Quantifying Intramolecular Binding in Multivalent Interactions: A Structure-Based Synergistic Study on Grb2-Sos1 Complex

Numerous signaling proteins use multivalent binding to increase the specificity and affinity of their interactions within the cell. Enhancement arises because the effective binding constant for multivalent binding is larger than the binding constants for each individual interaction. We seek to gain both qualitative and quantitative understanding of the multivalent interactions of an adaptor protein, growth factor receptor bound protein-2 (Grb2), containing two SH3 domains interacting with the nucleotide exchange factor son-of-sevenless 1 (Sos1) containing multiple polyproline motifs separated by flexible unstructured regions. Grb2 mediates the recruitment of Sos1 from the cytosol to the plasma membrane where it activates Ras by inducing the exchange of GDP for GTP. First, using a combination of evolutionary information and binding energy calculations, we predict an additional polyproline motif in Sos1 that binds to the SH3 domains of Grb2. This gives rise to a total of five polyproline motifs in Sos1 that are capable of binding to the two SH3 domains of Grb2. Then, using a hybrid method combining molecular dynamics simulations and polymer models, we estimate the enhancement in local concentration of a polyproline motif on Sos1 near an unbound SH3 domain of Grb2 when its other SH3 domain is bound to a different polyproline motif on Sos1. We show that the local concentration of the Sos1 motifs that a Grb2 SH3 domain experiences is approximately 1000 times greater than the cellular concentration of Sos1. Finally, we calculate the intramolecular equilibrium constants for the crosslinking of Grb2 on Sos1 and use thermodynamic modeling to calculate the stoichiometry. With these equilibrium constants, we are able to predict the distribution of complexes that form at physiological concentrations. We believe this is the first systematic analysis that combines sequence, structure, and thermodynamic analyses to determine the stoichiometry of the complexes that are dominant in the cellular environment.

[1]  Andrea Musacchio,et al.  How SH3 domains recognize proline. , 2002, Advances in protein chemistry.

[2]  Huan‐Xiang Zhou.  Quantitative account of the enhanced affinity of two linked scFvs specific for different epitopes on the same antigen. , 2003, Journal of molecular biology.

[3]  Alex Braiman,et al.  Oligomerization of signaling complexes by the multipoint binding of GRB2 to both LAT and SOS1 , 2006, Nature Structural &Molecular Biology.

[4]  L. Nilsson,et al.  Structure and Dynamics of the TIP3P, SPC, and SPC/E Water Models at 298 K , 2001 .

[5]  I. Vetter,et al.  The Guanine Nucleotide-Binding Switch in Three Dimensions , 2001, Science.

[6]  P Mark,et al.  298KでのTIP3P,SPC及びSPC/E水モデルの構造及び動力学 , 2001 .

[7]  A. Ullrich,et al.  Solution structure and ligand-binding site of the carboxy-terminal SH3 domain of GRB2. , 1994, Structure.

[8]  Jan H. Jensen,et al.  Very fast prediction and rationalization of pKa values for protein–ligand complexes , 2008, Proteins.

[9]  K Schulten,et al.  VMD: visual molecular dynamics. , 1996, Journal of molecular graphics.

[10]  T. Darden,et al.  Particle mesh Ewald: An N⋅log(N) method for Ewald sums in large systems , 1993 .

[11]  A. Ducruix,et al.  Crystal structure of the mammalian Grb2 adaptor. , 1995, Science.

[12]  S. Schreiber,et al.  Grb2 SH3 binding to peptides from Sos: evaluation of a general model for SH3-ligand interactions. , 1995, Chemistry & biology.

[13]  Huan‐Xiang Zhou.  Quantitative relation between intermolecular and intramolecular binding of pro-rich peptides to SH3 domains. , 2006, Biophysical journal.

[14]  H. Zhou,et al.  The affinity-enhancing roles of flexible linkers in two-domain DNA-binding proteins. , 2001, Biochemistry.

[15]  J. Schlessinger,et al.  Solution structure of Grb2 reveals extensive flexibility necessary for target recognition. , 2001, Journal of molecular biology.

[16]  D. Cussac,et al.  Molecular and cellular analysis of Grb2 SH3 domain mutants: interaction with Sos and dynamin. , 1999, Journal of molecular biology.

[17]  D. Bar-Sagi,et al.  Coupling of Ras and Rac guanosine triphosphatases through the Ras exchanger Sos. , 1998, Science.

[18]  Tetsuo Yamazaki,et al.  T cell receptor ligation induces the formation of dynamically regulated signaling assemblies , 2002, The Journal of cell biology.

[19]  Caleb B. McDonald,et al.  SH3 domains of Grb2 adaptor bind to PXpsiPXR motifs within the Sos1 nucleotide exchange factor in a discriminate manner. , 2009, Biochemistry.

[20]  Gerhard Hummer,et al.  Coarse-grained models for simulations of multiprotein complexes: application to ubiquitin binding. , 2008, Journal of molecular biology.

[21]  D. Bar-Sagi,et al.  Differential Interactions of Human Sos1 and Sos2 with Grb2 (*) , 1995, The Journal of Biological Chemistry.

[22]  Dipak Barua,et al.  Computational Models of Tandem Src Homology 2 Domain Interactions and Application to Phosphoinositide 3-Kinase* , 2008, Journal of Biological Chemistry.

[23]  H. Erickson,et al.  An experimental study of GFP‐based FRET, with application to intrinsically unstructured proteins , 2007, Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society.

[24]  E. Appella,et al.  Binding specificity of multiprotein signaling complexes is determined by both cooperative interactions and affinity preferences. , 2004, Biochemistry.

