Perspective on architecture and assembly of membrane contact sites

Membrane contact sites (MCS) are platforms of physical contact between different organelles. They are formed through interactions involving lipids and proteins, and function in processes such as calcium and lipid exchange, metabolism and organelle biogenesis. In this article, we discuss emerging questions regarding the architecture, organisation and assembly of MCS, such as: What is the contribution of different components to the interaction between organelles? How is the specific composition of different types of membrane contacts sites established and maintained? How are proteins and lipids spatially organised at MCS and how does that influence their function? How dynamic are MCS on the molecular and ultrastructural level? We highlight current state of research and point out experimental approaches that promise to contribute to a spatiomechanistic understanding of MCS functions.     

Similar binding sites and different partners: implications to shared proteins in cellular pathways

We studied a data set of structurally similar interfaces that bind to proteins with different binding-site structures and different functions. Our multipartner protein interface clusters enable us to address questions like: What makes a given site bind different proteins? How similar/different are the interactions? And, what drives the apparently less-specific association? We find that proteins with common binding-site motifs preferentially use conserved interactions at similar interface locations, despite the different partners. Helices are major vehicles for binding different partners, allowing alternate ways to achieve favorable association. The binding sites are characterized by imperfect packing, planar architectures, bridging water molecules, and, on average, smaller size. Interestingly, analysis of the connectivity of these proteins illustrates that they have more interactions with other proteins. These findings are important in predicting "date hubs," if we assume that "date hubs" are shared proteins with binding sites capable of transient binding to multipartners, linking higher-order networks.     

Amphitropic proteins: regulation by reversible membrane interactions (review).

What do Src kinase, Ras-guanine nucleotide exchange factor, cytidylyltransferase, protein kinase C, phospholipase C, vinculin, and DnaA protein have in common? These proteins are amphitropic, that is, they bind weakly (reversibly) to membrane lipids, and this process regulates their function. Proteins functioning in transduction of signals generated in cell membranes are commonly regulated by amphitropism. In this review, the strategies utilized by amphitropic proteins to bind to membranes and to regulate their membrane affinity are described. The recently solved structures of binding pockets for specific lipids are described, as well as the amphipathic alpha-helix motif. Regulatory switches that control membrane affinity include modulation of the membrane lipid composition, and modification of the protein itself by ligand binding, phosphorylation, or acylation. How does membrane binding modulate the protein's function? Two mechanisms are discussed: (1) localization with the substrate, activator, or downstream target, and (2) activation of the protein by a conformational switch. This paper also addresses the issue of specificity in the cell membrane targetted for binding.     

Fifteen compelling open questions in plant cell biology

As scientists, we are at least as excited about the open questions—the things we do not know—as the discoveries. Here, we asked 15 experts to describe the most compelling open questions in plant cell biology. These are their questions: How are organelle identity, domains, and boundaries maintained under the continuous flux of vesicle trafficking and membrane remodeling? Is the plant cortical microtubule cytoskeleton a mechanosensory apparatus? How are the cellular pathways of cell wall synthesis, assembly, modification, and integrity sensing linked in plants? Why do plasmodesmata open and close? Is there retrograde signaling from vacuoles to the nucleus? How do root cells accommodate fungal endosymbionts? What is the role of cell edges in plant morphogenesis? How is the cell division site determined? What are the emergent effects of polyploidy on the biology of the cell, and how are any such “rules” conditioned by cell type? Can mechanical forces trigger new cell fates in plants? How does a single differentiated somatic cell reprogram and gain pluripotency? How does polarity develop de-novo in isolated plant cells? What is the spectrum of cellular functions for membraneless organelles and intrinsically disordered proteins? How do plants deal with internal noise? How does order emerge in cells and propagate to organs and organisms from complex dynamical processes? We hope you find the discussions of these questions thought provoking and inspiring.

We asked 15 experts to address what they consider to be the most compelling open questions in plant cell biology and these are their questions.     

Physiology and biophysics of chloride and cation cotransport across cell membranes

Many important questions remain to be answered about the mechanism that mediates coupled Na,K,Cl cotransport. We still do not know what the ATP requirement involves. Is ATP the direct energy source? Such an energy source does not seem to be necessary, inasmuch as the net free energy in the combined transmembrane chemical gradients of Na, K, and Cl is quite sufficient to maintain the observed high Cl(i). Could a protein kinase-mediated mechanism be responsible for the ATP requirement? How does reducing Cl(i) stimulate the transporter? What are the kinetic relationships for the co-ions at the outward- and inward-facing transport sites? Are they symmetrical? Can the squid axon regulate its cell volume? If so, is the Na,K,Cl transporter directly involved? Thus, the squid axon remains a fruitful preparation to study a transport mechanism similar to that found in a variety of cells. Its large size confers unique experimental advantages that should help us in our quest to understand this widely distributed transport mechanism.     

