FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2011092574> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2011092574 endingPage "1823" @default.
• W2011092574 startingPage "1812" @default.
• W2011092574 abstract "Article21 May 2009free access Crystal structure and association behaviour of the GluR2 amino-terminal domain Rongsheng Jin Corresponding Author Rongsheng Jin Center for Neuroscience, Aging, and Stem Cell Research, Burnham Institute for Medical Research, La Jolla, CA, USA These authors contributed equally to this work Search for more papers by this author Satinder K Singh Satinder K Singh Vollum Institute, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, OR, USA These authors contributed equally to this work Search for more papers by this author Shenyan Gu Shenyan Gu Center for Neuroscience, Aging, and Stem Cell Research, Burnham Institute for Medical Research, La Jolla, CA, USA Search for more papers by this author Hiroyasu Furukawa Hiroyasu Furukawa Vollum Institute, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, OR, USA Search for more papers by this author Alexander I Sobolevsky Alexander I Sobolevsky Vollum Institute, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, OR, USA Search for more papers by this author Jie Zhou Jie Zhou Center for Neuroscience, Aging, and Stem Cell Research, Burnham Institute for Medical Research, La Jolla, CA, USA Search for more papers by this author Yan Jin Yan Jin Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biophysics, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA Search for more papers by this author Eric Gouaux Corresponding Author Eric Gouaux Vollum Institute, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, OR, USA Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, OR, USA Search for more papers by this author Rongsheng Jin Corresponding Author Rongsheng Jin Center for Neuroscience, Aging, and Stem Cell Research, Burnham Institute for Medical Research, La Jolla, CA, USA These authors contributed equally to this work Search for more papers by this author Satinder K Singh Satinder K Singh Vollum Institute, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, OR, USA These authors contributed equally to this work Search for more papers by this author Shenyan Gu Shenyan Gu Center for Neuroscience, Aging, and Stem Cell Research, Burnham Institute for Medical Research, La Jolla, CA, USA Search for more papers by this author Hiroyasu Furukawa Hiroyasu Furukawa Vollum Institute, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, OR, USA Search for more papers by this author Alexander I Sobolevsky Alexander I Sobolevsky Vollum Institute, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, OR, USA Search for more papers by this author Jie Zhou Jie Zhou Center for Neuroscience, Aging, and Stem Cell Research, Burnham Institute for Medical Research, La Jolla, CA, USA Search for more papers by this author Yan Jin Yan Jin Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biophysics, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA Search for more papers by this author Eric Gouaux Corresponding Author Eric Gouaux Vollum Institute, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, OR, USA Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, OR, USA Search for more papers by this author Author Information Rongsheng Jin 1,5, Satinder K Singh2,5, Shenyan Gu1, Hiroyasu Furukawa2, Alexander I Sobolevsky2, Jie Zhou1, Yan Jin3 and Eric Gouaux 2,4 1Center for Neuroscience, Aging, and Stem Cell Research, Burnham Institute for Medical Research, La Jolla, CA, USA 2Vollum Institute, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, OR, USA 3Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biophysics, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA 4Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, OR, USA 5These authors contributed equally to this work *Corresponding authors. Vollum Institute, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, OR 97239, USA. Tel.: +1 503 494 55 35; Fax: +1 503 494 17 00; E-mail: [email protected] or E-mail: [email protected] The EMBO Journal (2009)28:1812-1823https://doi.org/10.1038/emboj.2009.140 PDFDownload PDF of article text and main figures. ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissions ShareFacebookTwitterLinked InMendeleyWechatReddit Figures & Info Fast excitatory neurotransmission is mediated largely by ionotropic glutamate receptors (iGluRs), tetrameric, ligand-gated ion channel proteins comprised of three subfamilies, AMPA, kainate and NMDA receptors, with each subfamily sharing a common, modular-domain architecture. For all receptor subfamilies, active channels are exclusively formed by assemblages of subunits within the same subfamily, a molecular process principally encoded by the amino-terminal domain (ATD). However, the molecular basis by which the ATD guides subfamily-specific receptor assembly is not known. Here we show that AMPA receptor GluR1- and GluR2-ATDs form tightly associated dimers and, by the analysis of crystal structures of the GluR2-ATD, propose mechanisms by which the ATD guides subfamily-specific receptor assembly. Introduction Chemical synapses are the primary sites of communication between nerve cells and are specialized junctions where a presynaptic cell releases vesicles loaded with neurotransmitter opposite clusters of receptors localized in the postsynaptic cell density (Lisman et al, 2007; Chen et al, 2008). At canonical synapses in the mammalian nervous system, the areas of the active zones of transmitter release and receptor localization are of the order of 0.07 μm2 (Harris and Stevens, 1989), and the separation of the presynaptic and postsynaptic membranes is ∼0.024 μm (Zuber et al, 2005). Within this ∼0.0017 μm3 volume of the synaptic cleft reside the extracellular domains of pre and postsynaptic receptors participating in an extensive yet largely undefined array of intermolecular contacts (Chen et al, 2005, 2008), interactions that help define the architectural and dynamical properties of chemical synapses (Newpher and Ehlers, 2008). Ionotropic glutamate receptors (iGluRs) are a family of ligand-gated ion channels that are primarily localized to chemical synapses and that mediate fast excitatory neurotransmission in the mammalian nervous system (Dingledine et al, 1999). Composed of three subfamilies—α-amino-3-hydroxyl-5-methyl-4-isoxazole (AMPA; GluR1–4), kainate (GluR5–7, KA1, 2) and N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA; NR1, NR2A–D and NR3A, B)—tetrameric iGluRs share a common, modular receptor architecture in which each subunit of these receptors possesses an ∼45-kDa amino-terminal domain (ATD) that resides within the synaptic cleft (Wo and Oswald, 1995; Paas, 1998; Mayer, 2006). Within this cleft, the ATD interacts with synaptic proteins including N-cadherin (Saglietti et al, 2007), as well as with neuronal pentraxins NARP (O'Brien et al, 1999) and NP1 (Sia et al, 2007) in the case of AMPA receptors and the ephrin receptor in the case of NMDA receptors (Dalva et al, 2000). The GluR2-ATD specifically induces the formation of dendritic spines (Passafaro et al, 2003), whereas the ATDs generally play a fundamental role in determining subtype-specific receptor assembly, defining that only subunits within a subfamily assemble with one another (Ayalon and Stern-Bach, 2001; Ayalon et al, 2005) although the ATD itself is not essential for receptor assembly and function (Pasternack et al, 2002; Horning and Mayer, 2004; Armstrong et al, 2006). In GluR1 and GluR2 AMPA receptors, the ATD also encodes an anterograde trafficking signal, a tripeptide IQI motif near the amino terminus that participates in receptor trafficking from the endoplasmic reticulum to plasma membrane (Xia et al, 2002). For NMDA receptors, the ATD modulates receptor function, providing binding sites for allosteric modulators that include protons, zinc ions, polyamines and small organic molecules such as ifenprodil (Paoletti and Neyton, 2007). To define the molecular architecture of the iGluR ATD, we exploited the modular nature of the receptor and genetically excised selected ATDs from the AMPA receptor subfamily, ending each ATD construct at or near the beginning of the S1 segment of the agonist-binding domains (Stern-Bach et al, 1994). The recombinant ATD constructs were secreted from insect cells and examined for favourable biochemical behaviour. The ATD domains of the rat GluR1 and GluR2 receptors expressed well, were stable and monodisperse, and were amenable to biophysical characterization and crystallization. To accurately define the subunit