PSI Structural Biology Knowledgebase

PSI | Structural Biology Knowledgebase
Header Icons
E-Collection

Related Articles
Drug Discovery: Solving the Structure of an Anti-hypertension Drug Target
July 2015
Retrospective: 7,000 Structures Closer to Understanding Biology
July 2015
Families in Gene Neighborhoods
June 2015
Channels and Transporters: BEST in Show
April 2015
Channels and Transporters: Reorienting a Peptide in the Pocket
April 2015
Ryanodine Receptor
April 2015
Protein Folding and Misfolding: It's the Journey, Not the Destination
March 2015
Protein Folding and Misfolding: Refolding in Membrane Mimetic
March 2015
Nuclear Pore Complex: A Flexible Transporter
February 2015
Nuclear Pore Complex: Higher Resolution of Macromolecules
February 2015
Nuclear Pore Complex: Integrative Approach to Probe Nup133
February 2015
Piecing Together the Nuclear Pore Complex
February 2015
Mitochondrion: Flipping for UCP2
December 2014
Transmembrane Spans
December 2014
Glucagon Receptor
April 2014
Membrane Proteome: A Cap on Transport
April 2014
Membrane Proteome: Microcrystals Yield Big Data
April 2014
Membrane Proteome: Pumping Out Heavy Metal
April 2014
Design and Discovery: Virtual Drug Screening
January 2014
G Proteins and Cancer
November 2013
Drug Discovery: Antidepressant Potential of 6-NQ SERT Inhibitors
October 2013
Drug Discovery: Modeling NET Interactions
October 2013
Microbiome: Solid-State NMR, Crystallized
September 2013
CAAX Endoproteases
August 2013
Membrane Proteome: A Funnel-like Viroporin
August 2013
Membrane Proteome: GPCR Substrate Recognition and Functional Selectivity
August 2013
Membrane Proteome: Making DNA Nanotubes for NMR Structure Determination
August 2013
Membrane Proteome: Unveiling the Human α-helical Membrane Proteome
August 2013
Cell-Cell Interaction: Magic Structure from Microcrystals
March 2013
Cell-Cell Interaction: Nanoparticles in Cell Camouflage
March 2013
Membrane Proteome: Capturing Multiple Conformations
December 2012
Membrane Proteome: Soft Sampling
December 2012
Membrane Proteome: Sphingolipid Synthesis Selectivity
December 2012
Membrane Proteome: Tuning Membrane Protein Expression
December 2012
Cytochrome Oxidase
November 2012
Membrane Proteome: Building a Carrier
November 2012
Membrane Proteome: Every Protein Has Its Tag
November 2012
Membrane Proteome: Specific vs. Non-specific weak interactions
November 2012
Membrane Proteome: The ABCs of Transport
November 2012
Bacterial Phosphotransferase System
October 2012
Insert Here
October 2012
Solute Channels
September 2012
To structure, faster
August 2012
Pocket changes
July 2012
Predictive protein origami
July 2012
G Protein-Coupled Receptors
May 2012
Twist to open
March 2012
Anchoring's the way
February 2012
Overexpressed problems
February 2012
Gentle membrane protein extraction
January 2012
Docking and rolling
October 2011
A fragmented approach to membrane protein structures
September 2011
Raising a glass to GLIC
August 2011
Sugar transport
June 2011
A2A Adenosine Receptor
May 2011
TrkH Potassium Ion Transporter
April 2011
Subtly different
March 2011
A new amphiphile for crystallizing membrane proteins
January 2011
CXCR4
January 2011
Guard cells pick up the SLAC
December 2010
ABA receptor diversity
November 2010
COX inhibition: Naproxen by proxy
November 2010
Zinc Transporter ZntB
July 2010
Formate transporter or channel?
March 2010
Tips for crystallizing membrane proteins in lipidic mesophases
February 2010
Urea transporter
February 2010
Five good reasons to use single protein production for membrane proteins
January 2010
Membrane proteins spotted in their native habitat
January 2010
Spot the pore
January 2010
Get3 into the groove
October 2009
GPCR subunits: Separate but not equal
September 2009
GPCR modeling: any good?
August 2009
Surviving in an acid environment
August 2009
Tips for crystallizing membrane proteins
June 2009
You look familiar: the Type VI secretion system
June 2009
Bacterial Leucine Transporter, LeuT
May 2009
Aquaglyceroporin
March 2009
Death clusters
March 2009
Protein nanopores
March 2009
Transporter mechanism in sight
February 2009
A pocket guide to GPCRs
December 2008
Tuning membrane protein overexpression
October 2008
Blocking AmtB
September 2008

