Tag: Ubiquitylation

  • Bertout, J. A., Patel, S. A. & Simon, M. C. The impact of O2 availability on human cancer. Nat. Rev. Cancer 8, 967–975 (2008).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Singleton, D. C., Macann, A. & Wilson, W. R. Therapeutic targeting of the hypoxic tumour microenvironment. Nat. Rev. Clin. Oncol. 18, 751–772 (2021).

    Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Banh, R. S. et al. PTP1B controls non-mitochondrial oxygen consumption by regulating RNF213 to promote tumour survival during hypoxia. Nat. Cell Biol. 18, 803–813 (2016).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Asselman, C., Hemelsoet, D., Eggermont, D., Dermaut, B. & Impens, F. Moyamoya disease emerging as an immune-related angiopathy. Trends Mol. Med. 28, 939–950 (2022).

    Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Schofield, C. J. & Ratcliffe, P. J. Oxygen sensing by HIF hydroxylases. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 5, 343–354 (2004).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Wouters, B. G. & Koritzinsky, M. Hypoxia signalling through mTOR and the unfolded protein response in cancer. Nat. Rev. Cancer 8, 851–864 (2008).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Cummins, E. P. et al. Prolyl hydroxylase-1 negatively regulates IkappaB kinase-beta, giving insight into hypoxia-induced NFkappaB activity. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 103, 18154–18159 (2006).

    Article 
    ADS 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Rius, J. et al. NF-kappaB links innate immunity to the hypoxic response through transcriptional regulation of HIF-1alpha. Nature 453, 807–811 (2008).

    Article 
    ADS 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Eltzschig, H. K. & Carmeliet, P. Hypoxia and inflammation. N. Engl. J. Med. 364, 656–665 (2011).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Kroemer, G., Galluzzi, L., Kepp, O. & Zitvogel, L. Immunogenic cell death in cancer therapy. Annu. Rev. Immunol. 31, 51–72 (2013).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Nizet, V. & Johnson, R. S. Interdependence of hypoxic and innate immune responses. Nat. Rev. Immunol. 9, 609–617 (2009).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Pakos-Zebrucka, K. et al. The integrated stress response. EMBO Rep. 17, 1374–1395 (2016).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Delibegovic, M., Dall’Angelo, S. & Dekeryte, R. Protein tyrosine phosphatase 1B in metabolic diseases and drug development. Nat. Rev. Endocrinol. 20, 366–378 (2024).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • The Cancer Genome Atlas Network. Comprehensive molecular portraits of human breast tumours. Nature 490, 61–70 (2012).

    Article 
    ADS 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Ahel, J. et al. Moyamoya disease factor RNF213 is a giant E3 ligase with a dynein-like core and a distinct ubiquitin-transfer mechanism. eLife 9, e56185 (2020).

    Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Otten, E. G. et al. Ubiquitylation of lipopolysaccharide by RNF213 during bacterial infection. Nature 594, 111–116 (2021).

    Article 
    ADS 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Morito, D. et al. Moyamoya disease-associated protein mysterin/RNF213 is a novel AAA+ ATPase, which dynamically changes its oligomeric state. Sci. Rep. 4, 4442 (2014).

    Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Piccolis, M. et al. Probing the global cellular responses to lipotoxicity caused by saturated fatty acids. Mol. Cell 74, 32–44 (2019).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Sugihara, M. et al. The AAA+ ATPase/ubiquitin ligase mysterin stabilizes cytoplasmic lipid droplets. J. Cell Biol. 218, 949–960 (2019).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Thery, F. et al. Ring finger protein 213 assembles into a sensor for ISGylated proteins with antimicrobial activity. Nat. Commun. 12, 5772 (2021).

    Article 
    ADS 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Takeda, M. et al. Moyamoya disease patient mutations in the RING domain of RNF213 reduce its ubiquitin ligase activity and enhance NFkappaB activation and apoptosis in an AAA+ domain-dependent manner. Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 525, 668–674 (2020).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • LaMontagne, K. R. Jr, Hannon, G. & Tonks, N. K. Protein tyrosine phosphatase PTP1B suppresses p210 bcr-abl-induced transformation of rat-1 fibroblasts and promotes differentiation of K562 cells. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 95, 14094–14099 (1998).

    Article 
    ADS 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Kotani, Y. et al. Alternative exon skipping biases substrate preference of the deubiquitylase USP15 for mysterin/RNF213, the moyamoya disease susceptibility factor. Sci. Rep. 7, 44293 (2017).

    Article 
    ADS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Kovalenko, A. et al. The tumour suppressor CYLD negatively regulates NF-kappaB signalling by deubiquitination. Nature 424, 801–805 (2003).