stoichiometry of these AMPA receptor ATDs, we first carried out sedimentation equilibrium studies, showing that the ATD forms a well-defined dimer and accurately determining the dimer dissociation constant. These studies were complemented by high-resolution crystallographic experiments on the GluR2-ATD in which we not only elaborated the subunit structure and the dimer architecture but also suggested why receptor assembly is subfamily specific. Results and discussion Isolated ATDs form tightly associated dimers in solution To explore the association behaviour of the isolated GluR1-ATD (Asn1–Asp375) and GluR2-ATD (Val1–Ser383) in solution, we first carried out analytical size-exclusion chromatography at a loading concentration of 1 mg/ml. Both ATDs migrated with an estimated molecular weight about 1.6–1.7 times greater than that of the subunit molecular weight as determined by mass spectrometry, presumably because of dimer formation (data not shown). We next carried out sedimentation equilibrium studies in an analytical ultracentrifuge using multiple protein concentrations and rotor speeds to determine subunit association behaviour (Howlett et al, 2006). Initial experiments, carried out at relatively high protein concentrations (∼1 mg/ml), show that both the GluR1- and GluR2-ATDs behaved as dimeric assemblies, in agreement with previous studies on rat GluR4 (GluRD) (Kuusinen et al, 1999) and GluR1 (Wells et al, 2001). At these relatively high protein concentrations, there was no evidence for either monomeric species or higher-ordered oligomers. As the ATD dimers did not measurably dissociate under the conditions of the initial experiments, we carried out sedimentation studies at lower protein concentrations (0.01–0.05 mg/ml), exploiting the robust absorbance of the peptide bond at 229 nm to determine protein concentrations. On the basis of equilibrium experiments carried out at three rotor speeds and three protein concentrations, for both GluR1- and GluR2-ATDs, the combined data were best fit to a reversible monomer–dimer equilibrium model. The estimated dimer dissociation constants for both of the ATD domains were similar, with Kd values of 270 nM for GluR1- and 152 nM for GluR2-ATD (Figure 1). Fitting the equilibrium sedimentation data to a fixed single monomeric or dimeric species resulted in poorer square root of variance statistics and residuals (Supplementary Table S1). Figure 1.The isolated GluR1 and GluR2 ATDs are dimers. (A) Sedimentation equilibrium studies of the GluR1 ATD. Lower panel: absorbance data (red dots) fit to a monomer–dimer model (black line), showing calculated populations of monomer (green) and dimer (blue). The loading concentration was 0.01 mg/ml and rotor speed was 12 500 r.p.m. Upper panel: Residual from the fit. The estimated GluR1 dimer Kd is ∼270 nM. (B) Similar experimental data and analysis for the GluR2 ATD. Lower panel: absorbance data (red dots) fit to a monomer–dimer model (black line), showing calculated populations of monomer (green) and dimer (blue). The loading protein concentration was 0.01 mg/ml and the rotor speed was 13 000 r.p.m. Upper panel: Residual from the fit. The estimated GluR2 ATD dimer Kd is ∼152 nM. (C) Residuals in absorbance units at 229 nm versus GluR1-ATD concentration (also in absorbance units) from a global fit of three concentrations (0.01, 0.02, 0.05 mg/ml) and three rotor speeds (10 000, 12 500, 17 000 r.p.m.). (D) Residuals in absorbance units at 229 nm versus GluR2–ATD concentration (in absorbance units) from a global fit of three concentrations (0.01, 0.02, 0.04 mg/ml) and three rotor speeds (10 000, 13 000, 18 000 r.p.m.). Download figure Download PowerPoint iGluRs are tetrameric receptors (Rosenmund et al, 1998) and experimental data suggest that the ATD plays a crucial role in receptor oligomerization (Kuusinen et al, 1999; Leuschner and Hoch, 1999; Ayalon and Stern-Bach, 2001). Tetramerization seems to occur in two discrete steps, with the first step involving interactions between the ATDs of adjacent subunits to form dimers (Ayalon and Stern-Bach, 2001) and the second step comprising the association of two dimers to form the functional, tetrameric receptor. Our analytical ultracentrifugation results showing that the GluR1- and GluR2-ATDs form tightly associated dimers buttress the contention that