![]() | ![]() |
Formats:
|
|||||||||||||
Copyright © 2008, European Molecular Biology Organization Review Article Review Function and regulation of protein neddylation. ‘Protein Modifications: Beyond the Usual Suspects' Review Series 1Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zürich (ETH), Institute of Biochemistry, 8093 Zürich, Switzerland aTel: +41 44 633 4587; Fax: +41 44 632 1269; Email: gwenael.rabut/at/bc.biol.ethz.ch bTel: +41 44 633 6586; Fax: +41 44 632 1269; Email: matthias.peter/at/bc.biol.ethz.ch Received June 9, 2008; Accepted August 25, 2008. This article has been cited by other articles in PMC.Abstract Neddylation is the post-translational protein modification that is most closely related to ubiquitination. However, ubiquitination is known to regulate a myriad of processes in eukaryotic cells, whereas only a limited number of neddylation substrates have been described to date. Here, we review the principles of protein neddylation and highlight the mechanisms that ensure the specificity of neddylation over ubiquitination. As numerous neddylation substrates probably remain to be discovered, we propose some criteria that could be used as guidelines for the characterization of neddylated proteins. Keywords: cullin, NEDD8, neddylation, Rub1 Glossary
Introduction Ubiquitination is a prominent post-translational protein modification that regulates most cellular functions in eukaryotes (reviewed in Glickman & Ciechanover, 2002; Haglund & Dikic, 2005; Weissman, 2001). It consists of the covalent attachment of the small protein ubiquitin to target proteins, thereby modifying their biochemical properties and protein partners (Hicke et al, 2005). Besides ubiquitination, several related protein-modification systems function in eukaryotes (Kerscher et al, 2006; Kirkin & Dikic, 2007). In particular, the NEDD8 protein—also known as Rub1 in Saccharomyces cerevisiae—is the closest relative to ubiquitin and can similarly be conjugated to substrate proteins in a process known as neddylation. Here, we review the characteristic features of protein neddylation and deneddylation. Moreover, we summarize the currently proposed NEDD8 substrates and suggest some criteria that might help to identify new neddylated proteins (Sidebar A).
Conservation and functional importance of neddylation NEDD8 was initially identified as a gene that is highly expressed in the embryonic mouse brain (Kumar et al, 1992). It was, however, soon realized that NEDD8 is highly conserved in most eukaryotes (plants, slime molds, fungi and animals; Burroughs et al, 2007; Kumar et al, 1993; Rao-Naik et al, 1998) where it is expressed in most, if not all, tissues (Carrabino et al, 2004; Hori et al, 1999; Kumar et al, 1993; Rao-Naik et al, 1998), suggesting an important function of NEDD8 in eukaryotic cells. Indeed, neddylation is essential for the viability of most model organisms, including Schizosaccharomyces pombe, Caenorhabditis elegans, Drosophila, Arabidopsis and mouse (Dharmasiri et al, 2003; Jones & Candido, 2000; Kurz et al, 2002; Osaka et al, 2000; Ou et al, 2002; Tateishi et al, 2001), with the notable exception of S. cerevisiae (Lammer et al, 1998; Liakopoulos et al, 1998). In addition, deregulated neddylation might be involved in the aetiology of some human diseases such as neurodegenerative disorders (Dil Kuazi et al, 2003; Mori et al, 2005) and cancers (Chairatvit & Ngamkitidechakul, 2007; Salon et al, 2007). Indeed, MLN4924, which is a general inhibitor of neddylation (Langston et al, 2007), shows substantial activity in a broad range of preclinical tumour models, raising the possibility that components of the neddylation pathway might be promising therapeutic targets. It is therefore important to characterize which cellular proteins are neddylated, how this modification affects their function, and how neddylation is catalysed and regulated (Sidebar B).
