1Department of Molecular Biophysics and Biochemistry and 3Department of Chemistry, Yale University, PO Box 208114, New Haven, CT 06520-8114, USA 2Present address: Department of Molecular Biology and Biochemistry, University of California, 1218 Natural Sciences I, Irvine, CA 92697-3900 USA
4 To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: lynne.regan{at}yale.edu
![]() |
Abstract |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
Keywords: consensus sequence/electrostatics/Hsp90/protein design/tetratricopeptide repeat
![]() |
Introduction |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
Within the cell there are a vast number of proteinprotein interactions, which range in affinity from extremely tight, essentially permanent complexes [the ribosome, for example (Ban et al., 2000)] to more transient interactions that serve to bring a particular protein into the right place at the right time [the interaction of Hop with Hsp90 and Hsp70, for example (Hernandez et al., 2002
; Wegele et al., 2004
)].
Non-globular, repeat proteins are widely used to mediate proteinprotein interactions (Andrade et al., 2001a). Repeat proteins are constructed from a variable number of similar structural motifs arrayed in tandem (Groves and Barford, 1999
; Kobe and Kajava, 2000
; Andrade et al., 2001a
; Kajava, 2001
). They typically have large exposed interaction surfaces, which may explain their functional prevalence as mediators of proteinprotein interactions. Examples include ankyrins (ank) (Sedgwick and Smerdon, 1999
), armadillo repeats (ARM) (Hatzfeld, 1999
; Coates, 2003
), HEAT repeats (Andrade et al., 2001b
), hexapeptide repeats (HPR) (Jenkins and Pickersgill, 2001
), leucine-rich repeats (LRR) (Kobe and Deisenhofer, 1994
, 1995
) and tertratricopeptide repeat (TPR) motifs (D'Andrea and Regan, 2003
; Main et al., 2003a
).
The wide variety of interaction surfaces formed by different types of repeat proteins is reflected in the diverse binding specificities that they exhibit (Baumann et al., 1993; Jacobs and Harrison, 1998
; Scheufler et al., 2000
). Furthermore, although proteins in the same repeat family may bind their target molecules in the same general fashion, they may each exhibit different and unique ligand binding specificities (Blatch and Lassle, 1999
; Kobe and Kajava, 2001
).
The tetratricopeptide repeat (TPR) was identified and named as a 34 amino acid degenerate sequence that occurs in tandem repeats in a variety of proteins (Hirano et al., 1990; Sikorski et al., 1990
; Lamb et al., 1995
). Since the original description, TPR domains have been identified in many different proteins and are implicated in a wide variety of cellular functions. Different TPR domains exhibit different protein binding specificities and function to mediate proteinprotein interactions (Blatch and Lassle, 1999
). Interactions of this type may also facilitate assembly of the TPR-protein into higher order complexes (Gatto et al., 2000
; Lapouge et al., 2000
).
The three-dimensional structure of a single TPR is a helixturnhelix; adjacent TPR repeats stack in parallel and form a right-handed superhelix (Das et al., 1998). Although the number of tandem repeats identified at the sequence level varies from one to 16, three tandem repeats is the most prevalent length and may represent the minimal number of repeats required for specific ligand binding (D'Andrea and Regan, 2003
), though a one-TPR structure has been reported (Abe et al., 2000
). It is perhaps not surprising, therefore, that certain three-TPR motifs are the best characterized, both structurally and functionally. For most TPR domains, however, neither the structure, the ligand nor the mode of ligand binding have yet been determined.
High-resolution crystal structures of five three-TPR domains, have been reported, two in complexes with their peptide ligand (Scheufler et al., 2000) and three as free protein (Das et al., 1998
; Taylor et al., 2001
; Sinars et al., 2003
). When we compared these structures, we found that the different TPR structures are virtually superimposable with backbone r.m.s.d. values that vary from 1.1 to 1.9 Å for different pairwise structural alignments [carried out using the molecular graphics software O (Jones et al., 1991
)]. There are no consistent differences between the structures of free TPR domains and the structures of those in complex with a peptide ligand. Crystal structures of three-TPR domains in complex with their peptide ligands reveal that the target peptide is bound in an extended conformation on the front/concave binding surface of the TPR superhelix (Gatto et al., 2000
; Scheufler et al., 2000
). The molecular interaction of Hop TPR domains, TPR1 and TPR2A with the C-terminal peptides of proteins Hsp70 and Hsp90, respectively, are particularly well characterized and provide a good starting point for understanding TPR-target recognition (Scheufler et al., 2000
).
We recently described the design of a consensus TPR sequence, in which the global propensity of each amino acid occurring at each position was calculated from an analysis of all TPR sequences in the Pfam database, such that any differences arising from different binding specificities is averaged out and structurally important features dominate (D'Andrea and Regan, 2003; Main et al., 2003b
). Complementing the original structural analysis of the natural three-TPR domain from PP5 (Das et al., 1998
), our studies revealed a conserved pattern, at a few key positions, of small and large hydrophobic residues that are sufficient for specifying the TPR fold.
