Quality control in oocytes by p63 is based on a spring-loaded activation mechanism on the molecular and cellular level

  1. Daniel Coutandin
  2. Christian Osterburg
  3. Ratnesh Kumar Srivastav
  4. Manuela Sumyk
  5. Sebastian Kehrloesser
  6. Jakob Gebel
  7. Marcel Tuppi
  8. Jens Hannewald
  9. Birgit Schäfer
  10. Eidarus Salah
  11. Sebastian Mathea
  12. Uta Müller-Kuller
  13. James Doutch
  14. Manuel Grez
  15. Stefan Knapp
  16. Volker Dötsch  Is a corresponding author
  1. Goethe University, Germany
  2. Merck KGaA, Germany
  3. University of Oxford, United Kingdom
  4. Georg-Speyer Haus, Germany
  5. ISIS Neutron and Muon Source, United Kingdom
  6. Georg-Speyer-Haus, Germany

Abstract

Mammalian oocytes are arrested in the dictyate stage of meiotic prophase I for long periods of time, during which the high concentration of the p53 family member TAp63α sensitizes them to DNA damage-induced apoptosis. TAp63α is kept in an inactive and exclusively dimeric state but undergoes rapid phosphorylation-induced tetramerization and concomitant activation upon detection of DNA damage. Here we show that the TAp63α dimer is a kinetically trapped state. Activation follows a spring-loaded mechanism not requiring further translation of other cellular factors in oocytes and is associated with unfolding of the inhibitory structure that blocks the tetramerization interface. Using a combination of biophysical methods as well as cell and ovary culture experiments we explain how TAp63α is kept inactive in the absence of DNA damage but causes rapid oocyte elimination in response to a few DNA double strand breaks thereby acting as the key quality control factor in maternal reproduction.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Daniel Coutandin

    Institute of Biophysical Chemistry and Center for Biomolecular Magnetic Resonance and Cluster of Excellence Macromolecular Complexes, Goethe University, Frankfurt, Germany
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  2. Christian Osterburg

    Institute of Biophysical Chemistry and Center for Biomolecular Magnetic Resonance and Cluster of Excellence Macromolecular Complexes, Goethe University, Frankfurt, Germany
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  3. Ratnesh Kumar Srivastav

    Institute of Biophysical Chemistry and Center for Biomolecular Magnetic Resonance and Cluster of Excellence Macromolecular Complexes, Goethe University, Frankfurt, Germany
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  4. Manuela Sumyk

    Institute of Biophysical Chemistry and Center for Biomolecular Magnetic Resonance and Cluster of Excellence Macromolecular Complexes, Goethe University, Frankfurt, Germany
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  5. Sebastian Kehrloesser

    Institute of Biophysical Chemistry and Center for Biomolecular Magnetic Resonance and Cluster of Excellence Macromolecular Complexes, Goethe University, Frankfurt, Germany
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  6. Jakob Gebel

    Institute of Biophysical Chemistry and Center for Biomolecular Magnetic Resonance and Cluster of Excellence Macromolecular Complexes, Goethe University, Frankfurt, Germany
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  7. Marcel Tuppi

    Institute of Biophysical Chemistry and Center for Biomolecular Magnetic Resonance and Cluster of Excellence Macromolecular Complexes, Goethe University, Frankfurt, Germany
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  8. Jens Hannewald

    MS-DTB-C Protein Purification, Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  9. Birgit Schäfer

    Institute of Biophysical Chemistry and Center for Biomolecular Magnetic Resonance and Cluster of Excellence Macromolecular Complexes, Goethe University, Frankfurt, Germany
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  10. Eidarus Salah

    Nuffield Department of Medicine, Structural Genomics Consortium, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  11. Sebastian Mathea

    Nuffield Department of Medicine, Structural Genomics Consortium, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  12. Uta Müller-Kuller

    Georg-Speyer Haus, Frankfurt, Germany
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  13. James Doutch

    Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, ISIS Neutron and Muon Source, Dodcot, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  14. Manuel Grez

    Georg-Speyer-Haus, Frankfurt, Germany
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  15. Stefan Knapp

    Nuffield Department of Medicine, Structural Genomics Consortium, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  16. Volker Dötsch

    Institute of Biophysical Chemistry and Center for Biomolecular Magnetic Resonance and Cluster of Excellence Macromolecular Complexes, Goethe University, Frankfurt, Germany
    For correspondence
    vdoetsch@em.uni-frankfurt.de
    Competing interests
    Volker Dötsch, Reviewing editor, eLife.

Reviewing Editor

  1. Joaquín M Espinosa, University of Colorado Denver School of Medicine, United States

Ethics

Animal experimentation: The work with mice was conducted according to the regulations of the Goethe University and the DFG (according to {section sign} 4 TierSchG) and supervised by the Tierschutzbeauftragte of Goethe University.

Version history

  1. Received: December 18, 2015
  2. Accepted: March 28, 2016
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: March 29, 2016 (version 1)
  4. Version of Record published: April 29, 2016 (version 2)

Copyright

© 2016, Coutandin 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

  • 2,292
    views
  • 470
    downloads
  • 51
    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. Daniel Coutandin
  2. Christian Osterburg
  3. Ratnesh Kumar Srivastav
  4. Manuela Sumyk
  5. Sebastian Kehrloesser
  6. Jakob Gebel
  7. Marcel Tuppi
  8. Jens Hannewald
  9. Birgit Schäfer
  10. Eidarus Salah
  11. Sebastian Mathea
  12. Uta Müller-Kuller
  13. James Doutch
  14. Manuel Grez
  15. Stefan Knapp
  16. Volker Dötsch
(2016)
Quality control in oocytes by p63 is based on a spring-loaded activation mechanism on the molecular and cellular level
eLife 5:e13909.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.13909

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.13909

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.