Latent Transforming Growth Factor ��-binding Proteins and Fibulins Compete for Fibrillin-1 and Exhibit Exquisite Specificities in Binding Sites

Latent transforming growth factor (TGF) β-binding proteins (LTBPs) interact with fibrillin-1. This interaction is important for proper sequestration and extracellular control of TGFβ. Surface plasmon resonance interaction studies show that residues within the first hybrid domain (Hyb1) of fibrillin-1 contribute to interactions with LTBP-1 and LTBP-4. Modulation of binding affinities by fibrillin-1 polypeptides in which residues in the third epidermal growth factor-like domain (EGF3) are mutated demonstrates that the binding sites for LTBP-1 and LTBP-4 are different and suggests that EGF3 may also contribute residues to the binding site for LTBP-4. In addition, fibulin-2, fibulin-4, and fibulin-5 bind to residues contained within EGF3/Hyb1, but mutated polypeptides again indicate differences in their binding sites in fibrillin-1. Results demonstrate that these protein-protein interactions exhibit “exquisite specificities,” a phrase commonly used to describe monoclonal antibody interactions. Despite these differences, interactions between LTBP-1 and fibrillin-1 compete for interactions between fibrillin-1 and these fibulins. All of these proteins have been immunolocalized to microfibrils. However, in fibrillin-1 (Fbn1) null fibroblast cultures, LTBP-1 and LTBP-4 are not incorporated into microfibrils. In contrast, in fibulin-2 (Fbln2) null or fibulin-4 (Fbln4) null cultures, fibrillin-1, LTBP-1, and LTBP-4 are incorporated into microfibrils. These data show for the first time that fibrillin-1, but not fibulin-2 or fibulin-4, is required for appropriate matrix assembly of LTBPs. These studies also suggest that the fibulins may affect matrix sequestration of LTBPs, because in vitro interactions between these proteins are competitive.Fibrillin microfibrils are ubiquitous structural elements in the connective tissue. Fibrillin microfibrils provide organs with tissue-specific architectural frameworks designed to support the mature functional integrity of the particular organ. In addition, fibrillin microfibrils contribute to proper developmental patterning of organs by targeting growth factors to the right location in the extracellular matrix (1, 2).Molecules of fibrillin-1 (3), fibrillin-2 (4, 5), and fibrillin-3 (6) polymerize to form the backbone structure of microfibrils. Latent TGFβ-binding protein (LTBP)³-1 associates with fibrillin microfibrils in the perichondrium and in osteoblast cultures (7, 8), and LTBP-1 and LTBP-4 interact with fibrillin (9). Other proteins associated with fibrillin microfibrils include the fibulins (10, 11), microfibril-associated glycoprotein-1 and -2 (12, 13), decorin (14), biglycan (15), versican (16), and perlecan (17). It is likely that one function of these associated extracellular matrix molecules is to connect the fibrillin microfibril scaffold to other architectural elements in tissue- and organ-specific patterns.In addition to performing architectural functions, fibrillins bind directly to prodomains of bone morphogenetic proteins and growth and differentiation factors (18, 19) and LTBPs bring with them the small latent TGFβ complex (20), suggesting that the microfibril scaffold may position, concentrate, and control growth factor signaling. Studies of fibrillin-1 (Fbn1) and fibrillin-2 (Fbn2) mutant mice demonstrate that loss of fibrillins results in phenotypes associated with dysregulated TGFβ (21–23) or bone morphogenetic protein (24) signaling. Microfibril-associated glycoprotein-1 (Magp-1) null mice reveal phenotypes that may also be related to abnormal TGFβ signaling (25).In a previous study (9), we determined that the binding site for LTBP-1 and -4 is contained within a specific four-domain region of fibrillin-1. In this study, we performed additional experiments to more precisely define the LTBP binding site. At the same time, we compared binding of fibulins to fibrillin, because the region in fibrillin-1 that was suggested to contain the fibulin binding site (11) was very close to our region of interest for LTBP binding. Our results demonstrate that LTBPs and fibulins compete for binding to fibrillin-1. However, the proteins tested (LTBP-1, LTBP-4, fibulin-2, fibulin-4, and fibulin-5) displayed “exquisite specificities” in their interactions with fibrillin-1.To test the potential significance of these interactions with fibrillin-1, we investigated matrix incorporation of LTBPs in cell cultures obtained from wild type, Fbn1 null, Fbn2 null, fibulin-2 (Fbln-2) null, and fibulin-4 (Fbln-4) null mice. In addition, we examined the distribution of LTBPs in Fbn1 null and Fbn2 null mice.     