NEDD8 processing and activation Similar to ubiquitin, NEDD8 is attached to its substrates by an isopeptide linkage between its carboxy-terminal glycine (Gly) 76 and a lysine of the target protein. However, NEDD8 genes from all organisms encode non-conjugatable precursors that contain one or more additional residues beyond Gly 76 that need to be cleaved by C-terminal hydrolases (Fig 1
After its processing, NEDD8 is activated through an ATP-dependent mechanism catalysed by an activating enzyme, E1, which creates a high-energy intermediate (Huang et al, 2004a). It is then transferred to a conjugating enzyme, E2 (Huang et al, 2007), that shuttles activated NEDD8 to a ligase, E3, which then ensures specific conjugation of NEDD8 to its substrates (Fig 1 Neddylated proteins and their E3s The first identified targets of NEDD8 were Cdc53 in S. cerevisiae (Lammer et al, 1998; Liakopoulos et al, 1998) and CUL4A in human cells (Osaka et al, 1998). Both are members of the cullin family of proteins—which has between three and six members in all eukaryotes from yeast to humans—suggesting that neddylation is an important mechanism for regulating cullin function. Indeed, all yeast and mammalian cullins—S. cerevisiae: Cdc53, Cul3 and Rtt101 (Laplaza et al, 2004); S. pombe: Pcu1, Pcu3 and Pcu4 (Osaka et al, 2000; Zhou et al, 2001); and mammalian: CUL1, CUL2, CUL3, CUL4A, CUL4B and CUL5 (Hori et al, 1999; Jones et al, 2008)—are neddylated on a conserved lysine in their C-terminal domain in vivo (Table 1). This lysine is conserved in the vertebrate specific cullin-related proteins PARC and CUL7 (Pan et al, 2004), which are probably also neddylated (Jones et al, 2008), although neddylation of Cul7 is controversial (Skaar et al, 2007). By contrast, Apc2—a subunit of the anaphase-promoting complex that shows similarity to cullins (Zheng et al, 2002a)—is not neddylated (Pan et al, 2004).
Cullins function as scaffolds for the assembly of multisubunit ubiquitin E3s. They interact tightly with a RING-domain protein—Rbx1 or Rbx2 (Ohta et al, 1999)—which recruits charged ubiquitin E2s into the complex and catalyses the ubiquitination of cullin substrates (Seol et al, 1999). By analogy, it has been proposed that Rbx1 could also function as a NEDD8 E3 for cullins (Kamura et al, 1999). Indeed, Rbx1 interacts with both cullins and Ubc12 (Dharmasiri et al, 2003; Morimoto et al, 2003), is required for cullin neddylation in insect cells (Kamura et al, 1999; Megumi et al, 2005) and is sufficient for Cul1 neddylation in vitro (Morimoto et al, 2003). However, Dcn1—a protein conserved from yeast to humans—is also required for efficient neddylation of several cullins in vivo (Kurz et al, 2005). Dcn1 interacts directly with Cdc53, Rbx1 and Ubc12, and stimulates Cdc53 neddylation in vitro when Ubc12 is present in limiting amounts (Kurz et al, 2008; Yang et al, 2007). Moreover, a cullin mutant that efficiently binds to Rbx1 but fails to interact with Dcn1 is not efficiently neddylated (Kurz et al, 2008), suggesting that Rbx1 is not sufficient for cullin neddylation in vivo. Further experiments are required to determine how Dcn1 promotes cullin neddylation and whether it requires functional Rbx1 for its activity. It has become evident that cullins are not the only class of proteins modified by NEDD8 (Table 1), indicating that neddylation might regulate many cellular processes. Interestingly, several neddylated proteins seem to be either substrates or components of ubiquitin E3s, revealing an intriguing relationship between ubiquitination and neddylation. For example, the tumour suppressor protein p53 and its relative p73 are both neddylated and ubiquitylated on several lysines by the RING-domain protein Mdm2, which also self-neddylates (Watson et al, 2006; Xirodimas et al, 2004). Similarly, the RING-domain protein c-Cbl can neddylate and ubiquitinate the EGFR upon its stimulation (Oved et al, 2006). pVHL, which is a well characterized component of a Cul2-based ubiquitin E3, is also neddylated by an uncharacterized E3 (Stickle et al, 2004). Finally, several ribosomal proteins can be modified by NEDD8 (Xirodimas et al, 2008) and ribosomes are also regulated by ubiquitination (Kraft et al, 2008). BCA3 (Gao et al, 2006) and the APP intracellular domain (Lee et al, 2008) are the only neddylated proteins identified so far that have not been implicated in an ubiquitination