In the original study we investigated how the number of tandem repeats of the consensus TPR sequence influences protein structure and stability. Here we describe further designs, in which we use the protein with three tandem consensus TPR repeats (CTPR3) as a minimal sized, stable structural scaffold on which to introduce specific binding functionality.
A wide range of different binding specificities can be accommodated on a three-TPR scaffold, but in this first instance we chose to introduce an activity that is well characterized in a natural three-TPR domain: binding to the C-terminal peptide of Hsp90. This approach allows us to dissect the contributions of different interactions to binding affinity and specificity and provides information that is complementary to studies in which natural proteins are mutated.
Hsp90TPR interactions are of intrinsic biological interest, because the activity of Hsp90 is dependent on its interaction with TPR-containing proteins (Johnson et al., 1998; Prodromou et al., 1999
). Furthermore, overexpression of Hsp90-binding TPR domains has a dominant negative effect in vivo (Chang et al., 1997
) and inhibition of Hsp90 activity is being pursued as a possible route to novel anti-cancer agents (Neckers and Schulte, 1999
; Bisht et al., 2003
; Workman, 2003
).
![]() |
Materials and methods |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
The framework for the functional design was CTPR3, a stable, regular, three-TPR protein. Each of the three TPR repeats in CTPR3 is identical and represents the consensus sequence derived from all TPR sequences identified in Pfam (1837 sequences in 2002, http://pfam.wustl.edu) (Main et al., 2003b). Thus, CTPR3 is optimized for TPR structural features, but not for any specific ligand binding activity.
There is more than one three-TPR protein that binds to Hsp90 by a specific interaction with the five C-terminal amino acids of the chaperone. We performed an alignment of nine TPR sequences from non-homologous proteins that bind to Hsp90 (these were human HopTPR2A domain, PP5, FKBP51, FKBP52, Cyp40 and Tom70 and yeast Crp6, Cyp7 and CNS1). For each of the three TPR repeats we compared the frequency of occurrence of different amino acids at each of the 34 positions in a TPR. Positions at which there was a clear preference for a particular amino acid in the Hsp90-binding TPRs subset, but not in TPRs as a whole where incorporated into the functional design.
The two proteins that were designed for the binding studies reported here are CTPR390 (which incorporates amino acids involved in peptide binding on the front/concave surface and has an electrostatically optimized/neutralized back/convex surface) and CTPR390-B (which incorporates only the amino acids involved in peptide binding on the front/concave surface and which has a negatively charged back/convex surface).
Cloning and molecular biology
Genes encoding the proteins were constructed by Klenow extension of six overlapping oligonucleotides to generate three double-stranded DNA fragments. Two rounds of PCR amplification were then performed, using primers complementary to each end, to generate large quantities of the full-length gene. The final product was digested with BamHI and HindIII and subcloned into the pProEx-HTA vector (Gibco, Gaithersburg, MD). The vector results in a gene that codes for a His6-tagged protein. The identity of each construct was confirmed by DNA sequencing (W.M. Keck Facility, Yale University, New Haven, CT).
The constructs we made produced the desired proteins with an N-terminal His6-tag followed by a TEV protease cleavage site, which allowed the His6-tag to be removed after affinity purification. After such cleavage, because of the vector used for cloning, the proteins all had a five amino acid (GAMDP) N-terminal extension.
Protein expression and purification
Proteins were expressed and purified based on a previously described protocol (Main et al., 2003b). Briefly, the plasmids were transformed into BL21(DE3) cells. Overnight cultures were used to inoculate (1:200 dilution) 1 l cultures of LB and grown at 37°C to an OD600 of 0.8, then induced with 0.6 mM IPTG and grown 5 h at 30°C. Cultures were centrifuged and the cell pellets were resuspended in 30 ml of 300 mM NaCl, 10% glycerol, 50 mM Tris, pH 8.0. One tablet of Complete EDTA-free protease inhibitor cocktail (Roche, Basel, Switzerland) and lysozyme to a final concentration of 1 mg/ml were added to this suspension. The suspension was incubated for 30 min on ice, then sonicated and the lysate cleared by centrifugation for 1 h at 35 000 g. The CTPR3 proteins were present in the supernatant after this spin and were purified by cobalt-based metal affinity chromatography using BD TALON metal affinity resin (BD Biosciences Clontech, Palo Alto, CA) according to the manufacturer's instructions. The His6-tag was cleaved by overnight TEV protease digestion at room temperature. The cleaved His6-tag and the TEV protease (itself His6-tagged) were removed from the CTPR preparation by a metal affinity column. Size exclusion gel filtration chromatography through a HiLoad Superdex HR-75 column (Amersham Bioscience, Uppsala, Sweden) was performed as the final step of the purification. The final yield was about 40 mg/l of culture. All protein concentration determinations were performed by measuring the UV absorbance at 280 nm; the extinction coefficients at 280 nm were calculated from amino acid composition (Pace et al., 1995
).
