![]() | ![]() |
Formats:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Copyright © 2008, European Molecular Biology Organization Regulatory interactions between IRG resistance GTPases in the cellular response to Toxoplasma gondii 1Department of Cell Genetics, Institute for Genetics, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany 2Department of Immunology, Max-Planck-Institute for Infection Biology, Berlin, Germany aDepartment of Cell Genetics, Institute for Genetics, University of Cologne, Zuelpicher Strasse 47, 50674 Cologne, Germany. Tel.: +49 221 470 4864/5293; Fax: +49 221 470 6749; E-mail: j.howard/at/uni-koeln.de *Present address: Centre d'Immunologie de Marseille–Luminy, Parc Scientifique de Luminy, Marseille Cedex 9, France †Present address: Division of Immunoregulation, NIMR, London NW7 1AA, UK ‡Present address: Institute of Clinical Pharmacology, PAREXEL International GmbH, 14050 Berlin, Germany §Present address: Division of Neurobiology, LMB, Cambridge CB2 2QH, UK Received June 6, 2008; Accepted August 13, 2008. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Licence, which permits distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. This licence does not permit commercial exploitation without specific permission. This article has been cited by other articles in PMC.Abstract Members of the immunity-related GTPase (IRG) family are interferon-inducible resistance factors against a broad spectrum of intracellular pathogens including Toxoplasma gondii. The molecular mechanisms governing the function and regulation of the IRG resistance system are largely unknown. We find that IRG proteins function in a system of direct, nucleotide-dependent regulatory interactions between family members. After interferon induction but before infection, the three members of the GMS subfamily of IRG proteins, Irgm1, Irgm2 and Irgm3, which possess an atypical nucleotide-binding site, regulate the intracellular positioning of the conventional GKS subfamily members, Irga6 and Irgb6. Following infection, the normal accumulation of Irga6 protein at the parasitophorous vacuole membrane (PVM) is nucleotide dependent and also depends on the presence of all three GMS proteins. We present evidence that an essential role of the GMS proteins in this response is control of the nucleotide-bound state of the GKS proteins, preventing their GTP-dependent activation before infection. Accumulation of IRG proteins at the PVM has previously been shown to be associated with a block in pathogen replication: our results relate for the first time the enzymatic properties of IRG proteins to their role in pathogen resistance. Keywords: cell-autonomous resistance, IIGP, IRG-47, p47 GTPase, TGTP Introduction Several families of interferon-inducible large GTPases (including Mx proteins, guanylate-binding proteins (GBP) and immunity-related GTPases (IRG)) are involved in cell-autonomous resistance mechanisms functional against intracellular pathogens. The powerful biological activity of the IRG proteins (immunity-related or p47 GTPases) against a range of pathogens has been extensively reviewed (e.g. Martens and Howard, 2006). There have, however, been no reports relating the GTP binding and hydrolysis cycles of the IRG proteins to their activity in pathogen defence. We address this issue in the context of the well-documented ability of IRG proteins to assemble rapidly on the parasitophorous vacuole membrane (PVM) of the intracellular protozoal parasite, Toxoplasma gondii, and to participate in its destruction (Martens et al, 2005; Ling et al, 2006). The IRG family is represented by 25 IRG coding units of about 1.2 kb in the C57BL/6 mouse genome representing 21 genes, as 4 of these are transcribed as pairs to generate tandem ~2.4 kb products (Bekpen et al, 2005 and unpublished data). Three IRG genes (Irgm1–3) encode proteins with the non-canonical sequence GX4GMS in place of the otherwise universally conserved GX4GKS in the first nucleotide-binding motif (G1), giving rise to the subfamily name IRGM (Bekpen et al, 2005). As a convenient shorthand, we designate