Coil-to-α-helix transition at the Nup358-BicD2 interface activates BicD2 for dynein recruitment

  1. James M Gibson
  2. Heying Cui
  3. M Yusuf Ali
  4. Xioaxin Zhao
  5. Erik W Debler
  6. Jing Zhao
  7. Kathleen M Trybus  Is a corresponding author
  8. Sozanne R Solmaz  Is a corresponding author
  9. Chunyu Wang  Is a corresponding author
  1. Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, United States
  2. Binghamton University, United States
  3. University of Vermont, United States
  4. Thomas Jefferson University, United States

Abstract

Nup358, a protein of the nuclear pore complex, facilitates a nuclear positioning pathway that is essential for many biological processes, including neuromuscular and brain development. Nup358 interacts with the dynein adaptor Bicaudal D2 (BicD2), which in turn recruits the dynein machinery to position the nucleus. However, the molecular mechanisms of the Nup358/BicD2 interaction and the activation of transport remain poorly understood. Here for the first time, we show that a minimal Nup358 domain activates dynein/dynactin/BicD2 for processive motility on microtubules. Using nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) titration and chemical exchange saturation transfer (CEST), mutagenesis and circular dichroism spectroscopy (CD), a Nup358 a-helix encompassing residues 2162-2184 was identified, which transitioned from a random coil to an a-helical conformation upon BicD2-binding and formed the core of the Nup358-BicD2 interface. Mutations in this region of Nup358 decreased the Nup358/BicD2 interaction, resulting in decreased dynein recruitment and impaired motility. BicD2 thus recognizes Nup358 though a 'cargo recognition a-helix', a structural feature that may stabilize BicD2 in its activated state and promote processive dynein motility.

Data availability

Protein backbone assignments have been deposited in the BMRB under accession code 5182. All other data generated or analyzed during this study are included in the manuscript and supporting files; Source Data files have been provided for Figures 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. James M Gibson

    Department of Biological Sciences, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-9378-0135
  2. Heying Cui

    Department of Chemistry, Binghamton University, Binghamton, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. M Yusuf Ali

    Department of Molecular Physiology and Biophysics, University of Vermont, Burlington, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Xioaxin Zhao

    Department of Biological Sciences, Binghamton University, Binghamton, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Erik W Debler

    Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-2587-2150
  6. Jing Zhao

    Department of Biological Sciences, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Kathleen M Trybus

    Department of Molecular Physiology and Biophysics, University of Vermont, Burlington, United States
    For correspondence
    Kathleen.Trybus@med.uvm.edu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-5583-8500
  8. Sozanne R Solmaz

    Department of Chemistry, Binghamton University, Binghamton, United States
    For correspondence
    ssolmaz@binghamton.edu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-1703-3701
  9. Chunyu Wang

    Department of Biological Sciences, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, United States
    For correspondence
    wangc5@rpi.edu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-5165-7959

Funding

NIH Office of the Director (R01 GM144578)

  • M Yusuf Ali
  • Sozanne R Solmaz
  • Chunyu Wang

NIH Office of the Director (CA206592)

  • Chunyu Wang

NIH Office of the Director (AG069039)

  • Chunyu Wang

NIH Office of the Director (R15 GM128119)

  • Sozanne R Solmaz

Chemistry Department and the Research Foundation of SUNY

  • Sozanne R Solmaz

NIH Office of the Director (R35 GM136288)

  • Kathleen M Trybus

NIH Office of the Director (R03 NS114115)

  • M Yusuf Ali

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

Copyright

© 2022, Gibson 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

  • 1,925
    views
  • 265
    downloads
  • 18
    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. James M Gibson
  2. Heying Cui
  3. M Yusuf Ali
  4. Xioaxin Zhao
  5. Erik W Debler
  6. Jing Zhao
  7. Kathleen M Trybus
  8. Sozanne R Solmaz
  9. Chunyu Wang
(2022)
Coil-to-α-helix transition at the Nup358-BicD2 interface activates BicD2 for dynein recruitment
eLife 11:e74714.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.74714

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.74714

Further reading

    1. Biochemistry and Chemical Biology
    2. Structural Biology and Molecular Biophysics
    Yamato Niitani, Kohei Matsuzaki ... Michio Tomishige
    Research Article

    The two identical motor domains (heads) of dimeric kinesin-1 move in a hand-over-hand process along a microtubule, coordinating their ATPase cycles such that each ATP hydrolysis is tightly coupled to a step and enabling the motor to take many steps without dissociating. The neck linker, a structural element that connects the two heads, has been shown to be essential for head–head coordination; however, which kinetic step(s) in the chemomechanical cycle is ‘gated’ by the neck linker remains unresolved. Here, we employed pre-steady-state kinetics and single-molecule assays to investigate how the neck-linker conformation affects kinesin’s motility cycle. We show that the backward-pointing configuration of the neck linker in the front kinesin head confers higher affinity for microtubule, but does not change ATP binding and dissociation rates. In contrast, the forward-pointing configuration of the neck linker in the rear kinesin head decreases the ATP dissociation rate but has little effect on microtubule dissociation. In combination, these conformation-specific effects of the neck linker favor ATP hydrolysis and dissociation of the rear head prior to microtubule detachment of the front head, thereby providing a kinetic explanation for the coordinated walking mechanism of dimeric kinesin.

    1. Structural Biology and Molecular Biophysics
    Christopher T Schafer, Raymond F Pauszek III ... David P Millar
    Research Article

    The canonical chemokine receptor CXCR4 and atypical receptor ACKR3 both respond to CXCL12 but induce different effector responses to regulate cell migration. While CXCR4 couples to G proteins and directly promotes cell migration, ACKR3 is G-protein-independent and scavenges CXCL12 to regulate extracellular chemokine levels and maintain CXCR4 responsiveness, thereby indirectly influencing migration. The receptors also have distinct activation requirements. CXCR4 only responds to wild-type CXCL12 and is sensitive to mutation of the chemokine. By contrast, ACKR3 recruits GPCR kinases (GRKs) and β-arrestins and promiscuously responds to CXCL12, CXCL12 variants, other peptides and proteins, and is relatively insensitive to mutation. To investigate the role of conformational dynamics in the distinct pharmacological behaviors of CXCR4 and ACKR3, we employed single-molecule FRET to track discrete conformational states of the receptors in real-time. The data revealed that apo-CXCR4 preferentially populates a high-FRET inactive state, while apo-ACKR3 shows little conformational preference and high transition probabilities among multiple inactive, intermediate and active conformations, consistent with its propensity for activation. Multiple active-like ACKR3 conformations are populated in response to agonists, compared to the single CXCR4 active-state. This and the markedly different conformational landscapes of the receptors suggest that activation of ACKR3 may be achieved by a broader distribution of conformational states than CXCR4. Much of the conformational heterogeneity of ACKR3 is linked to a single residue that differs between ACKR3 and CXCR4. The dynamic properties of ACKR3 may underly its inability to form productive interactions with G proteins that would drive canonical GPCR signaling.