAREs do not readily differentiate between the various VAMPs tested.
Why are all the SNARE complexes so stable? The activation energies for steps in vesicle fusion are reported to be large (32). If SNARE complexes function to catalyze a step in membrane fusion, the energy from complex formation could help to overcome the activation barrier encountered in bringing membranes into close proximity or perhaps catalyzing some aspect of phospholipid rearrangement (33, 34). The yeast exocytosis complex, Sso1-Sec9-Snc2p, under similar conditions to ours thermally unfolds at 72 °C (28, 35). This temperature is similar to the lower range we observed for the mammalian SNARE combinations, suggesting that most of the complexes in this study would be energetically suitable for function. The necessity for high stability in SNARE complexes perhaps is achieved at the expense of specificity.
The fact remains, however, that only certain SNARE complexes are formed in vivo. If specific SNARE associations are not thermodynamically controlled, then how are the SNARE interactions regulated? It is clear that most SNARE proteins are localized to distinct compartments in the cell, so presumably their interactions in vivo are spatially restricted. Indeed, in yeast, a mislocalized q-SNARE, Vam3p, can functionally substitute for Pep12p (36). Other sources of trafficking specificity may come from regulatory factors such as the Ypt/Rab and Sec1 families (37, 38). Rab effector proteins may function as membrane-specific docking factors, thus directing the formation of certain SNARE combinations. Also, targeting complexes, such as has been suggested for the sec6·sec8 complex, could play an important role in defining transport destinations (39). In addition, the transport of vesicles from donor to acceptor site is highly specific and likely regulated by distinct sets of motors and cytoskeletal elements. Thus, perhaps membrane fusion specificity is not due to a single mechanism but rather involves several different layers of regulation.
If SNARE interactions are not specific, why are there so many SNAREs?
Distinct SNAREs are likely necessary to maintain and regulate the
complex intracellular compartmental organization. Membrane trafficking
is extremely dynamic and, thus, all membranes need to maintain
appropriate concentrations and arrays of SNARE proteins for membrane
fusion events to occur. This is accomplished through numerous antro-
and retrograde trafficking pathways, which may require specific
sequence information outside the core interacting regions. Such a
mechanism allows the possibility of integrating multiple trafficking
pathways through promiscuous SNARE pairings, as has been suggested by
the finding that a single r-SNARE functions with different q-SNAREs in
directing anterograde and retrograde membrane transport (23). Although
the idea that selective pairing of SNAREs mediates vesicle targeting
and fusion specificity served as a motivation for characterizing and
localizing these proteins, our results suggest that the organization of
the secretory pathway relies on other mechanisms to generate specificity.
![]() |
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS |
---|
We thank M. Poirier and M. Bennett for plasmid constructs and for helpful discussions. We also thank C. Hazuka, J. Bock, and W. Weis for critically reading the manuscript.
![]() |
FOOTNOTES |
---|
* The costs of publication of this article were defrayed in part by the payment of page charges. The article must therefore be hereby marked "advertisement" in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1734 solely to indicate this fact.
These authors contributed equally to this work.
§ Supported by a National Science Foundation postdoctoral fellowship awarded in 1997.
¶ Investigator of the Howard Hughes Medical Institute. To whom correspondence should be addressed. Tel.: 650-723-9075; Fax: 650-725-4436; E-mail: scheller{at}cmgm.stanford.edu.
![]() |
ABBREVIATIONS |
---|
The abbreviations used are: SNARE, SNAP receptor; SNAP, soluble NSF attachment protein; NSF, N-ethylmaleimide-sensitive factor; SNAP-23, -25, -29, synaptosome-associated protein of 23, 25, and 29 kDa; r-SNARE, arginine class of SNARE; q-SNARE, glutamine class of SNARE; VAMP, vesicle-associated membrane protein; PAGE, polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis; GST, glutathione S-transferase; PCR, polymerase chain reaction.
![]() |
REFERENCES |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|