FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W1963819396> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W1963819396 endingPage "20363" @default.
• W1963819396 startingPage "20357" @default.
• W1963819396 abstract "Ubiquitin-specific processing proteases (UBPs) are characterized by a conserved core domain with surrounding divergent sequences, particularly at the N-terminal end. We previously cloned two isoforms of a testis UBP, UBP-t1 and UBP-t2, which contain identical core regions but distinct N termini that target the two isoforms to different subcellular locations (Lin, H., Keriel, A., Morales, C. R., Bedard, N., Zhao, Q., Hingamp, P., Lefrancois, S., Combaret, L., and Wing, S. S. (2000) Mol. Cell. Biol. 20, 6568–6578). To determine whether the N termini also influence the biochemical functions of the UBP, we expressed UBP-t1, UBP-t2, and the common core domain, UBP core, in Escherichia coli. The three isoforms cleaved branched triubiquitin at >20-fold faster rates than linear diubiquitin, suggesting that UBP-testis functions as an isopeptidase. Both N-terminal extensions inhibited the ability of UBP-core to generate free ubiquitin when linked in a peptide bond with itself, another peptide, or to small adducts. The N-terminal extension of UBP-t2 increased the ability of UBP-core to cleave branched triubiquitin. UBP-core removed ubiquitin from testis ubiquitinated proteins more rapidly than UBP-t2 and UBP-t1. Thus, UBP enzymes appear to contain a catalytic core domain, the activities and specificities of which can be modulated by N-terminal extensions. These divergent N termini can alter localization and confer multiple functions to the various members of the large UBP family. Ubiquitin-specific processing proteases (UBPs) are characterized by a conserved core domain with surrounding divergent sequences, particularly at the N-terminal end. We previously cloned two isoforms of a testis UBP, UBP-t1 and UBP-t2, which contain identical core regions but distinct N termini that target the two isoforms to different subcellular locations (Lin, H., Keriel, A., Morales, C. R., Bedard, N., Zhao, Q., Hingamp, P., Lefrancois, S., Combaret, L., and Wing, S. S. (2000) Mol. Cell. Biol. 20, 6568–6578). To determine whether the N termini also influence the biochemical functions of the UBP, we expressed UBP-t1, UBP-t2, and the common core domain, UBP core, in Escherichia coli. The three isoforms cleaved branched triubiquitin at >20-fold faster rates than linear diubiquitin, suggesting that UBP-testis functions as an isopeptidase. Both N-terminal extensions inhibited the ability of UBP-core to generate free ubiquitin when linked in a peptide bond with itself, another peptide, or to small adducts. The N-terminal extension of UBP-t2 increased the ability of UBP-core to cleave branched triubiquitin. UBP-core removed ubiquitin from testis ubiquitinated proteins more rapidly than UBP-t2 and UBP-t1. Thus, UBP enzymes appear to contain a catalytic core domain, the activities and specificities of which can be modulated by N-terminal extensions. These divergent N termini can alter localization and confer multiple functions to the various members of the large UBP family. ubiquitin-activating enzyme ubiquitin-conjugating enzymes ubiquitin protein ligases ubiquitin-specific processing protease ubiquitin C-terminal hydrolase dithiothreitol polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis ubiquitin diubiquitin triubiquitin amidomethylcoumarin 4-morpholineethanesulfonic acid The ubiquitin-proteasome pathway of protein degradation is a major mechanism for intracellular protein catabolism (reviewed in Refs.1Hershko A. Ciechanover A. Annu. Rev. Biochem. 1998; 67: 425-479Crossref PubMed Scopus (6736) Google Scholar, 2Hochstrasser M. Annu. Rev. Genet. 1996; 30: 405-439Crossref PubMed Scopus (1444) Google Scholar, 3Kornitzer D. Ciechanover A. J. Cell. Physiol. 2000; 182: 1-11Crossref PubMed Scopus (229) Google Scholar). Proteins destined to be degraded through the ubiquitin-proteasome pathway are first covalently ligated with ubiquitin, a 76-amino acid peptide. This reaction involves the sequential action of three enzymes. Ubiquitin is first activated by ubiquitin-activating enzyme (E1)1 (4Haas A.L. Warms J.V. Hershko A. Rose I.A. J. Biol. Chem. 1982; 257: 2543-2548Abstract Full Text PDF PubMed Google Scholar) and is then transferred to a specific cysteine residue of one of a family of ubiquitin-conjugating enzymes (E2s) (5Haas A.L. Siepmann T.J. FASEB J. 1997; 11: 1257-1268Crossref PubMed Scopus (275) Google Scholar). Although some E2s can transfer ubiquitin to substrates directly in vitro, most E2s support ubiquitin conjugation to substrates by interaction with one of the many ubiquitin protein ligases (E3s) (6Peters J.M. Curr. Opin. Cell Biol. 1998; 10: 759-768Crossref PubMed Scopus (223) Google Scholar, 7Scheffner M. Nuber U. Huibregtse J.M. Nature. 1995; 373: 81-83Crossref PubMed Scopus (721) Google Scholar, 8Reiss Y. Heller H. Hershko A. J. Biol. Chem. 1989; 264: 10378-10383Abstract Full Text PDF PubMed Google Scholar). These E2/E3 enzymes form an isopeptide bond between the C terminus of ubiquitin and the ε-amino group of the side chain of lysine residues of the target protein. A branched polyubiquitin chain is then formed on the protein through the ligation of additional monomers of ubiquitin to the side chain of a lysine residue of the previous ubiquitin in successive rounds of ubiquitination (5Haas A.L. Siepmann T.J. FASEB J. 1997; 11: 1257-1268Crossref PubMed Scopus (275) Google Scholar). The covalent attachment of a polyubiquitin chain to proteins generally acts as a signal for their degradation by a multisubunit protease, the 26 S proteasome (9Bochtler M. Ditzel L. Groll M. Hartmann C. Huber R. Annu. Rev. Biophys. Biomol. Struct. 1999; 28: 295-317Crossref PubMed Scopus (419) Google Scholar, 10Glickman M.H. Rubin D.M. Fu H. Larsen C.N. Coux O. Wefes I. Pfeifer G. Cjeka Z. Vierstra R. Baumeister W. Fried V. Finley D. Mol. Biol. Rep. 1999; 26: 21-28Crossref PubMed Google Scholar). In addition to the families of enzymes involved in conjugation of ubiquitin, a very large family of deubiquitinating enzymes has recently been identified from various organisms (reviewed in Refs. 11Chung C.H. Baek S.H. Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 1999; 266: 633-640Crossref PubMed Scopus (154) Google Scholar, 12Wilkinson K.D. FASEB J. 1997; 11: 1245-1256Crossref PubMed Scopus (500) Google Scholar, 13D'Andrea A. Pellman D. Crit. Rev. Biochem. Mol. Biol. 1998; 33: 337-352Crossref PubMed Scopus (226) Google Scholar). These enzymes have several possible functions. First, they may have peptidase activity and cleave the products of ubiquitin genes. Ubiquitin is encoded by two distinct classes of genes. One is a polyubiquitin gene, which encodes a linear polymer of ubiquitins linked through peptide bonds between the C-terminal Gly and N-terminal Met of contiguous ubiquitin molecules (14Ozkaynak E. Finley D. Varshavsky A. Nature. 1984; 312: 663-666Crossref PubMed Scopus (218) Google Scholar). Each copy of ubiquitin must be released by precise cleavage of the peptide bond between Gly-76–Met-1 of successive ubiquitin moieties (15Falquet L. Paquet N. Frutiger S. Hughes G.J. Hoang-Van K. Jaton J.C. FEBS Lett. 1995; 359: 73-77Crossref PubMed Scopus (43) Google Scholar). The other class of ubiquitin genes encodes ubiquitin C-terminal extension proteins, which are peptide bond fusions between the C-terminal Gly of ubiquitin and N-terminal Met of the extension protein (16Finley D. Bartel B. Varshavsky A. Nature. 1989; 338: 394-401Crossref PubMed Scopus (550) Google Scholar, 17Redman K.L. Rechsteiner M. Nature. 1989; 338: 438-440Crossref PubMed Scopus (177) Google Scholar, 18Barrio R. del Arco A. Cabrera H.L. Arribas C. Biochem. J. 1994; 302: 237-244Crossref PubMed Scopus (18) Google Scholar). To date, the extensions described are ribosomal proteins consisting of 52 or 76–80 amino acids (19Redman K.L. Burris G.W. Biochem. J. 1996; 315: 315-321Crossref PubMed Scopus (10) Google Scholar, 20Baker R.T. Board P.G. Genomics. 1992; 14: 520-522Crossref PubMed Scopus (9) Google Scholar). These ubiquitin fusion proteins are processed to yield ubiquitin and the corresponding C-terminal extension proteins (21Baker R.T. Tobias J.W. Varshavsky A. J. Biol. Chem. 1992; 267: 23364-23375Abstract Full Text PDF PubMed Google Scholar). Second, deubiquitinating enzymes may have isopeptidase activities. When a target protein is degraded, deubiquitinating enzymes can cleave the polyubiquitin chain from the target protein or its remnants (22Papa F.R. Hochstrasser M. Nature. 1993; 366: 313-319Crossref PubMed Scopus (339) Google Scholar, 23Huang Y. Baker R.T. Fischer-Vize J.A. Science. 1995; 270: 1828-1831Crossref PubMed Scopus (241) Google Scholar, 24Lam Y.A. Xu W. DeMartino G.N. Cohen R.E. Nature. 1997; 385: 737-740Crossref PubMed Scopus (365) Google Scholar). The polyubiquitin chain must also be disassembled by deubiquitinating enzymes during or after proteolysis by the 26 S proteasome, regenerating free monomeric ubiquitin (25Amerik A. Swaminathan S. Krantz B.A. Wilkinson K.D. Hochstrasser M. EMBO J. 1997; 16: 4826-4838Crossref PubMed Scopus (196) Google Scholar, 26Hadari T. Warms J.V. Rose I.A. Hershko A. J. Biol. Chem. 1992; 267: 719-727Abstract Full Text PDF PubMed Google Scholar). In this way, deubiquitinating enzymes can facilitate the ability of the 26 S proteasome to degrade ubiquitinated proteins. Third, deubiquitinating enzymes may hydrolyze ester, thiolester, and amide linkages to the carboxyl group of Gly-76 of ubiquitin (27Pickart C.M. Rose I.A. J. Biol. Chem. 1985; 260: 7903-7910Abstract Full Text PDF PubMed Google Scholar, 28Rose I.A. Warms J.V. Biochemistry. 1983; 22: 4234-4237Crossref PubMed Scopus (51) Google Scholar, 29Wilkinson K.D. Cox M.J. Mayer A.N. Frey T. Biochemistry. 1986; 25: 6644-6649Crossref PubMed Scopus (56) Google Scholar). Such nonfunctional linkages may arise from reactions between small intracellular compounds such as glutathione and the E1-, E2-, or E3-ubiquitin thiolester intermediates. Fourth, deubiquitinating enzymes may compete with the conjugating system by removing ubiquitin from protein substrates, thereby rescuing them from degradation or any other function mediated by ubiquitination. Thus generation of ubiquitin by deubiquitinating enzymes from the linear polyubiquitin and ubiquitin fusion proteins and from the branched polyubiquitin ligated to proteins should be essential for maintaining a sufficient pool of free ubiquitin. Many deubiquitinating enzymes exist, suggesting that these deubiquitinating enzymes recognize distinct substrates and are therefore involved in specific cellular processes (11Chung C.H. Baek S.H. Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 1999; 266: 633-640Crossref PubMed Scopus (154) Google Scholar, 12Wilkinson K.D. FASEB J. 1997; 11: 1245-1256Crossref PubMed Scopus (500) Google Scholar, 13D'Andrea A. Pellman D. Crit. Rev. Biochem. Mol. Biol. 1998; 33: 337-352Crossref PubMed Scopus (226) Google Scholar). Although there is recent evidence to support such specificity of these deubiquitinating enzymes (30Larsen C.N. Krantz B.A. Wilkinson K.D. Biochemistry. 1998; 37: 3358-3368Crossref PubMed Scopus (343) Google Scholar, 31Moazed D. Johnson D. Cell. 1996; 86: 667-677Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (201) Google Scholar, 32Jensen D.E. Proctor M. Marquis S.T. Gardner H.P. Ha S.I. Chodosh L.A. Ishov A.M. Tommerup N. Vissing H. Sekido Y. Minna J. Borodovsky A. Schultz D.C. Wilkinson K.D. Maul G.G. Barlev N. Berger S.L. Prendergast G.C. Rauscher III, F.J. Oncogene. 