ATD plays a crucial role in receptor assembly. Structure determination To provide an atomic structure of an iGluR ATD we subjected GluR1- and GluR2-ATDs to crystallization trials. Although both formed crystals, the GluR1-ATD crystals diffracted to ∼6 Å resolution, whereas the GluR2-ATD crystallized in two different space groups, one of which (P21212) diffracted X-rays to high resolution (Table I). The GluR2-ATD structure was solved by single-wavelength anomalous diffraction using a selenomethionine (SeMet) derivative (Hendrickson et al, 1990; Hendrickson, 1991). A partial model was built from maps in which we combined the SeMet phases and amplitudes from the Native 1 data set. Using this partial model and the higher-resolution, more redundant Native 2 data set (Table I), we constructed a nearly complete atomic model through iterative cycles of manual model building and crystallographic refinement. There are three protomers in one asymmetric unit of the P21212 crystal form, two forming a non crystallographic symmetry (NCS) dimer (subunits A and B) and the third located on the crystallographic two-fold axis (subunit C). As the A and B subunits are better ordered than subunit C, subunit A and the AB dimer are used for figures and analysis. We then employed the subunit A of the P21212 crystal form to solve the structure of the P212121 form by molecular replacement, which has two protomers in one asymmetric unit. The conformation of the five independent protomers and the dimeric assemblies are similar between the two crystal forms. The P21212 structure was refined to good crystallographic and stereochemical statistics (Table II). Table 1. Data collection statistics Data set Native 1 Native 2 Native 3 SeM15 SeM30 Wavelength (Å) 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 0.9787 0.9789 Space groupa P21212 P21212 P212121 P21212 P21212 Cell dimensions a, b, c (Å) 64.5, 363.5, 61.7 64.0, 363.0, 61.4 108.2, 85.4, 95.2 62.8, 360.7, 61.1 63.5, 361.8. 61.3 α, β, γ (deg) 90.0, 90.0, 90.0 90.0, 90.0, 90.0 90.0, 90.0, 90.0 90.0, 90.0, 90.0 90.0, 90.0, 90.0 Resolution (Å)b 50.00–2.40 (2.44–2.40) 50.00–2.33 (2.41–2.33) 50.00–2.68 (2.74–2.68) 50.00–2.85 (2.95–2.85) 50.00–3.05 (3.16-3.05) Rmerge (%)c 4.9 (51.8) 6.1 (60.5) 4.5 (60.0) 5.4 (45.5) 10.5 (62.5) I/σIc 26.4 (2.0) 35.8 (2.2) 20.9 (2.9) 16.2 (2.0) 21.7 (2.1) Completeness (%)c 99.8 (100.0) 99.9 (100.0) 99.8 (100.0) 98.6 (87.8) 99.2 (93.2) Redundancyc 3.9 (4.0) 7.3 (7.4) 6.0 (6.2) 4.1 (2.6) 10.5 (5.3) Rmerge=∑hkl∑i∣Ii(hkl)i–〈I(hkl)〉∣/∑hkl∑iIi(hkl). a Asymmetric unit contents: three protomers in the P21212 cell and two protomers in the P212121 cell. b Values in parentheses define the highest resolution shell. c Values in parentheses are for the highest resolution shell. Table 2. Refinement statistics Resolution (Å) 20.0–2.33 Number of reflections 62 450 Rwork/Rfree (%)a 18.6/23.5 RMS deviations from ideal geometry Bond length 0.008 Å Angle 1.089 Number of atoms 9392 Protein 8968 NAG 56 Water 368 Mean main chain B value (Å2) 82.2 Mean side chain B value (Å2) 87.6 Ramachandran plot statistics Residues in most favored regions (1060) 94.7% Residues in allowed regions (59) 5.3% Residues in disallowed regions 0 The formula for Rfree is the same as that for Rwork. Rfree was calculated using 7.5% of the reflection data chosen randomly and omitted from refinement at the start of the refinement. a Rwork=∑hkli∣∣Fobs(hkl)−∣Fcalc(hkl)∣∣/∑hklFobs(hkl). Clamshell-like structure of the GluR2-ATD protomer The GluR2-ATD protomer has a clamshell-like shape in which the amino-terminal portion of the sequence defines most of one lobe (L1) and the carboxyl-terminal region composes most of the second lobe (L2; Figure 2A and B). The L1 and L2 domains, each with α/β topology, are connected by three short loops. The first ordered residue of the ATD N-terminus (Ser 3; numbering according to the mature polypeptide sequence; Keinänen et al, 1990) is located in the L1 domain and includes the trafficking sequence IQI (Xia et al, 2002) in the first β-strand, whereas the last ordered residue at the carboxyl terminus is Leu 378, located at the end of β15 in the L2 domain, 15 residues from the beginning of the S1S2 agonist-binding domain (Lys 393) (Kuusinen et al, 1995; Armstrong et al, 1998; Armstrong and Gouaux, 2000). The ATD is post-translationally modified