Fitting curves to data using nonlinear regression: a practical and nonmathematical review

Many types of data are best analyzed by fitting a curve using nonlinear regression, and computer programs that perform these calculations are readily available. Like every scientific technique, however, a nonlinear regression program can produce misleading results when used inappropriately. This article reviews the use of nonlinear regression in a practical and nonmathematical manner to answer the following questions: Why is nonlinear regression superior to linear regression of transformed data? How does nonlinear regression differ from polynomial regression and cubic spline? How do nonlinear regression programs work? What choices must an investigator make before performing nonlinear regression? What do the final results mean? How can two sets of data or two fits to one set of data be compared? What problems can cause the results to be wrong? This review is designed to demystify nonlinear regression so that both its power and its limitations will be appreciated.     

The genetics and molecular biology of the titin/connectin-like proteins of invertebrates

Conclusions A substantial amount of information has been gathered about the structure and function of twitchin/titin-related proteins in the invertebrates. This has been obtained through sequence analysis and the analysis of loss-offunction phenotypes inC. elegans andDrosophila. Nevertheless, a number of fascinating questions remain, including: (i) Why are these invertebrate proteins all of approx. 700–800 kDa? In terms of sarcomeric organization, what is the significance of this size? (ii) Why do three of these proteins consist of a mixture of Ig and Fn domains, whereas UNC-89 contains only Ig domains? This is even more interesting because the structures of Ig and Fn domains are very similar (118). What is the significance of the repeating pattern of groups of Ig and Fn domains (e.g. Fn-Fn-Ig)? (iii) How are twitchin and the synchronous muscle isoform of projectin situated on the surface of thick filaments? That is, do they form polymers or are they located at discrete locations with intervening gaps? (iv) What is the mechanism by which the fundamentally similar projectin isoforms get localized to different sarcomeric locations? (v) If the data onAplysia twitchin can be extended to the muscles of other invertebrates, what is the mechanism by which twitchin inhibits the rate of relaxation? How does phosphorylation of twitchin relieve this inhibition? (vi) What are the substrates for the protein kinase domains of nematode twitchin and insect projectin? If rMLCs are indeed the substrates, how would and why does this phosphorylation take place for the IFM isoform of projectin, which resides primarily in the I band? If rMLCs are the substrates, given the stoichiometry of approx. 1∶50 for twitchin:myosin, and the likely fixed position of twitchin along the thick filament, how does phosphorylation of just a few rMLCs result in a physiological effect (e.g. inhibition of relaxation)? What is the true activator for the twitchin and projectin kinases? (vii) How does UNC-89 participate in M-line assembly? (viii) What are the biochemical and physiological functions of intestinal brush border twitchin? A number of investigators will enjoy pursuing these and other questions for some time in the future.     

“国际生物多样性观察年（IBOY）”核心项目——内容介绍及建议

生物多样性观察年（IBOY）的核心项目包括4个大的主题：1）全球生物多样性现状;2）生物多样性的变化方式;3）生物多样性对人类生活的价值;4）人类如何保护生物多样性。本文对这些主题内的不同课题进行了介绍,同时对我国生物多样性科学的发展提出了相应的建议。     

Endocytosis and signaling: a relationship under development

The ability to internalize macromolecules by endocytosis is a property of all eukaryotic cells. Frontline research on endocytosis has been presented in a successful series of biannual meetings in Europe. This year's meeting on "Membrane Dynamics in Endocytosis" was held September 13-18 in Acquafredda di Maratea, on the coast of southern Italy. Four key questions were addressed: What are the molecular mechanisms of endocytic membrane trafficking? How does endocytosis modulate receptor signaling and vice versa? What is the importance of endocytosis during development? How do endocytic organelles contribute to immunity or susceptibility to pathogens?     

The Camera and the Anthropologist: Reflections on Photographic Agency

How does our choice of camera impact the way we see our field sites and carry out our work within them? What kinds of seeing does a particular camera enable or foreclose? This essay draws on recent theoretical interventions in new materialism and object-oriented ontology, as well as the author’s last decade of experience producing images in the field, to argue that visual anthropology is a collaborative, co-agentive act between anthropologist and camera. Our cameras matter, we conclude, and it is time for us to begin thinking through how they matter and the kinds of material differences they make.     