Research Themes Membrane proteins

Death clusters

PSI-SGKB [doi:10.1038/fa_psisgkb.2009.9]
Featured Article - March 2009
Short description: The structure of the Fas–FADD death domain complex reveals how it switches on apoptosis solely through oligomerization and clustering.Nature, doi: 10.1038/nature07606

The primary Fas–FADD death domain complex. Fas is shown in orange and FADD is shown in blue. (Figure courtesy of Stefan Riedl & Robert Schwarzenbacher). (PDB 3EZQ)

The cell-surface receptor Fas, the cytoplasmic Fas-associated death domain protein (FADD), and caspase 8 together create a signaling platform — the death-inducing signaling complex (DISC) — which is essential for initiating the apoptosis pathway. DISC acts as a cellular switch: its assembly and clustering in response to a pro-apoptotic signal acts as the 'on' switch to trigger cell death.

The stimulus for apoptosis is binding of Fas ligand (FasL) to Fas, which leads to clustering of Fas and recruitment of FADD by death domains in the cytoplasmic tail of Fas. In turn, FADD recruits and activates caspase 8, a protease required for the execution of apoptosis. Despite the importance of this complex, there is no in-depth understanding of its assembly, partly because of the difficulty in obtaining it in the absence of a pro-apoptotic signal, when the components are not interacting.

Central to the function of the DISC is the interaction between Fas and FADD, but a combined structure has been hard to come by, partly because it only exists upon DISC oligomerization and clustering, and partly because of difficulties in solubilizing the complex. The structure of the Fas–FADD complex should help answer the question of how interacting death domains initiate the apoptosis pathway.

Scott et al. 1 have isolated and crystallized the human Fas–FADD death domain complex and solved its structure at 2.7 Å. They produced the complex by combining lysates from Escherichia coli expressing recombinant Fas death domains and FADD death domains at high concentrations, thus fostering interaction.

The resulting complex has a tetrameric arrangement of four FADD death domains bound to four Fas death domains. The conformation of the Fas death domain in the complex is different from that of a typical death domain, and when compared with the solution structure of Fas 2 , it has opened up by moving helix six and 'fusing' it with helix five to form one long helix the authors term the 'stem helix'. A new helix is also formed at the C terminus of Fas. Opening up of the Fas death domain exposes its FADD-binding site and simultaneously generates bridges between adjacent open Fas molecules.

When the authors superimposed the structure of full-length FADD onto the complex, they noticed that the FADD death domain had also altered. The C-terminal helix of FADD is shifted to avoid a steric clash with the newly formed C-terminal helix of Fas. They also spotted an overall conformational rearrangement, particularly of the position of the death effector and the death domain of FADD, which they think results in exposure of caspase-8-binding residues.

To validate their findings in vivo, Scott et al. created a mutation at position 313 in the Fas death domain that forces the domain to remain open, and so should produce a hyperactive receptor. It did indeed result in significantly higher levels of apoptosis compared to the wild type.

From this the authors have produced a model of how signaling occurs in DISC. They propose that the opening of the Fas death domain is central to Fas–Fas clustering and to recruitment of FADD. The Fas–Fas bridge and FADD binding are governed by weak protein–protein interactions, which are only stabilized upon processive clustering. So clustering acts as a regulatory switch.

This model could serve as a template for other signaling platforms that lack enzymatic components, but regulate cascades through oligomeric interactions.

Maria Hodges

References

  1. F. L. Scott et al. The Fas–FADD death domain complex structure unravels signalling by receptor clustering.
    Nature doi:10.1038/nature07606

  2. B. Huang, M. Eberstadt, E. T. Olejiniczak, R. P. Meadows & S. W. Fesik NMR structure and mutagenesis of the Fas (APO-1/CD95) death domain.
    Nature 384, 638-641 (1996). doi:10.1038/384638a0

Structural Biology Knowledgebase ISSN: 1758-1338
Funded by a grant from the National Institute of General Medical Sciences of the National Institutes of Health