Budding Yeast GCN1 Binds the GI Domain to Activate the eIF2alpha Kinase GCN2*

Hiroyuki KubotaDagger §, Kazuhisa OtaDagger , Yoshiyuki Sakaki§, and Takashi ItoDagger

From the Dagger  Division of Genome Biology, Cancer Research Institute, Kanazawa University, 13-1 Takaramachi, Kanazawa 920-0934, Japan and § Human Genome Center, Institute of Medical Science, University of Tokyo, 4-6-1 Shirokanedai, Minato-ku, Tokyo 108-8639, Japan

Received for publication, December 29, 2000, and in revised form, January 31, 2001


    ABSTRACT
TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
REFERENCES

When starved for a single amino acid, the budding yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae activates the eukaryotic initiation factor 2alpha (eIF2alpha ) kinase GCN2 in a GCN1-dependent manner. Phosphorylated eIF2alpha inhibits general translation but selectively derepresses the synthesis of the transcription factor GCN4, which leads to coordinated induction of genes involved in biosynthesis of various amino acids, a phenomenon called general control response. We recently demonstrated that this response requires binding of GCN1 to the GI domain occurring at the N terminus of GCN2 (Kubota, H., Sakaki, Y., and Ito, T. (2000) J. Biol. Chem. 275, 20243-20246). Here we provide the first evidence for the involvement of GCN1-GCN2 interaction in activation of GCN2 per se. We identified a C-terminal segment of GCN1 sufficient to bind the GI domain and used a novel dual bait two-hybrid method to identify mutations rendering GCN1 incapable of interacting with GCN2. The yeast bearing such an allele, gcn1-F2291L, fails to display derepression of GCN4 translation and hence general control response, as does a GI domain mutant, gcn2-Y74A, defective in association with GCN1. Furthermore, we demonstrated that phosphorylation of eIF2alpha is impaired in both mutants. Since GCN2 is the sole eIF2alpha kinase in yeast, these findings indicate a critical role of GCN1-GCN2 interaction in activation of the kinase in vivo.


    INTRODUCTION
TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
REFERENCES

Protein synthesis in eukaryotic cells is suppressed by stress-induced phosphorylation of eukaryotic initiation factor 2alpha (eIF2alpha )1 on a serine residue at position 51 (1). The phosphorylation converts eIF2alpha from the substrate to an inhibitor of eIF2B, the guanine nucleotide exchange factor of eIF2; phosphorylated eIF2-GDP forms a stable complex with eIF2B to hamper recycling of eIF2-GDP to eIF2-GTP (2). Scarcity of eIF2-GTP accordingly decreases the level of the ternary complex composed of eIF2, GTP, and the charged initiator tRNA, a prerequisite for translational initiation, and hence leads to general suppression of protein synthesis. Thus, eIF2alpha kinases play pivotal roles in this famous translational control.

Mammalian cells have four eIF2alpha kinases, each of which is activated in response to a distinct stress. Heme-regulated inhibitor is activated by hemin deprivation (3); double-stranded RNA-dependent kinase is activated by double-stranded RNA (3); RNA-dependent kinase-like endoplasmic reticulum kinase is activated by unfolded proteins (4, 5); and GCN2 is activated by serum or amino acid starvation (6, 7). In contrast, the budding yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae has the sole eIF2alpha kinase, GCN2, the founding member of this family. The yeast GCN2 is activated by starvation for amino acids, glucose deprivation, purine limitation, and impaired tRNA synthetase activity (8-10). The gene for this kinase was originally identified in the studies of a response to amino acid starvation called general control of amino acid synthesis, and hence was termed GCN2 (general control nonderepressible 2).

The molecular mechanism underlying general control response is currently considered as follows. When the budding yeast starves for a single particular amino acid, free tRNAs, which are not charged with amino acids, accumulate within the cells and bind to a bipartite domain composed of the histidyl tRNA synthetase-related domain and the C-terminal ribosome-binding domain of GCN2 (11). This bipartite domain forms an inhibitory interaction with the kinase domain, which is disrupted upon binding of tRNAs (11). In addition to uncharged tRNAs, which unmask the kinase domain, genetic evidence suggests that in vivo activation of GCN2 requires another gene, GCN1, encoding a protein bearing a region homologous to translation elongation factor 3 (12). GCN1 forms a stable complex with the ATP-binding cassette protein GCN20 and functions on an elongating ribosome (13, 14). GCN2 is activated by uncharged tRNAs in the presence of GCN1 and phosphorylates eIF2alpha to suppress protein synthesis via the mechanism described above. However, the mRNA encoding GCN4 is selectively translated by a unique mechanism, which depends on the four short open reading frames (ORFs) preceding the one for GCN4 (10). The transcription factor GCN4 induces the expression of genes involved in various amino acid synthetic pathways.