Circular dichroism (CD)
CD spectra were acquired in 150 mM NaCl, 50 mM phosphate, pH 6.3 buffer using an AVIV Model 215 CD spectrophotometer (AVIV Instruments, Lakewood, NJ). CD spectra were recorded at 6 µM protein concentration at 25°C in a 0.1 cm pathlength cuvette.
Thermal denaturation studies were performed at 6 µM protein concentration in the buffer specified above in a 0.1 cm pathlength cuvette. The ellipticity at 222 nm was recorded in the forward direction from 15 to 95°C and in the reverse direction cooled to 15°C in 1°C steps with an equilibration time of 1 min at each temperature. To calculate the melting temperature (Tm), the data were fitted to a two-state model transition.
The equilibrium stability was measured by Gu·HCl-induced denaturation, following the ellipticity at 222 nm. Solutions of the identical concentration of protein (3 µM) were prepared in either 150 mM NaCl, 50 mM phosphate, pH 6.3 buffer (folded protein) or 150 mM NaCl, 7 M Gu·HCl, 50 mM phosphate, pH 6.3 (unfolded protein). An automatic titration was performed, mixing increasing amounts of the denatured protein with folded protein such that the total protein concentration was held constant but the Gu·HCl concentration increased in 0.2 M intervals. Measurements were made in a 1 cm pathlength cuvette thermostated at 25°C with equilibration times of 45 min at each guanidinium concentration.
Data were evaluated for thermodynamic parameters by fitting to a two-state unfolding model with the following equation (Clarke and Fersht, 1993):
![]() |
![]() |
Molecular modeling and electrostatics calculations
To construct a model for the TPRpeptide complexes, the crystal structures of CTPR3 and of HopTPR2A in complex with its peptide ligand were aligned through their backbone C atoms, using the graphics software O (Jones et al., 1991
). The Hsp90MEEVD peptide was then docked on to the CTPR390 binding groove, in an orientation corresponding to that observed in the HopTPR2Apeptide complex crystal structure (Figure 2) (Scheufler et al., 2000
).
|
No further modeling or minimization of the complex was performed. Instead, the peptide was moved back from the binding site by 2 Å. This procedure avoided the introduction of steric clashes and also obviated the need to model specific close contacts and atomic interactions. Using this strategy, we constructed models for both the CTPR390MEEVD and CTPR390-BMEEVD complexes. We judged it inappropriate to attempt to model in specific proteinpeptide contacts, because we do not yet have the crystal structures of either CTPR390 or CTPR390-B.
CTPR390 has a charge neutralized back/convex surface whereas CTPR390-B has a negatively charged back/convex face. Because we generated these models in the same fashion, the only difference between the two models is the charged residue pattern on the back/convex face of the protein. Hydrogen atoms were added to these models with the WHATIF web interface (at http://www.cmbi.kun.nl/gv/servers/WIWWWI/) and these all-atom models were used for the electrostatics calculations. The CHARMM22 parameter set was used to specify charges and atomic radii, with all atoms carrying partial charges. Continuum electrostatic calculations were carried out with the program DelPhi (Gilson et al., 1987).
Calculations were carried out on a cubic grid with 200 x 200 x 200 grid points in two rounds. The first potential map was calculated with 30% fill and dipolar boundary conditions. Final calculations were performed with 80% fill, with focusing boundary conditions as implemented in DelPhi. Other parameters were set as follows: salt concentration was varied from 0 to 300 mM and protein dielectric constant was set as (p) = 4 and solvent dielectric constant as
(s) = 80. In each calculation the electrostatic energy of binding was estimated from differences in the grid energies as
Ebind =
Ecomplex
Eapo-protein
Epeptide (assuming that the protein and peptide behave as rigid bodies) and the difference, arising solely for back/convex face charge differences, was estimated as the difference in
Ebind between CTPR390 and CTPR390-B. The apo-protein and peptide calculations were performed such that the position and grid spacing were identical for the molecules in all calculations.
NMR spectroscopy
NMR spectra were recorded on either a Varian Inova 800 MHz or a Unity Plus 600 MHz spectrometer, with 15N-labeled protein in 150 mM NaCl, 10% D2O, 50 mM phosphate, pH 6.3 at 20°C. 1H15N HSQC spectra (800 MHz) were acquired at 500 µM protein concentration. In the peptide titration experiment, increasing amounts of the 20-mer C-terminal peptide of Hsp90 (H2N-TEEMPPLEGDDDTSRMEEVD-COOH) were added to the protein sample and HSQC spectra were recorded after an incubation time of 30 min at each peptide concentration; 600 MHz 1H15N HSQC-NOESY (m = 100 ms) and 1H15N HSQC-TOCSY (
m = 55 ms) spectra were collected at 1.5 mM protein concentration.
CTPR390 NH cross peaks were assigned based on the assignments for CTPR2 and CTPR3 (M.J.Cocco, E.Main and L.Regan, unpublished data). The assignments were refined and confirmed with 1H15N HSQC-NOESY and 1H15N HSQC-TOCSY experiments.
