Allosteric post-translational modification codes

Trends in Biochemical Sciences

Volumn 37, Issue 10, 2012, Pages 447-455

  Nussinov, Ruth ^a,b   Tsai, Chung Jung ^a   Xin, Fuxiao ^c   Radivojac, Predrag ^c  

^a SAIC FREDERICK INC   (United States)

^b TEL AVIV UNIVERSITY   (Israel)

^c INDIANA UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Allostery; Conformational ensembles; Conformational selection; Induced fit; Population shift; Propagation; Protein structure; Signaling pathways; Signaling proteins

Indexed keywords

PROTEOME;

ALLOSTERISM; BINDING SITE; COMPLEX FORMATION; CONFORMATIONAL TRANSITION; MOLECULAR EVOLUTION; MOLECULAR RECOGNITION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROTEIN DOMAIN; PROTEIN PHOSPHORYLATION; PROTEIN PROCESSING; REVIEW; SIGNAL TRANSDUCTION; SUMOYLATION;

ALLOSTERIC REGULATION; HUMANS; MODELS, MOLECULAR; PROTEIN PROCESSING, POST-TRANSLATIONAL; PROTEINS;

EID: 84866597525     PISSN: 09680004     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.tibs.2012.07.001     Document Type: Review

References (74)

1. The UniProt Consortium The Universal Protein Resource (UniProt) 2009. Nucleic Acids Res. 2009, 37:D169-D174.
2. Radivojac P., et al. Intrinsic disorder and functional proteomics. Biophys. J. 2007, 92:1439-1456.
3. Meek D.W., Anderson C.W. Post-translational modification of p53: cooperative integrators of function. Cold Spring Harb. Perspect. Biol. 2009, 1:a000950.
4. Calnan D.R., Brunet A. The FoxO code. Oncogene 2008, 27:2276-2288.
5. Benayoun B.A., Veitia R.A. A post-translational modification code for transcription factors: sorting through a sea of signals. Trends Cell Biol. 2009, 19:189-197.
6. Deribe Y.L., et al. Post-translational modifications in signal integration. Nat. Struct. Mol. Biol. 2010, 17:666-672.
7. Komander D. The emerging complexity of protein ubiquitination. Biochem. Soc. Trans. 2009, 37:937-953.
8. Grabbe C., et al. The spatial and temporal organization of ubiquitin networks. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 2011, 12:295-307.
9. Kar G., et al. Allostery and population shift in drug discovery. Curr. Opin. Pharmacol. 2010, 10:715-722.
10. Tsai C.J., et al. Protein allostery, signal transmission and dynamics: a classification scheme of allosteric mechanisms. Mol. Biosyst. 2009, 5:207-216.
11. del Sol A., et al. The origin of allosteric functional modulation: multiple pre-existing pathways. Structure 2009, 17:1042-1050.
12. Cell Biology 2007, W.B. Saunders. T.D. Pollard (Ed.).
13. Xu P., et al. Quantitative proteomics reveals the function of unconventional ubiquitin chains in proteasomal degradation. Cell 2009, 137:133-145.
14. Jin L.Y., et al. Mechanism of ubiquitin-chain formation by the human anaphase-promoting complex. Cell 2008, 133:653-665.
15. Chen Z.J., Sun L.J. Nonproteolytic functions of ubiquitin in cell signaling. Mol. Cell 2009, 33:275-286.
16. Lomelí H., Vázquez M. Emerging roles of the SUMO pathway in development. Cell. Mol. Life Sci. 2011, 68:4045-4064.
17. Wilkinson K.A., Henley J.M. Mechanisms, regulation and consequences of protein SUMOylation. Biochem. J. 2010, 428:133-145.
18. Kovacs J.J., et al. HDAC6 regulates Hsp90 acetylation and chaperone-dependent activation of glucocorticoid receptor. Mol. Cell 2005, 18:601-607.
19. Yang X.J. Lysine acetylation and the bromodomain: a new partnership for signaling. Bioessays 2004, 26:1076-1087.
20. Bergink S., Jentsch S. Principles of ubiquitin and SUMO modifications in DNA repair. Nature 2009, 458:461-467.
21. Creton S., Jentsch S. SnapShot: the SUMO system. Cell 2010, 143:848.
22. Pichler A., et al. SUMO modification of the ubiquitin-conjugating enzyme E2-25K. Nat. Struct. Mol. Biol. 2005, 12:264-269.
23. Astuti P., et al. Mitotic phosphorylation of Cdc25B Ser(321) disrupts 14-3-3 binding to the high affinity Ser(323) site. J. Biol. Chem. 2010, 285:34364-34370.