the IRGM subfamily members and the IRG proteins with the conventional G1 motif as GMS and GKS, respectively. Of the IRG genes studied so far by genomic knockout, Irgm1 (LRG-47), Irgm3 (IGTP) and Irgd (IRG-47) have all been shown to be non-redundantly required for resistance to T. gondii (Taylor et al, 2000; Collazo et al, 2001). Irga6 (IIGP) and Irgb6 (TGTP) also participate in the mechanism of cellular resistance to this parasite as its replication is unrestricted following expression of functionally dominant-negative mutants (Irga6-K82A, Irgb6-K69A) of these two IRG proteins in IFN-induced primary mouse astrocytes (Martens et al, 2005 and unpublished data). Irga6, Irgb6, Irgd, Irgm2 (GTPI) and Irgm3 have been shown to accumulate at T. gondii parasitophorous vacuoles (PVs) (Martens et al, 2005; Ling et al, 2006). Accumulation of IRG proteins at the PVM is followed by vesiculation and disruption of the PVM and death of the parasite. The modes of action of individual IRG proteins in resistance to T. gondii may, however, not all be the same. The accumulation of several family members at the PVM and the morphological disruption of the vacuole suggest an effector action at this site. However, Irgm1 does not localise to the PVM (Butcher et al, 2005; Martens et al, 2005 and unpublished data) and must therefore contribute to resistance in another way. In the present paper, we show that an essential function of Irgm1 as well as of Irgm2 and Irgm3 is to regulate other IRG proteins through control of their GTPase cycle. There is an early report that partially purified Irgm3, a GMS protein, can bind GTP despite its anomalous P-loop sequence (Taylor et al, 1996). However, the GKS protein Irga6 is the only IRG family member for which the biochemical properties have been examined in detail and the crystal structure has been solved (Uthaiah et al, 2003; Ghosh et al, 2004). Purified, bacterially expressed Irga6 protein forms oligomeric structures in a GTP-dependent manner in vitro and hydrolyses GTP to GDP cooperatively. Nothing is known about the function, timing or regulation of the Irga6 GTPase cycle in vivo by heterologous regulators, such as GTPase-activating proteins (GAPs), guanine nucleotide exchange factors or guanine nucleotide dissociation inhibitors (GDIs). Thus, there is so far no direct link between the biochemical properties of the IRG proteins and their biological activity in cell-autonomous resistance. The fact that all three reported genomic knockouts of IRG genes display a non-redundant loss of T. gondii resistance suggested that different IRG proteins might interact with each other to exercise their function. Furthermore, the strikingly suppressive effects of Irga6-K82A and Irgb6-K69A on T. gondii resistance and PVM localisation in IFN-induced cells, noted above, was also compatible with an interactive model of non-redundancy. Furthermore, these mutants were designed to interfere with the nucleotide-binding site, implicating the control of the GTPase cycle in Irga6 and Irgb6 function in vivo. Both Irga6-K82A and Irgb6-K69A contain mutations of the lysine in the universally conserved P-loop GKS motif homologous to p21 Ras K16. Here, we show that the biochemical characteristic of Irga6-K82A is not the expected failure to bind GTP but rather a failure to hydrolyse it once bound. Irga6-K82A is thus a constitutively active form of the protein. WT Irga6 behaves as if it too is constitutively active in vivo in the absence of the three GMS proteins Irgm1, Irgm2 and Irgm3, suggesting that these latter proteins normally suppress or attenuate the spontaneous conversion of Irga6 into the active GTP-bound state. In the absence of this regulatory control, Irga6, such as Irga6-K82A, accumulates in cytoplasmic aggregates and fails to reach the PVM of infecting T. gondii. Irgb6 shows properties largely similar but not identical to those of Irga6, and we find that the regulatory interactions of the GMS proteins with these two GKS proteins are associated with direct nucleotide-dependent contact between the GTPases. We conclude that assembly of IRG proteins at the T. gondii PVM depends on the timing and subcellular location of nucleotide exchange, which is in turn governed by specific, nucleotide-dependent regulatory interactions between the three GMS proteins and members of the GKS group. Results Irga6-K82A is constitutively active and Irga6-S83N is inert K82 of Irga6 is homologous to K16 of Ras; mutations at this P-loop residue have been shown to render several GTPases deficient in GTP binding (Sigal et al, 1986; Pitossi et al, 1993; Praefcke et al, 2004). Irga6-K82A has wild-type (WT) affinity for GDP (Uthaiah, 2002; Figure 1A and C