Differential Regulation of Elastic Fiber Formation by Fibulin-4 and -5

Fibulin-4 and -5 are extracellular glycoproteins with essential non-compensatory roles in elastic fiber assembly. We have determined how they interact with tropoelastin, lysyl oxidase, and fibrillin-1, thereby revealing how they differentially regulate assembly. Strong binding between fibulin-4 and lysyl oxidase enhanced the interaction of fibulin-4 with tropoelastin, forming ternary complexes that may direct elastin cross-linking. In contrast, fibulin-5 did not bind lysyl oxidase strongly but bound tropoelastin in terminal and central regions and could concurrently bind fibulin-4. Both fibulins differentially bound N-terminal fibrillin-1, which strongly inhibited their binding to lysyl oxidase and tropoelastin. Knockdown experiments revealed that fibulin-5 controlled elastin deposition on microfibrils, although fibulin-4 can also bind fibrillin-1. These experiments provide a molecular account of the distinct roles of fibulin-4 and -5 in elastic fiber assembly and how they act in concert to chaperone cross-linked elastin onto microfibrils.Fibulins are a family of extracellular glycoproteins containing contiguous calcium-binding epidermal growth factor-like domains (cbEGFs)³ and a characteristic C-terminal fibulin (FC) domain (1–3). Recent studies have revealed that fibulin-4 and -5 are both essential for elastic fiber formation (4–7). Fibulin-4 is widely expressed from early embryogenesis and is necessary for normal vascular, lung, and skin development, since mice that lack fibulin-4 do not form elastic fibers and die perinatally (5). Furthermore, mice with reduced fibulin-4 expression develop aneurysms (8). Fibulin-5 is abundant in the aorta and large arteries during embryogenesis and following vascular injury (9, 10). Lack of fibulin-5 causes a less severe phenotype, with viable homozygous mice, but the elastic fibers in skin, lungs, and aorta are irregular and fragmented (6, 7), and there is altered vascular remodeling (11). These mice models also highlight that fibulin-4 and -5 have non-compensatory roles in elastic fiber formation. Mutations in both molecules can cause cutis laxa, a heritable disorder associated with elastic fiber degeneration leading to sagging skin, vascular tortuosity, and emphysematous lungs (12–15). A third isoform, fibulin-3, may play a minor role in elastic fiber formation, since its deficiency disrupts elastic fibers in Bruch''s membrane of the eye (16) and vaginal tissues (17).Elastic fiber formation is a complex multistep process (18–20). Initial pericellular microassembly of tropoelastin, which may involve the 67-kDa elastin-binding protein receptor, generates elastin globules that are stabilized by desmosine cross-links catalyzed mainly by lysyl oxidase (LOX) but also by LOXL1 (LOX-like 1). These globules are deposited on a fibrillin microfibril template, where they coalesce and undergo further cross-linking to form the elastin core of mature fibers. The ability of fibulin-4 and -5 to bind tropoelastin and fibrillin-1, the major structural component of microfibrils, supports a model in which these fibulins direct elastin deposition on microfibrils (4–7, 21–25). This model does not delineate the unique molecular contributions of fibulin-4 and -5 to elastic fiber formation, but some molecular differences have emerged. Tropoelastin was bound more strongly by fibulin-5 than by fibulin-4, whereas fibulin-5 was at the microfibril-elastin interface, but perichondrial fibulin-4 localized mainly to microfibrils (4).Fibulin-4 null mice offer tantalizing clues to how fibulin-4 contributes to elastic fiber formation (5). They had dramatically reduced (94%) desmosine cross-links despite no change in elastin or LOX expression levels, and electron-dense rodlike structures were prominent within elastin aggregates. Morphologically similar structures seen after chemically inhibiting LOX were previously identified as glycosaminoglycans, which can bind charged free ϵ-amino groups on lysines in tropoelastin (26). However, fibulin-4^+/− mice showed ∼20% increase in desmosine (5). LOX-null mice have phenotypic features similar to those of fibulin-4 null mice, dying perinatally with 60% reduced desmosine cross-links and major abnormalities in vascular and other elastic tissues (27, 28). In contrast, LOXL1-null mice are viable but have reduced desmosine (29), whereas fibulin-5 null mice have a 16% reduction in desmosine cross-links and survive well into adulthood (7). Detection of the LOXL1 pro-domain in fibulin-5 null mice skin but not wild-type skin implicates fibulin-5 in activation of LOXL1 (30).We and others have shown that fibrillin-1 and the microfibrillar protein MAGP-1 can both directly bind tropoelastin (31–34). However, the fibulin-null mice show that the fibrillin-1 interaction with tropoelastin is insufficient to support elastic fiber formation in vivo. Fibulin-5 has been reported to facilitate tropoelastin binding to the N-terminal half of fibrillin-1 (21). A study of elastin polypeptide self-assembly through coacervation and maturation phases showed that, although the N-terminal half of fibrillin-1 increased maturation velocity and droplet clustering, fibulin-4 and -5 both slowed maturation and limited globule growth (35). These studies imply that fibulins and fibrillin-1 act together to regulate elastin accretion on microfibrils.To gain further insights into the contributions of fibulin-4 and -5 to elastic fiber formation, we have delineated how they interact with tropoelastin, LOX, and fibrillin-1. Novel findings are that fibulin-4 directly binds LOX, and this interaction enhances fibulin-4 binding to tropoelastin, thus forming a ternary complex that may be critical for elastin cross-linking. Fibulin-5 can concurrently bind fibulin-4 and tropoelastin, but the interaction of both fibulins with fibrillin-1 strongly inhibits their binding to tropoelastin. These interactions indicate the molecular basis of how fibulins act as chaperones for deposition of elastin onto microfibrils. Our study thus provides a molecular account of the differential roles of fibulins-4 and -5 in elastic fiber formation.     

