Polar residues drive association of polyleucine transmembrane helices.
Journal: 2001/September - Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America
ISSN: 0027-8424
Abstract:
Although many polar residues are directly involved in transmembrane protein functions, the extent to which they contribute to more general structural features is still unclear. Previous studies have demonstrated that asparagine residues can drive transmembrane helix association through interhelical hydrogen bonding [Choma, C., Gratkowski, H., Lear, J. D. & DeGrado, W. F. (2000) Nat. Struct. Biol. 7, 161-166; and Zhou, F. X., Cocco, M. J., Russ, W. P., Brunger, A. T. & Engelman, D. M. (2000) Nat. Struct. Biol. 7, 154-160]. We have studied the ability of other polar residues to promote helix association in detergent micelles and in biological membranes. Our results show that polyleucine sequences with Asn, Asp, Gln, Glu, and His, residues capable of being simultaneously hydrogen bond donors and acceptors, form homo- or heterooligomers. In contrast, polyleucine sequences with Ser, Thr, and Tyr do not associate more than the polyleucine sequence alone. The results therefore provide experimental evidence that interactions between polar residues in the helices of transmembrane proteins may serve to provide structural stability and oligomerization specificity. Furthermore, such interactions can allow structural flexibility required for the function of some membrane proteins.
Relations:
Content
Citations
(100)
References
(46)
Chemicals
(3)
Processes
(4)
Affiliates
(1)
Similar articles
Articles by the same authors
Discussion board
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 98(5): 2250-2255

Polar residues drive association of polyleucine transmembrane helices

Department of Molecular Biophysics and Biochemistry, Yale University, New Haven, CT 06520-8114; Department of Chemistry, Yale University, New Haven, CT 06520; and Department of Molecular and Cellular Physiology, Department of Neurology and Neurological Sciences, and Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305
To whom reprint requests should be addressed at: Department of Molecular Biophysics and Biochemistry, Yale University, 266 Whitney Ave., P.O. Box 208114, New Haven, CT 06520-8114. E-mail: ude.elay.bsc.mgidarap@nod.
Contributed by Donald M. Engelman
Contributed by Donald M. Engelman
Accepted 2000 Dec 14.

Abstract

Although many polar residues are directly involved in transmembrane protein functions, the extent to which they contribute to more general structural features is still unclear. Previous studies have demonstrated that asparagine residues can drive transmembrane helix association through interhelical hydrogen bonding [Choma, C., Gratkowski, H., Lear, J. D. & DeGrado, W. F. (2000) Nat. Struct. Biol. 7, 161–166; and Zhou, F. X., Cocco, M. J., Russ, W. P., Brunger, A. T. & Engelman, D. M. (2000) Nat. Struct. Biol. 7, 154–160]. We have studied the ability of other polar residues to promote helix association in detergent micelles and in biological membranes. Our results show that polyleucine sequences with Asn, Asp, Gln, Glu, and His, residues capable of being simultaneously hydrogen bond donors and acceptors, form homo- or heterooligomers. In contrast, polyleucine sequences with Ser, Thr, and Tyr do not associate more than the polyleucine sequence alone. The results therefore provide experimental evidence that interactions between polar residues in the helices of transmembrane proteins may serve to provide structural stability and oligomerization specificity. Furthermore, such interactions can allow structural flexibility required for the function of some membrane proteins.

Abstract

Transmembrane (TM) α-helices contain few strongly hydrophilic residues compared with the composition of proteins in general (14), which can be explained in part by the high energetic cost associated with burying polar side chains in a hydrophobic environment (5). Serine and threonine are found in TM helices more frequently than are other polar residues (N, D, Q, E, R, K, and H), partially because of their potential to form intrahelical hydrogen bonds to main-chain carbonyl oxygens (6). In fact, permitting S, T, Y, and C in TM regions seems to improve TM helix prediction (7). Interestingly, despite their rare presence in TM helices, strongly polar residues are highly conserved, especially in multispanning TM proteins, suggesting molecular interactions that either functionally or structurally favor these residues (2, 3). Functional roles of some polar residues are observed in structures of proteins, such as binding of prosthetic groups (H and E) in the photosynthetic reaction center (8), retinal binding (K) and proton transport (D) in bacteriorhodopsin (9, 10), binding of hemes (H) in cytochrome c oxidase (11) and the cytochrome bc1 complex, and Ca binding (N, D, E, and T) in the Ca ATPase (12).