The exosome, a molecular machine for controlled RNA degradation in both nucleus and cytoplasm

One of the most important protein complexes involved in maintaining correct RNA levels in eukaryotic cells is the exosome, a complex consisting almost exclusively of exoribonucleolytic proteins. Since the identification of the exosome complex, seven years ago, much progress has been made in the characterization of its composition, structure and function in a variety of organisms. Although the exosome seems to accumulate in the nucleolus, it has been clearly established that it is also localized in cytoplasm and nucleoplasm. In accordance with its widespread intracellular distribution, the exosome has been implicated in a variety of RNA processing and degradation processes. Nevertheless, many questions still remain unanswered. What are the factors that regulate the activity of the exosome? How and where is the complex assembled? What are the differences in the composition of the nuclear and cytoplasmic exosome? What is the detailed structure of exosome subunits? What are the mechanisms by which the exosome is recruited to substrate RNAs? Here, we summarize the current knowledge on the composition and architecture of this complex, explain its role in both the production and degradation of various types of RNA molecules and discuss the implications of recent research developments that shed some light on the questions above and the mechanisms that are controlling the exosome.     

Cell death: questions for histochemists concerning the causes of the various cytological changes

Summary The question of cell death is accessible to study by histochemists and many questions remain to be resolved. From a physiological point of view, the most important are the causal relationships. (1) At what phase in cell death is the synthesis of RNA disrupted and at what phase is the rate of degradation of RNA increased? (2) Does the disruption of synthesis result from a direct genetic command, or does it result indirectly from gradual deterioration of energy resources or optimal ionic conditions? (3) What properties, presumably of the substrate organelles, marks them for specific absorption into autophagic vacuoles? (4) What proteases and other hydrolases operate currently undetected in the cytoplasm? How are they controlled and regulated? (5) Why does the physiologically dying cell shrink and appear more dense? To what extent is a cell in this state able to regulate any metabolic parameter? The advent of newer, more sensitive and quantitative techniques, and greater attention to the controls and causes as opposed to the phenomena, should help to resolve these questions.     

Germination of Spores of Bacillus Species: What We Know and Do Not Know

Spores of Bacillus species can remain in their dormant and resistant states for years, but exposure to agents such as specific nutrients can cause spores'' return to life within minutes in the process of germination. This process requires a number of spore-specific proteins, most of which are in or associated with the inner spore membrane (IM). These proteins include the (i) germinant receptors (GRs) that respond to nutrient germinants, (ii) GerD protein, which is essential for GR-dependent germination, (iii) SpoVA proteins that form a channel in spores'' IM through which the spore core''s huge depot of dipicolinic acid is released during germination, and (iv) cortex-lytic enzymes (CLEs) that degrade the large peptidoglycan cortex layer, allowing the spore core to take up much water and swell, thus completing spore germination. While much has been learned about nutrient germination, major questions remain unanswered, including the following. (i) How do nutrient germinants penetrate through spores'' outer layers to access GRs in the IM? (ii) What happens during the highly variable and often long lag period between the exposure of spores to nutrient germinants and the commitment of spores to germinate? (iii) What do GRs and GerD do, and how do these proteins interact? (iv) What is the structure of the SpoVA channel in spores'' IM, and how is this channel gated? (v) What is the precise state of the spore IM, which has a number of novel properties even though its lipid composition is very similar to that of growing cells? (vi) How is CLE activity regulated such that these enzymes act only when germination has been initiated? (vii) And finally, how does the germination of spores of clostridia compare with that of spores of bacilli?     

Heterochromatin Protein 1a (HP1a) Partner Specificity Is Determined by Critical Amino Acids in the Chromo Shadow Domain and C-terminal Extension

Drosophila melanogaster Heterochromatin Protein 1a (HP1a) is an essential protein critical for heterochromatin assembly and regulation. Its chromo shadow domain (CSD) homodimerizes, a requirement for binding protein partners that contain a PXVXL motif. How does HP1a select among its many different PXVXL-containing partners? HP1a binds tightly to Heterochromatin Protein 2 (HP2), but weakly to PIWI. We investigated differences in homodimerization and the impact of the C-terminal extension (CTE) by contrasting HP1a to its paralogue, HP1b. HP1a and HP1b differ in the dimerization interface, with HP1a having an Arg at position 188 rather than Glu. We find that while this substitution reduces the dimerization constant, it does not impact the binding surface as demonstrated by unchanged partner binding affinities. However, the CTE (only 4 residues in HP1a as compared with 87 residues in HP1b) is critical; the charged residues in HP1a are necessary for tight peptide binding. Examining a panel of amino acid substitutions in the HP1a CSD, we find that Leu-165 in HP1a interacts with HP2 but not PIWI, supporting the conclusion that different sites in the binding surface provide discrimination for partner selection. Partner sequence is also critical for affinity, as the remaining difference in binding between HP2 and PIWI polypeptides is eliminated by swapping the PXVXL motifs between the two. Taken together, these studies indicate that the binding surface of the HP1a CSD plus its short CTE provide the needed discrimination among HP1a''s partners, and that the CTE is important for differentiating the interactions of the Drosophila HP1 paralogs.     

