Quantitative determinants of aerobic glycolysis identify flux through the enzyme GAPDH as a limiting step

  1. Alex A Shestov
  2. Xiaojing Liu
  3. Zheng Ser
  4. Ahmad A Cluntun
  5. Yin P Hung
  6. Lei Huang
  7. Dongsung Kim
  8. Anne Le
  9. Gary Yellen
  10. John G Albeck
  11. Jason W Locasale  Is a corresponding author
  1. Cornell University, United States
  2. Harvard Medical School, United States
  3. Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, United States
  4. University of California, Davis, United States

Abstract

Aerobic glycolysis or the Warburg Effect (WE) is characterized by the increased metabolism of glucose to lactate. It remains unknown what quantitative changes to the activity of metabolism are necessary and sufficient for this phenotype. We developed a computational model of glycolysis and an integrated analysis using metabolic control analysis (MCA), metabolomics data, and statistical simulations. We identified and confirmed a novel mode of regulation specific to aerobic glycolysis where flux through GAPDH, the enzyme separating lower and upper glycolysis, is the rate-limiting step in the pathway and the levels of fructose (1,6) bisphosphate (FBP), are predictive of the rate and control points in glycolysis. Strikingly, negative flux control was found and confirmed for several steps thought to be rate-limiting in glycolysis. Together these findings enumerate the biochemical determinants of the WE, and suggest strategies for identifying the contexts in which agents that target glycolysis might be most effective.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Alex A Shestov

    Cornell University, Ithaca, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  2. Xiaojing Liu

    Cornell University, Ithaca, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  3. Zheng Ser

    Cornell University, Ithaca, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  4. Ahmad A Cluntun

    Cornell University, Ithaca, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  5. Yin P Hung

    Harvard Medical School, Boston, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  6. Lei Huang

    Cornell University, Ithaca, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  7. Dongsung Kim

    Cornell University, Ithaca, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  8. Anne Le

    Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  9. Gary Yellen

    Harvard Medical School, Boston, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  10. John G Albeck

    University of California, Davis, Davis, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  11. Jason W Locasale

    Cornell University, Ithaca, United States
    For correspondence
    locasale@cornell.edu
    Competing interests
    Jason W Locasale, A patent related to this work has been filed..

Reviewing Editor

  1. David M Sabatini, Whitehead Institute and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, United States

Version history

  1. Received: May 11, 2014
  2. Accepted: July 8, 2014
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: July 9, 2014 (version 1)
  4. Version of Record published: August 1, 2014 (version 2)

Copyright

© 2014, Shestov et al.

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

Metrics

  • 7,647
    views
  • 1,147
    downloads
  • 205
    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. Alex A Shestov
  2. Xiaojing Liu
  3. Zheng Ser
  4. Ahmad A Cluntun
  5. Yin P Hung
  6. Lei Huang
  7. Dongsung Kim
  8. Anne Le
  9. Gary Yellen
  10. John G Albeck
  11. Jason W Locasale
(2014)
Quantitative determinants of aerobic glycolysis identify flux through the enzyme GAPDH as a limiting step
eLife 3:e03342.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.03342

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.03342

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.