Structural contributions of polar residues in the membrane are less well understood. Interhelical polar interactions have been observed in some integral membrane protein structures available at high resolution. Ion pairs (E65/R185 and R70/E180) are suggested to have a role in the stabilization of the structure of the light-harvesting complex (13). The hydrogen bond formed between conserved E97 and H219 in subunit III of cytochrome c oxidase is thought to play a structural role (11). At least one hydrogen bond (main chain to side chain or side chain to side chain) exists between each pair of adjacent helices within the monomer of bacteriorhodopsin; some of the hydrogen bonds are bridged by water molecules (10).

Genetic and biophysical studies of TM proteins have identified critical polar residues that may participate in electrostatic interactions. The Escherichia coli lactose permease has only six irreplaceable residues for its function, all of which are polar and reside within TM helices (1416). Each one is in proximity to one of the others, probably forming three pairs of hydrogen bonds or salt bridges (E126/R144, E269/H322, and R302/E325). These residues as well as a number of other polar ones are implicated in substrate binding and substrate-induced conformational changes. Voltage-gated Na, K, and Ca channels have highly conserved polar residues in their TM helices S2–S4 (17). These residues in the Shaker K channel are proposed to interact in two clusters (E283/R368/R371 and E293/D316/K374) and may be involved in voltage sensing and/or association of helices (1820). In the inwardly rectifying K channel, functionally conserved S95 of M1 and Q164 of M2 are interacting within the same subunit, presumably forming an interhelical hydrogen bond (21). In the E. coli F1Fo ATP synthase, H-transporting residue D61 of subunit c is thought to functionally interact with R210 of subunit a during the protonation–deprotonation cycle that drives the c12 oligomer rotor and the subsequent ATP synthesis (2225).

An interesting group of TM proteins with conserved polar residues belongs to members of the G-protein-coupled receptor superfamily, in particular the family of rhodopsin-like receptors, which has about 1,500 members known to date (2629). A number of conserved polar residues in the TM helices are found to be vital to ligand binding and/or signal transduction; interactions among these residues are proposed to conformationally constrain the receptors in their inactive states in the absence of light or ligands (28, 30). Incorporating hydrogen bonding interactions between conserved polar residues as constraints has improved molecular modeling of the TM helix bundle of rhodopsin-like receptors (31). A number of such hydrogen bonds involving the most conserved polar residues (N55, N78, D83, E134, R135, and N302) are confirmed by the recent crystallographic structure of bovine rhodopsin in the ground state (32).

The identification of TM polar interactions may provide helpful structural insights into understanding disease mechanisms. The transformation activity of the bovine papillomavirus E5 protein is a result of TM helix association with platelet-derived growth factor β receptor, an interaction partly mediated by polar residues (33). A single mutation (V664E) in the TM helix of the neu/erb-2 protooncogene leads to constitutive activation of the encoded tyrosine kinase receptor (34). It was found later that the glutamic acid is involved in interhelical hydrogen bonding interactions (35). However, it remains unclear whether such interactions directly cause dimerization and/or activation of the receptor.

It is obvious that polar residues in TM helices are important, both functionally and structurally. In many cases, however, these residues may be involved not only in binding of ligands/substrates, but also in inducing conformational changes or maintaining structural integrity crucial to the protein function. Such structure–function dependence complicates the interpretation of structural contributions of polar interactions—roles of individual polar residues can only be inferred from the activity of the whole protein. The extent to which these polar residues specify the arrangement of TM helices or stabilize helix–helix interactions is energetically unclear. Therefore, it would be desirable to develop more direct approaches to identifying polar interactions that define structural features of membrane proteins.