All data were collected at 20°C and processed with NMRPipe (Delaglio et al., 1995) and analyzed with Sparky (Goddard and Kneller, 1995
).
Surface plasmon resonance-based binding assays
Surface plasmon resonance (SPR) measurements were performed on a BIACORE 3000 system (BIACORE, Uppsala, Sweden). The chips were made by immobilization of neutravidin on a CM4 sensor chip, using standard amide coupling. Subsequently, 200300 RU of biotinylated peptides at 200 µg/ml in HBS-EP buffer (150 mM NaCl, 3 mM EDTA, 0.005% v/v polysorbate 20, 10 mM HEPES, pH 7.5) were immobilized on the neutravidin chip. The N-terminally biotinylated 24-mer C-terminal peptides of Hsp90 (biotin-SAAVTEEMPPLEGDDDTSRMEEVD-COOH) and Hsp70 biotin-GGFPGGGAPPSGGASSGPTIEEVD-COOH) that we used were synthesized and purified by HPLC and their identities were verified by mass spectrometry at the W.M. Keck Facility, Yale University, New Haven, CT. In the binding experiments 24-mer peptides were used to extend the position of the C-terminus of the peptide further from the chip surface. It has been shown that peptides corresponding to the C-terminal five amino acids of Hsp90 and to the C-terminal seven amino acids of Hsp70 bind to the TPR2A and TPR1 domains of Hop, respectively, with the same affinity as full-length Hsp90 or Hsp70 (KD TPR2A 8.5 µM; KD TPR1
17 µM) (Scheufler et al., 2000
; Brinker et al., 2002
). For binding studies, 40 µl of pure TPR protein solutions at various concentrations (Figures 4 and 7) were injected over immobilized peptides in HBS-EP buffer at a flow rate of 40 µl min1 using the KINJECT mode (600 s dissociation time). Complete regeneration of the chip surfaces was achieved by two 40 µl injections of 1 M NaCl at the same flow rate using the QUICKINJECT injection type. Background binding to neutravidin was subtracted from each signal to account for non-specific binding.
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
Results |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
The two main components of the functional design were to build in specific proteinligand contacts and to improve the overall electrostatic interactions of the protein with negatively charged ligands.
The designed three-TPR protein CTPR3 was chosen as the scaffold on which to introduce specific ligand binding activity for several reasons. First, three tandem consecutive TPR repeats is the most common length in all TPR proteins from all kingdoms and all known Hsp90-binding TPR domains have three-TPR repeats. Second, structural considerations suggest that the three-TPR unit may represent the minimum number of repeats needed to form a generally functional proteinprotein interaction unit (D'Andrea and Regan, 2003). Finally, CTPR3 is significantly more stable than natural three-TPR domains.
Residues that are a common feature of only Hsp90-binding TPRs were identified by comparing the frequency of occurrence of each amino acid, at each of the 34 positions of the repeat, for all the TPR sequences in the Pfam database with the sequences of only those TPR domains that bind to the C-terminal peptide of Hsp90 (Figure 1A). In contrast to the scaffold design, where the statistical analysis was carried out on a one-TPR repeat, for the functional design each of the three-TPR repeats were analyzed because the crystal structures of natural TPRs with their ligand suggest three-TPR repeats as a binding unit.
|
Because the Hsp90-binding dataset contains a small number of sequences (nine), only positions where a substantial difference in the amino acid preference for Hsp90-binding TPRs versus all TPRs were included. These residues, which are clearly a common feature of only Hsp90-binding TPR proteins (Figure 1A and B), were introduced into CTPR3: in the first TPR repeat, K in position 5 and N in position 9; in the second TPR repeat N in position 6 and in the third TPR repeat K in position 2, R in position 6, R in position 7 and D in position 23.
In addition, there are a few positions where the significance of the statistical analysis is less clear. An additional mutation at position 2 of the second repeat was incorporated, where, considering the sum of the frequency of Ser and Thr, it is clear that a hydroxylamino acid is preferred over the acidic Glu that appears in the consensus sequence. Ser was chosen because it showed a higher frequency than Thr.
Natural TPR motifs have near-zero net charge; the average net charge for 6887 TPR motifs is +0.04 (T.J.Magliery and L.Regan, submitted). For example, the values for the PP5 and TPR2A domain of Hop, two natural TPR domains that interact with Hsp90, are +4 and +2, respectively. By contrast, CTPR3 has a net charge of 15, mostly because of its highly negatively charged back/convex face (Figure 2).
It is interesting that in spite of the dramatically skewed charge distribution in CTPR3, the protein adopts the typical TPR fold and it is in fact more stable than most average, charge balanced natural three-TPR domains. The Tm of CTPR3 is 84°C, whereas the three-TPR domain of PP5 has a Tm of 44°C (C.Wilson and L.Regan, unpublished data) and TPR1 and TPR2A domains of Hop have Tms of 50 and 56°C, respectively (T.Kajander and L.Regan, unpublished data). It appears that other interactions that stabilize the TPR fold are more than sufficient to overcome the energetically unfavorable charge distribution. It also indicates that surface salt bridges do not play a major role in specifying the TPR fold.