24. Hirschi A., et al. An overlapping kinase and phosphatase docking site regulates activity of the retinoblastoma protein. Nat. Struct. Mol. Biol. 2010, 17:1051-1057.
25. Gunasekaran K., et al. Is allostery an intrinsic property of all dynamic proteins?. Proteins Struct. Funct. Genet. 2004, 57:433-443.
26. Sagar G.D.V., et al. Ubiquitination-induced conformational change within the deiodinase dimer is a switch regulating enzyme activity. Mol. Cell. Biol. 2007, 27:4774-4783.
27. Ruffieux-Daidie D., Staub O. Intracellular ubiquitylation of the epithelial Na(+) channel controls extracellular proteolytic channel activation via conformational change. J. Biol. Chem. 2011, 286:2416-2424.
28. Edreira M.M., et al. Phosphorylation-induced conformational changes in Rap1b: allosteric effects on switch domains and effector loop. J. Biol. Chem. 2009, 284:27480-27486.
29. Johnson L.N., Lewis R.J. Structural basis for control by phosphorylation. Chem. Rev. 2001, 101:2209-2242.
30. Lee N.Y., Koland J.G. Conformational changes accompany phosphorylation of the epidermal growth factor receptor C-terminal domain. Protein Sci. 2005, 14:2793-2803.
31. Zhang H., et al. Carboxyl-group footprinting maps the dimerization interface and phosphorylation-induced conformational changes of a membrane-associated tyrosine kinase. Mol. Cell. Proteomics 2011, 10. M110.005678.
32. Giannopoulos P.N., et al. Phosphorylation of prion protein at serine 43 induces prion protein conformational change. J. Neurosci. 2009, 29:8743-8751.
33. Limardo R.G.R., et al. p38γ activation triggers dynamical changes in allosteric docking sites. Biochemistry 2011, 50:1384-1395.
34. Menet J.S., Rosbash M. A new twist on clock protein phosphorylation: a conformational change leads to protein degradation. Mol. Cell 2011, 43:695-697.
35. Querfurth C., et al. Circadian conformational change of the Neurospora clock protein FREQUENCY triggered by clustered hyperphosphorylation of a basic domain. Mol. Cell 2011, 43:713-722.
36. Tsai C.J., et al. Allostery: absence of a change in shape does not imply that allostery is not at play. J. Mol. Biol. 2008, 378:1-11.
37. Chang Y.G., et al. Flexibility of the C-terminal, or CII, ring of KaiC governs the rhythm of the circadian clock of cyanobacteria. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2011, 108:14431-14436.
38. Gong B.B., et al. Probing structural differences between PrP(C) and PrP(Sc) by surface nitration and acetylation: evidence of conformational change in the C-terminus. Biochemistry 2011, 50:4963-4972.
39. Hiruma-Shimizu K., et al. Chemical synthesis, folding, and structural insights into O-fucosylated epidermal growth factor-like repeat 12 of mouse Notch-1 receptor. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2010, 132:14857-14865.
40. Walsh S.T.R. A biosensor study indicating that entropy, electrostatics, and receptor glycosylation drive the binding interaction between interleukin-7 and its receptor. Biochemistry 2010, 49:8766-8778.
41. Glozman R., et al. N-glycans are direct determinants of CFTR folding and stability in secretory and endocytic membrane traffic. J. Cell Biol. 2009, 184:847-862.
42. Li S.S., Shang Y.F. Regulation of SRC family coactivators by post-translational modifications. Cell. Signal. 2007, 19:1101-1112.
43. Sims R.J., Reinberg D. Is there a code embedded in proteins that is based on post-translational modifications?. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 2008, 9:815-820.
44. Verhey K.J., Gaertig J. The tubulin code. Cell Cycle 2007, 6:2152-2160.
45. Strahl B.D., Allis C.D. The language of covalent histone modifications. Nature 2000, 403:41-45.
46. Buratowski S. The CTD code. Nat. Struct. Biol. 2003, 10:679-680.
47. Taverna S.D., et al. How chromatin-binding modules interpret histone modifications: lessons from professional pocket pickers. Nat. Struct. Mol. Biol. 2007, 14:1025-1040.
48. Seet B.T., et al. Reading protein modifications with interaction domains. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 2006, 7:473-483.