Defining Elastic Fiber Interactions by Molecular Fishing: AN AFFINITY PURIFICATION AND MASS SPECTROMETRY APPROACH*

Deciphering interacting networks of the extracellular matrix is a major challenge. We describe an affinity purification and mass spectrometry strategy that has provided new insights into the molecular interactions of elastic fibers, essential extracellular assemblies that provide elastic recoil in dynamic tissues. Using cell culture models, we defined primary and secondary elastic fiber interaction networks by identifying molecular interactions with the elastic fiber molecules fibrillin-1, MAGP-1, fibulin-5, and lysyl oxidase. The sensitivity and validity of our method was confirmed by identification of known interactions with the bait proteins. Our study revealed novel extracellular protein interactions with elastic fiber molecules and delineated secondary interacting networks with fibronectin and heparan sulfate-associated molecules. This strategy is a novel approach to define the macromolecular interactions that sustain complex extracellular matrix assemblies and to gain insights into how they are integrated into their surrounding matrix.Mass spectrometry is emerging as a powerful approach to identify protein interaction partners in molecular complexes. We have developed an affinity purification and mass spectrometry strategy that is applicable to the analysis of molecular interactions of extracellular matrix complexes. The extracellular matrix provides structural support to tissues and profoundly influences cell survival, proliferation, migration, and phenotypic state. It is a complex multimolecular and three-dimensional milieu that comprises assembled networks of tissue-specific combinations of structural and cell-adhesive glycoproteins, proteoglycans, and cross-linking enzymes. The matrix also sequesters numerous growth factors and cytokines, thereby controlling their bioavailability. Delineating the molecular nature of the fundamental interacting networks within complex extracellular matrices is a challenging task. Here, mass spectrometry has given new insights into elastic fiber interactions.Elastic fibers are essential structural elements of the extracellular matrix of dynamic connective tissues such as blood vessels, lungs, skin, and ligaments, endowing these tissues with elastic recoil (1, 2). Their importance is emphasized by elastic fiber defects that cause severe acquired diseases such as aortic aneurysms and pulmonary emphysema and life-threatening heritable disorders such as Marfan syndrome, supravalvular stenosis, and cutis laxa. These fibers are extensive multimolecular assemblies that adopt intricate tissue-specific architectural arrangements. At the morphological level, the fibers comprise a cross-linked elastin core and an outer mantle of fibrillin microfibrils. It has proved challenging to define the composition of tissue elastic fibers biochemically. Cross-linked elastin is highly insoluble and its isolation from tissues requires extreme conditions of hot alkali, which destroys other proteins (2). The efficient extraction of tissue microfibrils requires collagenase and other proteolytic activities that may destroy associated molecules (3). Despite these difficulties, a number of associated proteins, including MAGP-1,1 βigH3, fibulins, and lysyl oxidases (LOX and LOXL (also known as LOXL1)), as well as latent TGFβ-binding proteins (LTBPs), collagen VIII, and emilin-1 have been identified in biochemical and/or colocalization studies (1).Fibrillins are very large glycoproteins (350 kDa) containing 43 calcium-binding epidermal growth factor-like domains and seven TGFβ-binding protein-like (8-cysteine) domains (4). Fibrillin-1 is the more abundant isoform; fibrillin-2 is mainly expressed during development (5, 6). Tropoelastin, the secreted soluble form of elastin, comprises alternating hydrophobic and lysine-rich cross-linking domains. LOX and LOXL are copper-dependent amine oxidases that cross-link elastin through the oxidative deamination of specific lysines (7–9). Elastin is mainly expressed and deposited early in life and undergoes very little turnover in healthy tissues (2). MAGP-1 is a microfibril-associated glycoprotein that binds fibrillin-1 and elastin (10, 11) but is not essential for elastic fiber formation (12). βigH3 was originally identified as a matrix protein, MP78/70, in tissue extracts that solubilized elastin-associated microfibrils (13, 14). Fibulin-4 and -5 play essential roles in elastic fiber formation (15, 16), most likely by regulating elastin deposition onto microfibrils (17, 18). Fibulin-2 interacts with fibrillin-1 (19) but is not essential for elastic fiber formation (20). Fibulin-1-null mice, among other symptoms, display anomalies of aortic arch arteries and hemorrhagic blood vessels, suggesting some involvement in elastic fiber biology (21). Fibulin-3 (also known as Efemp1)-deficient mice exhibit early aging and herniation associated with reduced elastic fiber integrity (22). Collagen VIII and emilin-1 also colocalize to elastic fibers (23, 24).The assembly of microfibrils and elastic fibers remains incompletely understood. We and others recently showed that assembly of the microfibril component is orchestrated by the cell surface through interactions with fibronectin and integrin receptors (25, 26). Heparan sulfate, an abundant pericellular glycosaminoglycan chain attached to syndecan and glypican proteoglycan receptors, also critically influences microfibril formation (27–29). Elastin deposition and stabilization on microfibrils require fibulins and the cross-linking enzymes LOX and/or LOXL.To obtain new insights into the molecular interactions of elastic fibers and how they are integrated into their surrounding matrix, we conducted a detailed affinity capture LC-MS/MS analysis of molecules that interact in culture specifically with four His₆-tagged recombinant human elastic fiber molecules (fibrillin-1, MAGP-1, fibulin-5, and LOX). Tropoelastin was not used as bait because of its highly adhesive nature. Our protocol proved to be an effective strategy for defining specific interactions of elastic fiber molecules in the extracellular matrix. Efficacy was demonstrated through confirmation of known interactions and validation of novel extracellular matrix protein-protein interactions. This approach further allowed us to predict secondary elastic fiber interactions, giving powerful insights into the molecular networks that sustain elastic fibers within higher order extracellular matrices.     