Although CTPR3 is stable and well folded, our aim is to bind a negatively charged ligand (MEEVD-COO), and we therefore re-engineered the charge on the back/convex surface of the protein. An analysis of the distribution of charged amino acids on the back/convex surface of CTPR3, reveals several examples where a negatively charged residue (D or E) has the highest global propensity, but the residue with the second highest global propensity value, with a probability of occurrence close to the first one, is a positively charged residue (K), for example at positions 16, 19, 22 and 29.
In crystal structures of natural TPR domains we observed that there are salt bridges on the back/convex face, resulting from positive/negative charge complementarity at the i, i + 3, i + 4 positions on this solvent-exposed surface. This charge complementarity has been artificially removed in the pure consensus sequence. The back/convex face of CTPR3 was therefore redesigned, changing a negatively charged residue (E) for a positively charged residue (K) at position 19 of the three TPR repeats. A chargecharge network was thus introduced on to the back/convex face of the protein with alternatively a negative or a positive residue every three positions. (i.e. negative residues at positions 16 and 22 and a positive residue at position 19).
A statistical free energy analysis (Lockless and Ranganathan, 1999) of natural TPR proteins suggests that there are interactions to balance charge between positions 16 and 19 and between positions 26 and 29. Correlations are also seen between positions 19, 22 and 26 (T.J.Magliery and L.Regan, submitted).
An additional mutation was incorporated at position 18, changing D to Q, the residue with the third highest global propensity value after D and E, in the three TPR repeats. The redesigned protein, CTPR390, presents a net charge of +1 and an electrostatic potential distribution on the back/convex face comparable that of to natural TPR domains (Figure 2).
Structure
The gene encoding CTPR390 (CTPR3Hsp90 binding) was synthesized and the protein expressed and purified. Purified CTPR390 is very soluble and monomeric in solution. It exhibits a typical -helical CD spectrum, virtually identical with that of CTPR3, with an MRE at 222 nm of 22 460 deg cm2/dmol (Figure 3A). The 2D NMR 1H15N HSQC spectrum of CTPR390 (Figure 3D) is consistent with a well-folded and structured protein, with 116 resolved cross peaks (out of a possible 125) and good peak dispersion, comparable to the spectrum of CTPR3.
|
The thermal denaturation curve monitored by measuring the ellipticity at 222 nm for CTPR390 shows a cooperative and reversible behaviour. The transition appears slightly less cooperative than that of CTPR3, but CTPR390 is more resistant to thermal denaturation than CTPR3; it is not completely denatured by 95°C (Figure 3B). The Gu·HCl equilibrium unfolding was measured by CD, monitoring the changes in the ellipticity at 222 nm at increasing concentration of Gu·HCl. CTPR390 shows a cooperative and reversible unfolding transition with a midpoint (D1/2) of 3.28 M Gu·HCl. The calculated stability (GH2O) of CTPR390 in the absence of denaturant is 12 kcal/mol (Figure 3C). The thermodynamic stability of CTPR390 is slightly higher than that of CTPR3, which has a D1/2 of 3.05 M and
GH2O of 10 kcal/mol.
Ligand binding
The TPR2A domain of Hop interacts with the C-terminal tail of the chaperone Hsp90. TPR2A binds to a five amino acid peptide corresponding to this tail, with the same affinity as it binds to full-length Hsp90. We therefore tested the binding of the designed TPR proteins against synthetic peptides that incorporate this C-terminal sequence.
The binding of TPR constructs to the C-terminal peptide of Hsp90 was performed using SPR. A 24-mer peptide, corresponding to the C-terminal amino acids of Hsp90, was biotinylated at the N-terminus and immobilized on a neutravidin-coated sensor chip. Increasing concentrations of the test TPR were passed over the derivatized chip surfaces and response units were monitored. The equilibrium response levels (Req) were calculated (subtracting background binding to neutravidin chip alone) and plotted against the protein concentration (Figure 4A).
CTPR390 binds to the C-terminal peptide of Hsp90 in a concentration-dependent, saturable manner, indicative of a specific proteinpeptide interaction. A dissociation constant (KD) of 200 µM was determined by fitting the equilibrium binding data to a simple 1:1 binding scheme. We assayed the parent protein, CTPR3, in exactly the same fashion. CTPR3 showed no detectable binding to the Hsp90 peptide, up to protein concentrations of 1 mM (Figure 4A).
The binding is specific
Natural TPR domains discriminate between similar ligands in a highly specific manner. For example, the TPR1 and TPR2A domains of the protein Hop bind specifically to the C-terminal peptides of Hsp70 and Hsp90, respectively. Approximately 10-fold weaker binding of TPR1 to Hsp90 and of TPR2A to Hsp70 was reported in a cross-partner binding assay by isothermal titration calorimetry (Scheufler et al., 2000) and we have obtained similar results by SPR (T.Kajander and L.Regan, unpublished data). Because the last four residues of the Hsp70 and Hsp90 C-terminal peptides are identical (EEVD), specificity is mainly achieved by hydrophobic contacts with residues N-terminal to this sequence. The conformation in which the EEVD is bound may also contribute to binding specificity.