The S17N mutation of Ras retains WT affinity for GDP but is unable to bind GTP, and is therefore dominant negative, locked in the inactive state (Feig and Cooper, 1988). The homologous mutation of Irga6, S83N, however, had greatly reduced binding affinity for both nucleotides (Figure 1A–C Irga6 localisation to the T. gondii PVM is regulated by IFN Irga6 transfected into unstimulated mouse L929 fibroblasts accumulated in cytoplasmic aggregates (Martens et al, 2004), instead of the smooth ER localisation characteristic of the endogenous, IFN-induced Irga6 protein (Figure 2A
To distinguish between endogenous and ectopically expressed Irga6, we generated C-terminally epitope tagged Irga6 constructs (Irga6-ctag1). Irga6-ctag1 transiently transfected into IFNγ-induced mouse embryonic fibroblasts (MEFs) showed essentially normal resting localisation at the ER and accumulation at the T. gondii PVM (Figure 2J–L and U These results suggest that WT Irga6 is normally kept in the cytoplasm in the GDP-bound state in IFNγ-induced cells, but accumulates at the T. gondii PVM in the active GTP-bound state. In the absence of IFNγ, WT Irga6 binds GTP and activates spontaneously in the cytoplasm to form ‘sterile' aggregates that cannot localise to the PVM. Irga6-K82A activates constitutively in the cytoplasm and forms ectopic GTP-bound aggregates that can also capture WT Irga6, thus acting as a functional dominant negative. Above all, these findings strongly suggest that the nucleotide-binding status of Irga6 must normally be regulated by other IFNγ-inducible components, and this regulation is essential for the ability of the protein to localise correctly to PVMs of infecting T. gondii. The GMS proteins are the IFN-inducible regulators of Irga6 The non-redundancy documented for several IRG proteins in resistance to T. gondii suggested that the behaviour of Irga6 in IFNγ-induced cells may be regulated by the presence of other IRG proteins. We therefore attempted to reconstitute normal intracellular behaviour of WT Irga6 in the absence of IFNγ by transfecting MIF-induced gs3T3-Irga6 cells with a pool of expression vectors encoding Irgb6, Irgd, Irgm1, Irgm2 and Irgm3. Transfected cells identified by the expression of Irgm2 at the Golgi apparatus (Figure 3B
It was reported that the mutation S98N in Irgm3, homologous to S83N of Irga6, prevents GTP binding (Taylor et al, 1997). We therefore prepared Irgm3-S98N and the homologous mutations Irgm1-S90N and Irgm2-S78N to ask whether the ability of GMS proteins to regulate Irga6 was dependent on their nucleotide-bound states. The co-transfection of all three mutant GMS sequences together did not reconstitute normal Irga6 behaviour in MIF-induced gs3T3-Irga6 cells (Figures 3J–O Nucleotide-dependent direct interactions between IRGs in yeast two-hybrid assays To determine whether nucleotide-dependent interactions between Irga6 and the GMS proteins involved physical contact, two yeast two-hybrid (Y2H) systems employing different DNA-binding (BD) and activation domain (AD) fusion partners for the IRG proteins and different expression properties were used (see Materials and methods). The IRG proteins showed multiple interactions in these assay systems and each family member displayed a distinct pattern of behaviour (Figure 5A and B