[25]  Lawrence E. Samelson,et al.  Early Phosphorylation Kinetics of Proteins Involved in Proximal TCR-Mediated Signaling Pathways , 2005, The Journal of Immunology.

[26]  Zaida Luthey-Schulten,et al.  Evolutionary profiles from the QR factorization of multiple sequence alignments. , 2005, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[27]  A. Sali,et al.  Structural basis for the specific interaction of lysine-containing proline-rich peptides with the N-terminal SH3 domain of c-Crk. , 1995, Structure.

[28]  Tony Pawson,et al.  The Grb2-mSos1 Complex Binds Phosphopeptides with Higher Affinity than Grb2* , 1996, The Journal of Biological Chemistry.

[29]  Caleb B. McDonald,et al.  Structural basis of the differential binding of the SH3 domains of Grb2 adaptor to the guanine nucleotide exchange factor Sos1. , 2008, Archives of biochemistry and biophysics.

[30]  Bridget S. Wilson,et al.  High resolution mapping of mast cell membranes reveals primary and secondary domains of FcεRI and LAT , 2001, The Journal of cell biology.

[31]  Ben M. Webb,et al.  Comparative Protein Structure Modeling Using Modeller , 2006, Current protocols in bioinformatics.

[32]  E. Myers,et al.  Basic local alignment search tool. , 1990, Journal of molecular biology.

[33]  Alexander D. MacKerell,et al.  All-atom empirical potential for molecular modeling and dynamics studies of proteins. , 1998, The journal of physical chemistry. B.

[34]  E. Toone,et al.  Multivalency effects in protein--carbohydrate interaction: the binding of the Shiga-like toxin 1 binding subunit to multivalent C-linked glycopeptides. , 2000, The Journal of organic chemistry.

[35]  P. Biswas,et al.  Size, shape, and flexibility of proteins and DNA. , 2009, The Journal of chemical physics.

[36]  Andrea Musacchio,et al.  High-resolution crystal structures of tyrosine kinase SH3 domains complexed with proline-rich peptides , 1994, Nature Structural Biology.

[37]  S. Schreiber,et al.  Two binding orientations for peptides to the Src SH3 domain: development of a general model for SH3-ligand interactions. , 1995, Science.

[38]  S. Schreiber,et al.  Specific interactions outside the proline-rich core of two classes of Src homology 3 ligands. , 1995, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[39]  A. Weiss,et al.  Lymphocytes with a complex: adapter proteins in antigen receptor signaling. , 2000, Immunology today.

[40]  Roland L. Dunbrack,et al.  proteins STRUCTURE O FUNCTION O BIOINFORMATICS Improved prediction of protein side-chain conformations with SCWRL4 , 2022 .

[41]  J. Thompson,et al.  CLUSTAL W: improving the sensitivity of progressive multiple sequence alignment through sequence weighting, position-specific gap penalties and weight matrix choice. , 1994, Nucleic acids research.

[42]  A. Ullrich,et al.  The SH2 and SH3 domain-containing protein GRB2 links receptor tyrosine kinases to ras signaling , 1992, Cell.

[43]  James R Faeder,et al.  Aggregation of membrane proteins by cytosolic cross-linkers: theory and simulation of the LAT-Grb2-SOS1 system. , 2009, Biophysical journal.

[44]  David S. Goodsell,et al.  AutoDock4 and AutoDockTools4: Automated docking with selective receptor flexibility , 2009, J. Comput. Chem..

[45]  R. Phillips,et al.  Biochemistry on a leash: the roles of tether length and geometry in signal integration proteins. , 2009, Biophysical journal.

[46]  Rommie E. Amaro,et al.  An improved relaxed complex scheme for receptor flexibility in computer-aided drug design , 2008, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..

[47]  O. Kratky,et al.  Röntgenuntersuchung gelöster Fadenmoleküle , 1949 .

[48]  A. Sparks,et al.  Distinct ligand preferences of Src homology 3 domains from Src, Yes, Abl, Cortactin, p53bp2, PLCgamma, Crk, and Grb2. , 1996, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[49]  Zaida Luthey-Schulten,et al.  Dynamics of Recognition between tRNA and elongation factor Tu. , 2008, Journal of molecular biology.

[50]  Laxmikant V. Kalé,et al.  Scalable molecular dynamics with NAMD , 2005, J. Comput. Chem..

[51]  E. Hafen,et al.  Biochemical and genetic analysis of the Drk SH2/SH3 adaptor protein of Drosophila. , 1995, The EMBO journal.

[52]  George M Whitesides,et al.  Polyvalent Interactions in Biological Systems: Implications for Design and Use of Multivalent Ligands and Inhibitors. , 1998, Angewandte Chemie.

[53]  Huan-Xiang Zhou,et al.  Loops in Proteins Can Be Modeled as Worm-Like Chains , 2001 .

[54]  Gregorio Fernandez-Ballester,et al.  The tryptophan switch: changing ligand-binding specificity from type I to type II in SH3 domains. , 2004, Journal of molecular biology.

[55]  E. Appella,et al.  Studying multisite binary and ternary protein interactions by global analysis of isothermal titration calorimetry data in SEDPHAT: Application to adaptor protein complexes in cell signaling , 2007, Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society.

[56]  H. C. Andersen.  Rattle: A “velocity” version of the shake algorithm for molecular dynamics calculations , 1983 .

[57]  Zaida Luthey-Schulten,et al.  MultiSeq: unifying sequence and structure data for evolutionary analysis , 2006, BMC Bioinformatics.

[58]  Jeffrey Skolnick,et al.  Assessment of programs for ligand binding affinity prediction , 2008, J. Comput. Chem..

[59]  P. Kollman,et al.  Settle: An analytical version of the SHAKE and RATTLE algorithm for rigid water models , 1992 .