We therefore compared the binding of CTPR390 to the C-terminal peptides of both Hsp90 and Hsp70. As shown in Figure 4B, CTPR390 specifically binds to Hsp90. No significant binding to Hsp70 C-terminal peptide is detected. This result is important, because although the affinity of CTPR390 for the Hsp90 peptide is 40-fold weaker than that measured for natural TPR domains binding to the C-terminal peptide of Hsp90 [TPR2A KD
4.5 µM, mSTI1 KD
5 µM (Odunuga et al., 2003
)], the specificity of the proteinpeptide interaction and discrimination between similar peptide ligands is clearly reproduced.
Importance of the back/convex face electrostatic charge
The parent protein, CTPR3, has a highly negatively charged back/convex face (Figure 2), which we altered in the CTPR390 design. The effect on ligand binding of the surface charge on the back/convex face was examined with the protein CTPR390-B. CTPR390-B has the same mutations on the front/concave binding face as CTPR390, but the back/convex face maintains the negatively charged residues of CTPR3. CTPR390-B is helical and folded by both CD and 1H15N HSQC NMR analysis. CTPR390-B shows no interaction with the C-terminal peptide of Hsp90, even up to 800 µM protein concentration (data not shown). This result demonstrates that the charge of the back/convex surface of the protein, although distal from the ligand-binding surface, can exert a significant effect on ligand binding.
Estimating the contribution of the charge on the back/convex face to binding affinity
To investigate the effect of overall protein charge on ligand binding, we performed continuum electrostatics calculations with the program DelPhi (Gilson and Honig, 1987). We calculated the electrostatic energies of binding (see Materials and methods) at concentrations of monovalent cations and anions equivalent to the range 0300 mM salt (Table I, Figure 5) for CTPR390, which has a neutralized back/convex face and a net charge of +2, and CTPR390-B, which has a negatively charged back/convex face and net charge of 7. Models for TPRpeptide complexes were generated as described in the Materials and methods. No attempt was made to model short-range interactions, beyond avoidance of steric clashes, because one would expect all the close-range interactions to be identical in both complexes. The effects of direct short-range interactions will therefore be subtracted out and calculated differences between the two complexes will reflect the influence of the back/convex surface charge.
|
|
At low concentrations of salt, the electrostatic contribution to the binding energy of the CTPR390-Bpeptide interaction increases. Presumably, to some extent the salt shields the repulsive electrostatic interactions between the negatively charged CTPR390-B and the negatively charged peptide.
As the concentration of salt increases, the electrostatic contributions to binding of both CTPR390 and CTPR390-B are diminished, until at high salt concentrations the energies converge and both continue to decrease as the salt concentration increases still further (Table I, Figure 5). The primary effect of high concentrations of salt is to shield the favorable proteinpeptide electrostatic interaction.
In summary, the calculations demonstrate how unfavorable negative charge on the back face can decrease binding affinity, as observed experimentally. These results also suggest that it should be possible to enhance the affinity for a ligand by appropriately tunning the charge on the back/convex face.
Chemical shift perturbation mapping of the CTPR390Hsp90 C-terminal peptide interaction
We used 1H15N HSQC NMR chemical shift perturbation experiments to map the area of CTPR390 involved in interactions with the Hsp90 C-terminal peptide. First, the HSQC spectrum of CTPR390 alone was acquired, then aliquots of peptide were added, after each addition samples were equilibrated for 30 min and an HSQC spectrum was acquired. By monitoring changes in the chemical shifts of particular NH peaks in different regions of the HSQC spectrum, we were able to identify which backbone NH resonances change upon peptide binding (Figure 6A).
|
All the residues that exhibit significant chemical shift perturbations on peptide binding (N42, N76, A43, Y54, Y66, K55, A77, A86, Y88) are located on the front/concave surface of the TPR structure. This is the surface where specific mutations were introduced with the aim of incorporating direct proteinpeptide contacts. The positions of the shifted residues confirm that the CTPR390 is interacting with the peptide in the desired fashion.
None of the backbone NH resonances of the conserved dicarboxylate clamp residues, which in the HopTPR2AHsp90 peptide complex bind the Asp side chain and C-terminal carboxyl groups (Scheufler et al., 2000), were seen to change upon peptide binding. We note that in the crystal structure of the HopTPR2AHsp90 complex none of the main chain NH protons of the dicarboxylate clamp residues interact directly with the peptide (Scheufler et al., 2000
). It may be that for these residues the NH signals detected in the HSQC are insensitive to side chain ligand binding. In this regard, when detecting changes in the main chain NH protons, the chemical shift experiment indicates a minimum number of interacting residues.
An alternative reason why no changes in the main chain NH chemical shifts are observed for the dicarboxylate clamp residues is that they do not participate in peptide binding by CTPR390. We therefore investigated the interaction of the TPR with the C-terminal COO group of the peptide in more detail as described below.