by an intraprotomer disulphide bond between Cys57 and Cys309 and by predicted N-linked glycosylation at residues Asn 235 and Asn 349. Clear electron density is present for the disulphide link and for two N-acetyl glucosamine moieties at Asn 235, but there is no clear density for the remainder of the carbohydrate at Asn 235 or for the carbohydrate at Asn 349. As the P21212 crystals diffracted to ∼2.3 Å resolution, we were able to visualize the electron density for ∼368 water molecules. Careful inspection of difference maps, especially within the clamshell-like cleft or subunit interfaces, did not show electron density for other bound molecules or ions. Figure 2.Structure of the GluR2-ATD protomer. (A) Ribbon representation of the GluR2 ATD protomer showing the clamshell-like organization of the ATD, domains L1 and L2, α-helices (blue), β-strands (gold) and non α, non β ‘loops’ in green. The clamshell-like cleft between domains L1 and L2 is defined by a red star, the amino terminus (N) is at the ‘top’, the carboxyl terminus (C), which couples to the S1S2 portion of the receptor, is near the ATD ‘bottom’, and two N-acetylglucosamine groups at the well-ordered carbohydrate site (Asn 235) are shown in stick representation. Shown is chain A from the Native 2 crystal structure. (B) View of the protomer following a rotation of ∼90° around a vertical axis. (C) Superposition of the GluR2-ATD protomer (A chain; colours as in panel (A)) and an mGluR1-LBD protomer in an ′open′ conformation (grey; PDB code 1EWK chain B). (D) Similiar superposition as in panel (C), except with the closed, glutamate-bound form of an mGluR1-LBD protomer (grey; PDB code 1EWK; chain A). Download figure Download PowerPoint Over 15 years ago O'Hara and colleagues predicted that the extracellular, ligand-binding domains (LBDs) of metabotropic glutamate receptors (mGluRs) and the ATDs of iGluRs had a fold similar to that of the bacterial leucine–isoleucine–valine binding protein (LIVBP) (O'Hara et al, 1993). Accordingly, a structural similarity search using the DALI server (Holm et al, 2008) showed that the structure of the GluR2-ATD is similar to that of the ligand-binding domain of mGluRs (Kunishima et al, 2000; Muto et al, 2007), the extracellular domain of the natriuretic peptide receptor (He et al, 2001) and Escherichia coli LIVBP (Trakhanov et al, 2005), even though the amino-acid sequence identity between the GluR2-ATD and these proteins is <15%. The closest structural homologue to the GluR2-ATD is a protomer from the mGluR7-LBD (Muto et al, 2007), with a r.m.s. deviation of 2.9 Å over 333 aligned residues; the mGluR1-LBD is also closely related, with a r.m.s. deviation of 3.1 Å over 338 residues. There are, however, significant structural differences between the GluR2-ATD and the mGluR-LBDs that suggest the domains have different functions in metabotropic and ionotropic receptors. First, from studies on LIVBP, other bacterial orthologues and the mGluRs, it is well known that the L1 and L2 lobes can adopt open, typically apo or ligand-free conformations and closed, generally ligand-bound states. For LIVBP and the mGluRs, the rotation angle that describes this open-cleft to closed-cleft conformational change is large and ranges from 25° to 50° (Kunishima et al, 2000; Tsuchiya et al, 2002; Trakhanov et al, 2005; Muto et al, 2007). In the five crystallographically independent GluR2-ATD protomers reported here, however, we see only one conformation. Superposition of the L1 and L2 domains of GluR2-ATD onto the corresponding domains of either LIVBP or mGluR1 (Kunishima et al, 2000) clearly shows that the GluR2-ATD adopts a conformation that is intermediate between the canonical open-cleft and closed-cleft states of LIVBP and mGluR1 (Figure 2C and D). Here we used the mGluR1-LBD for comparisons instead of mGluR7-LBD because multiple conformations are only available for mGluR1. There are also multiple differences between the GluR2-ATD and the mGluR1-LBD, the first being that in mGluR1 there is a long disordered segment (Asp125–Lys153) between helix-B and strand-d that includes a crucial Cys residue (Cys140) proposed to form an interprotomer disulphide bridge. The corresponding segment on the GluR2-ATD is between α2 and β3, is much shorter, and is not disordered. A second departure is that the GluR2-ATD has