Splitting the BLOSUM Score into Numbers of Biological Significance

Mathematical tools developed in the context of Shannon information theory were used to analyze the meaning of the BLOSUM score, which was split into three components termed as the BLOSUM spectrum (or BLOSpectrum). These relate respectively to the sequence convergence (the stochastic similarity of the two protein sequences), to the background frequency divergence (typicality of the amino acid probability distribution in each sequence), and to the target frequency divergence (compliance of the amino acid variations between the two sequences to the protein model implicit in the BLOCKS database). This treatment sharpens the protein sequence comparison, providing a rationale for the biological significance of the obtained score, and helps to identify weakly related sequences. Moreover, the BLOSpectrum can guide the choice of the most appropriate scoring matrix, tailoring it to the evolutionary divergence associated with the two sequences, or indicate if a compositionally adjusted matrix could perform better.[1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29]     

Analysis of Free Energy Signals Arising from Nucleotide Hybridization Between rRNA and mRNA Sequences during Translation in Eubacteria

A decoding algorithm is tested that mechanistically models the progressive alignments that arise as the mRNA moves past the rRNA tail during translation elongation. Each of these alignments provides an opportunity for hybridization between the single-stranded, -terminal nucleotides of the 16S rRNA and the spatially accessible window of mRNA sequence, from which a free energy value can be calculated. Using this algorithm we show that a periodic, energetic pattern of frequency 1/3 is revealed. This periodic signal exists in the majority of coding regions of eubacterial genes, but not in the non-coding regions encoding the 16S and 23S rRNAs. Signal analysis reveals that the population of coding regions of each bacterial species has a mean phase that is correlated in a statistically significant way with species () content. These results suggest that the periodic signal could function as a synchronization signal for the maintenance of reading frame and that codon usage provides a mechanism for manipulation of signal phase.[1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32]     

Algorithms for Finding Small Attractors in Boolean Networks

A Boolean network is a model used to study the interactions between different genes in genetic regulatory networks. In this paper, we present several algorithms using gene ordering and feedback vertex sets to identify singleton attractors and small attractors in Boolean networks. We analyze the average case time complexities of some of the proposed algorithms. For instance, it is shown that the outdegree-based ordering algorithm for finding singleton attractors works in time for , which is much faster than the naive time algorithm, where is the number of genes and is the maximum indegree. We performed extensive computational experiments on these algorithms, which resulted in good agreement with theoretical results. In contrast, we give a simple and complete proof for showing that finding an attractor with the shortest period is NP-hard.[1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32]     

Role of Partitioning-defective 1/Microtubule Affinity-regulating Kinases in the Morphogenetic Activity of Helicobacter pylori CagA