pathway. Despite several proteomic approaches (Jones et al, 2008; Li et al, 2006; Norman & Shiekhattar, 2006; Xirodimas et al, 2008), it is still unclear how many other proteins are modified by NEDD8. These studies confirmed that cullins are abundant NEDD8 substrates, but failed to identify other previously characterized neddylated proteins except p53 (Li et al, 2006), indicating that non-cullin NEDD8 substrates are only weakly expressed and/or modified in steady-state conditions. Although this does not preclude an important function of their neddylation, it calls for careful characterization of putative NEDD8 targets. We propose a minimum of three criteria that should be shown for genuine NEDD8 substrates (Sidebar A). Covalent attachment of NEDD8 to its target (criterion i) should be detectable under endogenous conditions (criterion ii). Moreover, neddylation should be dependent on bona fide components of the neddylation machinery (criterion iii) such as the NEDD8 E1 or Ubc12—the sole E2 currently known to function specifically with NEDD8. Although this criterion has only been shown for neddylation of cullins (Collier-Hyams et al, 2005; Liakopoulos et al, 1998), and in part for p53 and pVHL (Table 1; Russell & Ohh, 2008; Xirodimas et al, 2004), it is important to exclude fortuitous misactivation of NEDD8 by the ubiquitin E1 and misloading on an ubiquitin E2 in vivo. Note, however, that this criterion cannot be demonstrated using the Ubc12-C111S mutant because overexpression of this construct depletes free NEDD8 (Wada et al, 2000), thereby preventing specific and adventitious substrate neddylation. Additional criteria to further characterize NEDD8 substrates include the identification of the neddylated lysine residues (criterion iv), ideally with an associated mutant phenotype if neddylation is prevented (criterion v). Identification of a NEDD8 E3 (criterion vi) and reconstitution of substrate neddylation in vitro (criterion vii) underline the fact that the modification is, indeed, specific and direct. Finally, identification of a deneddylation activity (see below) provides further support for a reversible modification (criterion viii). NEDD8 isopeptidases Protein neddylation is reversed by NEDD8 isopeptidases in a process known as deneddylation. The best characterized NEDD8 isopeptidase is CSN5, a subunit of the COP9 signalosome (CSN), which deneddylates cullins (reviewed in Cope & Deshaies, 2003; Schwechheimer, 2004; Wei & Deng, 2003). The CSN is conserved from yeast to humans (Schwechheimer, 2004; Wei & Deng, 2003) and its activity is essential for viability in metazoans (Cope & Deshaies, 2003). Genetic evidence in several organisms has revealed that the CSN promotes cullin activity, indicating that cycles of neddylation and deneddylation are required for correct cullin function in vivo (Bosu & Kipreos, 2008; Cope & Deshaies, 2003; Pintard et al, 2003). As CSN inactivation destabilizes many subunits of cullin-based ubiquitin ligases (reviewed in Bosu & Kipreos, 2008; Wu et al, 2006), it is thought that, at least in some cases, the deneddylating activity of the CSN, as well as the CSN-associated deubiquitinating enzyme Ubp12, protect components of cullin-based ubiquitin ligases from autocatalytic degradation. The cysteine protease NEDP1—which can process NEDD8 precursors (see above)—also functions as a specific NEDD8 isopeptidase. Ala 72 in NEDD8 (Arg 72 in ubiquitin) is an important—but not the sole—determinant of NEDP1 selectivity for NEDD8 over ubiquitin (Reverter et al, 2005; Shen et al, 2005). Compared with the CSN complex, NEDP1 is inefficient at deneddylating cullins (Wu et al, 2003; Yamoah et al, 2005); however, it can process most neddylated proteins either in vitro or upon overexpression in vivo (Table 1 and references therein; see also Mendoza et al, 2003). Deletion of the NEDP1 S. pombe homologue, nep1, leads to an increase of the total cellular NEDD8 conjugates and to a cell-cycle defect, which has not been associated with increased neddylation of a specific NEDD8 substrate (Zhou & Watts, 2005). Similarly, NEDP1 knockdown in HeLa cells increases the fraction of neddylated BCA3 (Gao et al, 2006), but no other phenotypes have been reported so far. In the absence of specific NEDP1 deneddylation substrates, it is possible that the NEDP1 isopeptidase functions primarily in a salvage pathway to remove adventitiously