a well-structured loop (Gln296–Trp317), or ‘flap’ that lies between α9 and α10. This flap adopts an extended conformation and ‘sits’ on the top of the GluR2-ATD and is linked to the α2 helix by an intraprotomer disulphide-bond bridge formed between Cys57 and Cys309. The corresponding region on mGluR1-LBD (residues Cys432–Asp446, between helix M and O) is much shorter and forms an internal disulphide bond between Cys432 and Cys439. A third distinction is that there are only three residues between β1 and α1 on the GluR2-ATD. In contrast, the equivalent region in the mGluR1-LBD (Ser52–Gly75) contains 24 residues. Finally, the region between helix-K and helix-M on mGluR1-LBD (55 residues between Leu355 and Lys409, including a disulphide bond between Cys378 and Cys394) is much longer than the equivalent structure on GluR2-ATD (17 residues between α8 and α9). Thus, even though the core structural fold of the GluR2-ATD is similar to that of mGluRs, there are substantial differences in the lengths and structures of protruding loops—differences that are likely to affect the conformations that the GluR2-ATD can adopt and the manner in which the ATD participates in interactions within a fully-assembled receptor and between an assembled receptor and other synaptic proteins. Inspection of the ATD protomer structure in combination with the aligned amino-acid sequences of AMPA, kainate and NMDA receptors allows several striking observations to be made, perhaps the most prominent being the predicted complete absence in NMDA receptors of helix 8 (Figure 2A and B; Supplementary Figure S1), one of the three structural elements that couples domains L1 and L2 in GluR2-ATD. An additional prominent difference is localized between β4 and β5, near the juncture between the L1 and L2 domains, where, in NMDA receptors, there are as many as six additional residues (Figure 2A and B; Supplementary Figure S1). In NMDA receptors, this region is near the putative clamshell ‘hinge’ and is likely to undergo conformational changes on binding of allosteric modulators. Architecture of the GluR2-ATD dimer In agreement with the GluR1- and GluR2-ATD solution behaviour, the GluR2-ATD crystallizes as a dimer in both crystal forms (Figure 3). For the P21212 crystals, there are three subunits in the asymmetric unit: subunits A and B form a NCS-related dimer (AB dimer) whereas molecule C, positioned on the crystallographic two-fold axis, forms a dimer with its symmetry mate (CC dimer). For the P212121 crystals, there is one NCS dimer (A′B′) in the asymmetric unit. All three crystallographically independent dimers have a similar conformation, and pairwise superposition of Cα atoms for residues 6–378 yields r.m.s. deviations of 0.9, 1.5 and 1.5 Å between the AB and CC, the AB and A′B′, and the CC and A′B′ dimers, respectively. The equivalence in the conformations among the three independent dimers thus suggests that under the conditions of crystallization neither the dimer nor the individual subunits readily adopt multiple, unliganded conformational states. Figure 3.Architecture of the GluR2-ATD dimer. (A) View of dimer perpendicular to the molecular two-fold axis. Boxed regions are the crucial L1–L1 and L2–L2 interprotomer interfaces. Helices and strands in a darker shade are either involved in domain–domain interactions (L1–L1: α2/α3; ‘flaps’; L2–L2: α5/β7) or bridge L1 and L2 domains (α8). (B) View of dimer parallel to the molecular two-fold axis looking onto the ‘top’ of the L1 domains and into the L1–L1 interface, showing the ‘flaps’ and the essential disulphide bonds between the α2 helices and the ‘flaps’. Download figure Download PowerPoint There are extensive protein–protein interactions between the two protomers of the GluR2-ATD dimer that involve multiple L1–L1 and L2–L2 domain contacts (Figure 3). On dimer formation, each subunit buries about 1408 Å2 of solvent-accessible surface area at the dimer interface, consistent with the low dimer dissociation constant observed in sedimentation studies. The dimer interface between the two-fold-related L1 domains can be divided into a region at the very ‘top’ of the dimer that is mediated by the tips of the ‘flap’ (Figure 4) and the region immediately below the loop that makes contacts involving extensive interactions between the α2 and α3 helices (Figure 5A and