Helicobacter pylori CagA plays a key role in gastric carcinogenesis. Upon delivery into gastric epithelial cells, CagA binds and deregulates SHP-2 phosphatase, a bona fide oncoprotein, thereby causing sustained ERK activation and impaired focal adhesions. CagA also binds and inhibits PAR1b/MARK2, one of the four members of the PAR1 family of kinases, to elicit epithelial polarity defect. In nonpolarized gastric epithelial cells, CagA induces the hummingbird phenotype, an extremely elongated cell shape characterized by a rear retraction defect. This morphological change is dependent on CagA-deregulated SHP-2 and is thus thought to reflect the oncogenic potential of CagA. In this study, we investigated the role of the PAR1 family of kinases in the hummingbird phenotype. We found that CagA binds not only PAR1b but also other PAR1 isoforms, with order of strength as follows: PAR1b > PAR1d ≥ PAR1a > PAR1c. Binding of CagA with PAR1 isoforms inhibits the kinase activity. This abolishes the ability of PAR1 to destabilize microtubules and thereby promotes disassembly of focal adhesions, which contributes to the hummingbird phenotype. Consistently, PAR1 knockdown potentiates induction of the hummingbird phenotype by CagA. The morphogenetic activity of CagA was also found to be augmented through inhibition of non-muscle myosin II. Because myosin II is functionally associated with PAR1, perturbation of PAR1-regulated myosin II by CagA may underlie the defect of rear retraction in the hummingbird phenotype. Our findings reveal that CagA systemically inhibits PAR1 family kinases and indicate that malfunctioning of microtubules and myosin II by CagA-mediated PAR1 inhibition cooperates with deregulated SHP-2 in the morphogenetic activity of CagA.Infection with Helicobacter pylori strains bearing cagA (cytotoxin-associated gene A)-positive strains is the strongest risk factor for the development of gastric carcinoma, the second leading cause of cancer-related death worldwide (1–3). The cagA gene is located within a 40-kb DNA fragment, termed the cag pathogenicity island, which is specifically present in the genome of cagA-positive H. pylori strains (4–6). In addition to cagA, there are ∼30 genes in the cag pathogenicity island, many of which encode a bacterial type IV secretion system that delivers the cagA-encoded CagA protein into gastric epithelial cells (7–10). Upon delivery into gastric epithelial cells, CagA is localized to the plasma membrane, where it undergoes tyrosine phosphorylation at the C-terminal Glu-Pro-Ile-Tyr-Ala motifs by Src family kinases or c-Abl kinase (11–14). The C-terminal Glu-Pro-Ile-Tyr-Ala-containing region of CagA is noted for the structural diversity among distinct H. pylori isolates. Oncogenic potential of CagA has recently been confirmed by a study showing that systemic expression of CagA in mice induces gastrointestinal and hematological malignancies (15).When expressed in gastric epithelial cells, CagA induces morphological transformation termed the hummingbird phenotype, which is characterized by the development of one or two long and thin protrusions resembling the beak of the hummingbird. It has been thought that the hummingbird phenotype is related to the oncogenic action of CagA (7, 16–19). Pathophysiological relevance