formed NEDD8 conjugates. Finally, other proteases show dual specificity for ubiquitin and NEDD8. These include USP21 (Gong et al, 2000), Ataxin-3 (Ferro et al, 2007), PfUCH54 (Artavanis-Tsakonas et al, 2006), UCH-L3 (see above) and UCH-L1 (Hemelaar et al, 2004), which is a close homologue of UCH-L3 that, however, cannot process NEDD8 precursors (Wada et al, 1998). Importantly, the in vivo targets of these proteases remain to be investigated. Direct effects of protein neddylation Similar to other post-translational modifications, neddylation of proteins modifies their three-dimensional surface and, hence, their biochemical properties. As illustrated in Fig 2
First, NEDD8 attachment can induce conformational changes of its targets. It has long been observed that neddylation of cullins stimulates their ubiquitin E3 activity in vitro (Kawakami et al, 2001; Podust et al, 2000; Read et al, 2000), although the molecular mechanism has remained elusive. In the unneddylated state, the cullin C-terminal domain forms a groove in which the RING domain of Rbx1 is embedded (Zheng et al, 2002a). This conformation constrains the molecular movements of Rbx1 and positions the ubiquitin E2—which interacts with the RING domain of Rbx1—away from its ubiquitination substrates (Zheng et al, 2002a). Crystallographic data have now revealed that the cullin C-terminal domain undergoes a substantial conformational change upon neddylation that ‘frees' the RING domain of Rbx1 and allows it to adopt multiple orientations that stimulate substrate ubiquitination in vitro (Duda et al, 2008). Notably, the catalytic effect of neddylation can be mimicked by deleting or mutating the residues of the unneddylated cullin C-terminal domain that are in contact with the RING domain of Rbx1 (Yamoah et al, 2008; Duda et al, 2008). Therefore, cullin neddylation induces a conformational switch in its C-terminal domain that relieves Rbx1 from an autoinhibitory mechanism (Fig 2A As a second possibility, neddylation can be incompatible with the interaction of some protein partners (Fig 2B Finally, neddylation can stimulate the recruitment of NEDD8-interacting proteins. For example, NEDD8 can interact directly with the ubiquitin E2 Ubc4 and this interaction has been proposed to participate in the activation of cullin-based ubiquitin ligases (Sakata et al, 2007). However, in light of the structural data, such a mechanism is unlikely without additional conformational changes, as the NEDD8 surface interacting with Ubc4 is engaged in binding the C-terminal domain of neddylated cullins (Duda et al, 2008). In another example, NUB1, which was identified in a yeast two-hybrid screen as a NEDD8-interacting protein (Kito et al, 2001), has been shown to trigger proteasomal degradation of neddylated but not ubiquitinated proteins (Kamitani et al, 2001). However, its physiological targets have not been identified and the significance of these observations remains unknown. Finally, neddylated EGFR likely recruits proteins of the endocytic machinery (Fig 2C Perspectives Protein neddylation has emerged as an essential post-translational protein modification in the cell. However, as we still do not know how many NEDD8 E3s are functioning under physiological conditions, the extent of the neddylated proteome and its functions remain unclear. Given the strict specificity of NEDD8-activation mechanisms, it is surprising that some NEDD8 E3s are also ubiquitin E3s and that the currently known functions of protein neddylation are tightly associated with ubiquitination. Future research will be needed to investigate whether certain E3s are strictly using Ubc12 to neddylate their substrates or whether neddylation pathways always work in concert with ubiquitination. Acknowledgments We are grateful to Z.Q. Pan and B. Schulman for sharing their unpublished results. We thank members of the Peter laboratory for critical reading of the manuscript, in particular R. Dechant, T. Kurz, S. Leidel and N. Meyer. Work in the Peter laboratory is supported by the Swiss National Science Foundation, Oncosuisse and the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zürich; G.R. is supported by a Human Frontier Science Programme Organization long-term fellowship. References
|
PubMed related articles
Your browsing activity is empty. Activity recording is turned off. |
||||||||||||
Physiol Rev. 2002 Apr; 82(2):373-428.