B). Figure 4.The L1 ‘Flap’. (A) The L1 ‘flap’ folds over the ‘top’ of the L1 domain, spans residues Ile298–Trp317, and includes residue Cys309, which makes a disulphide bond to Cys57, as well as Leu310, which forms a hydrophobic contact in the L1–L1 interface. (B) Multiple amino-acid-sequence alignment of the ‘flaps’ from AMPA, kainate and NMDA receptors shows that even though the loop varies substantially in length and residue composition from subtype to subtype, the cysteine involved in disulphide bond formation is conserved. Download figure Download PowerPoint Figure 5.Nature of interprotomer contacts. (A) L1–L1 interface illustrating the proximity of the Cys57–Cys309 disulphide bond and the roles of aromatic–aromatic (Phe50–Phe82) and polar contacts (Thr53, Thr78, Asn54 and Leu310 and the water molecule, HOH63). (B) Multiple amino-acid-sequence alignment of the residues in helices α2 and α3, the two crucial helices comprising the four-helix bundle, L1–L1 interdomain interface. (C) Contacts at the L2–L2 interprotomer interface showing non-polar interactions between the side chains of Leu137, L140 and L144 of helix α5, together with a hydrogen bond between Tyr131 and Gln141, two residues conserved between AMPA and kainate receptors. Here, the molecular two-fold axis is oriented approximately perpendicular to the plane of the page from the vantage point of the ′top′ of the interface, proximal to Leu137. Protomer A is gold, protomer B is blue. The van der Waals surfaces of the leucine side chains are shown as dots. (D) Multiple amino-acid-sequence alignment of residues in helix α5. Download figure Download PowerPoint The flap is an element of extended polypeptide between helices α9 and α10, includes residues Gln296 to Trp317 (Figure 4; Supplementary Figure 1), and is more well-conserved within receptor subtypes than between receptor subtypes. The flap covers the ‘top’ of the L1 domain and at the turn of the loop, forms hydrophobic (Leu 310) contacts with the two-fold-related Leu310 at the dimer interface. Most importantly, the flap harbours Cys309, which forms an intraprotomer disulphide bridge with Cys57, a covalent crosslink within a subunit that is conserved across receptor subtypes. We suggest that the disulphide bridge constrains the conformation of the flap and thus the disulphide bridge indirectly plays an important role in subunit assembly. Furthermore, the well-defined intraprotomer disulphide bridge in the GluR2-ATD, in combination with amino-acid sequence alignments (Supplementary Figure S1), suggests that in NMDA receptors the corresponding cysteine residues are involved in a disulphide bond within rather than between subunits (Papadakis et al, 2004). At the dimer interface and immediately below this flap are multiple subunit–subunit contacts mediated by residues on helices α2 and α3 and involving both nonpolar and polar contacts (Figures 5A, B, and 6A, B). The most prominent nonpolar contacts are aromatic edge-to-face contacts between Phe50 (α2) and Phe82 (α3). This specific interaction is unique to AMPA receptors; in kainate receptors, the amino-acid equivalent of Phe82 is an Ile and in NMDA receptors the equivalent amino acids are Ile, Lys, or Thr. There is a substantial amount of solvent in the L1–L1 dimer interface and this is illustrated by the coordination of a well-ordered water molecule by four Thr residues, one from each of α2 and α3 (Thr54 and Thr78). Additional polar interactions that knit the dimer interface together are formed from Asn54 (Nδ2) to Leu310 (O) and Ser" @default.
• W2011092574 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2011092574 creator A5003376712 @default.
• W2011092574 creator A5004177357 @default.
• W2011092574 creator A5025494009 @default.
• W2011092574 creator A5031841140 @default.
• W2011092574 creator A5066304849 @default.
• W2011092574 creator A5084443628 @default.
• W2011092574 creator A5086894930 @default.
• W2011092574 creator A5088125571 @default.
• W2011092574 date "2009-05-21" @default.
• W2011092574 modified "2023-10-11" @default.
• W2011092574 title "Crystal structure and association behaviour of the GluR2 amino-terminal domain" @default.
• W2011092574 cites W1500543172 @default.
• W2011092574 cites W1506811553 @default.
• W2011092574 cites W1539796472 @default.
• W2011092574 cites W1542411948 @default.
