PSI Structural Biology Knowledgebase

PSI | Structural Biology Knowledgebase
Header Icons
E-Collection

Related Articles
Families in Gene Neighborhoods
June 2015
Signaling: A Platform for Opposing Functions
May 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
iTRAQing the Ubiquitinome
July 2014
CAAX Endoproteases
August 2013
The Immune System: A Strong Competitor
June 2013
The Immune System: Strand Swapping for T-Cell Inhibition
June 2013
PDZ Domains
April 2013
Protein Interaction Networks: Adding Structure to Protein Networks
April 2013
Protein Interaction Networks: Morph to Assemble
April 2013
Protein Interaction Networks: Reading Between the Lines
April 2013
Protein Interaction Networks: When the Sum Is Greater than the Parts
April 2013
Alpha-Catenin Connections
March 2013
Cytochrome Oxidase
November 2012
Bacterial Phosphotransferase System
October 2012
Solute Channels
September 2012
Budding ensemble
August 2012
The machines behind the spindle assembly checkpoint
June 2012
G Protein-Coupled Receptors
May 2012
Revealing the Nuclear Pore Complex
March 2012
Topping off the proteasome
March 2012
Anchoring's the way
February 2012
Reading out regioselectivity
December 2011
An effective and cooperative dimer
November 2011
PDZ domains: sometimes it takes two
November 2011
Raising a glass to GLIC
August 2011
A2A Adenosine Receptor
May 2011
A growing family
February 2011
FERM-ly bound
February 2011
CXCR4
January 2011
Guard cells pick up the SLAC
December 2010
Zinc Transporter ZntB
July 2010
Zinc Transporter ZntB
July 2010
Importance of extension for integrin
June 2010
Spot protein-protein interactions… fast
March 2010
Alg13 Subunit of N-Acetylglucosamine Transferase
February 2010
Urea transporter
February 2010
Two-component signaling
December 2009
ABA receptor...this time for real?
November 2009
Network coverage
November 2009
Get3 into the groove
October 2009
Guanine Nucleotide Exchange Factor Vav1 and Rho GTPase Rac1
October 2009
GPCR subunits: Separate but not equal
September 2009
Proofreading RNA
July 2009
Ribonuclease and Ribonuclease Inhibitor
April 2009
The elusive helicase
April 2009
Click for cancer-protein interactions
December 2008

Research Themes Protein-protein interactions

Importance of extension for integrin

PSI-SGKB [doi:10.1038/fa_psisgkb.2010.21]
Featured Article - June 2010
Short description: An extended conformation of α5ß1 integrin is important for cell spreading and adhesion complex formation.

Current models for integrin conformation depict the inactive receptor in a bent form, which upon activation becomes fully extended — the legs separate to allow downstream signalling. In the Journal of Cell Biology, Martin Humphries and colleagues now directly put this model to the test for β1 integrin; they determine the conformation of α5β1 integrin in adherent cells and demonstrate that the integrin must be extended for proper formation of focal adhesions.

The authors first tested how the conformation of α5β1 integrin affects its function. By introducing a disulphide bond between the α- and β-subunits of a recombinant, soluble α5β1 integrin fused to an Fc fragment a 'locked-together' (LT) construct was formed, in which the separation of the subunit legs is restricted and the integrin is no longer able to extend.

Binding of an activating anti-β1 monoclonal antibody (mAb) to the 'bending' region of the molecule was inhibited in the LT integrin. Moreover, mutation of various residues identified D522, located in the 'knee' region of the integrin, as the epitope for the anti-β1 mAb. This suggested that restricting leg movement causes the integrin to adopt a bent form.

In addition to leg separation, an outward movement of the hybrid domain is important for ligand-binding affinity. Using stimulatory antibodies against each subunit that stabilize the active conformation of the integrin, the authors showed that the LT integrin displays a lower affinity to ligands, indicating an association between the movements of the legs and the hybrid domain, which together maintain the high affinity receptor.

Next, FRET analysis was used, with specific reporters for the integrin headpiece and the cell membrane, to measure the distance between the two. This approach demonstrated that the ligand-bound α5β1 integrin in adhesion complexes is in an extended conformation.

But, what is the significance of this extended conformation to integrin function? Integrins regulate cell–cell and cell–extracellular matrix (ECM) interactions, which maintain proper adhesion and spreading of cells. Consistently, expression of α5β1 integrin in β1-null cells mediated their spreading and induced formation of adhesion complexes on fibronectin.

Moreover, anti-β1 monoclonal antibody bound to the integrin in these cells, which indicated a high-affinity, activated receptor in its extended form. By contrast, cells expressing the LT integrin formed clusters on the cell surface, but displayed reduced binding to anti-β1 mAb and showed reduced spreading. Consistently, binding of a stimulatory anti-α5 antibody was also inhibited in LT-expressing cells, confirming that prevention of leg separation causes the integrin to adopt an inactive and bent conformation.

Taken together, this study demonstrates that conformational changes are important for the proper functioning of integrins in adherent cells. Specifically, α5β1 integrin needs to be in an extended conformation with free leg movement for the proper spreading of cells and formation of adhesion complexes.

Iley Ozerlat

References

  1. J. A. Askari et al. Focal adhesions are sites of integrin extension.
    The Journal of Cell Biology (2010). doi:10.1083/jcb.200907174

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