To confirm the specificity of the interactions seen and to determine their relevance to the in vivo findings, the Y2H assay in the Gal4-based system was repeated with nucleotide-binding site mutants of the individual proteins. All Y2H interactions of GMS proteins with other family members were completely abolished by the GMS to GMN mutants, Irgm3-S98N, Irgm2-S78N and Irgm1-S90N (Figure 5B Direct interaction between Irga6 and Irgm3 is dependent on GDP Functionally significant nucleotide-dependent interactions between Irga6 and the GMS proteins occur in IFNγ-induced cells, and the Y2H data suggested that at least some of these interactions were likely to be direct. The strongest interaction of Irga6 with a GMS protein in Y2H was with Irgm2 (Figure 5A
Regulatory interactions between Irgb6 and the GMS proteins Most cell biological properties of Irgb6 resembled those described for Irga6. Native and C-terminally FLAG-tagged Irgb6 expressed by transfection in unstimulated cells formed distinctive aggregates (Figure 7A
The ability of transfected Irgb6WT to accumulate on the T. gondii PVM in uninduced cells was initially surprising. However, the results may suggest that in the absence of GMS proteins, WT Irga6 and Irgb6 establish equilibria between GTP-bound, aggregated and GDP-bound, free forms, which are more in favour of GDP in the case of Irgb6 than in the case of Irga6. In IFNγ-induced cells, the biochemically dominant-positive Irgb6-K69A can perhaps also be partially repaired by co-expressed GMS proteins, which further push the equilibrium towards the GDP-bound state and release monomers that can activate correctly at the PVM, associated with some reduction of aggregates (Figure 7N Localisation of GMS proteins in the absence of IFN We have shown that GMS proteins are essential regulators of Irga6 and Irgb6. Unlike the GKS proteins, which have large cytosolic pools, the GMS proteins are largely or completely membrane-associated (Martens et al, 2004). Each GMS protein resides in a distinctive compartment: Irgm1 predominantly on Golgi (Martens et al, 2004) but also on endolysosomal membranes (Zhao et al, in preparation), Irgm2 on Golgi membranes (Martens and Howard, 2006) and Irgm3 on ER membranes and unidentified globular structures (Taylor et al, 1997; Martens et al, 2004) (Figure 8A–C, G–I and M–O
Both Irgm2 and Irgm3 have been shown to accumulate on the T. gondii PVM in IFNγ-induced, infected cells (Martens et al, 2005). We found that this accumulation depended on the presence of other IRG proteins. Thus, it did not occur in MIF-inducible gs3T3 cell lines expressing only Irgm2 or Irgm3 (data not shown). PVM localisation was also not seen in unstimulated gs3T3 cells transiently transfected with the three GMS proteins (Figure 9A–C
Discussion We have shown that the cell-autonomous resistance mechanism mediated by the family of IFN-inducible IRG proteins is underlain by a complex pattern of nucleotide-dependent interactions between members of the family that determine both the positioning of the IRG proteins in the cell before infection and their subsequent ability to target the PV of the intracellular protozoal pathogen, T. gondii (see Supplementary Table SI). The three GMS proteins, Irgm1, Irgm2 and Irgm3, are necessary and sufficient to determine the normal intracellular localisation, including accumulation at the T. gondii PVM, of at least two of the GKS proteins, Irga6 (Figures 3 On the basis of these results, we can formulate a tentative model (Figure 10
The access of cytosolic, presumably GDP-bound Irga6 or Irgb6 to the PVM, which is detectable within a few minutes after infection, may be by simple diffusion, as depolymerisation of microtubules by nocodazole has no effect on PVM localisation of Irga6 or Irgb6 (Khaminets et al, in preparation). We propose that activation of IRG proteins by GTP binding at the PVM may occur either through a local, perhaps transient, deficiency of GMS proteins at this membrane or through a specific, activating interaction with a factor presumably derived from the T. gondii and expressed on the cytosolic face of the PVM. Proteins derived from rhoptry secretions (Dubremetz, 2007) would be strong candidates for this role in view of their established association with T. gondii invasion and virulence. As Irga6 forms