��ChopNSpice,�� a Mass Spectrometric Approach That Allows Identification of Endogenous Small Ubiquitin-like Modifier-conjugated Peptides

Conjugation of small ubiquitin-like modifier (SUMO) to substrates is involved in a large number of cellular processes. Typically, SUMO is conjugated to lysine residues within a SUMO consensus site; however, an increasing number of proteins are sumoylated on non-consensus sites. To appreciate the functional consequences of sumoylation, the identification of SUMO attachment sites is of critical importance. Discovery of SUMO acceptor sites is usually performed by a laborious mutagenesis approach or using MS. In MS, identification of SUMO acceptor sites in higher eukaryotes is hampered by the large tryptic fragments of SUMO1 and SUMO2/3. MS search engines in combination with known databases lack the possibility to search MSMS spectra for larger modifications, such as sumoylation. Therefore, we developed a simple and straightforward database search tool (“ChopNSpice”) that successfully allows identification of SUMO acceptor sites from proteins sumoylated in vivo and in vitro. By applying this approach we identified SUMO acceptor sites in, among others, endogenous SUMO1, SUMO2, RanBP2, and Ubc9.Post-translational modification with ubiquitin and ubiquitin-like modifiers (Ubls)1 such as SUMO plays an important role in most, if not all, cellular processes (1–6). Conjugation of Ubls to their targets involves an isopeptide bond between the carboxyl group of the modifier and the ε-amino group of a lysine residue within the targets. Attachment of Ubls to specific targets involves an enzymatic cascade. First the Ubls are processed to expose their C-terminal diglycine motif. The mature Ubl is then transferred to its target via a cascade of E1 (activating), E2 (conjugating), and E3 (ligase) enzymes. The conjugation system for SUMO consists of a heterodimeric activating enzyme, Aos1/Uba2; a conjugating enzyme, Ubc9; and E3 ligases, such as RanBP2 or members of the PIAS family. The conjugation status undergoes perpetual change and is governed by a small family of SUMO proteases that hydrolyze the isopeptide bond between SUMO and its target (7, 8). Although in lower eukaryotes only one SUMO is present, vertebrates express at least three different SUMO paralogs: SUMO1, SUMO2, and SUMO3. Mature SUMO2 and SUMO3 (referred to as SUMO2/3) are 97% identical but differ substantially from SUMO1 (∼50% identity).Although the list of known SUMO substrates is growing rapidly, our understanding of the functional consequences for many of these targets is lagging behind. At a molecular level, the functional consequences of SUMO conjugation can be explained by a gain or loss of interaction with other macromolecules (3, 4). SUMO-dependent intramolecular conformational changes have also been described (9, 10). Thus, to appreciate the role that SUMO plays in the regulation of specific substrates, identification of the acceptor site(s) for SUMO conjugation is of key importance.So far, identification of SUMO acceptor sites has relied largely on mutation of the SUMO consensus site, which consists of a short motif with the sequence ψKXE (ψ represents a bulky hydrophobic residue, and X represents any amino acid). This motif is recognized by Ubc9 if presented in an extended conformation (11–13). However, an increasing number of proteins, such as PCNA, E2-25K, Daxx, and USP25, turned out to be sumoylated on lysine residues that do not conform to the SUMO consensus site (14–17). For this category of proteins, as well as for proteins that contain a large number of SUMO consensus sites, the identification of acceptor lysines is a burdensome task that often involves mutagenesis of each lysine residue within the substrate in turn.MS is currently one of the state-of-the-art technologies to identify protein factors and their post-translational modifications in an unbiased and sensitive manner. Several groups have shown that, using overexpressed tagged SUMO, MS can be efficiently exploited to identify endogenous substrates for SUMO conjugation (18–20). However, the identification of SUMO acceptor lysines using MS has remained a more challenging task (18, 21, 23, 24). So far, using tagged SUMO, unbiased identification of acceptor lysines for endogenous substrates has only been observed in Saccharomyces cerevisiae (18). The identification of substrates in higher eukaryotes has been hampered by the large conjugated SUMO peptide that arises upon tryptic digestion (>2154 Da with human SUMO1 and >3568 Da with human SUMO2/3 compared with 484 Da for Smt3 in S. cerevisiae). Such large fragments, in addition to the mass of the conjugated peptide, can impede their in-gel digestion, extraction, detection, and sequencing in MS. To overcome some of these limitations, several different strategies have been developed: 1) mutation of the tryptic fragment of SUMO, yielding a smaller tryptic fragment (23), 2) development of an automated recognition pattern tool (SUMmOn) (24), and 3) identification of targets using an in vitro to in vivo approach (21). Although these approaches have been applied successfully for the identification of SUMO conjugates in vitro and in vivo, unbiased identification of SUMO conjugates in vivo has not been achieved in higher eukaryotes. Another hurdle to such identification of SUMO conjugates is the variety of masses that can theoretically arise for just one SUMO-conjugated lysine in a given protein because of tryptic miscleavages. Thus, the unambiguous identification of SUMO acceptor sites requires the mass of the modified peptide carrying the conjugated SUMO (fragment) to be measured with high accuracy, and most importantly, it requires sequence analysis of the modified peptides. Because available proteomics search engines lack the possibility to search MSMS spectra for larger modifications, e.g. those that occur upon sumoylation, we developed a novel, simple, and straightforward database search tool (“ChopNSpice”) that, in combination with current proteomics search engines (such as MASCOT (25) or SEQUEST (26)), allows one to identify SUMO1 and SUMO2/3 acceptor sites unambiguously. We confirmed this strategy in vitro on various substrates and demonstrate the power of this technique by the identification of acceptor lysines within several endogenous targets from HeLa cells.