In contrast to the action of uncharged tRNAs and the mechanism for derepressed translation of GCN4 mRNA, how GCN1 participates in the activation of GCN2 was poorly understood at the molecular level. Recently, we and others showed that a direct interaction between GCN1 and GCN2 is necessary for general control response, thereby providing the first insight into the underlying mechanism (15, 16).

In this study, we determine the minimal essential regions of GCN1 and GCN2 for the complex formation and demonstrate that phosphorylation of eIF2alpha , translational derepression of GCN4 mRNA, and general control response are impaired in the gcn1 and gcn2 mutants defective in this interaction. These results provide the first direct evidence for a crucial role of GCN1-GCN2 interaction in the activation of the eIF2alpha kinase.

    EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
REFERENCES

Yeast Strains-- The strains used in this study are summarized in Table I.

                              
View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Table I
Genotypes of yeast strains used in this study

Two-hybrid Assay and Other General Yeast Methods-- The two-hybrid vectors, pGBK and pGAD424g, were described previously (17, 18). For high efficiency transformation, the protocol of Gietz and Schiestl (19) was adopted except for the addition of 10% dimethyl sulfoxide prior to the heat shock step (20).

PCR-based Random Mutagenesis of GCN1-- A GCN1 DNA fragment (nucleotides 6142-7146) was cloned between the segments encoding the GAL4 activation domain (AD) and the C-terminal 75-amino acid (aa) region of CDC24, which bears a PC motif and is called the PC motif-containing region (PCCR) (18). We subjected the GAL4 AD-GCN1-PCCR fragment to error-prone PCR in 50 µl of 1× PCR buffer containing 1 unit of Taq DNA polymerase, 200 µM dATP, 2 mM dCTP, 2 mM dGTP, 2 mM dTTP, 2 mM MgCl2, 5 pmol of each primer under the following thermal cycling: 94 °C for 3 min, followed by 30 cycles of 95 °C for 15 s, 55 °C for 30 s, and 72 °C for 2 min. The amplified products of error-prone PCR were cloned into pGAD424g by a transformation-associated recombination technique (21) using PJ69-4ADelta (MATa) as a host. Transformants were then mated with Mavchi (MATalpha ) bearing pGBK-GCN2 and pHLZ-BEM1-PB1. The former plasmid encodes a hybrid protein between the GAL4 DNA-binding domain and GI domain of GCN2, and the latter one encodes a protein between LexA and the PB1 domain of BEM1 (aa 472-551), which specifically binds to PCCR of CDC24.2 Diploid cells were then plated onto synthetic complete medium (20) lacking Trp, Leu, and His (SC-Trp-Leu-His) supplemented with 20 mM 3-aminotriazole (3AT) and 0.2% 5-fluoro-orotic acid (5FOA).

Construction of a gcn1-F2291L-T7 Mutant-- The gcn1-F2291L DNA fragment (nucleotides 6538-7401) was cloned in pUC-URA3, a pUC13 derivative bearing the URA3 marker (15), to obtain pUC-URA3-gcn1-F2291L, which was subsequently linearized with Bglll, and introduced into the yeast MB758-5B cells. The Ura+ transformants were tested for successful targeted integration by diagnostic colony PCR. These clones were then selected for 5FOA resistance and examined for the desired allele replacement to obtain the strain JBZ1 (MATa ura3 gcn1-F2291L).

For epitope tagging of GCN1, we first constructed a pUC-URA3 derivative bearing a DNA fragment encoding the 3'-end portion of GCN1 ORF with its flanking region (nucleotides 7705-8214) followed by Ashbya gossypii TEF2 terminator, which is derived from the kanMX cassette (22). Following the insertion of a T7 epitope-encoding sequence by an inverse PCR-mediated procedure to C-terminally tag GCN1, the plasmid was linearized and transformed into MB758-5B and JBZ1 to obtain the strains JBZ2 (MATa ura3 GCN1-T7::URA3) and JBZ3 (MATa ura3 gcn1-F2291L-T7::URA3), respectively. These strains were spotted onto agar plates of SC-Ura or SC-Ura-His plus 20 mM 3AT as described previously (15).

Reporter Assay for Derepression of GCN4 mRNA-- The p180 reporter construct is a low copy number plasmid, which encodes an mRNA bearing the GCN4-lacZ fusion ORF preceded by the entire 5' leader region of GCN4 mRNA containing four upstream ORFs to monitor the translational derepression (23). This plasmid was introduced into MB758-5B, JBZ1, JBY4, and JBY5 cells, and the transformants were grown to midlogarithmic phase and shifted to SC or synthetic dextrose (SD) medium (0.67% yeast nitrogen base without amino acids, 2% glucose) containing 10 or 20 mM 3AT. Following the incubation at 30 °C for 3 h, cells were collected and subjected to beta -galactosidase assay as described previously (18).