1998; 16: 1097-1112Crossref PubMed Scopus (567) Google Scholar), the structure-function relationships of these enzymes remain poorly studied. Deubiquitinating enzymes can be divided broadly on the basis of sequence homology into two classes, the ubiquitin-specific processing protease (UBP or USP, also known as type 2 ubiquitin C-terminal hydrolase (type 2 UCH)) and the UCH, also known as type 1 UCH) (12Wilkinson K.D. FASEB J. 1997; 11: 1245-1256Crossref PubMed Scopus (500) Google Scholar, 13D'Andrea A. Pellman D. Crit. Rev. Biochem. Mol. Biol. 1998; 33: 337-352Crossref PubMed Scopus (226) Google Scholar). UCH (type 1 UCH) enzymes hydrolyze primarily C-terminal esters and amides of ubiquitin (27Pickart C.M. Rose I.A. J. Biol. Chem. 1985; 260: 7903-7910Abstract Full Text PDF PubMed Google Scholar) but may also cleave ubiquitin gene products and disassemble polyubiquitin chains (30Larsen C.N. Krantz B.A. Wilkinson K.D. Biochemistry. 1998; 37: 3358-3368Crossref PubMed Scopus (343) Google Scholar). They have in common a 210-amino acid catalytic domain, with four highly conserved blocks of sequences that identify these enzymes. They contain two very conserved motifs, the CYS and HIS boxes. Mutagenesis studies revealed that the two boxes play important roles in catalysis (33Johnston S.C. Larsen C.N. Cook W.J. Wilkinson K.D. Hill C.P. EMBO J. 1997; 16: 3787-3796Crossref PubMed Scopus (211) Google Scholar, 34Johnston S.C. Riddle S.M. Cohen R.E. Hill C.P. EMBO J. 1999; 18: 3877-3887Crossref PubMed Scopus (251) Google Scholar). Some UCH enzymes have significant C-terminal extensions (12Wilkinson K.D. FASEB J. 1997; 11: 1245-1256Crossref PubMed Scopus (500) Google Scholar, 32Jensen D.E. Proctor M. Marquis S.T. Gardner H.P. Ha S.I. Chodosh L.A. Ishov A.M. Tommerup N. Vissing H. Sekido Y. Minna J. Borodovsky A. Schultz D.C. Wilkinson K.D. Maul G.G. Barlev N. Berger S.L. Prendergast G.C. Rauscher III, F.J. Oncogene. 1998; 16: 1097-1112Crossref PubMed Scopus (567) Google Scholar). The functions of the C-terminal extensions are still unknown but appear to be involved in proper localization of the enzyme (24Lam Y.A. Xu W. DeMartino G.N. Cohen R.E. Nature. 1997; 385: 737-740Crossref PubMed Scopus (365) Google Scholar, 32Jensen D.E. Proctor M. Marquis S.T. Gardner H.P. Ha S.I. Chodosh L.A. Ishov A.M. Tommerup N. Vissing H. Sekido Y. Minna J. Borodovsky A. Schultz D.C. Wilkinson K.D. Maul G.G. Barlev N. Berger S.L. Prendergast G.C. Rauscher III, F.J. Oncogene. 1998; 16: 1097-1112Crossref PubMed Scopus (567) Google Scholar). The active site of these UCH enzymes contains a catalytic triad consisting of cysteine, histidine, and aspartate and utilizes a chemical mechanism similar to that of papain (33Johnston S.C. Larsen C.N. Cook W.J. Wilkinson K.D. Hill C.P. EMBO J. 1997; 16: 3787-3796Crossref PubMed Scopus (211) Google Scholar, 34Johnston S.C. Riddle S.M. Cohen R.E. Hill C.P. EMBO J. 1999; 18: 3877-3887Crossref PubMed Scopus (251) Google Scholar). UBP (type 2 UCH) enzymes are capable of cleaving the ubiquitin gene products (21Baker R.T. Tobias J.W. Varshavsky A. J. Biol. Chem. 1992; 267: 23364-23375Abstract Full Text PDF PubMed Google Scholar) and disassembling polyubiquitin chains after hydrolysis (15Falquet L. Paquet N. Frutiger S. Hughes G.J. Hoang-Van K. Jaton J.C. FEBS Lett. 1995; 359: 73-77Crossref PubMed Scopus (43) Google Scholar). It appears that there is a core region of about 450 amino acids delimited by CYS and HIS boxes. Many of these isoforms have N-terminal extensions and a few have C-terminal extensions (12Wilkinson K.D. FASEB J. 1997; 11: 1245-1256Crossref PubMed Scopus (500) Google Scholar). In addition, there are variable sequences in the core region of many of the isoforms. The functions of these divergent sequences remain poorly characterized. Recently, we identified UBP-t, an UBP enzyme that is primarily expressed in the testis as two isoforms with the same core region (347 residues) but distinct N termini. The N-terminal extension of UBP-t1 has 49 residues and that of UBP-t2 has 271 residues. The divergent N termini were found to target distinct subcellular compartments (35Lin H. Keriel A. Morales C.R. Bedard N. Zhao Q. Hingamp P. Lefrancois S. Combaret L. Wing S.S. Mol. Cell. Biol. 2000; 20: 6568-6578Crossref PubMed Scopus (58) Google Scholar). UBP-t1 is located primarily in the nucleus, whereas UBP-t2 is found primarily in a perinuclear location and can be associated with the centrosome. To evaluate whether in addition these N termini have functions in substrate specificity, we have tested the abilities of the two isoforms as well as the common core domain to cleave natural and semi-synthetic ubiquitin substrates. To express full-length UBP-t1 and UBP-t2 and only the common core region of UBP-t1 and UBP-t2 (UBP-core), DNA fragments encoding the proteins were amplified by polymerase chain reaction and subcloned into the bacterial expression vector pET11-d (Novagen). Plasmids were sequenced to confirm accurate amplification and cloning and then transformed intoEscherichia coli BL21 (DE3). After induction of expression with 1 mmisopropyl-1-thio-β-d-galactopyranoside for 2 h at 28 °C, cells were harvested from 800 ml of culture and rinsed with PBS, and the cell pellets were frozen at −20 °C. Subsequent manipulations were on ice or at 4 °C. The frozen pellets were resuspended in110of the original culture volume of 50 mm Tris, pH 7.5, 1 mm DTT, 5 mmEDTA, 0.5 mm phenylmethylsulfonyl fluoride, and 5 μg/ml pepstatin A and lysed by sonication. The lysate was clarified by centrifugation at 100,000 × g for 1 h, and then proteins were differentially precipitated by ammonium sulfate (ICN Ultra Pure). The UBP-core was enriched in the 30–50% ammonium sulfate fraction. This fraction was dialyzed against 20 mm Mes, pH 6.2, 1 mm DTT overnight before being applied to a 5 × 100-mm propylsulfonic acid cation exchange column (Waters SP/HR15) equilibrated in the same buffer. Bound proteins were eluted with a 0–0.5 m NaCl gradient (10 mm/min) in the same buffer. UBP-core was eluted at ∼0.14 m NaCl and in most fractions was >99% pure as evaluated by Coomassie Blue-stained acrylamide gels. The 30–40% ammonium sulfate fraction containing the UBP-t1 was dialyzed against 50 mm Tris, pH 7.5, 1 mm DTT overnight before being applied to a quaternary amine anion exchange column (Amersham Pharmacia Biotech MonoQ) equilibrated in the same buffer. Full-length UBP-t1 was eluted at ∼0.28m NaCl. The 