[Physiol Rev. 2002]EMBO J. 2005 Oct 5; 24(19):3353-9.
[EMBO J. 2005]Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol. 2001 Mar; 2(3):169-78.
[Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol. 2001]Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol. 2005 Aug; 6(8):610-21.
[Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol. 2005]Annu Rev Cell Dev Biol. 2006; 22():159-80.
[Annu Rev Cell Dev Biol. 2006]Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 1992 Jun 30; 185(3):1155-61.
[Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 1992]Biol Direct. 2007 Jul 2; 2():18.
[Biol Direct. 2007]Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 1993 Aug 31; 195(1):393-9.
[Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 1993]J Biol Chem. 1998 Dec 25; 273(52):34976-82.
[J Biol Chem. 1998]Gene Expr Patterns. 2004 Jul; 4(4):423-31.
[Gene Expr Patterns. 2004]Eukaryot Cell. 2002 Jun; 1(3):491-4.
[Eukaryot Cell. 2002]Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 1998 Oct 29; 251(3):688-92.
[Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 1998]Cell Microbiol. 2007 Jun; 9(6):1601-10.
[Cell Microbiol. 2007]EMBO J. 1999 Jul 15; 18(14):3877-87.
[EMBO J. 1999]Mol Cell Biol. 2000 Apr; 20(7):2498-504.
[Mol Cell Biol. 2000]Oncogene. 2004 Mar 15; 23(11):1958-71.
[Oncogene. 2004]Nature. 2007 Jan 25; 445(7126):394-8.
[Nature. 2007]Semin Cell Dev Biol. 2004 Apr; 15(2):221-9.
[Semin Cell Dev Biol. 2004]EMBO J. 1998 Apr 15; 17(8):2208-14.
[EMBO J. 1998]Genes Dev. 1998 Aug 1; 12(15):2263-8.
[Genes Dev. 1998]Genes Dev. 1998 Apr 1; 12(7):914-26.
[Genes Dev. 1998]EMBO J. 1998 Apr 15; 17(8):2208-14.
[EMBO J. 1998]Genes Dev. 1998 Aug 1; 12(15):2263-8.
[Genes Dev. 1998]Biochem J. 2004 Jan 15; 377(Pt 2):459-67.
[Biochem J. 2004]EMBO J. 2000 Jul 3; 19(13):3475-84.
[EMBO J. 2000]Mol Cell. 1999 Apr; 3(4):535-41.
[Mol Cell. 1999]Genes Dev. 1999 Jun 15; 13(12):1614-26.
[Genes Dev. 1999]Genes Dev. 1999 Nov 15; 13(22):2928-33.
[Genes Dev. 1999]EMBO J. 2003 Apr 15; 22(8):1762-70.
[EMBO J. 2003]Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 2003 Feb 7; 301(2):392-8.
[Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 2003]J Biol Chem. 2006 Nov 10; 281(45):34096-103.
