Topogenesis of membrane proteins: determinants and dynamics

For targeting and integration of proteins into the mammalian endoplasmic reticulum, two types of signals can be distinguished: those that translocate their C‐terminal sequence (cleavable signals and signal‐anchors) and those that translocate their N‐terminus (reverse signal‐anchors). In addition to the well established effect of flanking charges, also the length and hydrophobicity of the apolar core of the signal as well as protein folding and glycosylation contribute to orienting the signal in the translocon. In multi‐spanning membrane proteins, topogenic determinants are distributed throughout the sequence and may even compete with each other. During topogenesis, segments of up to 60 residues may move back and forth through the translocon, emphasizing unexpected dynamic aspects of topogenesis.

[1]  G. Heijne.  Membrane protein structure prediction. Hydrophobicity analysis and the positive-inside rule. , 1992, Journal of molecular biology.

[2]  G von Heijne,et al.  Topological Rules for Membrane Protein Assembly in Eukaryotic Cells* , 1997, The Journal of Biological Chemistry.

[3]  J. Beltzer,et al.  Charged residues are major determinants of the transmembrane orientation of a signal-anchor sequence. , 1991, The Journal of biological chemistry.

[4]  D. Raden,et al.  Role of Sec61α in the Regulated Transfer of the Ribosome–Nascent Chain Complex from the Signal Recognition Particle to the Translocation Channel , 2000, Cell.

[5]  S. High,et al.  The signal sequence interacts with the methionine-rich domain of the 54- kD protein of signal recognition particle , 1991, The Journal of cell biology.

[6]  M. Sato,et al.  A Conserved Amino Acid Motif (R-X-G-R-R) in the Glut1 Glucose Transporter Is an Important Determinant of Membrane Topology* , 1999, The Journal of Biological Chemistry.

[7]  V. Goder,et al.  In vivo kinetics of protein targeting to the endoplasmic reticulum determined by site‐specific phosphorylation , 2000, The EMBO journal.

[8]  R. S. Stewart,et al.  A transmembrane form of the prion protein contains an uncleaved signal peptide and is retained in the endoplasmic Reticulum. , 2001, Molecular biology of the cell.

[9]  G. Heijne.  The distribution of positively charged residues in bacterial inner membrane proteins correlates with the trans‐membrane topology , 1986, The EMBO journal.

[10]  G. Vonheijne,et al.  Control of topology and mode of assembly of a polytopic membrane protein by positively charged residues , 1989, Nature.

[11]  T. Rapoport,et al.  TRAM Regulates the Exposure of Nascent Secretory Proteins to the Cytosol during Translocation into the Endoplasmic Reticulum , 1998, Cell.

[12]  D. Naeher,et al.  The Topogenic Contribution of Uncharged Amino Acids on Signal Sequence Orientation in the Endoplasmic Reticulum* , 2000, The Journal of Biological Chemistry.

[13]  G. Kreibich,et al.  Signals for the incorporation and orientation of cytochrome P450 in the endoplasmic reticulum membrane , 1988, The Journal of cell biology.

[14]  T A Rapoport,et al.  A class of membrane proteins with a C-terminal anchor. , 1993, Trends in cell biology.

[15]  K. Mihara,et al.  The amino‐terminal structures that determine topological orientation of cytochrome P‐450 in microsomal membrane. , 1990, The EMBO journal.

[16]  B. Wilkinson,et al.  Signal Sequence Recognition in Posttranslational Protein Transport across the Yeast ER Membrane , 1998, Cell.

[17]  B. Jungnickel,et al.  A posttargeting signal sequence recognition event in the endoplasmic reticulum membrane , 1995, Cell.

[18]  P. Rapiejko,et al.  Empty Site Forms of the SRP54 and SRα GTPases Mediate Targeting of Ribosome–Nascent Chain Complexes to the Endoplasmic Reticulum , 1997, Cell.

[19]  R. Kraft,et al.  Mammalian Sec61 Is Associated with Sec62 and Sec63* , 2000, The Journal of Biological Chemistry.

[20]  K. Mihara,et al.  Functions of signal and signal-anchor sequences are determined by the balance between the hydrophobic segment and the N-terminal charge. , 1992, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[21]  A. Johnson,et al.  The translocon: a dynamic gateway at the ER membrane. , 1999, Annual review of cell and developmental biology.

[22]  W. Nastainczyk,et al.  Homologs of the yeast Sec complex subunits Sec62p and Sec63p are abundant proteins in dog pancreas microsomes. , 2000, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[23]  Barry P. Young,et al.  Sec63p and Kar2p are required for the translocation of SRP‐dependent precursors into the yeast endoplasmic reticulum in vivo , 2001, The EMBO journal.

[24]  B. Dobberstein,et al.  Structural requirements for membrane assembly of proteins spanning the membrane several times , 1989, The Journal of cell biology.

[25]  M. Spiess,et al.  Heads or tails — what determines the orientation of proteins in the membrane , 1995, FEBS letters.

[26]  B. Martoglio,et al.  The protein-conducting channel in the membrane of the endoplasmic reticulum is open laterally toward the lipid bilayer , 1995, Cell.

[27]  A. Kuhn,et al.  Initial steps in protein membrane insertion. Bacteriophage M13 procoat protein binds to the membrane surface by electrostatic interaction. , 1990, The EMBO journal.

[28]  M. Tomilo,et al.  Can a signal sequence become too hydrophobic? , 1994, The Journal of biological chemistry.

[29]  J. Hershey,et al.  Translational control in mammalian cells. , 1991, Annual review of biochemistry.