35–45% ammonium sulfate fraction containing the UBP-t2 was dialyzed against 50 mm Tris, pH 7.5, 1 mm DTT overnight before being applied to the quaternary amine anion exchange column equilibrated in the same buffer. Full-length UBP-t2 eluted at ∼0.31 m NaCl. The fractions of each step were screened by both Western blots with anti-UBP-core-specific antibody and activity assays. The activities of the enzymes in different fractions were monitored by determining their abilities to hydrolyze 125I-labeled Ub-PESTc (ubiquitin extended at the C terminus by MHISPPEPESEEEEEHYC) (36Baek S.H. Woo S.K. Lee J.I. Yoo Y.J. Cho C.M. Kang M.S. Tanaka K. Chung C.H. Biochem. J. 1997; 325: 325-330Crossref PubMed Scopus (14) Google Scholar). These purification steps did not yield homogeneously pure UBP-t1 or UBP-t2 but succeeded in removing partially degraded forms. Control lysates prepared from uninduced cells show no activity under these conditions. The concentrations of active UBP-core, UBP-t1, and UBP-t2 were determined by inhibitor titration with ubiquitin aldehyde (24Lam Y.A. Xu W. DeMartino G.N. Cohen R.E. Nature. 1997; 385: 737-740Crossref PubMed Scopus (365) Google Scholar). The enzymes were preincubated at 37 °C with different amounts of ubiquitin-aldehyde for 5 min, and then the isopeptidase activities were assayed with 2 μm125I-labeled branched triubiquitin (Ub3) as described below. Antibodies specific for the core region of UBP-t1 and UBP-t2 were prepared by immunizing rabbits with Freund's adjuvant mixed with UBP-core bearing an N-terminal His6tag. Antibodies were affinity-purified by passing crude anti-serum over an Affi-Gel 10 (Bio-Rad) column coupled to glutathioneS-transferase fused to the same UBP-core sequence. To detect UBP-core, UBP-t1, and UBP-t2, protein samples were resolved by SDS-PAGE on 10% acrylamide gels and transferred to nitrocellulose membranes. Membranes were probed with anti-UBP-core antibody followed by incubation with horseradish peroxidase-protein A and detection by chemiluminesence (ECL, Amersham Pharmacia Biotech). The chloramine-T method was used to label ubiquitin, diubiquitin, and triubiquitin with Na125I. Ub-PESTc was labeled with Na125I using Iodobeads (Pierce). Unincorporated 125I was removed by passing the reaction products over a Sephadex G-25 column. To measure the abilities of UBP-core, UBP-t1, and UBP-t2 to cleave some natural substrates and semi-synthetic ubiquitin derivatives, the different enzymes were incubated in a total volume of 20 μl as follows: 100 mm Tris, pH 7.5, 1 mm DTT, 1 mmEDTA, 1 mg/ml bovine serum albumin or ovalbumin, 2 μm125I-labeled substrate. After incubating at 37 °C for various times, the reactions were quenched as indicated below. For the substrate Ub-PESTc, the reaction was terminated by adding 100 μl of 2.5% bovine serum albumin and 1 ml of 20% (w/v) trichloroacetic acid. After incubation on ice for 30 min, the samples were centrifuged, and the resulting supernatants were counted for their radioactivities to detect the PESTc peptide bearing the iodinated tyrosine. For the linear diubiquitin (Ub2) or branched Ub3 substrates, the reaction was stopped with Laemmli sample buffer containing 2-mercaptoethanol, and the products were resolved by SDS-PAGE on 20% acrylamide gels and detected by autoradiography. After detection by autoradiography, the monoubiquitin (Ub) band and Ub2 band (in the assay with Ub3) were excised from the dried gel and counted. The rate of cleavage of peptide bonds for linear Ub2 substrate was calculated as half of the Ub produced in this reaction. The rate of cleavage of isopeptide bonds for branched Ub3 substrate was calculated as (2/3 (Ub − Ub2)) + Ub2 produced in this reaction. To test the abilities of these UBP enzymes to cleave ubiquitin ester and ubiquitin linked to lysine by the α or ε amino groups, they were incubated with these substrates (16 μm) separately in 10 μl of 50 mm Tris, pH 7.6, 3 mm DTT, 5 mm MgCl2 at 37 °C for 20 or 30 min. The reactions were quenched with 40 μl of 0.1 n HCl and then injected onto a 4.6 × 250-mm C8 column equilibrated and eluted with 60% acetonitrile in 25 mm perchlorate to resolve the free ubiquitin product from the substrates (29Wilkinson K.D. Cox M.J. Mayer A.N. Frey T. Biochemistry. 1986; 25: 6644-6649Crossref PubMed Scopus (56) Google Scholar). Fluorometric assays used ubiquitin-AMC as the substrate (37Stein R.L. Chen Z. Melandri F. Biochemistry. 1995; 34: 12616-12623Crossref PubMed Scopus (60) Google Scholar). In a typical assay, 80 μl of assay buffer (50 mm Tris, pH 7.8, 100 μg/ml ovalbumin, 10 mm DTT) containing 6.6 nm enzyme were added to a 100-μl cuvette. When present, diubiquitin analogs were added, and after a 5-min preincubation at 37 °C to achieve thermal equilibrium, ubiquitin-AMC was added to a final concentration of 40 nm. Reaction progress was monitored by the increase in fluorescence emission at 450 nm (λex = 355 nm) that resulted from the cleavage of AMC from the substrate. To compare the abilities of these enzymes to cleave the substrates Ub-PESTc, linear Ub2, and branched Ub3, equivalent amounts of these enzymes (38 nm) were incubated with 2 μm substrate. The initial rates obtained with the different enzymes were compared. To compare the abilities of UBP-core, UBP-t1, and UBP-t2 to interact with the Ub-PESTc substrate, the apparent Km values for this substrate were determined. Variable concentrations of the substrate were assayed in reactions as described above. The products were monitored by removing aliquots from the reaction at various times. Initial velocities were calculated from the time courses and used in double-reciprocal plots (Lineweaver-Burk) to determine apparent Km values and maximal velocities. To determine the dissociation constants for the inhibition of UBP-core by nonhydrolyzable diubiquitin, reactions were conducted using ubiquitin-AMC as substrate at five or more different concentrations of dimers. The dissociation constant was calculated by a non-linear curve-fitting analysis using fitting function v =vi + (vo −vf)/(1 + I/Ki) wherevo is the uninhibited rate, vf is the rate at high concentration of inhibitor, and Kiis the inhibition constant. In all cases inhibition was fully competitive, and vf = 0. To evaluate the abilities of these enzymes to remove ubiquitin from testis ubiquitinated proteins, rat testis extracts were prepared by homogenizing the tissues in 5 vol/g of wet weight of 0.25 msucrose, 50 mm Tris, pH 7.5 (at 4 °C), 5 mm N-ethylmaleimide (to inactivate endogenous isopeptidases), 1 mm EDTA, and protease inhibitors (1 mmphenylmethylsulfonyl fluoride, 10 μg/ml pepstatin A, and 10 μg/ml leupeptin). The extracts were clarified by centrifugation at 3000 × g for 20 min at 4 °C and then frozen at −80 °C until analysis. Before assaying, the excess N-ethylmaleimide in the samples was neutralized by adding DTT to a final concentration of 5 mm. Aliquots (50 μg) of the protein were then incubated with equal amounts of each of the UBP enzymes (38 nm) for various times at 37 °C. The reaction was stopped with Laemmli sample buffer containing 2-mercaptoethanol, and the proteins were resolved by SDS-PAGE on 10% acrylamide gels and transferred to nitrocellulose membranes. The ubiquitinated proteins were detected by Western blotting with anti-ubiquitin antibodies (Sigma) followed by protein A coupled to horseradish peroxidase and a chemiluminescent detection method (ECL, Amersham Pharmacia Biotech). To characterize the biochemical properties of UBP-t1 and UBP-t2 as well as their common core region, UBP-core (Fig.1 A), the proteins were expressed in E. coli. Since expressed proteins were susceptible to degradation, purification of the various enzymes was undertaken to remove degradation products (Fig. 1 B). UBP-core was purified to apparent homogeneity, as estimated by Coomassie Blue-staining of the protein on a polyacrylamide gel. UBP-t1 and UBP-t2 were enriched to levels of specific activity that were 17- and 27-fold greater, respectively, than in the crude bacterial lysates. Control lysates not expressing enzymes did not show activity in these assays, and the activities of all isoforms were found to be highly susceptible to inhibition by ubiquitin aldehyde, and therefore, they were quantitated by titration with this inhibitor. Since a key function of many deubiquitinating enzymes is to process the products of ubiquitin genes, we tested whether UBP-t1 and UBP-t2 can generate free ubiquitin from a fusion protein with another peptide, as in the case of the model substrate Ub-PESTc. UBP-core readily cleaved the α-peptide bond between ubiquitin and the PESTc extension, indicating that the core region itself has activity and therefore likely represents a functional domain. However, both UBP-t1 and UBP-t2 had very low activities (<20% that seen with UBP-core) with this substrate (Fig. 2). Thus the N-terminal extensions inhibited the hydrolytic activity inherent in the core domain. To test whether the N-terminal extensions of UBP exert this inhibitory effect by decreasing the abilities of the UBP core to interact with Ub-PESTc, we measured apparentKm values of Ub-PESTc for UBP-core, UBP-t1, and UBP-t2. Indeed, UBP-t2 and UBP-t1 had greater than 10-fold higherKm values with this substrate than did UBP-core (Table I). However, theVmax value of UBP-t2 was similar to that of the UBP-core enzyme, indicating that the N-terminal extensions of UBP can negatively influence binding of the core domain to the substrate without significantly affecting catalytic function.Table IKinetic constants of ubiquitin-PESTc for UBP-t1, UBP-t2, and UBP-coreEnzymeKmVmaxμmmol/min/mol enzymeUBP-core1.7 ± 0.70.48 ± 0.16UBP-t1>20NDUBP-t218.2 ± 3.80.59 ± 0.08Various concentrations of 125I-ubiquitin-PESTc were incubated with UBP-t1, UBP-t2, and UBP-core (all at 38 nm). The initial velocities of PESTc peptide released were determined and used in double-reciprocal plots to determine Km andVmax. Shown are means ± S.E. of at least three determinations. (ND, not determined). Open table in a new tab Various concentrations of 125I-ubiquitin-PESTc were incubated with UBP-t1, UBP-t2, and UBP-core (all at 38 nm). The initial velocities of PESTc peptide released were determined and used in double-reciprocal plots to determine Km andVmax. Shown are means ± S.E. of at least three determinations. (ND, not determined). To test whether these enzymes may be involved in processing the linear polyubiquitin that arises from the polyubiquitin genes, we tested the activities of these enzymes against linear Ub2. UBP-t1, UBP-t2, and UBP-core all had low abilities to generate free ubiquitin from Ub2. Interestingly, as occurred for Ub-PESTc, the initial velocities of UBP-t1 and UBP-t2 to cleave this α-peptide bond were lower than that of UBP-core (Fig.3). This confirms the previous observation (Fig. 2) that N-terminal extensions inhibit the ability of the core region to cleave linear peptide fusions. All of the above results would suggest that both UBP-t1 and UBP-t2 do not generate free ubiquitin from ubiquitin gene products. They also do not appear to be involved in processing the precursor forms of the ubiquitin-related proteins SUMO1 (sentrin) or NEDD8, as none of the three isoforms were able to cleave proSUMO1 or proNEDD8 (data not shown). Thus the core region alone has activity, but the N-terminal extensions limit that activity presumably by imposing constraints and selectivity on the ability of substrates to access the core domain. It has been postulated that ubiquitin may become linked to small thiols and amines in the cell arising from nucleophilic attack of these compounds on the reactive thiol ester linkage between ubiquitin and E1, E2s, or some E3s. Deubiquitinating enzymes may play an important role in regenerating ubiquitin from these nonproductive adducts. Indeed, the deubiquitinating enzymes UCH-L1 and UCH-L3 can efficiently hydrolyze these small thiols and amines from ubiquitinin vitro. To test the potential function of our UBP enzymes to hydrolyze such compounds, Ub ester and Nα-Ub-l-lysine were used as substrates. UBP-core