PSI Structural Biology Knowledgebase

PSI | Structural Biology Knowledgebase
Header Icons

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
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

Budding ensemble

SBKB [doi:10.1038/sbkb.2011.92]
Featured Article - August 2012
Short description: An integration of several structural approaches has generated a model for how vesicle budding may be coordinated by ESCRT complexes.

The spoke model for ESCRT-I-II supercomplex docking in the bud neck. Reprinted with permission from Elsevier. 1

Multivesicular bodies (MVBs) are crucial for trafficking ubiquitinated proteins to the lysosome. MVBs are created by the ESCRT complexes. ESCRT-0 sequesters ubiquitinated cargo proteins and brings them to the downstream ESCRTs. ESCRT-I and -II drive membrane bud formation by stabilizing the bud neck as it invaginates into the lumen of the endosome. ESCRT-III stimulates membrane scission. The ESCRT-I-II supercomplex connects ESCRT-0 cargo with ESCRT-III.

ESCRT-I and -II are themselves multisubunit assemblies. While the structures of the core assembly components are known, these ESCRTs are also comprised of several flexible, disordered regions. The size and flexibility of the supercomplex has made it difficult to study by traditional solution NMR or X-ray crystallographic methods. To tackle this, Hummer, Hurley and colleagues have instead used a combination of solution methods, including small-angle X-ray scattering (SAXS), double electron-electron resonance (DEER), and single-molecule Förster resonance energy transfer (smFRET), to obtain an improved model of the full-length yeast ESCRT-II complex and of the yeast ESCRT-I-II supercomplex.

The SAXS and smFRET data indicate that on its own, ESCRT-II exists in a rather compact globular state with the exception of the membrane-targeting GLUE domain, which adopts several different conformations with respect to the ESCRT-II core. ESCRT-II does not significantly change conformation in the presence of ESCRT-I, but the former has effects on the conformational dynamics of the latter. Specifically, DEER data collected from spin-labeled ESCRT-I indicate that when alone, the complex exists in a mixture of closed and open states that is biased to the open state when ESCRT-II is present. Molecular dynamics simulations, guided by the data collected from the solution studies, provide a conformational ensemble of the supercomplex. In the ensemble, a majority of the supercomplexes form an extended crescent-shaped assemblage; a small minority have the complexes folded back on one another.

What does this tell us about the supercomplex's role in MVB formation? The authors suggest that its crescent-like shape is aptly suited for interactions with the vesicle bud neck, and is consistent with a “spoke” model, in which multiple copies of ESCRT-II complexes are positioned at the bud pore, with ESCRT-III binding regions facing the center of the pore. ESCRT-I and ESCRT-0 would project outside of the pore. The observed conformational flexibility of the supercomplex suggests a mechanism for transfer of cargo from ESCRT-0 to the neck of the nascent bud. In all, the model is supported by a wealth of previous biological data and provides a structural framework that can be further tested.

Michelle Montoya


  1. E. Boura et al. Solution Structure of the ESCRT-I and -II Supercomplex: Implications for Membrane Budding and Scission.
    Structure 20, 874-886 (2012). doi:10.1016/j.str.2012.03.008

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