Immunoblotting Analysis of eIF2alpha Phosphorylation-- The yeast JBY2, JBY3, JBZ2, and JBZ3 cells were grown to midlogarithmic phase and shifted to YPAD (1% yeast extract, 2% peptone, 0.004% adenine sulfate, 2% glucose) or SD medium supplemented with 10 or 20 mM 3AT. Following incubation at 30 °C for 4 h, ~107 cells were collected, resuspended in 1.0 ml of distilled H2O, and broken by the addition of 150 µl of breaking buffer (2 M NaOH, M beta -mecaptoethanol). Following incubation on ice for 10 min, the lysate was neutralized by the addition of 130 µl of 60% trichloroacetic acid. Proteins were then collected by centrifugation at 15,000 × g and washed twice with 700 µl of acetone. Protein extract equivalent to 106 cells was subjected to each lane of SDS-polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis and transferred to nitrocellulose filters. Filters were blocked by PBS-T (137 mM NaCl, 8.1 mM Na2HPO4, 2.68 mM KCl, 1.47 mM KH2PO4, 0.1% Tween 20, 4% nonfat dry milk). Phosphorylated eIF2alpha was visualized by using PBS-T containing an antibody that specifically recognizes eIF2alpha phosphorylated at serine 51 (BIO-SOURCE).

    RESULTS
TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
REFERENCES

The GI Domain Is the Minimal Essential Region to Interact with GCN1-- We previously showed that the characteristic GI domain (aa 1-125) occurring at the N-terminal extremity of GCN2 directly binds to GCN1 (15). Others also demonstrated that GCN2 interacts with GCN1 via its N-terminal 272-aa region, which contains the GI domain followed by an acidic region (16). To delimit the minimal essential region to interact with GCN1, we prepared a series of truncated mutants for the N-terminal region of GCN2 and tested them for binding with GCN1 using the yeast two-hybrid system.

All of the mutants bearing intact GI domain (aa 1-125) showed two-hybrid interactions with GCN1 (Fig. 1). The yeast cells with the longest GCN2 hybrid protein (aa 1-598), which includes the GI domain, acidic region, and degenerate protein kinase domain (psi PK), showed higher beta -galactosidase activity than those lacking psi PK (aa 1-272). Although many factors affecting two-hybrid interactions, including intracellular level of hybrid proteins and efficiency of nuclear transport, make it difficult to evaluate strength of binding by this method, the result described above is in accordance with the one obtained using an in vitro pull-down binding assay (16). Notably, removal of the acidic region did not diminish beta -galactosidase activity any more, and we failed to detect any evidence for this region to bind GCN1 (Fig. 1). In contrast, further deletion from either end of the GI domain (aa 1-125) completely abolished the interaction (Fig. 1). We had also shown that substitution of conserved residues in the GI domain abrogated the interaction (15). These results indicated that the GI domain itself serves as the minimal essential region for the binding to GCN1 and that the acidic region has little if any role in the interaction.


View larger version (21K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Fig. 1.   The GI domain of GCN2 is sufficient to interact with GCN1. The schematic domain structure of GCN2 is shown at the top. Variously truncated N-terminal regions of GCN2 were examined for interaction with GCN1 using the yeast two-hybrid system. The yeast PJ69-4A cells (37) co-transformed with the indicated two-hybrid plasmids were examined for adenine- and histidine-independent growth and for the induction of beta -galactosidase activity (in units (U)) driven by the lacZ reporter gene.

Mapping the GCN2-binding Segment of GCN1-- Two-hybrid screening using the GI domain as bait had revealed the C-terminal portion (aa 1925-2552) of GCN1 as its binding partner. This is coincident with the results recently reported by others, which identified the region spanning aa 2052-2428 as the sole GCN2-binding region of GCN1 (24). To pinpoint the minimal binding region, we prepared variously truncated fragments around this region using PCR and tested their binding to the GI domain using the yeast two-hybrid system (Fig. 2). Two-hybrid interactions were examined for growth on the medium lacking adenine and histidine. The segment spanning aa 2064-2382 of GCN1 supported the growth as efficiently as those by longer constructs when expressed as a DNA-binding domain fusion. However, we failed to detect the interaction in the opposite orientation for unknown reason. Further deletion either from its N- or C-terminal end completely abolished the interaction (Fig. 2). From these results, we concluded that the region spanning amino acids 2064-2382 is sufficient for binding to the GI domain of GCN2.