We reported previously that asparagine drives TM helix association, possibly by forming interhelical hydrogen bonds (36), which was demonstrated by examining synthetic peptide and chimeric proteins both in detergent and in biological membrane environments. An accompanying report drew comparable conclusions by studying similar peptides, with the use of analytical ultracentrifugation and fluorescence resonance energy transfer methods (37).

A question that arises from the previous results is whether the interhelical hydrogen bond formation is a characteristic of other polar residues that can act as both hydrogen bond donors and acceptors. Here we report contributions by other polar residues to TM helix association through chimeras, in which each TM helix includes a single polar substitution (N, D, Q, E, H, S, T, or Y) in a polyleucine sequence. The ability of these chimeras to associate was tested in detergent micelles and in biological membranes, and the results were compared with those of the glycophorin A (GpA) chimeras.

Values represent diameter measurements of circular zones of inhibition (ZOI) around the chloramphenicol disk devoid of bacterial growth. The concentration of chloramphenicol in the solid medium diminishes with increasing distance from the disk. Small ZOIs indicate chloramphenicol-resistant bacteria and higher CAT activity.

Acknowledgments

We thank M. J. Cocco, A. Senes, and I. Ubarretxena for helpful discussions. We also thank M. A. Lemmon and W. P. Russ for critical review of the manuscript. This research is funded by a program project grant on helix interactions in membrane proteins (National Institutes of Health), the National Foundation for Cancer Research, and the Howard Hughes Medical Institute.

Acknowledgments

Abbreviations

TMtransmembrane
GpAglycophorin A
SNstaphylococcal nuclease
CATchloramphenicol acetyltransferase
Abbreviations

