Deconstruction of the Ras switching cycle through saturation mutagenesis

  1. Pradeep Bandaru
  2. Neel H Shah
  3. Moitrayee Bhattacharyya
  4. John P Barton
  5. Yasushi Kondo
  6. Joshua C Cofsky
  7. Christine L Gee
  8. Arup K Chakraborty
  9. Tanja Kortemme
  10. Rama Ranganathan  Is a corresponding author
  11. John Kuriyan  Is a corresponding author
  1. University of California, Berkeley, United States
  2. Ragon Institute of MGH, MIT and Harvard, United States
  3. University of California, San Francisco, United States
  4. University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, United States

Abstract

Ras proteins are highly conserved signaling molecules that exhibit regulated, nucleotide-dependent switching between active and inactive states. The high conservation of Ras requires mechanistic explanation, especially given the general mutational tolerance of proteins. Here, we use deep mutational scanning, biochemical analysis and molecular simulations to understand constraints on Ras sequence. Ras exhibits global sensitivity to mutation when regulated by a GTPase activating protein and a nucleotide exchange factor. Removing the regulators shifts the distribution of mutational effects to be largely neutral, and reveals hotspots of activating mutations in residues that restrain Ras dynamics and promote the inactive state. Evolutionary analysis, combined with structural and mutational data, argue that Ras has co-evolved with its regulators in the vertebrate lineage. Overall, our results show that sequence conservation in Ras depends strongly on the biochemical network in which it operates, providing a framework for understanding the origin of global selection pressures on proteins.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Pradeep Bandaru

    Department of Molecular and Cell Biology, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-9354-3340
  2. Neel H Shah

    Department of Molecular and Cell Biology, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-1186-0626
  3. Moitrayee Bhattacharyya

    Department of Molecular and Cell Biology, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  4. John P Barton

    Ragon Institute of MGH, MIT and Harvard, Cambridge, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-1467-421X
  5. Yasushi Kondo

    Department of Molecular and Cell Biology, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  6. Joshua C Cofsky

    Department of Molecular and Cell Biology, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  7. Christine L Gee

    Department of Molecular and Cell Biology, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-2632-6418
  8. Arup K Chakraborty

    Ragon Institute of MGH, MIT and Harvard, Cambridge, United States
    Competing interests
    Arup K Chakraborty, Senior editor, eLife.
  9. Tanja Kortemme

    Department of Bioengineering and Therapeutic Sciences, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  10. Rama Ranganathan

    Green Center for Systems Biology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, United States
    For correspondence
    rama.ranganathan@utsouthwestern.edu
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  11. John Kuriyan

    Department of Molecular and Cell Biology, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, United States
    For correspondence
    jkuriyan@mac.com
    Competing interests
    John Kuriyan, Senior editor, eLife.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-4414-5477

Funding

Howard Hughes Medical Institute

  • Pradeep Bandaru
  • Neel H Shah
  • Moitrayee Bhattacharyya
  • Yasushi Kondo
  • Joshua C Cofsky
  • Christine L Gee

National Institutes of Health

  • John P Barton
  • Arup K Chakraborty

Damon Runyon Cancer Research Foundation

  • Neel H Shah

The funders had no role in study design, data collection and interpretation, or the decision to submit the work for publication.

Copyright

© 2017, Bandaru et al.

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License permitting unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.

Metrics

  • 10,022
    views
  • 1,515
    downloads
  • 98
    citations

Views, downloads and citations are aggregated across all versions of this paper published by eLife.

Download links

A two-part list of links to download the article, or parts of the article, in various formats.

Downloads (link to download the article as PDF)

Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)

Cite this article (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)

  1. Pradeep Bandaru
  2. Neel H Shah
  3. Moitrayee Bhattacharyya
  4. John P Barton
  5. Yasushi Kondo
  6. Joshua C Cofsky
  7. Christine L Gee
  8. Arup K Chakraborty
  9. Tanja Kortemme
  10. Rama Ranganathan
  11. John Kuriyan
(2017)
Deconstruction of the Ras switching cycle through saturation mutagenesis
eLife 6:e27810.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.27810

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.27810

Further reading

    1. Structural Biology and Molecular Biophysics
    Jinsai Shang, Douglas J Kojetin
    Research Advance

    Peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor gamma (PPARγ) is a nuclear receptor transcription factor that regulates gene expression programs in response to ligand binding. Endogenous and synthetic ligands, including covalent antagonist inhibitors GW9662 and T0070907, are thought to compete for the orthosteric pocket in the ligand-binding domain (LBD). However, we previously showed that synthetic PPARγ ligands can cooperatively cobind with and reposition a bound endogenous orthosteric ligand to an alternate site, synergistically regulating PPARγ structure and function (Shang et al., 2018). Here, we reveal the structural mechanism of cobinding between a synthetic covalent antagonist inhibitor with other synthetic ligands. Biochemical and NMR data show that covalent inhibitors weaken—but do not prevent—the binding of other ligands via an allosteric mechanism, rather than direct ligand clashing, by shifting the LBD ensemble toward a transcriptionally repressive conformation, which structurally clashes with orthosteric ligand binding. Crystal structures reveal different cobinding mechanisms including alternate site binding to unexpectedly adopting an orthosteric binding mode by altering the covalent inhibitor binding pose. Our findings highlight the significant flexibility of the PPARγ orthosteric pocket, its ability to accommodate multiple ligands, and demonstrate that GW9662 and T0070907 should not be used as chemical tools to inhibit ligand binding to PPARγ.

    1. Structural Biology and Molecular Biophysics
    Yuanyuan Wang, Fan Xu ... Yongning He
    Research Article

    SCARF1 (scavenger receptor class F member 1, SREC-1 or SR-F1) is a type I transmembrane protein that recognizes multiple endogenous and exogenous ligands such as modified low-density lipoproteins (LDLs) and is important for maintaining homeostasis and immunity. But the structural information and the mechanisms of ligand recognition of SCARF1 are largely unavailable. Here, we solve the crystal structures of the N-terminal fragments of human SCARF1, which show that SCARF1 forms homodimers and its epidermal growth factor (EGF)-like domains adopt a long-curved conformation. Then, we examine the interactions of SCARF1 with lipoproteins and are able to identify a region on SCARF1 for recognizing modified LDLs. The mutagenesis data show that the positively charged residues in the region are crucial for the interaction of SCARF1 with modified LDLs, which is confirmed by making chimeric molecules of SCARF1 and SCARF2. In addition, teichoic acids, a cell wall polymer expressed on the surface of gram-positive bacteria, are able to inhibit the interactions of modified LDLs with SCARF1, suggesting the ligand binding sites of SCARF1 might be shared for some of its scavenging targets. Overall, these results provide mechanistic insights into SCARF1 and its interactions with the ligands, which are important for understanding its physiological roles in homeostasis and the related diseases.