had higher activity in hydrolyzing the ester and lysine from ubiquitin than both UBP-t1 and UBP-t2 (TableII). This indicates that the N-terminal extensions of both UBP-t1 and UBP-t2 inhibit the ability of the core region to hydrolyze small thiols and amines from ubiquitin and further supports the role of these extensions in imposing substrate selectivity.Table IIRates of hydrolysis of ubiquitin derivatives by UBP-t1, UBP-t2, and UBP-coreSubstrateRate of hydrolysisUBP-coreUBP-t1UBP-t2mol/min/mol enzymeUbiquitin ethyl ester4.31.20.72Nα-ubiquitin-l-lysine2.60.180.98Nɛ-ubiquitin-l-lysine3.50.310.63The indicated substrates (16 μm) were incubated with equal concentrations of the indicated enzymes (76 nm). Products of the reaction were resolved from substrate and quantitated by HPLC as indicated under “Materials and Methods.” Open table in a new tab The indicated substrates (16 μm) were incubated with equal concentrations of the indicated enzymes (76 nm). Products of the reaction were resolved from substrate and quantitated by HPLC as indicated under “Materials and Methods.” Ubiquitin is conjugated to proteins through an isopeptide bond (through the ε-amino group of lysine). So it was of interest to examine whether UBP-t1 and UBP-t2 could cleave Ub-ε-amino lysine derivatives. When Nε-Ub-l-lysine was used as such a model isopeptidase substrate, UBP-core still had higher activity than UBP-t1 or UBP-t2 against the ε-isopeptide bond (Table II). Thus, at least for a small leaving group, UBP-core does not discriminate between isopeptide and peptide linkages. This is similar to UCH enzymes tested to date that also do not appear to discriminate between these two model substrates (30Larsen C.N. Krantz B.A. Wilkinson K.D. Biochemistry. 1998; 37: 3358-3368Crossref PubMed Scopus (343) Google Scholar). Most biological functions of ubiquitin are mediated by the linkage of the C-terminal glycine of ubiquitin in an isopeptide bond with the ε-amino group of the side chain of lysine residues of the protein substrate. Recognition of ubiquitinated proteins for degradation by the 26 S proteasome generally requires the presence of a polyubiquitin chain on the protein substrate in which each ubiquitin is linked to each other via these isopeptide linkages. To evaluate whether UBP-core, UBP-t1, and UBP-t2 can potentially disassemble such a polyubiquitin chain, Ub3, a branched triubiquitin chain linked via isopeptide bonds between the ε-amino group of lysine 48 in one ubiquitin molecule and the C-terminal of another ubiquitin molecule, was used as a substrate. All three enzymes had activity against this substrate, and the rates of cleavage were similar to that for Ub-PESTc but 1–2 orders of magnitude higher than that seen for linear Ub2 (Fig.4). Thus, the UBP core domain appears to prefer branched rather than linear ubiquitin polymers as substrate. The higher rate of cleavage of triubiquitin compared with diubiquitin was not due to the extra moiety of ubiquitin in the former, as diubiquitin did not accumulate over time in the reactions with triubiquitin as substrate (data not shown). In addition, UBP-t2 had higher activity than UBP-core. This indicates that the N-terminal extension of UBP-t2 not only suppresses peptidase activity but enhances isopeptidase activity. In contrast, UBP-t1 had lower activity than UBP-core in cleaving branched Ub3 (Fig. 4). This indicates that the N-terminal extensions can modulate the intrinsic activity of the core domain both positively and negatively. Although ubiquitin moieties joined by Gly-76–Lys-48 linkages appear to be most efficient at targeting for proteasomal-mediated degradation, linkages of Gly-76 to other lysine residues of ubiquitin have been observed. To evaluate whether these enzymes show preference for specific linkages, the ability of nonhydrolyzable ubiquitin dimer analogs joined in various linkages (38Yin L. Krantz B. Russell N.S. Deshpande S. Wilkinson K.D. Biochemistry. 2000; 39: 10001-10010Crossref PubMed Scopus (79) Google Scholar) to inhibit these enzymes was tested. These dimer analogs were synthesized by using dichloroacetone to cross-link ubiquitin containing a terminal cysteine to another ubiquitin in which individual lysines have been mutated to cysteine. To determine inhibitory constants easily and accurately, a sensitive continuous fluorometric assay using ubiquitin-AMC as substrate was employed (Table III). At the low concentrations of ubiquitin-AMC used, only UBP-core and UBP-t2 had significant activities, and so UBP-t1 was not tested. The apparentKm of ubiquitin-AMC for UBP-core was similar to that of Ub-PESTc. However, in contrast to Ub-PESTc, where the affinity for UBP-t2 decreased 1 order of magnitude compared with UBP-core, the affinity of ubiquitin-AMC actually increased approximately 3-fold. When the ubiquitin dimer analogs were tested, diubiquitin linked by lysine 63 was found to be most inhibitory. However, the differences between the inhibition constants of the analogs were relatively small, suggesting that there is no significant preference of the enzymes for a particular linkage. Furthermore, even for the lysine 63-linked analog, the Ki value was relatively high (10−7m range) compared with an enzyme such as isopeptidase T in which diubiquitin linked by lysine 48 inhibits with a Ki in the range of 10−8m (38Yin L. Krantz B. Russell N.S. Deshpande S. Wilkinson K.D. Biochemistry. 