References

  • 1. Landolt-Marticorena C, Williams K A, Deber C M, Reithmeier R A. J Mol Biol. 1993;229:602–608.[PubMed]
  • 2. Jones D T, Taylor W R, Thornton J M. FEBS Lett. 1994;339:269–275.[PubMed]
  • 3. Arkin I T, Brunger A T. Biochim Biophys Acta. 1998;1429:113–128.[PubMed]
  • 4. Tourasse N J, Li W H. Mol Biol Evol. 2000;17:656–664.[PubMed]
  • 5. Engelman D M, Steitz T A In: The Protein Folding Problem. Wetlaufer D B, editor. Boulder, CO: Westview; 1984. pp. 87–113. [PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 6. Gray T M, Matthews B W. J Mol Biol. 1984;175:75–81.[PubMed]
  • 7. Gromiha M M. Protein Eng. 1999;12:557–561.[PubMed]
  • 8. Deisenhofer J, Epp O, Miki K, Huber R, Michel H. Nature (London) 1985;318:618–624.[PubMed]
  • 9. Henderson R, Baldwin J M, Ceska T A, Zemlin F, Beckmann E, Downing K H. J Mol Biol. 1990;213:899–929.[PubMed]
  • 10. Luecke H, Schobert B, Richter H T, Cartailler J P, Lanyi J K. J Mol Biol. 1999;291:899–911.[PubMed]
  • 11. Iwata S, Ostermeier C, Ludwig B, Michel H. Nature (London) 1995;376:660–669.[PubMed]
  • 12. Toyoshima C, Nakasako M, Nomura H, Ogawa H. Nature (London) 2000;405:647–655.[PubMed]
  • 13. Kuhlbrandt W, Wang D N, Fujiyoshi Y. Nature (London) 1994;367:614–621.[PubMed]
  • 14. Kaback H R, Wu J. Q Rev Biophys. 1997;30:333–364.[PubMed]
  • 15. Frillingos S, Sahin-Toth M, Wu J, Kaback H R. FASEB J. 1998;12:1281–1299.[PubMed]
  • 16. Zhao M, Zen K C, Hubbell W L, Kaback H R. Biochemistry. 1999;38:7407–7412.[PubMed]
  • 17. Bezanilla F. Physiol Rev. 2000;80:555–592.[PubMed]
  • 18. Peled-Zehavi H, Arkin I T, Engelman D M, Shai Y. Biochemistry. 1996;35:6828–6838.[PubMed]
  • 19. Tiwari-Woodruff S K, Schulteis C T, Mock A F, Papazian D M. Biophys J. 1997;72:1489–1500.
  • 20. Tiwari-Woodruff S K, Lin M A, Schulteis C T, Papazian D M. J Gen Physiol. 2000;115:123–138.
  • 21. Minor D L, Jr, Masseling S J, Jan Y N, Jan L Y. Cell. 1999;96:879–891.[PubMed]
  • 22. Jiang W, Fillingame R H. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 1998;95:6607–6612.
  • 23. Dmitriev O Y, Jones P C, Fillingame R H. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 1999;96:7785–7790.
  • 24. Rastogi V K, Girvin M E. Nature (London) 1999;402:263–268.[PubMed]
  • 25. Fillingame R H, Jiang W, Dmitriev O Y. J Exp Biol. 2000;203Part 1:9–17.[PubMed]
  • 26. Zhang D, Weinstein H. FEBS Lett. 1994;337:207–212.[PubMed]
  • 27. Ji T H, Grossmann M, Ji I. J Biol Chem. 1998;273:17299–17302.[PubMed]
  • 28. Gether U, Kobilka B K. J Biol Chem. 1998;273:17979–17982.[PubMed]
  • 29. Flower D R. Biochim Biophys Acta. 1999;1422:207–234.[PubMed]
  • 30. Honig B, Ebrey T, Callender R H, Dinur U, Ottolenghi M. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 1979;76:2503–2507.
  • 31. Pogozheva I D, Lomize A L, Mosberg H I. Biophys J. 1997;72:1963–1985.
  • 32. Palczewski K, Kumasaka T, Hori T, Behnke C A, Motoshima H, Fox B A, Le Trong I, Teller D C, Okada T, Stenkamp R E, et al Science. 2000;289:739–745.[PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 33. Klein O, Polack G W, Surti T, Kegler-Ebo D, Smith S O, DiMaio D. J Virol. 1998;72:8921–8932.
  • 34. Bargmann C I, Hung M C, Weinberg R A. Cell. 1986;45:649–657.[PubMed]
  • 35. Smith S O, Smith C S, Bormann B J. Nat Struct Biol. 1996;3:252–258.[PubMed]
  • 36. Zhou F X, Cocco M J, Russ W P, Brunger A T, Engelman D M. Nat Struct Biol. 2000;7:154–160.[PubMed]
  • 37. Choma C, Gratkowski H, Lear J D, DeGrado W F. Nat Struct Biol. 2000;7:161–166.[PubMed]
  • 38. Lemmon M A, Flanagan J M, Hunt J F, Adair B D, Bormann B J, Dempsey C E, Engelman D M. J Biol Chem. 1992;267:7683–7689.[PubMed]
  • 39. Russ W P, Engelman D M. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 1999;96:863–868.
  • 40. Lemmon M A, Flanagan J M, Treutlein H R, Zhang J, Engelman D M. Biochemistry. 1992;31:12719–12725.[PubMed]
  • 41. Bu Z, Engelman D M. Biophys J. 1999;77:1064–1073.
  • 42. Gratkowski H, Lear J D, DeGrado W F. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2001;98:880–885.
  • 43. Cosson P, Lankford S P, Bonifacino J S, Klausner R D. Nature (London) 1991;351:414–416.[PubMed]
  • 44. Feng Y H, Miura S, Husain A, Karnik S S. Biochemistry. 1998;37:15791–15798.[PubMed]
  • 45. Rasmussen S G, Jensen A D, Liapakis G, Ghanouni P, Javitch J A, Gether U. Mol Pharmacol. 1999;56:175–184.[PubMed]
  • 46. Fleming K G, Ackerman A L, Engelman D M. J Mol Biol. 1997;272:266–275.[PubMed]
  • 47. Fisher L E, Engelman D M, Sturgis J N. J Mol Biol. 1999;293:639–651.[PubMed]
Collaboration tool especially designed for Life Science professionals.Drag-and-drop any entity to your messages.