View larger version (19K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Fig. 2.   Pinpointing the minimal essential segment of GCN1 to interact with the GI domain of GCN2. The structure of GCN1 is schematically depicted at the top. A C-terminal fragment of GCN1 (aa 1925-2552), which had been identified in a two-hybrid screening using the GI domain as bait, was variously truncated by a PCR-mediated procedure and examined for the interaction with the GI domain of GCN2. Two-hybrid interactions were examined for growth on the medium lacking adenine and histidine. Note that the segment spanning aa 2064-2382 showed a two-hybrid interaction with GCN2 comparable with those of longer constructs when expressed as a DNA-binding domain fusion but not as an AD fusion.

Isolation of gcn1 Mutants Defective in Interaction with GCN2-- We next intended to isolate gcn1 mutants defective in association with GCN2, because they would highlight critical residues for the recognition of the GI domain and because they can be used to examine the role of this interaction. For this purpose, we used a PCR-based random mutagenesis. However, since we had already pinpointed the minimal essential GCN1 region for GCN2 binding, we do not need nonsense mutations to truncate the protein anymore. To selectively obtain missense mutants, we developed a novel strategy described below (Fig. 3A).


View larger version (47K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Fig. 3.   Isolation of gcn1 mutants incapable of interacting with GCN2 using a dual bait two-hybrid system. A, the principle of dual bait two-hybrid selection schematically shown. The GCN2-binding segment of GCN1 (aa 2048-2382) was fused at its C terminus with the PCCR of CDC24, which specifically binds to the PB1 domain of BEM1. The GCN1-PCCR hybrid protein was expressed as a GAL4 AD fusion from pGAD-GCN1-PCCR, the insert of which was amplified by error-prone PCR. Clones bearing these plasmids were subjected to two-hybrid selection using dual baits, namely GAL4 DNA-binding domain-GCN2 and LexA-BEM1-PB1, which induce URA3 and HIS3, respectively, when interacting with GAL4 AD-GCN1-PCCR. Clones that showed two-hybrid interaction with the PB1 domain but not with GCN2 were selected as those resistant to both 3AT and 5FOA. The products of such mutants bear intact PCCR and hence would not be truncated within the GCN1 moiety, thereby allowing us to identify missense mutations abolishing the interaction with GCN2 (see "Results"). B, the parental clone and the three single point mutants obtained by the dual bait screening (A) were examined for two-hybrid interactions with GCN2 and the PB1 domain, both expressed as GAL4 DNA-binding domain fusions from pGBK, in PJ69-4A cells (37). Transformants bearing the indicated plasmids (bottom) were streaked onto agar plates of SC-Trp-Leu (top left) and SC-Trp-Leu-Ade-His (top right).

We first modified the pGAD-GCN1-(2048-2382) plasmid so that the GAL4 AD-GCN1 fusion protein is further tailed with the PCCR of CDC24 (18), which specifically interacts with the PB1 domain occurring at the C-terminal end of BEM1.2 Following random mutagenesis to GCN1 by error-prone PCR, clones were selected for two-hybrid interaction with the PB1 domain, which guarantees that the hybrid protein retains the C-terminal PCCR and hence is not truncated within the GCN1 portion. From these untruncated populations, clones incapable of interacting with GCN2 were identified using the reverse two-hybrid selection based on URA3 reporter gene and 5FOA (25). Notably, this screening may be useful not only for the elimination of truncated proteins but also for the identification of those with missense mutations leading to protein instability, because such clones display weaker two-hybrid signals than the wild-type parental clone.

In practice, we used a dual bait two-hybrid system to perform both selections simultaneously. We prepared a mutagenized GAL4 AD-GCN1-PCCR library in PJ69-4ADelta (MATa). These cells were then mated with Mavchi (MATalpha ) cells that bear two plasmids expressing GAL4 DNA-binding domain-GCN2 hybrid protein and LexA-PB1 hybrid protein. Note that the genome of Mavchi has URA3 and HIS3 reporter genes driven by GAL4 and LexA, respectively (Table I). The diploid cells formed by the mating were selected for resistance to both 3AT and 5FOA. The resistance to 3AT indicates that the HIS3 reporter gene is induced and that an interaction is occurred between the GCN1-hybrid protein and the PB1 domain. On the other hand, 5FOA resistance is an indicative of failed induction of URA3 or impaired association of the GCN1-hybrid protein with GCN2.

From the clones displaying resistance to both 3AT and 5FOA, we identified three single amino acid substitutions, namely F2291L, S2304P, and L2353P. While showing two-hybrid interactions with the PB1 domain comparable with that of the parental clone, these three gcn1 single point mutants all failed to interact with GCN2 (Fig. 3B). These results suggest that the mutations affect the ability of GCN1 to interact with GCN2 but not the stability of hybrid proteins (see below). We also identified seven mutants, each bearing two amino acid substitutions, namely (L2303S,V2329D), (F2291S,V2376A), (K2317R,L2319P), (S2304P,L2356S), (F2291I,T2307N), (F2281L, Q2294R) and (F2299A,R2328D). Although we did not determine which of the two is critical for binding, it is intriguing to note that all of these mutations occurred in the C- terminal half of the pinpointed GCN1 segment, as do those in the three single point mutants (Fig. 4).