    Article 
    ADS 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Schlicher, L., Brauns-Schubert, P., Schubert, F. & Maurer, U. SPATA2: more than a missing link. Cell Death Differ. 24, 1142–1147 (2017).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Louvrier, C. et al. RNF213-associated urticarial lesions with hypercytokinemia. J. Allergy Clin. Immunol. 150, 1545–1555 (2022).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Bhardwaj, A., Banh, R. S., Zhang, W., Sidhu, S. S. & Neel, B. G. MMD-associated RNF213 SNPs encode dominant-negative alleles that globally impair ubiquitylation. Life Sci. Alliance 5, e202000807 (2022).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Cecchi, A. C. et al. RNF213 rare variants in an ethnically diverse population with Moyamoya disease. Stroke 45, 3200–3207 (2014).

    Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Kamada, F. et al. A genome-wide association study identifies RNF213 as the first Moyamoya disease gene. J. Hum. Genet. 56, 34–40 (2011).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Liu, W. et al. Identification of RNF213 as a susceptibility gene for moyamoya disease and its possible role in vascular development. PLoS ONE 6, e22542 (2011).

    Article 
    ADS 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Taniguchi, K. & Karin, M. NF-kappaB, inflammation, immunity and cancer: coming of age. Nat. Rev. Immunol. 18, 309–324 (2018).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • He, Y., Hara, H. & Nunez, G. Mechanism and regulation of NLRP3 inflammasome activation. Trends Biochem. Sci 41, 1012–1021 (2016).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Karki, R. & Kanneganti, T. D. Diverging inflammasome signals in tumorigenesis and potential targeting. Nat. Rev. Cancer 19, 197–214 (2019).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Diaz-Rodriguez, E. et al. TRAIL receptor activation overcomes resistance to trastuzumab in HER2 positive breast cancer cells. Cancer Lett. 453, 34–44 (2019).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Endo, M., Mori, M., Akira, S. & Gotoh, T. C/EBP homologous protein (CHOP) is crucial for the induction of caspase-11 and the pathogenesis of lipopolysaccharide-induced inflammation. J. Immunol. 176, 6245–6253 (2006).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • An, J. et al. Inactivation of the CYLD deubiquitinase by HPV E6 mediates hypoxia-induced NF-kappaB activation. Cancer Cell 14, 394–407 (2008).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Wiede, F. et al. PTP1B is an intracellular checkpoint that limits T-cell and CAR T-cell antitumor immunity. Cancer Discov. 12, 752–773 (2022).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Baumgartner, C. K. et al. The PTPN2/PTPN1 inhibitor ABBV-CLS-484 unleashes potent anti-tumour immunity. Nature 622, 850–862 (2023).

    Article 
    ADS 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Gibson, D. G. et al. Enzymatic assembly of DNA molecules up to several hundred kilobases. Nat. Methods 6, 343–345 (2009).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Fedele, C. et al. SHP2 inhibition prevents adaptive resistance to MEK inhibitors in multiple cancer models. Cancer Discov. 8, 1237–1249 (2018).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Marcotte, R. et al. Functional genomic landscape of human breast cancer drivers, vulnerabilities, and resistance. Cell 164, 293–309 (2016).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Ran, F. A. et al. Genome engineering using the CRISPR-Cas9 system. Nat. Protoc. 8, 2281–2308 (2013).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Zhang, S. et al. Genetically defined, syngeneic organoid platform for developing combination therapies for ovarian cancer. Cancer Discov. 11, 362–383 (2021).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Martinez, A. M., Kim, A. & Yang, W. S. Detection of ferroptosis by BODIPY 581/591 C11. Methods Mol. Biol. 2108, 125–130 (2020).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Branon, T. C. et al. Efficient proximity labeling in living cells and organisms with TurboID. Nat. Biotechnol. 36, 880–887 (2018).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Teo, G. et al. SAINTexpress: improvements and additional features in Significance Analysis of INTeractome software. J. Proteomics 100, 37–43 (2014).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

[ad_2]

Source link

  • Release of a ubiquitin brake activates OsCERK1-triggered immunity in rice

    [ad_1]

  • Boller, T. & He, S. Y. Innate immunity in plants: an arms race between pattern recognition receptors in plants and effectors in microbial pathogens. Science 324, 742–744 (2009).

    Article 
    ADS 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Jones, J. D. G. & Dangl, J. L. The plant immune system. Nature 444, 323–329 (2006).