[30]  D. Tipper,et al.  The Role of Charged Residues in Determining Transmembrane Protein Insertion Orientation in Yeast* , 1996, The Journal of Biological Chemistry.

[31]  G. Blobel,et al.  Intracellular protein topogenesis. , 1980, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[32]  T A Rapoport,et al.  Predicting the orientation of eukaryotic membrane-spanning proteins. , 1989, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[33]  C. Deber,et al.  Uncoupling Hydrophobicity and Helicity in Transmembrane Segments , 1998, The Journal of Biological Chemistry.

[34]  G. von Heijne,et al.  A 12-Residue-long Polyleucine Tail Is Sufficient to Anchor Synaptobrevin to the Endoplasmic Reticulum Membrane (*) , 1996, The Journal of Biological Chemistry.

[35]  G. von Heijne,et al.  The Escherichia coli SRP and SecB targeting pathways converge at the translocon , 1998, The EMBO journal.

[36]  P. Walter,et al.  Signal recognition particle mediates a transient elongation arrest of preprolactin in reticulocyte lysate , 1989, The Journal of cell biology.

[37]  P. Walter,et al.  Signal sequence recognition and protein targeting to the endoplasmic reticulum membrane. , 1994, Annual review of cell biology.

[38]  D. Mead,et al.  Positive charges at the NH2 terminus convert the membrane-anchor signal peptide of cytochrome P-450 to a secretory signal peptide. , 1988, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[39]  M. Tagaya,et al.  The hydrophobic region of signal peptides is a determinant for SRP recognition and protein translocation across the ER membrane. , 1997, Journal of biochemistry.

[40]  D. Andrews,et al.  The role of the N region in signal sequence and signal-anchor function. , 1992, The Journal of biological chemistry.

[41]  E. Szczesna-Skorupa,et al.  NH2-terminal substitutions of basic amino acids induce translocation across the microsomal membrane and glycosylation of rabbit cytochrome P450IIC2 , 1989, The Journal of cell biology.

[42]  G von Heijne,et al.  Anionic phospholipids are determinants of membrane protein topology , 1997, The EMBO journal.

[43]  M. Sato,et al.  Testing the Charge Difference Hypothesis for the Assembly of a Eucaryotic Multispanning Membrane Protein* , 1998, The Journal of Biological Chemistry.

[44]  R. Lamb,et al.  Topology of eukaryotic type II membrane proteins: Importance of N-terminal positively charged residues flanking the hydrophobic domain , 1991, Cell.

[45]  G. Heijne,et al.  Genome‐wide analysis of integral membrane proteins from eubacterial, archaean, and eukaryotic organisms , 1998, Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society.

[46]  T A Rapoport,et al.  Transport route for synaptobrevin via a novel pathway of insertion into the endoplasmic reticulum membrane. , 1995, The EMBO journal.

[47]  R. Hegde,et al.  Sequence-Specific Alteration of the Ribosome–Membrane Junction Exposes Nascent Secretory Proteins to the Cytosol , 1996, Cell.

[48]  R. Lamb,et al.  Role of NH2-terminal positively charged residues in establishing membrane protein topology. , 1993, The Journal of biological chemistry.

[49]  Organization and stability of a polytopic membrane protein: deletion analysis of the lactose permease of Escherichia coli. , 1991, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[50]  B. Jungnickel,et al.  Signal Sequence Recognition in Cotranslational Translocation by Protein Components of the Endoplasmic Reticulum Membrane , 1998, The Journal of cell biology.

[51]  M. Spiess,et al.  The role of the hydrophobic domain in orienting natural signal sequences within the ER membrane. , 1998, Experimental cell research.

[52]  T. Rapoport,et al.  Protein translocation into proteoliposomes reconstituted from purified components of the endoplasmic reticulum membrane , 1993, Cell.

[53]  D. Tipper,et al.  Transmembrane Protein Insertion Orientation in Yeast Depends on the Charge Difference across Transmembrane Segments, Their Total Hydrophobicity, and Its Distribution* , 1998, The Journal of Biological Chemistry.

[54]  Martin Spiess,et al.  Multiple Determinants Direct the Orientation of Signal–Anchor Proteins: The Topogenic Role of the Hydrophobic Signal Domain , 1997, The Journal of cell biology.

[55]  Nicola Mason,et al.  Elongation arrest is a physiologically important function of signal recognition particle , 2000, The EMBO journal.

[56]  J. Beckwith,et al.  Membrane insertion of the Escherichia coli MalF protein in cells with impaired secretion machinery. , 1991, The Journal of biological chemistry.

[57]  M. Spiess,et al.  Insertion of a multispanning membrane protein occurs sequentially and requires only one signal sequence , 1988, Cell.

[58]  M. Spiess,et al.  Transmembrane orientation of signal‐anchor proteins is affected by the folding state but not the size of the N‐terminal domain. , 1995, The EMBO journal.

[59]  K. Strub,et al.  New Insights into Signal Recognition and Elongation Arrest Activities of the Signal Recognition Particle , 1999, Biological chemistry.

[60]  M. Pool,et al.  SRβ coordinates signal sequence release from SRP with ribosome binding to the translocon , 2001, The EMBO journal.

[61]  T. Rapoport,et al.  Systematic probing of the environment of a translocating secretory protein during translocation through the ER membrane. , 1994, The EMBO journal.

[62]  V. Goder,et al.  Glycosylation Can Influence Topogenesis of Membrane Proteins and Reveals Dynamic Reorientation of Nascent Polypeptides within the Translocon , 1999, The Journal of cell biology.

[63]  P. Walter,et al.  SRP samples nascent chains for the presenceof signal sequences by interacting with ribosomes at a discrete step during translation elongation , 1995, Cell.