GTP-dependent oligomers with accelerated GTPase activity in vitro, the Irga6 observed at the PVM may be in the form of GTP-bound oligomers, possibly both homo- and hetero-oligomers in view of the strong nucleotide-dependent interaction in Y2H between Irga6 and Irgb6 (Figure 5 Several non-Ras GTPases have recently been shown to accelerate GTP hydrolysis by G-domain–G-domain dimerisation (Sun et al, 2002; Egea et al, 2004; Ghosh et al, 2006; Scrima and Wittinghofer, 2006), the two G-domains functioning effectively as GAP proteins for each other. Such mutually activating GTPase pairs may be homodimeric (GBP1) or heterodimeric (SRP, TOC, MnmE). We now know that accelerated hydrolysis of GTP in Irga6 oligomers in vitro also occurs through reciprocal G-domain–G-domain interactions (Pawlowski et al, in preparation). As noted above, hetero-oligomeric interactions, as between Irga6 and Irgb6, may also contribute to events occurring at the PVM in vivo. By analogy, in the resting state, Irga6 and Irgb6 may be negatively regulated by heterodimeric G-domain interactions with GMS members of the IRG family, perhaps by successful competition with Irga6 and Irgb6 for the G-domain interaction site. The enhancement of Irgm3 pull-down by the addition of GDP suggests that GDP is an essential cofactor in this regulation. In the model (Figure 10 The finding that the IRG GTPases are involved in complex regulatory interactions with each other may account for some obscure observations in the IRG field. Bernstein-Hanley et al (2006) observed that overexpression of Irgm3 resulted in impaired resistance to Chlamydia trachomatis in MEFs, consistent with the here proposed role of Irgm3 as an attenuator of GKS activation. Second, our data show that GMS proteins are required for normal regulation of the nucleotide status and subcellular localisation of Irga6 and Irgb6. Thus, the susceptibility phenotypes shown by mice with disrupted Irgm1 or Irgm3 genes may not be due to non-redundant activity of GMS gene products against the pathogens, but rather to dysregulation of other IRG proteins. Furthermore, absence of GMS proteins leads to formation of ectopic aggregates of the GKS proteins (Figures 2 Here, we show that IRG proteins function in a system of nucleotide-dependent interactions that regulate the behaviour of these powerful resistance proteins in response to intracellular infection. Detailed insight into mechanistic aspects of these effects will have to await the purification of more IRG family members, in particular of the GMS proteins. At a functional level, the next challenge is to understand how the binding and hydrolysis of GTP by IRG proteins localised to the T. gondii PVM contributes to the destruction of the vacuole and the subsequent demise of the pathogen. Materials and methods Expression constructs Expression constructs were generated as described in the Supplementary data. Cell culture gs3T3 cells (Invitrogen) and C57BL/6 MEFs (Boehm et al, 1998) were cultured in DMEM, high glucose (Invitrogen), 10% FCS (Biochrom), 2 mM L-glutamine, 1 mM sodium pyruvate, 1 × MEM non-essential amino acids, 100 U/ml penicillin, 100 μg/ml streptomycin (all PAA), transiently transfected using FuGENE6 (Roche) according to the manufacturer's instructions, induced with 200 U/ml of mouse IFNγ (Cell Concepts) or 10−9 M MIF (Invitrogen) for 24 h. Generation of inducible cell lines gs3T3 cells were transfected with linearised pGene-IRG constructs by calcium phosphate precipitation (Graham and van der Eb, 1973) and selected for stable integration with 200 μg/ml Zeocin (Invivogen). The integrated pSwitch inducer plasmid was maintained with 50 μg/ml hygromycin (Invivogen). Clones expressing comparable protein amounts following MIF and IFNγ induction were identified by SDS–PAGE and WB (Supplementary Figure S3; see Supplementary data). Immunoreagents Immunoreagents used were αIrga6 165 rabbit antiserum (AS) (Martens et al, 2004), 10E7 and 10D7 mouse mAbs, αIGTP (Irgm3) mAb (BD Biosciences), αIrgb6 A20 goat AS and αIrgm1 A19 goat AS (Santa Cruz Biotechnology), αIrgm2 H53 rabbit AS (Martens