• W2011092574 cites W1744070583 @default.
• W2011092574 cites W1908222510 @default.
• W2011092574 cites W1922786159 @default.
• W2011092574 cites W1945680072 @default.
• W2011092574 cites W1963733435 @default.
• W2011092574 cites W1965277349 @default.
• W2011092574 cites W1969156185 @default.
• W2011092574 cites W1969298446 @default.
• W2011092574 cites W1977184155 @default.
• W2011092574 cites W1985374711 @default.
• W2011092574 cites W1990567099 @default.
• W2011092574 cites W1995017064 @default.
• W2011092574 cites W1996208391 @default.
• W2011092574 cites W1996314349 @default.
• W2011092574 cites W2001641653 @default.
• W2011092574 cites W2004801897 @default.
• W2011092574 cites W2005283529 @default.
• W2011092574 cites W2005913521 @default.
• W2011092574 cites W2006488663 @default.
• W2011092574 cites W2012641732 @default.
• W2011092574 cites W2013083986 @default.
• W2011092574 cites W2015013519 @default.
• W2011092574 cites W2019019017 @default.
• W2011092574 cites W2019567497 @default.
• W2011092574 cites W2021045528 @default.
• W2011092574 cites W2032150040 @default.
• W2011092574 cites W2033185638 @default.
• W2011092574 cites W2035267273 @default.
• W2011092574 cites W2040720735 @default.
• W2011092574 cites W2056429179 @default.
• W2011092574 cites W2062225909 @default.
• W2011092574 cites W2063461600 @default.
• W2011092574 cites W2064751454 @default.
• W2011092574 cites W2077202970 @default.
• W2011092574 cites W2091763641 @default.
• W2011092574 cites W2094011563 @default.
• W2011092574 cites W2109184569 @default.
• W2011092574 cites W2109310563 @default.
• W2011092574 cites W2111886211 @default.
• W2011092574 cites W2115476261 @default.
• W2011092574 cites W2117177933 @default.
• W2011092574 cites W2117664079 @default.
• W2011092574 cites W2120911443 @default.
• W2011092574 cites W2134201060 @default.
• W2011092574 cites W2137955461 @default.
• W2011092574 cites W2141184730 @default.
• W2011092574 cites W2144081223 @default.
• W2011092574 cites W2152208386 @default.
• W2011092574 cites W2157390039 @default.
• W2011092574 cites W2162244749 @default.
• W2011092574 cites W2162281220 @default.
• W2011092574 cites W2162327153 @default.
• W2011092574 cites W2162642602 @default.
• W2011092574 cites W2167768159 @default.
• W2011092574 cites W2168425278 @default.
• W2011092574 doi "https://doi.org/10.1038/emboj.2009.140" @default.
• W2011092574 hasPubMedCentralId "https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/2699365" @default.
• W2011092574 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19461580" @default.
• W2011092574 hasPublicationYear "2009" @default.
• W2011092574 type Work @default.
• W2011092574 sameAs 2011092574 @default.
• W2011092574 citedByCount "137" @default.
• W2011092574 countsByYear W20110925742012 @default.
• W2011092574 countsByYear W20110925742013 @default.
• W2011092574 countsByYear W20110925742014 @default.
• W2011092574 countsByYear W20110925742015 @default.
• W2011092574 countsByYear W20110925742016 @default.
• W2011092574 countsByYear W20110925742017 @default.
• W2011092574 countsByYear W20110925742018 @default.
• W2011092574 countsByYear W20110925742019 @default.
• W2011092574 countsByYear W20110925742020 @default.
• W2011092574 countsByYear W20110925742021 @default.
• W2011092574 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2011092574 hasAuthorship W2011092574A5003376712 @default.
• W2011092574 hasAuthorship W2011092574A5004177357 @default.
• W2011092574 hasAuthorship W2011092574A5025494009 @default.
• W2011092574 hasAuthorship W2011092574A5031841140 @default.
• W2011092574 hasAuthorship W2011092574A5066304849 @default.
• W2011092574 hasAuthorship W2011092574A5084443628 @default.
• W2011092574 hasAuthorship W2011092574A5086894930 @default.
• W2011092574 hasAuthorship W2011092574A5088125571 @default.

• next