Significance of the carboxylate clamp in peptide binding to CTPR390
In HopTPR2A a dicarboxylate clamp interacts with the side chain and C-terminal COO of the terminal aspartate residue of the Hsp90. In TPR2A, the clamp is formed by residues K229, N233, N264, K301 and R305 (Scheufler et al., 2000). The equivalent residues are present in our designed protein CTPR390: K13, N17, N48, K78 and R82.
Both the side and main chain carboxylate groups of the C-terminal aspartate residue of Hsp90 are essential for tight binding to TPR2A. Mutating the C-terminal Asp to Ala decreases binding approximately 20-fold whereas amidation of the C-terminal COO has an even greater effect, decreasing binding over 100-fold, to essentially unmeasurable (Brinker et al., 2002). Conversely, mutations of the clamp residues of TPR2A (Brinker et al., 2002
), Cyp40 (Ward et al., 2002
) and PP5 (Russell et al., 1999
) have been shown to impair or severely reduce Hsp90-binding activity.
In view of these observations, we performed further studies to measure the interaction of CTPR390 with a C-terminally amidated Hsp90 test peptide. We observed that binding of CTPR390 to the amidated peptide, measured by SPR, was significantly decreased in comparison with binding to the peptide with a C-terminal carboxylate (Figure 7A). We also measured the binding of HopTPR2A domain to the C-terminally amidated peptide and found, as previously reported, that binding was greatly diminished (Figure 7B). These results suggest that there are interactions between the CTPR390 and the C-terminal carboxylate of the bound peptide. The diminished binding affinity of the amidated peptides in comparison with the peptides with C-terminal free carboxylate precludes analysis of the data in a more quantitative fashion.
![]() |
Discussion |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
The functional-consensus strategy, although based on a limited number of sequences, successfully highlighted the particular residues involved in ligand binding. Thus, although there is only one co-crystal structure of a TPR protein bound to the C-terminal peptide of Hsp90 (TPR2A of HOP), the sequence analysis suggests that the other Hsp90-binding TPRs bind in the same fashion. This is important for functional design, because it implies a direct readout in peptide recognition by three-TPR domains.
The designed protein, CTPR390, binds specifically to the C-terminal peptide of Hsp90, discriminating effectively against the related C-terminus of Hsp70. Thus, in addition to successfully binding the designed peptide, it distinguishes it from an extremely similar peptide. CTPR390 binds less tightly to the C-terminal peptide of Hsp90 than does the natural TPR2A domain of Hop. Future studies will delineate more exactly the details of peptide binding by CTPR390 that may be responsible for this compromise in affinity.
Our results demonstrate the usefulness of the TPR scaffold for functional design and hold promise for the creation of TPR domains with different binding specificities for potential biomedical or biotechnological applications.
![]() |
Acknowledgments |
---|
![]() |
References |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
Andrade,M.A., Perez-Iratxeta,C. and Ponting,C.P. (2001a) J. Struct. Biol., 134, 117131.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
Andrade,M.A., Petosa,C., O'Donoghue,S.I., Muller,C.W. and Bork,P. (2001b) J. Mol. Biol., 309, 118.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
Ban,N., Nissen,P., Hansen,J., Moore,P.B. and Steitz,T.A. (2000) Science, 289, 905920.
Baumann,U., Wu,S., Flaherty,K.M. and McKay,D.B. (1993) EMBO J., 12, 33573364.[Abstract]
Bisht,K.S. et al. (2003) Cancer Res., 63, 89848995.
Blatch,G.L. and Lassle,M. (1999) Bioessays, 21, 932939.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
Brinker,A., Scheufler,C., Von Der Mulbe,F., Fleckenstein,B., Herrmann,C., Jung,G., Moarefi,I. and Hartl,F.U. (2002) J. Biol. Chem., 277, 1926519275.
Chang,H.C., Nathan,D.F. and Lindquist,S. (1997) Mol. Cell. Biol., 17, 318325.[Abstract]
Clarke,J. and Fersht,A.R. (1993) Biochemistry, 32, 43224329.[ISI][Medline]
Coates,J.C. (2003) Trends Cell. Biol., 13, 463471.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
D'Andrea,L. and Regan,L. (2003) Trends Biochem. Sci., 28, 655662.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
Das,A.K., Cohen,P.W. and Barford,D. (1998) EMBO J., 17, 11921199.
Delaglio,F.G.S., Vuister,G.W., Zhu,G. and Pfeifer,J.B.A. (1995) J. Biomol. NMR, 6, 277293.[ISI][Medline]
Gatto,G.J., Jr., Geisbrecht,B.V., Gould,S.J. and Berg,J.M. (2000) Nat. Struct. Biol., 7, 10911095.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
Gilson,M.K. and Honig,B.H. (1987) Nature, 330, 8486.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
Gilson,M.K., Sharp,K. and Honig,B. (1987) J. Comp. Chem., 9, 327335.[ISI]
Goddard,T.D. and Kneller,D.G. (1995) SPARKY 3. University of California, San Francisco.