et al, 2005), αIrgd 2078 rabbit AS (Martens et al, 2004), αT. gondii rabbit (BioGenex) and goat AS (Abcam), αGRA7 5-241-178 mouse mAb (Bonhomme et al, 1998), αctag1 2600 rabbit AS (Martens et al, 2005), αGM130 mAb (BD Biosciences), αGiantin mAb (Linstedt and Hauri, 1993), αCalnexin AS (StressGene), Alexa 350/488/555 labelled donkey αmouse, -rabbit and -goat sera (Molecular Probes), donkey αrabbit- (GE Healthcare), donkey αgoat- (Santa Cruz Biotechnology) and goat αmouse-HRP (Pierce) AS. Immunocytochemistry Immunocytochemistry was performed as described earlier (Martens et al, 2005), analysed using an Axioplan II fluorescence microscope and AxioCam MRm camera and images were processed with Axiovision4 (Zeiss). Infection of fibroblasts ME49 strain T. gondii tachyzoites were passaged in vitro and used for infection of untreated, transiently transfected, IFNγ- and/or MIF-induced fibroblasts at a multiplicity of infection of six for 2 h as described by Martens et al (2005). Intracellular parasites were identified by immunostaining for the T. gondii protein GRA7 or in phase contrast. Y2H In the GAL4-based Y2H system, the IRGs were expressed constitutively at low level as N-terminal fusions with the Gal4 BD and Gal4 AD (James et al, 1996). pGAD- and pGBD-IRG constructs were lithium acetate transformed (Gietz et al, 1995) into PJ69-4a-a and -α yeast cells, respectively, followed by selection on synthetic complete (SC) medium lacking Leu (SC-L) or Trp (SC-T) (James et al, 1996). Co-expression was achieved by mating on YPD plates (Sherman, 2002) and selection for diploid cells on SC-L-T. Protein–protein interaction was determined by growth on SC-L-T also lacking Ade and His. At least two independent crossings were performed in each case. The Y2H analysis using the Matchmaker LexA-system (Clontech) based on inducible expression of the IRGs as N-terminal fusions with the LexA BD and B42 AD was performed as described by Kaiser et al (2004) and Kaiser (2005). Expression and purification of recombinant protein WT Irga6 and mutant proteins were expressed as N-terminal GST fusions from pGEX-4T-2 constructs in Escherichia coli BL-21 upon overnight (ON) induction with 0.1 mM IPTG at 18°C. The cells were lysed in B1 buffer (PBS/2 mM DTT)/Complete Mini Protease Inhibitor Cocktail, EDTA free (Roche) using a microfluidiser (EmulsiFlex-C5; Avestin). Cleared lysates were purified on a GSTrap FF glutathione Sepharose affinity column (GE Healthcare) in B1 buffer. GST was cleaved off by ON incubation of the resin with thrombin (Serva) at 4°C. Free Irga6 was eluted with B1 buffer. Irga6 containing fractions were subjected to size exclusion chromatography (Superdex 75; GE Healthcare) in B2 buffer (50 mM Tris–HCl pH 7.4, 5 mM MgCl2 and 2 mM DTT). Pure Irga6 proteins were concentrated with Vivaspin 20 centrifugal concentrators (Sartorius). Pull down IFNγ- and MIF-induced gs3T3 cells were lysed for 1 h at 4°C in lysis buffer (PBS, 0.1% Thesit (Sigma-Aldrich), 3 mM MgCl2, Complete Mini Protease Inhibitor Cocktail, EDTA free (Roche)) with or without 0.5 mM GDP or GTPγS (Sigma-Aldrich). Postnuclear supernatants were incubated at 4°C ON with glutathione Sepharose-bound (high performance; GE Healthcare) recombinant GST–Irga6 and –Irga6-S83N that was pre-incubated for 1 h with or without 1 mM GDP or GTPγS in PBS, 5 mM MgCl2 and 1 mM DTT. Bound cellular proteins were eluted from the washed beads with elution buffer (30 min RT) and subjected to SDS–PAGE and WB. Input of recombinant Irga6 was monitored by Ponceau S staining. Coimmunoprecipitation IFNγ-induced and untreated gs3T3 cells were lysed in lysis buffer in the absence or presence of 0.5 mM GDP and GTPγS (both Sigma-Aldrich). Irga6-specific AS 165 was bound to protein A Sepharose CL-4B (GE Healthcare) and crosslinked using 20 mM dimethyl pimelimidate (Sigma-Aldrich) (Harlow and Lane, 1988). Coupled beads were incubated with the postnuclear cell lysates for 2 h at 4°C. Bound proteins were eluted from washed beads with elution buffer (100 mM Tris pH 8.5 and 0.5% SDS) for 30 min at room temperature and subjected to SDS–PAGE