49. Young N.L., et al. Systems-wide proteomic characterization of combinatorial post-translational modification patterns. Expert Rev. Proteomics 2010, 7:79-92.
50. Landry C.R., et al. Weak functional constraints on phosphoproteomes. Trends Genet. 2009, 25:193-197.
51. Eliuk S.M., et al. High resolution electron transfer dissociation studies of unfractionated intact histones from murine embryonic stem cells using on-line capillary LC separation: determination of abundant histone isoforms and post-translational modifications. Mol. Cell. Proteomics 2010, 9:824-837.
52. Flick F., Lüscher B. Regulation of sirtuin function by posttranslational modifications. Front. Pharmacol. 2012, 3:29.
53. Young N.L., et al. Collective mass spectrometry approaches reveal broad and combinatorial modification of high mobility group protein A1a. J. Am. Soc. Mass Spectrom. 2010, 21:960-970.
54. Jung H.R., et al. Quantitative mass spectrometry of histones H3.2 and H3.3 in Suz12-deficient mouse embryonic stem cells reveals distinct, dynamic post-translational modifications at Lys-27 and Lys-36. Mol. Cell. Proteomics 2010, 9:838-850.
55. Suganuma T., Workman J.L. Signals and combinatorial functions of histone modifications. Annu. Rev. Biochem. 2011, 80:473-499.
56. Kato H., et al. Architecture of the high mobility group nucleosomal protein 2-nucleosome complex as revealed by methyl-based NMR. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2011, 108:12283-12288.
57. Shang L.B., et al. Nutrient starvation elicits an acute autophagic response mediated by Ulk1 dephosphorylation and its subsequent dissociation from AMPK. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2011, 108:4788-4793.
58. Turner B.M. Simplifying a complex code. Nat. Struct. Mol. Biol. 2008, 15:542-544.
59. Fuxreiter M., et al. Dynamic protein-DNA recognition: beyond what can be seen. Trends Biochem. Sci. 2011, 36:415-423.
60. Radhakrishnan I., et al. Solution structure of the KIX domain of CBP bound to the transactivation domain of CREB: a model for activator:coactivator interactions. Cell 1997, 91:741-752.
61. Moriniere J., et al. Cooperative binding of two acetylation marks on a histone tail by a single bromodomain. Nature 2009, 461:664-668.
62. Tsai K.L., et al. Crystal structure of the human FOXO3a-DBD/DNA complex suggests the effects of post-translational modification. Nucleic Acids Res. 2007, 35:6984-6994.
63. Canagarajah B.J., et al. Activation mechanism of the MAP kinase ERK2 by dual phosphorylation. Cell 1997, 90:859-869.
64. Vogel C., et al. Structure, function and evolution of multidomain proteins. Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol. 2004, 14:208-216.
65. Tsai C.J., et al. Protein-protein interaction networks: how can a hub protein bind so many different partners?. Trends Biochem. Sci. 2009, 34:594-600.
66. Wu J.I., et al. Understanding the words of chromatin regulation. Cell 2009, 136:200-206.
67. Freedman J.A., et al. A combinatorial mechanism for determining the specificity of E2F activation and repression. Oncogene 2009, 28:2873-2881.
68. Pan Y.P., et al. Mechanisms of transcription factor selectivity. Trends Genet. 2010, 26:75-83.
69. Panne D. The enhanceosome. Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol. 2008, 18:236-242.
70. Pan Y.P., Nussinov R. The role of response elements organization in transcription factor selectivity: the IFN-β enhanceosome example. PLoS Comput. Biol. 2011, 7:e1002077.
71. Ho L., Crabtree G.R. Chromatin remodelling during development. Nature 2010, 463:474-484.
72. Nussinov R. How do dynamic cellular signals travel long distances?. Mol. Biosyst. 2011, 8:22-26.
73. Ma B., et al. Dynamic allostery: linkers are not merely flexible. Structure 2011, 19:907-917.
74. Csermely P., et al. Disordered proteins and network disorder in network representations of protein structure, dynamics and function. Curr. Protein Pept. Sci. 2011, 13:19-33.