Structural basis for activation, assembly and membrane binding of ESCRT-III Snf7 filaments

  1. Shaogeng Tang
  2. W Mike Henne
  3. Peter P Borbat
  4. Nicholas J Buchkovich
  5. Jack H Freed
  6. Yuxin Mao
  7. J Christopher Fromme
  8. Scott D Emr  Is a corresponding author
  1. Cornell University, United States
  2. The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, United States
  3. The Pennsylvania State University College of Medicine, United States

Abstract

The endosomal sorting complexes required for transport (ESCRTs) constitute hetero-oligomeric machines that catalyze multiple topologically similar membrane-remodeling processes. Although ESCRT-III subunits polymerize into spirals, how individual ESCRT-III subunits are activated and assembled together into a membrane-deforming filament remains unknown. Here, we determine X-ray crystal structures of the most abundant ESCRT-III subunit Snf7 in its active conformation. Using pulsed dipolar electron spin resonance spectroscopy (PDS), we show that Snf7 activation requires a prominent conformational rearrangement to expose protein-membrane and protein-protein interfaces. This promotes the assembly of Snf7 arrays with ~30Å periodicity into a membrane-sculpting filament. Using a combination of biochemical and genetic approaches, both in vitro and in vivo, we demonstrate that mutations on these protein interfaces halt Snf7 assembly and block ESCRT function. The architecture of the activated and membrane-bound Snf7 polymer provides crucial insights into the spatially unique ESCRT-III-mediated membrane remodeling.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Shaogeng Tang

    Weill Institute of Cell and Molecuar Biology, Cornell University, Ithaca, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. W Mike Henne

    Department of Cell Biology, The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Peter P Borbat

    National Biomedical Center for Advanced Electron Spin Resonance Technology, Cornell University, Ithaca, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Nicholas J Buchkovich

    Department of Microbiology and Immunology, The Pennsylvania State University College of Medicine, Hershey, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Jack H Freed

    National Biomedical Center for Advanced Electron Spin Resonance Technology, Cornell University, Ithaca, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Yuxin Mao

    Weill Institute for Cell and Molecular Biology, Cornell University, Ithaca, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. J Christopher Fromme

    Weill Institute for Cell and Molecular Biology, Cornell University, Ithaca, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Scott D Emr

    Weill Institute for Cell and Molecular Biology, Cornell University, Ithaca, United States
    For correspondence
    sde26@cornell.edu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

Reviewing Editor

  1. William I Weis, Stanford University, Bangladesh

Version history

  1. Received: October 24, 2015
  2. Accepted: December 13, 2015
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: December 15, 2015 (version 1)
  4. Version of Record published: January 13, 2016 (version 2)

Copyright

© 2015, Tang 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

  • 5,154
    views
  • 1,155
    downloads
  • 125
    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. Shaogeng Tang
  2. W Mike Henne
  3. Peter P Borbat
  4. Nicholas J Buchkovich
  5. Jack H Freed
  6. Yuxin Mao
  7. J Christopher Fromme
  8. Scott D Emr
(2015)
Structural basis for activation, assembly and membrane binding of ESCRT-III Snf7 filaments
eLife 4:e12548.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.12548

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.12548

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.