and WB. One-quarter of the eluate was used for detection with αIrga6 mAb 10D7 and three-quarters for detection with the αIrgm3 mAb. Guanine nucleotide-binding parameters The nucleotide-binding affinities of WT Irga6, -K82A and -S83N for mGDP and mGTPγS (Jena Bioscience) were determined by equilibrium titration of 0–100 μM protein against 0.5 μM mant nucleotides in B2 buffer at 20°C. The mant nucleotides were excited at 355 nm, and monitored at 448 nm (Aminco-Bowman 2 Luminescence Spectrometer; SLM Instruments). Equilibrium dissociation constants were obtained as described by Herrmann and Nassar (1996). The fluorescence emission intensity increases upon binding of mant nucleotides to GTPases due to exclusion of solvent that otherwise quenches the fluorophore in solution (Rojas et al, 2003). Thus, mGTPγS seemed to be more solvent exposed when bound to Irga6-K82A than to WT Irga6 (Figure 1B GTP hydrolysis assay Here, 80 μM WT Irga6 and mutant recombinant proteins were incubated with 10 mM GTP (Sigma-Aldrich) containing traces of α32P-labelled GTP (GE Healthcare) at 37°C in B2 buffer for up to 3 h. Reactions were separated on PEI Cellulose F TLC plates (Merck) in 1 M acetic acid and 0.8 M LiCl. Signals were detected with the BAS 1000 phosphoimager analysis system (Fujifilm) and quantified with the AIDA Image Analyser v3 software (Raytest). Similar results were obtained with 1 mM GTP and 50 μM protein (data not shown). Oligomerisation assays Oligomerisation of 80 μM Irga6 in the presence of 10 mM GDP and GTP, respectively, in B2 buffer at 37°C was determined by conventional and dynamic light scattering. Conventional light scattering was performed at 350 nm in a DM45 Spectrofluorimeter (Olis) and dynamic light scattering at 650 nm with a DynaPro molecular sizing instrument (Protein Solutions; Wyatt Technologies). Data were obtained and analysed using the DYNAMICS software (v.5). Supplementary Figure S1 Click here to view.(195K, tiff) Supplementary Figure S2 Click here to view.(3.3M, tiff) Supplementary Figure S3 Click here to view.(286K, tiff) Supplementary Figure S4 Click here to view.(930K, tiff) Supplementary Information Click here to view.(99K, pdf) Acknowledgments We thank G Taylor, J Coers and G Praefcke for critical commentary on earlier versions of this paper and for valuable discussions, the Centre for Ultrastructural Imaging, King's College London, for generation of the electron microscopy images, G Reichmann and H-P Hauri for the gift of αGRA7 and αGiantin mAb, respectively, and J Dohmen for the Y2H system. C Poschner assisted with cell culture. This study was supported by the DFG grants SPP1110, SFB635 and SFB670, by the University of Cologne and by a stipend from the Cologne Graduate School in Genetics and Functional Genomics (JPH). References
|
PubMed related articles
Your browsing activity is empty. Activity recording is turned off. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Annu Rev Cell Dev Biol. 2006; 22():559-89.
[Annu Rev Cell Dev Biol. 2006]PLoS Pathog. 2005 Nov; 1(3):e24.
[PLoS Pathog. 2005]J Exp Med. 2006 Sep 4; 203(9):2063-71.
[J Exp Med. 2006]Genome Biol. 2005; 6(11):R92.
[Genome Biol. 2005]Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2000 Jan 18; 97(2):751-5.
[Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2000]J Exp Med. 2001 Jul 16; 194(2):181-8.
[J Exp Med. 2001]PLoS Pathog. 2005 Nov; 1(3):e24.
[PLoS Pathog. 2005]J Exp Med. 2006 Sep 4; 203(9):2063-71.
[J Exp Med. 2006]J Biol Chem. 1996 Aug 23; 271(34):20399-405.
[J Biol Chem. 1996]J Biol Chem. 2003 Aug 1; 278(31):29336-43.
[J Biol Chem. 2003]Mol Cell. 2004 Sep 10; 15(5):727-39.
[Mol Cell. 2004]Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1986 Feb; 83(4):952-6.
[Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1986]J Virol. 1993 Nov; 67(11):6726-32.
[J Virol. 1993]J Mol Biol. 2004 Nov 12; 344(1):257-69.
[J Mol Biol. 2004]J Biol Chem. 2003 Aug 1; 278(31):29336-43.
[J Biol Chem. 2003]PLoS Pathog. 2005 Nov; 1(3):e24.
[PLoS Pathog. 2005]Mol Cell Biol. 1988 Aug; 8(8):3235-43.
[Mol Cell Biol. 1988]J Immunol. 2004 Aug 15; 173(4):2594-606.