for the hummingbird phenotype in gastric carcinogenesis has recently been provided by the observation that infection with H. pylori carrying CagA with greater ability to induce the hummingbird phenotype is more closely associated with gastric carcinoma (20–23). Elevated motility of hummingbird cells (cells showing the hummingbird phenotype) may also contribute to invasion and metastasis of gastric carcinoma.In host cells, CagA interacts with the SHP-2 phosphatase, C-terminal Src kinase, and Crk adaptor in a tyrosine phosphorylation-dependent manner (16, 24, 25) and also associates with Grb2 adaptor and c-Met in a phosphorylation-independent manner (26, 27). Among these CagA targets, much attention has been focused on SHP-2 because the phosphatase has been recognized as a bona fide oncoprotein, gain-of-function mutations of which are found in various human malignancies (17, 18, 28). Stable interaction of CagA with SHP-2 requires CagA dimerization, which is mediated by a 16-amino acid CagA-multimerization (CM)² sequence present in the C-terminal region of CagA (29). Upon complex formation, CagA aberrantly activates SHP-2 and thereby elicits sustained ERK MAP kinase activation that promotes mitogenesis (30). Also, CagA-activated SHP-2 dephosphorylates and inhibits focal adhesion kinase (FAK), causing impaired focal adhesions. It has been shown previously that both aberrant ERK activation and FAK inhibition by CagA-deregulated SHP-2 are involved in induction of the hummingbird phenotype (31).Partitioning-defective 1 (PAR1)/microtubule affinity-regulating kinase (MARK) is an evolutionally conserved serine/threonine kinase originally isolated in C. elegans (32–34). Mammalian cells possess four structurally related PAR1 isoforms, PAR1a/MARK3, PAR1b/MARK2, PAR1c/MARK1, and PAR1d/MARK4 (35–37). Among these, PAR1a, PAR1b, and PAR1c are expressed in a variety of cells, whereas PAR1d is predominantly expressed in neural cells (35, 37). These PAR1 isoforms phosphorylate microtubule-associated proteins (MAPs) and thereby destabilize microtubules (35, 38), allowing asymmetric distribution of molecules that are involved in the establishment and maintenance of cell polarity.In polarized epithelial cells, CagA disrupts the tight junctions and causes loss of apical-basolateral polarity (39, 40). This CagA activity involves the interaction of CagA with PAR1b/MARK2 (19, 41). CagA directly binds to the kinase domain of PAR1b in a tyrosine phosphorylation-independent manner and inhibits the kinase activity. Notably, CagA binds to PAR1b via the CM sequence (19). Because PAR1b is present as a dimer in cells (42), CagA may passively homodimerize upon complex formation with the PAR1 dimer via the CM sequence, and this PAR1-directed CagA dimer would form a stable complex with SHP-2 through its two SH2 domains.Because of the critical role of CagA in gastric carcinogenesis (7, 16–19), it is important to elucidate the molecular basis underlying the morphogenetic activity of CagA. In this study, we investigated the role of PAR1 isoforms in induction of the hummingbird phenotype by CagA, and we obtained evidence that CagA-mediated inhibition of PAR1 kinases contributes to the development of the morphological change by perturbing microtubules and non-muscle myosin II.     

