Structural and thermodynamic analyses of the β-to-α transformation in RfaH reveal principles of fold-switching proteins

  1. Philipp K Zuber
  2. Tina Daviter
  3. Ramona Heißmann
  4. Ulrike Persau
  5. Kristian Schweimer
  6. Stefan H Knauer  Is a corresponding author
  1. University of Bayreuth, Germany
  2. The Institute of Cancer Research, United Kingdom

Abstract

The two-domain protein RfaH, a paralog of the universally conserved NusG/Spt5 transcription factors, is regulated by autoinhibition coupled to the reversible conformational switch of its 60-residue C-terminal KOW domain between an α-hairpin and a β-barrel. In contrast, NusG/Spt5-KOW domains only occur in the β-barrel state. To understand the principles underlying the drastic fold switch in RfaH, we elucidated the thermodynamic stability and the structural dynamics of two RfaH- and four NusG/Spt5-KOW domains by combining biophysical and structural biology methods. We find that the RfaH-KOW β-barrel is thermodynamically less stable than that of most NusG/Spt5-KOWs and we show that it is in equilibrium with a globally unfolded species, which, strikingly, contains two helical regions that prime the transition towards the α-hairpin. Our results suggest that transiently structured elements in the unfolded conformation might drive the global folding transition in metamorphic proteins in general.

Data availability

Coordinates for VcRfaH-KOW have been deposited to the Protein Databank (ID: 6TF4). Chemical shifts have been deposited in the Biological Magnetic Resonance Databank under the following accession numbers: #28039 (hSpt5-KOW5), #28040 (MjSpt5-KOW), #28041 (VcRfaH) and #34450 (VcRfaH-CTD). Source data files have been provided for Figures 2, 3, 5, and 6

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Philipp K Zuber

    Biochemistry IV - Biophysical Chemistry, University of Bayreuth, Bayreuth, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-5139-3930
  2. Tina Daviter

    The Institute of Cancer Research, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-2636-5959
  3. Ramona Heißmann

    Biochemistry IV - Biophysical Chemistry, University of Bayreuth, Bayreuth, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Ulrike Persau

    Biochemistry IV - Biophysical Chemistry, University of Bayreuth, Bayreuth, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Kristian Schweimer

    Biochemistry IV - Biophysical Chemistry, University of Bayreuth, Bayreuth, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-3837-8442
  6. Stefan H Knauer

    Biochemistry IV - Biophysical Chemistry, University of Bayreuth, Bayreuth, Germany
    For correspondence
    stefan.knauer@uni-bayreuth.de
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-4143-0694

Funding

European Cooperation in Science and Technology (CA15126)

  • Philipp K Zuber

The COST action funded PKZ's research stay to conduct DSC experiments at the Birkbeck UCL, UK.A DFG grant (to Paul Rösch, former head of department) funded PKZ's position and parts of the research material.

Copyright

© 2022, Zuber 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

  • 960
    views
  • 207
    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. Philipp K Zuber
  2. Tina Daviter
  3. Ramona Heißmann
  4. Ulrike Persau
  5. Kristian Schweimer
  6. Stefan H Knauer
(2022)
Structural and thermodynamic analyses of the β-to-α transformation in RfaH reveal principles of fold-switching proteins
eLife 11:e76630.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.76630

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.76630

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.