[J Immunol. 2004]PLoS Pathog. 2005 Nov; 1(3):e24.
[PLoS Pathog. 2005]PLoS Pathog. 2005 Nov; 1(3):e24.
[PLoS Pathog. 2005]Annu Rev Cell Dev Biol. 2006; 22():559-89.
[Annu Rev Cell Dev Biol. 2006]J Biol Chem. 1997 Apr 18; 272(16):10639-45.
[J Biol Chem. 1997]J Biol Chem. 2003 Aug 1; 278(31):29336-43.
[J Biol Chem. 2003]Mol Cell Biol. 1995 Oct; 15(10):5820-9.
[Mol Cell Biol. 1995]J Biol Chem. 1997 Apr 18; 272(16):10639-45.
[J Biol Chem. 1997]J Immunol. 2004 Aug 15; 173(4):2594-606.
[J Immunol. 2004]Annu Rev Cell Dev Biol. 2006; 22():559-89.
[Annu Rev Cell Dev Biol. 2006]J Biol Chem. 1997 Apr 18; 272(16):10639-45.
[J Biol Chem. 1997]PLoS Pathog. 2005 Nov; 1(3):e24.
[PLoS Pathog. 2005]Science. 2001 Nov 9; 294(5545):1299-304.
[Science. 2001]FEBS Lett. 1979 Nov 1; 107(1):198-202.
[FEBS Lett. 1979]J Biol Chem. 2003 Aug 1; 278(31):29336-43.
[J Biol Chem. 2003]J Immunol. 2004 Aug 15; 173(4):2594-606.
[J Immunol. 2004]Annu Rev Cell Dev Biol. 2006; 22():559-89.
[Annu Rev Cell Dev Biol. 2006]Cell Microbiol. 2007 Apr; 9(4):841-8.
[Cell Microbiol. 2007]Nat Struct Biol. 2002 Feb; 9(2):95-100.
[Nat Struct Biol. 2002]Nature. 2004 Jan 15; 427(6971):215-21.
[Nature. 2004]Nature. 2006 Mar 2; 440(7080):101-4.
[Nature. 2006]EMBO J. 2006 Jun 21; 25(12):2940-51.
[EMBO J. 2006]J Biol Chem. 1997 Apr 18; 272(16):10639-45.
[J Biol Chem. 1997]Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2006 Sep 19; 103(38):14092-7.
[Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2006]J Immunol. 2004 Jan 15; 172(2):1163-8.
[J Immunol. 2004]Cell Stem Cell. 2008 Jan 10; 2(1):83-9.
[Cell Stem Cell. 2008]J Immunol. 2005 Dec 15; 175(12):8165-72.
[J Immunol. 2005]Microbes Infect. 2007 Nov-Dec; 9(14-15):1633-5.
[Microbes Infect. 2007]J Immunol. 1998 Dec 15; 161(12):6715-23.
[J Immunol. 1998]Virology. 1973 Apr; 52(2):456-67.
[Virology. 1973]J Immunol. 2004 Aug 15; 173(4):2594-606.
[J Immunol. 2004]PLoS Pathog. 2005 Nov; 1(3):e24.
[PLoS Pathog. 2005]J Histochem Cytochem. 1998 Dec; 46(12):1411-22.
[J Histochem Cytochem. 1998]Mol Biol Cell. 1993 Jul; 4(7):679-93.
[Mol Biol Cell. 1993]PLoS Pathog. 2005 Nov; 1(3):e24.
[PLoS Pathog. 2005]PLoS Pathog. 2005 Nov; 1(3):e24.
[PLoS Pathog. 2005]Genetics. 1996 Dec; 144(4):1425-36.
[Genetics. 1996]Yeast. 1995 Apr 15; 11(4):355-60.
[Yeast. 1995]Methods Enzymol. 2002; 350():3-41.
[Methods Enzymol. 2002]J Cell Sci. 2004 Apr 1; 117(Pt 9):1747-56.
[J Cell Sci. 2004]Prog Biophys Mol Biol. 1996; 66(1):1-41.
[Prog Biophys Mol Biol. 1996]Comb Chem High Throughput Screen. 2003 Jun; 6(4):409-18.
[Comb Chem High Throughput Screen. 2003]