Proinsulin and the Genetics of Diabetes Mellitus

Insulin plays a central role in the regulation of vertebrate metabolism. The hormone, the post-translational product of a single-chain precursor, is a globular protein containing two chains, A (21 residues) and B (30 residues). Recent advances in human genetics have identified dominant mutations in the insulin gene causing permanent neonatal-onset DM² (1–4). The mutations are predicted to block folding of the precursor in the ER of pancreatic β-cells. Although expression of the wild-type allele would in other circumstances be sufficient to maintain homeostasis, studies of a corresponding mouse model (5–7) suggest that the misfolded variant perturbs wild-type biosynthesis (8, 9). Impaired β-cell secretion is associated with ER stress, distorted organelle architecture, and cell death (10). These findings have renewed interest in insulin biosynthesis (11–13) and the structural basis of disulfide pairing (14–19). Protein evolution is constrained not only by structure and function but also by susceptibility to toxic misfolding.Insulin plays a central role in the regulation of vertebrate metabolism. The hormone, the post-translational product of a single-chain precursor, is a globular protein containing two chains, A (21 residues) and B (30 residues). Recent advances in human genetics have identified dominant mutations in the insulin gene causing permanent neonatal-onset DM² (1–4). The mutations are predicted to block folding of the precursor in the ER of pancreatic β-cells. Although expression of the wild-type allele would in other circumstances be sufficient to maintain homeostasis, studies of a corresponding mouse model (5–7) suggest that the misfolded variant perturbs wild-type biosynthesis (8, 9). Impaired β-cell secretion is associated with ER stress, distorted organelle architecture, and cell death (10). These findings have renewed interest in insulin biosynthesis (11–13) and the structural basis of disulfide pairing (14–19). Protein evolution is constrained not only by structure and function but also by susceptibility to toxic misfolding.     