2000; 39: 10001-10010Crossref PubMed Scopus (79) Google Scholar). It is conceivable that UBP-t2 shows enhanced activity against branched Ub3due to the presence in this isoform of a binding site for an additional ubiquitin moiety. To evaluate this possibility, theKi values of monoubiquitin and the dimers for UBP-core and for UBP-t2 were compared to see if the dimerKi values were lower for the UBP-t2 isoform. The ratios of Ki for UBP-core to Kifor UBP-t2 were similar for ubiquitin monomer and for all of the dimers, suggesting that the N-terminal extension in UBP-t2 does not confer an additional binding site for ubiquitin (Table III).Table IIIKinetic constants of ubiquitin-AMC for UBP-core and UBP-t2 and inhibition of these isoforms by ubiquitin and nonhydrolyzable ubiquitin dimer analogsEnzymeKmVmaxμmmol/min/ mol enzymeUBP-core2.43.82UBP-t21.01.05InhibitorKiUBP-coreUBP-t2Ki (UBP-core)/Ki (UBP-t2)nmRatioUbiquitin24008532.811–76Ub28804152.129–76Ub214005162.748–76Ub216904393.863–76Ub25601344.276–76Ub230009703.1Various concentrations of ubiquitin-AMC were incubated with the indicated enzymes (6.6 nm), and the release of fluorescent AMC was followed continuously as described under “Materials and Methods.” To determine inhibitor constants of ubiquitin and various ubiquitin dimer analogs, the rates of cleavage of ubiquitin-AMC were measured in the presence of various concentrations of the inhibitor and then analyzed by a nonlinear curve-fitting analysis as described under “Materials and Methods.” Open table in a new tab Various concentrations of ubiquitin-AMC were incubated with the indicated enzymes (6.6 nm), and the release of fluorescent AMC was followed continuously as described under “Materials and Methods.” To determine inhibitor constants of ubiquitin and various ubiquitin dimer analogs, the rates of cleavage of ubiquitin-AMC were measured in the presence of various concentrations of the inhibitor and then analyzed by a nonlinear curve-fitting analysis as described under “Materials and Methods.” Since the various isoforms could disassemble a short branched polyubiquitin chain, we tested whether they had isopeptidase activity against a broader spectrum of ubiquitinated proteins in a testis extract. The UBP-core and UBP-t2 enzymes deubiquitinated ubiquitin from high molecular weight ubiquitinated proteins, but the UBP-t1 enzyme had relatively low activity (Fig. 5). This is consistent with the observation that UBP-t1 was the least efficient among the three isoforms in cleaving branched triubiquitin (Fig. 4). UBP-core was most active, suggesting that the N termini impose varying degrees of substrate specificity on the isopeptidase activity. Without the addition of the enzymes, the levels of ubiquitinated proteins were stable, confirming that endogenous deubiquitinating enzymes had been inactivated by the presence of N-ethylmaleimide in the homogenization buffer. The activities of the UBP isoforms were inhibited by ubiquitin aldehyde, indicating that these cleavages were unlikely to be due to any contaminating bacterial proteases. In summary, the UBP core region containing the conserved elements of the UBP family of enzymes and delimited by the CYS and HIS boxes contains ubiquitin-specific protease activity. Thus we provide the first direct evidence that this core region represents a functional and quite possibly a structural domain also. Interestingly, this core domain appears to preferentially cleave isopeptide rather than peptide linkages (compare rates in Figs. 3 and 4), thus suggesting that the UBP family functions primarily in either the regeneration of ubiquitin from polyubiquitin chains produced after the action of the 26 S proteasome or in the editing or rescuing of ubiquitinated protein substrates before the action of the 26 S proteasome. Indeed, the isoforms were capable of removing ubiquitin from endogenous testis proteins (Fig. 5). The lower Ki values for the ubiquitin dimers compared with ubiquitin alone (Table III) would also be consistent with preferential binding of branched polyubiquitin to the core region of the enzyme. We have previously shown that the N-terminal extensions of UBP-t1 and UBP-t2 serve to localize the enzyme to different compartments of the cell (35Lin H. Keriel A. Morales C.R. Bedard N. Zhao Q. Hingamp P. Lefrancois S. Combaret L. Wing S.S. Mol. Cell. Biol. 2000; 20: 6568-6578Crossref PubMed Scopus (58) Google Scholar). It should be noted that UBP-t2 is localized in a perinuclear pattern resembling that of the proteasome and is also the most active on branched polyubiquitin conjugates. It is intriguing to speculate that these indicators may suggest a role for UBP-t2 in metabolism of branched polyubiquitin at or near the proteasome. Our data demonstrate clearly and for the first time that these divergent N termini can also modulate the activity of the core domain. Interestingly, the activity can be both positively and negatively affected by the extension depending on the particular substrate. For the substrates for which measures of affinity could be determined, the parameters obtained were relatively high (in the micromolar range). Rates of cleavage were also relatively low. Thus, there are probably specific substrates for these enzymes, and the N-terminal extensions may play roles in recognizing these specific ubiquitinated proteins. Indeed, without N-terminal extensions, UBP-core efficiently removed ubiquitin from endogenous proteins. However, with N-terminal extensions, UBP-t2 did this at a slower rate, and UBP-t1, hardly at all (Fig. 5). Thus, it is quite possible that the N-terminal extensions are positioned near the S1′ site, and the different effects of the UBP-t2 extension on affinity for ubiquitin-AMC and ubiquitin-PESTc would support this model (Tables Iand III). In addition, given their precise localization in the cell, the enzymes may be co-localized with their substrates in specific compartments. Such co-localization would permit privileged delivery of substrates to the enzymes and diminish dependence of access to the enzymes on factors such as affinity constants and diffusion rates. Finally, the observations on UBP-testis in this and our previous work (35Lin H. Keriel A. Morales C.R. Bedard N. Zhao Q. Hingamp P. Lefrancois S. Combaret L. Wing S.S. Mol. Cell. Biol. 2000; 20: 6568-6578Crossref PubMed Scopus (58) Google Scholar) indicate that the numerous distinct N-terminal extensions of UBP enzymes could permit specific spatial, temporal, and kinetic modulation of UBP function and allow these enzymes to mediate quite precise functions in the ubiquitin-dependent proteolytic pathway. We are grateful to Cecile Pickart for supplying us with triubiquitin." @default.
