Filament formation by metabolic enzymes is a specific adaptation to an advanced state of cellular starvation

  1. Ivana Petrovska
  2. Elisabeth Nüske
  3. Matthias C Munder
  4. Gayathrie Kulasegaran
  5. Liliana Malinovska
  6. Sonja Kroschwald
  7. Doris Richter
  8. Karim Fahmy
  9. Kimberley Gibson
  10. Jean-Marc Verbavatz
  11. Simon Alberti  Is a corresponding author
  1. Max Planck Institute of Molecular Cell Biology and Genetics, Germany
  2. Helmholtz Institute Dresden-Rossendorf, Germany

Abstract

One of the key questions in biology is how the metabolism of a cell responds to changes in the environment. In budding yeast, starvation causes a drop in intracellular pH, but the functional role of this pH change is not well understood. Here, we show that the enzyme glutamine synthetase (Gln1) forms filaments at low pH and that filament formation leads to enzymatic inactivation. Filament formation by Gln1 is a highly cooperative process, strongly dependent on macromolecular crowding, and involves back-to-back stacking of cylindrical homo-decamers into filaments that associate laterally to form higher order fibrils. Other metabolic enzymes also assemble into filaments at low pH. Hence, we propose that filament formation is a general mechanism to inactivate and store key metabolic enzymes during a state of advanced cellular starvation. These findings have broad implications for understanding the interplay between nutritional stress, the metabolism and the physical organization of a cell.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Ivana Petrovska

    Max Planck Institute of Molecular Cell Biology and Genetics, Dresden, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Elisabeth Nüske

    Max Planck Institute of Molecular Cell Biology and Genetics, Dresden, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Matthias C Munder

    Max Planck Institute of Molecular Cell Biology and Genetics, Dresden, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Gayathrie Kulasegaran

    Max Planck Institute of Molecular Cell Biology and Genetics, Dresden, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Liliana Malinovska

    Max Planck Institute of Molecular Cell Biology and Genetics, Dresden, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Sonja Kroschwald

    Max Planck Institute of Molecular Cell Biology and Genetics, Dresden, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Doris Richter

    Max Planck Institute of Molecular Cell Biology and Genetics, Dresden, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Karim Fahmy

    Helmholtz Institute Dresden-Rossendorf, Dresden, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Kimberley Gibson

    Max Planck Institute of Molecular Cell Biology and Genetics, Dresden, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  10. Jean-Marc Verbavatz

    Max Planck Institute of Molecular Cell Biology and Genetics, Dresden, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  11. Simon Alberti

    Max Planck Institute of Molecular Cell Biology and Genetics, Dresden, Germany
    For correspondence
    alberti@mpi-cbg.de
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

Reviewing Editor

  1. Jeffery W Kelly, Scripps Research Institute, United States

Version history

  1. Received: January 27, 2014
  2. Accepted: April 10, 2014
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: April 25, 2014 (version 1)
  4. Version of Record published: May 6, 2014 (version 2)

Copyright

© 2014, Petrovska et al.

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.

Metrics

  • 5,592
    views
  • 937
    downloads
  • 169
    citations

Views, downloads and citations are aggregated across all versions of this paper published by eLife.

Download links

A two-part list of links to download the article, or parts of the article, in various formats.

Downloads (link to download the article as PDF)

Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)

Cite this article (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)

  1. Ivana Petrovska
  2. Elisabeth Nüske
  3. Matthias C Munder
  4. Gayathrie Kulasegaran
  5. Liliana Malinovska
  6. Sonja Kroschwald
  7. Doris Richter
  8. Karim Fahmy
  9. Kimberley Gibson
  10. Jean-Marc Verbavatz
  11. Simon Alberti
(2014)
Filament formation by metabolic enzymes is a specific adaptation to an advanced state of cellular starvation
eLife 3:e02409.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.02409

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.02409

Further reading

    1. Biochemistry and Chemical Biology
    2. Structural Biology and Molecular Biophysics
    Claudia D Consalvo, Adedeji M Aderounmu ... Brenda L Bass
    Research Article

    Invertebrates use the endoribonuclease Dicer to cleave viral dsRNA during antiviral defense, while vertebrates use RIG-I-like Receptors (RLRs), which bind viral dsRNA to trigger an interferon response. While some invertebrate Dicers act alone during antiviral defense, Caenorhabditis elegans Dicer acts in a complex with a dsRNA binding protein called RDE-4, and an RLR ortholog called DRH-1. We used biochemical and structural techniques to provide mechanistic insight into how these proteins function together. We found RDE-4 is important for ATP-independent and ATP-dependent cleavage reactions, while helicase domains of both DCR-1 and DRH-1 contribute to ATP-dependent cleavage. DRH-1 plays the dominant role in ATP hydrolysis, and like mammalian RLRs, has an N-terminal domain that functions in autoinhibition. A cryo-EM structure indicates DRH-1 interacts with DCR-1’s helicase domain, suggesting this interaction relieves autoinhibition. Our study unravels the mechanistic basis of the collaboration between two helicases from typically distinct innate immune defense pathways.

    1. Biochemistry and Chemical Biology
    2. Structural Biology and Molecular Biophysics
    Damien M Rasmussen, Manny M Semonis ... Nicholas M Levinson
    Research Article

    The type II class of RAF inhibitors currently in clinical trials paradoxically activate BRAF at subsaturating concentrations. Activation is mediated by induction of BRAF dimers, but why activation rather than inhibition occurs remains unclear. Using biophysical methods tracking BRAF dimerization and conformation, we built an allosteric model of inhibitor-induced dimerization that resolves the allosteric contributions of inhibitor binding to the two active sites of the dimer, revealing key differences between type I and type II RAF inhibitors. For type II inhibitors the allosteric coupling between inhibitor binding and BRAF dimerization is distributed asymmetrically across the two dimer binding sites, with binding to the first site dominating the allostery. This asymmetry results in efficient and selective induction of dimers with one inhibited and one catalytically active subunit. Our allosteric models quantitatively account for paradoxical activation data measured for 11 RAF inhibitors. Unlike type II inhibitors, type I inhibitors lack allosteric asymmetry and do not activate BRAF homodimers. Finally, NMR data reveal that BRAF homodimers are dynamically asymmetric with only one of the subunits locked in the active αC-in state. This provides a structural mechanism for how binding of only a single αC-in inhibitor molecule can induce potent BRAF dimerization and activation.