View larger version (62K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Fig. 4.   GI domain-binding region of GCN1 and mutations abolishing interaction. The amino acid sequence of the GI domain-binding region of GCN1 (aa 2048-2382) is aligned with the corresponding regions of its homologs from fission yeast (GenBankTM accession number CAA92385), Arabidopsis (AAD38254), nematode (AAF60721), fruit fly (AAF45332), and human (BAA13209). Residues identically conserved among at least four species are boxed in black. #, the positions of amino acid substitutions found in the three single-point mutants defective in interaction with GCN2, namely F2291L, S2304P, and L2353P. *, R2259A substitution, which was also reported to abrogate the binding (24). The letters above the budding yeast sequence represent amino acid substitutions found in the seven double mutants, namely L2303S,V2329D, F2291S,V2376A, K2317R,L2319P, S2304P,L2356S, F2291I,T2307N, F2281L,Q2294R, and F2299A,R2328D. Note that we did not determine which of the two substitutions in each mutant is responsible for defective interaction.

Yeast Cells with gcn1-F2291L Fail to Show General Control Response-- To examine the role of GCN1-GCN2 interaction, we intended to generate a yeast strain bearing GCN1 incapable of interacting with GCN2. For this purpose, we chose F2291L substitution, because it occurs within a cluster of identically conserved amino acid residues among GCN1 from various species (Fig. 4). We also tagged GCN1 in this mutant and its parental strain with the T7-epitope at their C-terminal ends to facilitate detection by anti-T7 antibody.

As shown in Fig. 5A, comparable amounts of GCN1 were detected in wild type and gcn1-F2291L cells, thereby demonstrating that the mutation does not destabilize the full-length protein in vivo. We then examined these cells for sensitivity to 3AT, which is an inhibitor of HIS3, a typical GCN4 target, and has been used as an indicator of general control response. The mutant cells displayed remarkably higher 3AT-sensitivity than the parental strain (Fig. 5B). A similar phenotype was reported for yeast cells bearing the gcn2-Y74A allele, which encodes GCN2 defective in interaction with GCN1 (15). Taken together, these results indicate that the interaction between GCN1 and GCN2 is necessary for general control of amino acid synthesis.


View larger version (38K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Fig. 5.   General control response of gcn1-F2291L mutant defective in interaction with GCN2. A, T7-tagged GCN1 and GCN1(F2291L) were visualized by immunoblotting with an anti-T7 tag antibody. B, the yeast cells JBZ2 (GCN1-T7) and JBZ3 (gcn1-F2291L-T7) were spotted onto agar plates for SC-Ura (top) or SC-Ura-His supplemented with 20 mM 3AT (bottom).

Mutants with Defective GCN1-GCN2 Interaction Fail to Derepress Translation of GCN4 mRNA-- The Gcn- phenotype described above suggests that the derepression of GCN4 translation is impaired in both gcn1-F2291L and gcn2-Y74A mutants. We thus examined the translation of GCN4 mRNA using a reporter construct bearing lacZ preceded by the characteristic GCN4 leader region, which is responsible for the derepression (23). The wild-type cells showed a remarkable induction of beta -galactosidase activity under starved or derepressed conditions (Fig. 6). In contrast, the induction was severely impaired in both gcn1-F2291L and gcn2-Y74A cells (Fig. 6). Thus, the interaction between GCN1 and GCN2 is required for efficient derepression of GCN4 translation under amino acid-starved conditions.


View larger version (22K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Fig. 6.   Derepression of GCN4 translation in mutants defective in GCN1-GCN2 interaction. A, the yeasts MB758-5B (GCN1) and JBZ1 (gcn1-F2291L), each bearing the GCN4-lacZ reporter plasmid p180 (23), were cultured in the indicated medium, and beta -galactosidase (beta -gal) activities were measured (in units (U)). B, the yeasts JBY4 (GCN2-T7) and JBY5 (gcn2-Y74A-T7), which had been generated from JBY2 and JBY3 (15) by popping out the integrated URA3 marker, were transformed with p180 and examined for the induction of beta -galactosidase activities.

