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

Protein Folding and Misfolding: It's the Journey, Not the Destination

SBKB [doi:10.1038/sbkb.2015.4]
Technical Highlight - March 2015
Short description: Computational analysis suggests ∼10% of pathogenic mutations interfere with membrane integration.

10% of pathogenic mutations in transmembrane helices are predicted to disrupt membrane integration or orientation. Figure adapted from Schlebach and Sanders 1 with kind permission from Springer Science and Business Media.


Protein maturation requires several steps to reach correct localization and active conformation. For membrane proteins, one of these steps is the cotranslational insertion of transmembrane helices into the endoplasmic reticulum membrane, as mediated by the translocon. This process is sensitive to environmental conditions and other factors, meaning that even native sequences can sometimes fail to insert properly. The extent to which pathogenic mutations in membrane proteins might exacerbate the challenges of membrane insertion is not well understood.

To gain insight into this question, Schlebach and Sanders (PSI MPSbyNMR) identified five transmembrane proteins for which clinical data on pathogenic mutations are available, including rhodopsin. The authors then used the ΔG prediction algorithm, published in 2007 by the von Heijne group, to determine the energetics of inserting each of the 36 individual transmembrane helices from these proteins into the membrane and to confirm the location of transmembrane sequences within each full protein.

With a baseline set for the wild-type sequences, the authors parsed the known pathogenic mutations in these proteins to identify 470 amino acid changes in or near the transmembrane helices. Analysis of this collection with the prediction algorithm identified both membrane insertion-stabilizing and destabilizing mutations. The location scan also identified several mutations that were predicted to cause a shift in the placement of the helix, with the largest shift calculated at 11 residues.

Finally, the authors compared published data on the cellular behavior of 22 rhodopsin mutants with their predictions to determine if the computationally destabilizing mutations correlated with delays in trafficking or increased degradation. Indeed, 15 of the mutants, as predicted, had minimal impact on the folding pathway, whereas 6 other mutations predicted to destabilize membrane integration caused retention of the protein in the endoplasmic reticulum and less activity overall. However, the L125R mutant, predicted to destabilize helix insertion, seemed to traffic normally; upon re-inspection of the sequence, the authors suspect an intra- or interhelical salt bridge could explain this result.

While the authors note that these predictions should be examined biochemically, their results highlight the importance of membrane insertion in disease etiology and point to new opportunities to resolve mutant phenotypes via early intervention.

Catherine Goodman

References

  1. J.P. Schlebach & C.R. Sanders Influence of pathogenic mutations on the energetics of translocon-mediated bilayer integration of transmembrane helices.
    J. Membrane Biol. (6 September 2014). doi:10.1007/s00232-014-9726-0

  2. T. Hessa et al. Molecular code for transmembrane-helix recognition by the Sec61 translocon.
    Nature. 450, 1026-1030 (2007). doi:10.1038/nature06387

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