[J Biol Chem. 2006]Cell. 2004 Jul 9; 118(1):83-97.
[Cell. 2004]J Biol Chem. 2006 Aug 4; 281(31):21640-51.
[J Biol Chem. 2006]Mol Cell Biol. 2004 Apr; 24(8):3251-61.
[Mol Cell Biol. 2004]EMBO Rep. 2008 Mar; 9(3):280-6.
[EMBO Rep. 2008]J Proteome Res. 2008 Mar; 7(3):1274-87.
[J Proteome Res. 2008]Arch Biochem Biophys. 2006 Sep 1; 453(1):70-4.
[Arch Biochem Biophys. 2006]Biochemistry. 2006 Mar 7; 45(9):3014-9.
[Biochemistry. 2006]EMBO Rep. 2008 Mar; 9(3):280-6.
[EMBO Rep. 2008]J Immunol. 2005 Oct 1; 175(7):4194-8.
[J Immunol. 2005]Cell. 2003 Sep 19; 114(6):663-71.
[Cell. 2003]Biochim Biophys Acta. 2004 Nov 29; 1695(1-3):45-54.
[Biochim Biophys Acta. 2004]Annu Rev Cell Dev Biol. 2003; 19():261-86.
[Annu Rev Cell Dev Biol. 2003]Cell Div. 2008 Feb 18; 3():7.
[Cell Div. 2008]Curr Biol. 2003 May 27; 13(11):911-21.
[Curr Biol. 2003]J Mol Biol. 2005 Jan 7; 345(1):141-51.
[J Mol Biol. 2005]EMBO J. 2005 Apr 6; 24(7):1341-51.
[EMBO J. 2005]J Biol Chem. 2003 Aug 1; 278(31):28882-91.
[J Biol Chem. 2003]Methods Enzymol. 2005; 398():509-22.
[Methods Enzymol. 2005]J Biol Chem. 2003 Jul 11; 278(28):25637-43.
[J Biol Chem. 2003]J Biol Chem. 2000 May 12; 275(19):14212-6.
[J Biol Chem. 2000]Biochim Biophys Acta. 2007 Nov; 1773(11):1619-27.
[Biochim Biophys Acta. 2007]Mol Microbiol. 2006 Sep; 61(5):1187-95.
[Mol Microbiol. 2006]Mol Cell Biol. 2004 Jan; 24(1):84-95.
[Mol Cell Biol. 2004]Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 1998 Oct 29; 251(3):688-92.
[Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 1998]EMBO J. 2001 Aug 1; 20(15):4003-12.
[EMBO J. 2001]Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2000 Apr 25; 97(9):4579-84.
[Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2000]Mol Cell Biol. 2000 Apr; 20(7):2326-33.
[Mol Cell Biol. 2000]Nature. 2002 Apr 18; 416(6882):703-9.
[Nature. 2002]Cell. 2008 Sep 19; 134(6):995-1006.
[Cell. 2008]Cell. 2004 Nov 12; 119(4):517-28.
[Cell. 2004]Mol Cell. 2002 Dec; 10(6):1511-8.
[Mol Cell. 2002]Mol Cell. 2002 Dec; 10(6):1519-26.
[Mol Cell. 2002]Cell. 2008 Sep 19; 134(6):995-1006.
[Cell. 2008]EMBO Rep. 2008 May; 9(5):486-91.
[EMBO Rep. 2008]Nat Struct Mol Biol. 2007 Feb; 14(2):167-8.
[Nat Struct Mol Biol. 2007]Cell. 2008 Sep 19; 134(6):995-1006.
[Cell. 2008]J Biol Chem. 2001 Jun 8; 276(23):20603-9.
[J Biol Chem. 2001]J Biol Chem. 2001 Dec 7; 276(49):46655-60.
[J Biol Chem. 2001]J Biol Chem. 2006 Aug 4; 281(31):21640-51.
[J Biol Chem. 2006]