Phosphorylation of eIF2alpha Is Impaired in Mutants with Defective GCN1-GCN2 Interaction-- Finally, we intended to determine whether the eIF2alpha kinase is activated in these mutants upon amino acid starvation, because GCN2-independent mechanisms to derepress GCN4 translation are also possible (9, 10, 26-28). The phosphorylated eIF2alpha in mutants and their parental strains were examined under rich or poor conditions using an antibody specific to eIF2alpha phosphorylated at Ser-51. While phosphorylated eIF2alpha was barely detected under rich or repressed conditions, substantial phosphorylation of eIF2alpha was readily observed in the wild-type cells subjected to amino acid starvation (Fig. 7). In contrast, the induction of the phosphorylation was substantially impaired in the cells bearing gcn1-F2291L or gcn2-Y74A compared with their respective parental strains, although residual levels of phosphorylation were detected (Fig. 7). Since GCN2 is the sole eIF2alpha kinase in the budding yeast, these results indicate that the interaction with GCN1 is necessary for the GCN2 to be fully activated in amino acid-starved cells.


View larger version (22K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Fig. 7.   Phosphorylation of eIF2alpha in mutants defective in GCN1-GCN2 interaction. A, the yeast cells JBZ2 (GCN1-T7) and JBZ3 (gcn1-F2291L-T7) cultured under the indicated conditions were subjected to immunoblotting analysis using an anti-phospho-eIF2alpha antibody. B, the yeast cells JBY2 (GCN2-T7) and JBY3 (gcn2-Y74A-T7) were similarly analyzed as in A.


    DISCUSSION
TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
REFERENCES

GCN1 is required for the activation of GCN2 in the budding yeast under amino acid starvation; deletion or mutations of GCN1 were reported to abolish phosphorylation of eIF2alpha , which is mediated by the sole eIF2alpha kinase GCN2 (12, 14). It had, however, remained totally unknown how GCN1 activates GCN2 until we and others provided evidence for their direct association and its requirement for a general control response (15, 16). In this study, we determined the minimal essential regions for GCN1-GCN2 association and demonstrated, for the first time, that the interaction is critical to the activation of GCN2 itself, which leads to the selective derepression of GCN4 translation and subsequent general control response.

The minimal essential region of GCN2 to interact with GCN1 was mapped to its N-terminal 125 residues (Fig. 1), which we had designated as the GI domain (15). The N-terminal 272 residues involving the GI domain followed by an acidic region were reported necessary for the interaction by others (16). However, our data shown here and in a previous report (15) clearly indicate that the GI domain per se, but not the acidic region, serves as the core for the binding. As pointed out previously (15), the GI domain is found in various proteins other than GCN2. They include Impact (a product of an evolutionarily conserved gene that is genetically imprinted in mice) (29-31), AO7 (a RING finger protein interacting with ubiquitin-conjugating enzymes) (32), ARA54 (a coactivator of androgen receptor) (33), YDR152W (a yeast hypothetical protein), YLR419W (a member of the DEAH-box RNA helicase family), and so forth. It remains to be elucidated whether these GI domains also function in protein binding.

We also found that amino acid residues 2064-2382 comprise the minimal essential region of GCN1 to recognize the GI domain of GCN2 (Fig. 2). In accordance with this result, the segment spanning residues 2052-2428 of GCN1 was recently reported responsible for binding to GCN2 (24). In contrast to GCN2, the primary sequence of the GI domain-binding region of GCN1 lacks any apparently characteristic feature (Fig. 4). We thus took a random mutagenesis approach to identify critical residues for the recognition of GI domain.

For this purpose, we developed a unique dual bait two-hybrid strategy, which allows one to selectively identify missense mutations leading to defective interaction (Fig. 3A). Furthermore, this strategy would be also useful to eliminate mutants encoding unstable proteins, which can be identified as clones with weaker interaction between the C-terminally attached domain and its binding partner (i.e. PCCR and PB1). Therefore, it provides a versatile tool for fine analysis of protein-protein interactions.

Using this strategy, we have so far identified three single amino acid substitutions, namely F2291L, S2304P, and L2353P, each of which abolishes interaction between GCN1 and GCN2 (Fig. 3B). Others reported that GCN1(R2259A) also fails to associate with GCN2 (24). Intriguingly, all of these mutations occur in the C-terminal half of the GCN2-binding region. In addition, 14 amino acid substitutions in the seven mutants that we identified as bearing two mutations were also mapped to this portion (Fig. 4). These results suggest that the C-terminal half functions as the interaction surface with the GI domain. The apparent lack of N-terminal mutants may indicate that the N-terminal half is not involved in target recognition and rather plays a role in structural integrity of the domain. Then, most mutations in this region lead to disordered and unstable proteins and hence would be excluded by our screening strategy as discussed above. More exhaustive screening to fully uncover the important residues is necessary to obtain deeper insight into the mechanism for recognition of the GI domain. It would also be informative to compare the sequence of GCN1 with those of the binding partners for other GI domains, which remain to be identified.