How proteins enter the nucleus

Nuclear protein import is a selective process. Proteins destined for the nucleus contain NLSs. These short stretches of amino acids interact with proteins located in the cytoplasm, on the nuclear envelope, and/or at the nuclear pore complex. Following binding at the pore complex, proteins are translocated through the pore into the nucleus in a manner requiring ATP. The biochemical dissection of the nuclear pore complex has begun. Alteration of protein import into the nucleus is emerging as a new and complex form of regulation. However, we are left with the following problems: How do proteins move through the cytoplasm to reach the nuclear pore? How does the nuclear pore complex open and close in a selective manner? How is ATP utilized during import? And finally, how is bi-directional traffic of both proteins and RNA through the pore regulated?     

Probing the role of interfacial waters in protein–DNA recognition using a hybrid implicit/explicit solvation model

When proteins bind to their DNA target sites, ordered water molecules are often present at the protein–DNA interface bridging protein and DNA through hydrogen bonds. What is the role of these ordered interfacial waters? Are they important determinants of the specificity of DNA sequence recognition, or do they act in binding in a primarily nonspecific manner, by improving packing of the interface, shielding unfavorable electrostatic interactions, and solvating unsatisfied polar groups that are inaccessible to bulk solvent? When modeling details of structure and binding preferences, can fully implicit solvent models be fruitfully applied to protein–DNA interfaces, or must the individualistic properties of these interfacial waters be accounted for? To address these questions, we have developed a hybrid implicit/explicit solvation model that specifically accounts for the locations and orientations of small numbers of DNA‐bound water molecules, while treating the majority of the solvent implicitly. Comparing the performance of this model with that of its fully implicit counterpart, we find that explicit treatment of interfacial waters results in a modest but significant improvement in protein side‐chain placement and DNA sequence recovery. Base‐by‐base comparison of the performance of the two models highlights DNA sequence positions whose recognition may be dependent on interfacial water. Our study offers large‐scale statistical evidence for the role of ordered water for protein–DNA recognition, together with detailed examination of several well‐characterized systems. In addition, our approach provides a template for modeling explicit water molecules at interfaces that should be extensible to other systems. Proteins 2013; 81:1318–1329. © 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

ProMate: a structure based prediction program to identify the location of protein-protein binding sites

Is the whole protein surface available for interaction with other proteins, or are specific sites pre-assigned according to their biophysical and structural character? And if so, is it possible to predict the location of the binding site from the surface properties? These questions are answered quantitatively by probing the surfaces of proteins using spheres of radius of 10 A on a database (DB) of 57 unique, non-homologous proteins involved in heteromeric, transient protein-protein interactions for which the structures of both the unbound and bound states were determined. In structural terms, we found the binding site to have a preference for beta-sheets and for relatively long non-structured chains, but not for alpha-helices. Chemically, aromatic side-chains show a clear preference for binding sites. While the hydrophobic and polar content of the interface is similar to the rest of the surface, hydrophobic and polar residues tend to cluster in interfaces. In the crystal, the binding site has more bound water molecules surrounding it, and a lower B-factor already in the unbound protein. The same biophysical properties were found to hold for the unbound and bound DBs. All the significant interface properties were combined into ProMate, an interface prediction program. This was followed by an optimization step to choose the best combination of properties, as many of them are correlated. During optimization and prediction, the tested proteins were not used for data collection, to avoid over-fitting. The prediction algorithm is fully automated, and is used to predict the location of potential binding sites on unbound proteins with known structures. The algorithm is able to successfully predict the location of the interface for about 70% of the proteins. The success rate of the predictor was equal whether applied on the unbound DB or on the disjoint bound DB. A prediction is assumed correct if over half of the predicted continuous interface patch is indeed interface. The ability to predict the location of protein-protein interfaces has far reaching implications both towards our understanding of specificity and kinetics of binding, as well as in assisting in the analysis of the proteome.