Groves,M.R. and Barford,D. (1999) Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol., 9, 383389.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
Guex,N. and Peitsch,M.C. (1997) Electrophoresis, 18, 27142723.[ISI][Medline]
Hatzfeld,M. (1999) Int. Rev. Cytol., 186, 179224.[ISI][Medline]
Hernandez,M.P., Sullivan,W.P. and Toft,D.O. (2002) J. Biol. Chem., 277, 3829438304.
Hirano,T.K.N., Morikawa,K. and Yanagida,M. (1990) Cell, 60, 319328.[ISI][Medline]
Jacobs,M.D. and Harrison,S.C. (1998) Cell, 95, 749758.[ISI][Medline]
Jenkins,J. and Pickersgill,R. (2001) Prog. Biophys Mol. Biol., 77, 111175.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
Johnson,B.D., Schumacher,R.J., Ross,E.D. and Toft,D.O. (1998) J. Biol. Chem., 273, 36793686.
Jones,T.A., Zou,J.Y., Cowan,S.W. and Kjeldgaard,M. (1991) Acta Crystallogr., Sect. A, 47, 110119.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
Kajava,A.V. (2001) J. Struct. Biol., 134, 132144.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
Kobe,B. and Deisenhofer,J. (1994) Trends Biochem. Sci., 19, 415421.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
Kobe,B. and Deisenhofer,J. (1995) Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol., 5, 409416.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
Kobe,B. and Kajava,A.V. (2000) Trends Biochem. Sci., 25, 509515.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
Kobe,B. and Kajava,A.V. (2001) Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol., 11, 725732.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
Kohl,A., Binz,H.K., Forrer,P., Stumpp,M.T., Pluckthun,A. and Grutter,M.G. (2003) Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA, 100, 17001705.
Lamb,J.R., Tugendreich,S. and Hieter,P. (1995) Trends Biochem. Sci., 20, 257259.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
Lapouge,K., Smith,S.J., Walker,P.A., Gamblin,S.J., Smerdon,S.J. and Rittinger,K. (2000) Mol. Cell, 6, 899907.[ISI][Medline]
Lockless,S.W. and Ranganathan,R. (1999) Science, 286, 295299.
Main,E.R.G., Jackson,S.E. and Regan,L. (2003a) Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol., 13, 482489.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
Main,E.R.G., Xiong,Y., Cocco,M.J., D'Andrea,L. and Regan,L. (2003b) Structure, 11, 497508.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
Neckers,L.M.E. and Schulte,T.W. (1999) Drug Resist. Updat., 2, 165172.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
Nicholls,A., Bharadwaj,R. and Honig,B. (1993) Biophys J., 64, A166.[ISI]
Odunuga,O.O., Hornby,J.A., Bies,C., Zimmermann,R., Pugh,D.J. and Blatch,G.L. (2003) J. Biol. Chem., 278, 68966904.
Pabo,C.O., Peisach,E. and Grant,R.A. (2001) Annu. Rev. Biochem., 70, 313340.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
Pace,C.N., Vajdos,F., Fee,L., Grimsley,G. and Gray,T. (1995) Protein Sci., 4, 24112423.
Prodromou,C., Siligardi,G., O'Brien,R., Woolfson,D.N., Regan,L., Panaretou,B., Ladbury,J.E., Piper,P.W. and Pearl,L.H. (1999) EMBO J., 18, 754762.
Reina,J., Lacroix,E., Hobson,S.D., Fernandez-Ballester,G., Rybin,V., Schwab,M.S., Serrano,L. and Gonzalez,C. (2002) Nat. Struct. Biol., 9, 621627.[ISI][Medline]
Russell,L.C., Whitt,S.R., Chen,M.S. and Chinkers,M. (1999) J. Biol. Chem., 274, 2006020063.
Scheufler,C., Brinker,A., Bourenkov,G., Pegoraro,S., Moroder,L., Bartunik,H., Hartl,F.U. and Moarefi,I. (2000) Cell, 101, 199210.[ISI][Medline]
Sedgwick,S.G. and Smerdon,S.J. (1999) Trends Biochem. Sci., 24, 311316.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
Sikorski,R.S., Boguski,M.S., Goebl,M. and Hieter,P. (1990) Cell, 60, 307317.[ISI][Medline]
Sinars,C.R., Cheung-Flynn,J., Rimerman,R.A., Scammell,J.G., Smith,D.F. and Clardy,J. (2003) Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA, 100, 868873.
Taylor,P., Dornan,J., Carrello,A., Minchin,R.F., Ratajczak,T. and Walkinshaw,M.D. (2001) Structure, 9, 431438.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
Ward,B.K. et al. (2002) J. Biol. Chem., 277, 4079940809.
Wegele,H., Muller,L. and Buchner,J. (2004) Rev. Physiol. Biochem. Pharmacol., in press.
Workman,P. (2003) Curr. Cancer Drug Targets, 3, 297300.[Medline]
Received May 11, 2004; accepted May 17, 2004.
Edited by Alan Fersht