We and others showed that yeast cells defective in GCN1-GCN2 interaction display 3AT-sensitive growth, indicative of impaired induction of HIS3, which is under the regulation of the transcription factor GCN4 (15, 16, 24) (Fig. 5). Indeed, the derepression of GCN4 translation was impaired in these mutants (Fig. 6).

However, note that the derepression of GCN4 translation is not always caused by the activation of GCN2. Mutations in subunits of eIF2 and eIF2B can mimic the effect of phosphorylation of eIF2alpha as exemplified by several GCD genes (9, 10). The reduction in amounts (10) or impaired base modification (26) of initiator tRNA also induces a similar phenotype. Other studies demonstrated that GCN2-independent derepression of GCN4 translation is elicited by overexpression of NME1 (27), encoding the RNA component of RNase MRP (34), or PUS4, encoding the tRNA pseudouridine 55 synthase (28).

We thus directly examined the phosphorylation of eIF2alpha in these mutants and demonstrated its considerable impairment (Fig. 7); the Gcn- phenotype of mutants defective in GCN1-GCN2 interaction is associated with impaired phosphorylation of eIF2alpha . Therefore, these mutants fail to fully activate GCN2, because it is the sole eIF2alpha kinase of the budding yeast.

Residual phosphorylation of eIF2alpha in these mutants (Fig. 7) indicates that weakened GCN1-GCN2 interactions can still support minimal activation of the kinase. Notably, GCN1 and GCN2 are anchored onto ribosome through their respective ribosome-binding domains (14, 24, 35, 36), presumably, in such close proximity that they can interact. It is thus conceivable that the two proteins occasionally take a configuration leading to activation of the kinase although the interaction is considerably impaired by the mutations. In this context, it is intriguing to note that overexpression of GCN2 can suppress the Gcn- phenotype of gcn1-R2259A, also defective in binding to GCN2, but not that of gcn1-Delta D, which encodes GCN1 totally lacking the GCN2-binding region (24).

Based on these observations, we conclude that the GI domain-mediated association of GCN2 to GCN1 is necessary for the full activation of GCN2 kinase in vivo upon amino acid starvation and hence for efficient derepression of GCN4 translation, leading to general control response.

    ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We thank R. C. Wek (Indiana University) for the generous gift of plasmid p180 and H. Sumimoto (Kyushu University) for critical reading of the manuscript and encouragement.

    FOOTNOTES

* This work was supported in part by grants-in-aid for scientific research from the Ministry of Education, Science, Sports, and Culture of Japan, Science, the Technology Agency of Japan, and the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science.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.

To whom correspondence should be addressed. Tel.: 81-76-265-2726; Fax: 81-76-234-4508; E-mail: titolab@kenroku.kanazawa-u.ac.jp.

Published, JBC Papers in Press, February 28, 2001, DOI 10.1074/jbc.M011793200

2 T. Ito and H. Sumimoto, unpublished observation.

    ABBREVIATIONS

The abbreviations used are: eIF2, eukaryotic initiation factor 2; ORF, open reading frame; aa, amino acid(s); PCR, polymerase chain reaction; AD, activation domain; PCCR, PC motif-containing region; SC, synthetic complete; SD, synthetic dextrose; 3AT, 3-aminotriazole; 5FOA, 5-fluoro-orotic acid; psi PK, degenerate protein kinase domain.