• W1963819396 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W1963819396 creator A5012730403 @default.
• W1963819396 creator A5018961320 @default.
• W1963819396 creator A5054418270 @default.
• W1963819396 creator A5068814839 @default.
• W1963819396 creator A5070673671 @default.
• W1963819396 date "2001-01-01" @default.
• W1963819396 modified "2023-10-11" @default.
• W1963819396 title "Divergent N-terminal Sequences of a Deubiquitinating Enzyme Modulate Substrate Specificity" @default.
• W1963819396 cites W1221688681 @default.
• W1963819396 cites W12673267 @default.
• W1963819396 cites W1549375498 @default.
• W1963819396 cites W1549578642 @default.
• W1963819396 cites W1552131244 @default.
• W1963819396 cites W1577743463 @default.
• W1963819396 cites W1760694280 @default.
• W1963819396 cites W1824223318 @default.
• W1963819396 cites W1954801073 @default.
• W1963819396 cites W1966223027 @default.
• W1963819396 cites W1973904343 @default.
• W1963819396 cites W1986565958 @default.
• W1963819396 cites W1995522994 @default.
• W1963819396 cites W2008044453 @default.
• W1963819396 cites W2011401872 @default.
• W1963819396 cites W2026085189 @default.
• W1963819396 cites W2032119446 @default.
• W1963819396 cites W2033398667 @default.
• W1963819396 cites W2034032029 @default.
• W1963819396 cites W2036468298 @default.
• W1963819396 cites W2041722104 @default.
• W1963819396 cites W2046290726 @default.
• W1963819396 cites W2055886209 @default.
• W1963819396 cites W2060020622 @default.
• W1963819396 cites W2067563932 @default.
• W1963819396 cites W2081892455 @default.
• W1963819396 cites W2095112394 @default.
• W1963819396 cites W2095351891 @default.
• W1963819396 cites W2109998847 @default.
• W1963819396 cites W2113866575 @default.
• W1963819396 cites W2121781216 @default.
• W1963819396 cites W2131423447 @default.
• W1963819396 cites W2141035944 @default.
• W1963819396 cites W2158325024 @default.
• W1963819396 cites W2166987747 @default.
• W1963819396 cites W2981573536 @default.
• W1963819396 cites W4255738047 @default.
• W1963819396 cites W98151642 @default.
• W1963819396 doi "https://doi.org/10.1074/jbc.m008761200" @default.
• W1963819396 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11278432" @default.
• W1963819396 hasPublicationYear "2001" @default.
• W1963819396 type Work @default.
• W1963819396 sameAs 1963819396 @default.
• W1963819396 citedByCount "42" @default.
• W1963819396 countsByYear W19638193962012 @default.
• W1963819396 countsByYear W19638193962013 @default.
• W1963819396 countsByYear W19638193962014 @default.
• W1963819396 countsByYear W19638193962015 @default.
• W1963819396 countsByYear W19638193962016 @default.
• W1963819396 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W1963819396 hasAuthorship W1963819396A5012730403 @default.
• W1963819396 hasAuthorship W1963819396A5018961320 @default.
• W1963819396 hasAuthorship W1963819396A5054418270 @default.
• W1963819396 hasAuthorship W1963819396A5068814839 @default.
• W1963819396 hasAuthorship W1963819396A5070673671 @default.
• W1963819396 hasBestOaLocation W19638193961 @default.
• W1963819396 hasConcept C102658986 @default.
• W1963819396 hasConcept C104317684 @default.
• W1963819396 hasConcept C181199279 @default.
• W1963819396 hasConcept C185592680 @default.
• W1963819396 hasConcept C18903297 @default.
• W1963819396 hasConcept C25602115 @default.
• W1963819396 hasConcept C2777289219 @default.
• W1963819396 hasConcept C2779664074 @default.
• W1963819396 hasConcept C2994592520 @default.
• W1963819396 hasConcept C31258907 @default.
• W1963819396 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W1963819396 hasConcept C55493867 @default.
• W1963819396 hasConcept C71240020 @default.
• W1963819396 hasConcept C86803240 @default.
• W1963819396 hasConceptScore W1963819396C102658986 @default.
• W1963819396 hasConceptScore W1963819396C104317684 @default.
• W1963819396 hasConceptScore W1963819396C181199279 @default.
• W1963819396 hasConceptScore W1963819396C185592680 @default.
• W1963819396 hasConceptScore W1963819396C18903297 @default.
• W1963819396 hasConceptScore W1963819396C25602115 @default.
• W1963819396 hasConceptScore W1963819396C2777289219 @default.
• W1963819396 hasConceptScore W1963819396C2779664074 @default.
• W1963819396 hasConceptScore W1963819396C2994592520 @default.
• W1963819396 hasConceptScore W1963819396C31258907 @default.
• W1963819396 hasConceptScore W1963819396C41008148 @default.
• W1963819396 hasConceptScore W1963819396C55493867 @default.
• W1963819396 hasConceptScore W1963819396C71240020 @default.
• W1963819396 hasConceptScore W1963819396C86803240 @default.
• W1963819396 hasIssue "23" @default.
• W1963819396 hasLocation W19638193961 @default.
• W1963819396 hasOpenAccess W1963819396 @default.
• W1963819396 hasPrimaryLocation W19638193961 @default.

• next