Dbf4-Cdc7 Phosphorylation of Mcm2 Is Required for Cell Growth

The Dbf4-Cdc7 kinase (DDK) is required for the activation of the origins of replication, and DDK phosphorylates Mcm2 in vitro. We find that budding yeast Cdc7 alone exists in solution as a weakly active multimer. Dbf4 forms a likely heterodimer with Cdc7, and this species phosphorylates Mcm2 with substantially higher specific activity. Dbf4 alone binds tightly to Mcm2, whereas Cdc7 alone binds weakly to Mcm2, suggesting that Dbf4 recruits Cdc7 to phosphorylate Mcm2. DDK phosphorylates two serine residues of Mcm2 near the N terminus of the protein, Ser-164 and Ser-170. Expression of mcm2-S170A is lethal to yeast cells that lack endogenous MCM2 (mcm2Δ); however, this lethality is rescued in cells harboring the DDK bypass mutant mcm5-bob1. We conclude that DDK phosphorylation of Mcm2 is required for cell growth.The Cdc7 protein kinase is required throughout the yeast S phase to activate origins (1, 2). The S phase cyclin-dependent kinase also activates yeast origins of replication (3–5). It has been proposed that Dbf4 activates Cdc7 kinase in S phase, and that Dbf4 interaction with Cdc7 is essential for Cdc7 kinase activity (6). However, it is not known how Dbf4-Cdc7 (DDK)² acts during S phase to trigger the initiation of DNA replication. DDK has homologs in other eukaryotic species, and the role of Cdc7 in activation of replication origins during S phase may be conserved (7–10).The Mcm2-7 complex functions with Cdc45 and GINS to unwind DNA at a replication fork (11–15). A mutation of MCM5 (mcm5-bob1) bypasses the cellular requirements for DBF4 and CDC7 (16), suggesting a critical physiologic interaction between Dbf4-Cdc7 and Mcm proteins. DDK phosphorylates Mcm2 in vitro with proteins purified from budding yeast (17, 18) or human cells (19). Furthermore, there are mutants of MCM2 that show synthetic lethality with DBF4 mutants (6, 17), suggesting a biologically relevant interaction between DBF4 and MCM2. Nevertheless, the physiologic role of DDK phosphorylation of Mcm2 is a matter of dispute. In human cells, replacement of MCM2 DDK-phosphoacceptor residues with alanines inhibits DNA replication, suggesting that Dbf4-Cdc7 phosphorylation of Mcm2 in humans is important for DNA replication (20). In contrast, mutation of putative DDK phosphorylation sites at the N terminus of Schizosaccharomyces pombe Mcm2 results in viable cells, suggesting that phosphorylation of S. pombe Mcm2 by DDK is not critical for cell growth (10).In budding yeast, Cdc7 is present at high levels in G₁ and S phase, whereas Dbf4 levels peak in S phase (18, 21, 22). Furthermore, budding yeast DDK binds to chromatin during S phase (6), and it has been shown that Dbf4 is required for Cdc7 binding to chromatin in budding yeast (23, 24), fission yeast (25), and Xenopus (9). Human and fission yeast Cdc7 are inert on their own (7, 8), but Dbf4-Cdc7 is active in phosphorylating Mcm proteins in budding yeast (6, 26), fission yeast (7), and human (8, 10). Based on these data, it has been proposed that Dbf4 activates Cdc7 kinase in S phase and that Dbf4 interaction with Cdc7 is essential for Cdc7 kinase activity (6, 9, 18, 21–24). However, a mechanistic analysis of how Dbf4 activates Cdc7 has not yet been accomplished. For example, the multimeric state of the active Dbf4-Cdc7 complex is currently disputed. A heterodimer of fission yeast Cdc7 (Hsk1) in complex with fission yeast Dbf4 (Dfp1) can phosphorylate Mcm2 (7). However, in budding yeast, oligomers of Cdc7 exist in the cell (27), and Dbf4-Cdc7 exists as oligomers of 180 and 300 kDa (27).DDK phosphorylates the N termini of human Mcm2 (19, 20, 28), human Mcm4 (10), budding yeast Mcm4 (26), and fission yeast Mcm6 (10). Although the sequences of the Mcm N termini are poorly conserved, the DDK sites identified in each study have neighboring acidic residues. The residues of budding yeast Mcm2 that are phosphorylated by DDK have not yet been identified.In this study, we find that budding yeast Cdc7 is weakly active as a multimer in phosphorylating Mcm2. However, a low molecular weight form of Dbf4-Cdc7, likely a heterodimer, has a higher specific activity for phosphorylation of Mcm2. Dbf4 or DDK, but not Cdc7, binds tightly to Mcm2, suggesting that Dbf4 recruits Cdc7 to Mcm2. DDK phosphorylates two serine residues of Mcm2, Ser-164 and Ser-170, in an acidic region of the protein. Mutation of Ser-170 is lethal to yeast cells, but this phenotype is rescued by the DDK bypass mutant mcm5-bob1. We conclude that DDK phosphorylation of Ser-170 of Mcm2 is required for budding yeast growth.