    REFERENCES
TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
REFERENCES

1. Hershey, J. W. B. (1991) Annu. Rev. Biochem. 60, 717-755[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
2. Merrick, W. C. (1992) Microbiol. Rev. 56, 291-315[Abstract]
3. Clemens, M. J. (1996) Translational Control , pp. 139-172, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, Cold Spring Harbor, NY
4. Shi, Y., Vattem, K. M., Sood, R., An, J., Liang, J., Stramm, L., and Wek, R. C. (1998) Mol. Cell. Biol. 18, 7499-7509[Abstract/Free Full Text]
5. Harding, H. P., Zhang, Y., and Ron, D. (1999) Nature 397, 271-274[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
6. Berlanga, J. J., Santoyo, J., and De Haro, C. (1999) Eur. J. Biochem. 265, 754-762[Abstract/Free Full Text]
7. Harding, H. P., Novoa, I., Zhang, Y., Zeng, H., Wek, R., Schapira, M., and Ron, D. (2000) Mol. Cell 6, 1099-1108[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
8. Yang, R., Wek, S. A., and Wek, R. C. (2000) Mol. Cell. Biol. 20, 2706-2717[Abstract/Free Full Text]
9. Hinnebusch, A. G. (1988) Microbiol. Rev. 52, 248-273
10. Hinnebusch, A. G. (1997) J. Biol. Chem. 272, 2161-21664
11. Dong, J., Qiu, H., Garcia-Barrio, M., Anderson, J., and Hinnebusch, A. G. (2000) Mol. Cell 6, 269-279[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
12. Marton, M. J., Crouch, D., and Hinnebusch, A. G. (1993) Mol. Cell. Biol. 13, 3541-3556[Abstract]
13. Vazquez de Aldana, C. R., Marton, M. J., and Hinnebusch, A. G. (1995) EMBO J. 14, 3148-3199
14. Marton, M. J., Vazquez de Aldana, C. R., Qiu, H., Chalraburtty, K., and Hinnebusch, A. G. (1997) Mol. Cell. Biol. 17, 4474-4489[Abstract]
15. Kubota, H., Sakaki, Y., and Ito, T. (2000) J. Biol. Chem. 275, 20243-20246[Abstract/Free Full Text]
16. Garcia-Barrio, M., Dong, J., Ufano, S., and Hinnebusch, A. G. (2000) EMBO J. 17, 1887-1899[CrossRef]
17. Ito, T., Nakamura, R., Sumimoto, H., Takeshige, K., and Sakaki, Y. (1996) FEBS Lett. 385, 229-232[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
18. Nakamura, R., Sumimoto, H., Mizuki, K., Hata, K., Ago, T., Kitajima, S., Takeshige, K., Sakaki, Y., and Ito, T. (1998) Eur. J. Biochem. 251, 583-589[Abstract]
19. Gietz, R. D., and Schiestl, R. H. (1995) Methods Mol. Cell. Biol. 5, 255-269
20. Ito, T., Tashiro, K., Muta, S., Ozawa, R., Chiba, T., Nishizawa, M., Yamamoto, K., Kuhara, S., and Sakaki, Y. (2000) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 97, 1143-1147[Abstract/Free Full Text]
21. Oldenberg, K., R., Vo, K. T., Michaelis, S., and Paddon, C. (1997) Nucleic Acids Res. 25, 451-452[Abstract/Free Full Text]
22. Güldener, U., Heck, S., Fiedler, T., Beinhauer, J., and Hegemann, J. H. (1996) Nucleic Acids Res. 24, 2519-2524[Abstract/Free Full Text]
23. Mueller, P. P., and Hinnebusch, A. G. (1986) Cell 45, 201-207[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
24. Sattlegger, E., and Hinnebusch, A. G. (2000) EMBO J. 19, 6622-6633[Abstract/Free Full Text]
25. Vidal, M., Brachmann, R. K., Fattaey, A., Harlow, E., and Boeke, J. (1996) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 93, 10315-10320[Abstract/Free Full Text]
26. Anderson, J., Phan, L., Cuesta, R., Carlson, B. A., Pak, M., Asano, K., Björk, G. R., Tamame, M., and Hinnebusch, A. G. (1998) Genes Dev. 12, 3650-3662[Abstract/Free Full Text]
27. Tavernarakis, N., Alexandraki, D., Liodis, P., Tzamarias, D., and Thireos, G. (1996) Gene (Amst.) 179, 271-277[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
28. Qiu, H., Hu, C., Anderson, J., Björk, G. R., Sarkar, S., Hopper, A. K., and Hinnebusch, A. G. (2000) Mol. Cell. Biol. 20, 2505-2516[Abstract/Free Full Text]
29. Hagiwara, Y., Hirai, M., Nishiyama, K., Kanazawa, I., Ueda, T., Sakaki, Y., and Ito, T. (1997) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 94, 9249-9254[Abstract/Free Full Text]
30. Yamada, Y., Hagiwara, Y., Shiokawa, K., Sakaki, Y., and Ito, T. (1999) Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 256, 162-169[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
31. Okamura, K., Hagiwara-Takeuchi, Y., Li, T., Vu, T. H., Hirai, M., Hattori, M., Sakaki, Y., Hoffman, A. R., and Ito, T. (2000) Genome Res. 10, 1878-1889[Abstract/Free Full Text]
32. Lorick, K. L., Jensen, J. P., Fang, S., Ong, A. M., Hatakeyama, S., and Weissman, A. M. (1999) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 96, 11364-11369[Abstract/Free Full Text]
33. Kang, H. Y., Yeh, S., Fujimoto, N., and Chang, C. (1999) J. Biol. Chem. 274, 8570-8576[Abstract/Free Full Text]
34. Schmitt, M. E., and Clayton, D. A. (1992) Genes Dev. 6, 1975-1985[Abstract]
35. Ramirez, M., Wek, R. C., and Hinnebusch, A. G. (1991) Mol. Cell. Biol. 11, 3027-3036[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
36. Zhu, S., and Wek, R. C. (1998) J. Biol. Chem. 273, 1808-1814[Abstract/Free Full Text]
37. James, P., Halladay, J., and Craig, E. A. (1996) Genetics 144, 1425-1436[Abstract/Free Full Text]


Copyright © 2001 by The American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Inc.