    Article 
    ADS 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Couto, D. & Zipfel, C. Regulation of pattern recognition receptor signalling in plants. Nat. Rev. Immunol. 16, 537–552 (2016).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Zhou, J.-M. & Zhang, Y. Plant immunity: danger perception and signaling. Cell 181, 978–989 (2020).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Böhm, H., Albert, I., Fan, L., Reinhard, A. & Nürnberger, T. Immune receptor complexes at the plant cell surface. Curr. Opin. Plant Biol. 20, 47–54 (2014).

    Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Miya, A. et al. CERK1, a LysM receptor kinase, is essential for chitin elicitor signaling in Arabidopsis. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. 104, 19613–19618 (2007).

    Article 
    ADS 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Willmann, R. et al. Arabidopsis lysin-motif proteins LYM1 LYM3 CERK1 mediate bacterial peptidoglycan sensing and immunity to bacterial infection. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. 108, 19824–19829 (2011).

    Article 
    ADS 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Shimizu, T. et al. Two LysM receptor molecules, CEBiP and OsCERK1, cooperatively regulate chitin elicitor signaling in rice. Plant J. 64, 204–214 (2010).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Liu, B. et al. Lysin motif-containing proteins LYP4 and LYP6 play dual roles in peptidoglycan and chitin perception in rice innate immunity. Plant Cell 24, 3406–3419 (2012).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • He, J. et al. A LysM receptor heteromer mediates perception of arbuscular mycorrhizal symbiotic signal in rice. Mol. Plant 12, 1561–1576 (2019).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Zhang, C. et al. Discriminating symbiosis and immunity signals by receptor competition in rice. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. 118, e2023738118 (2021).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Akamatsu, A. et al. An OsCEBiP/OsCERK1-OsRacGEF1-OsRac1 module is an essential early component of chitin-induced rice immunity. Cell Host Microbe 13, 465–476 (2013).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Hayafune, M. et al. Chitin-induced activation of immune signaling by the rice receptor CEBiP relies on a unique sandwich-type dimerization. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. 111, E404–E413 (2014).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Wang, C. et al. OsCERK1-mediated chitin perception and immune signaling requires receptor-like cytoplasmic kinase 185 to activate an MAPK cascade in rice. Mol. Plant 10, 619–633 (2017).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Wang, J. et al. A cyclic nucleotide-gated channel mediates cytoplasmic calcium elevation and disease resistance in rice. Cell Res. 29, 820–831 (2019).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Dong, O. X. et al. Individual components of paired typical NLR immune receptors are regulated by distinct E3 ligases. Nat. Plants 4, 699–710 (2018).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Spoel, S. H. & Dong, X. How do plants achieve immunity? Defence without specialized immune cells. Nat. Rev. Immunol. 12, 89–100 (2012).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Dai, V. L. et al. Protein language: post-translational modifications talking to each other. Trends Plant Sci. 12, 1068–1080 (2018).


    Google Scholar
     

  • Kong, L. et al. More than an on-and-off switch: Post-translational modifications of plant pattern recognition receptor complexes. Curr. Opin. Plant Biol. 63, 102051 (2021).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Withers, J. & Dong, X. Post-translational regulation of plant immunity. Curr. Opin. Plant Biol. 38, 124–132 (2017).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Lu, D. et al. Direct ubiquitination of pattern recognition receptor FLS2 attenuates plant innate immunity. Science 332, 1439–1442 (2011).

    Article 
    ADS 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Zhang, X. et al. The receptor kinase CERK1 has dual functions in symbiosis and immunity signalling. Plant J. 81, 258–267 (2015).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Li, W. et al. The U-box/ARM E3 ligase PUB13 regulates cell death, defense, and flowering time in Arabidopsis. Plant Physiol. 159, 239–250 (2012).

    Article 
    ADS 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Li, Y. et al. SRFR1 negatively regulates plant NB-LRR resistance protein accumulation to prevent autoimmunity. PLoS Pathog. 9, e1001111. 25 (2010).


    Google Scholar
     

  • Li, L. et al. Atypical resistance protein RPW8/HR triggers oligomerization of the NLR immune receptor RPP7 and autoimmunity. Cell Host Microbe 3, 405–417 (2020).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Chen, L. et al. The Hop/Sti1-Hsp90 chaperone complex facilitates the maturation and transport of a PAMP receptor in rice innate immunity. Cell Host Microbe 7, 185–196 (2010).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Trujillo, M. Ubiquitin signalling: controlling the message of surface immune receptors. New Phytol. 231, 47–53 (2021).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Zeng, L. R. et al. Spotted leaf11, a negative regulator of plant cell death and defense, encodes a U-box/armadillo repeat protein endowed with E3 ubiquitin ligase activity. Plant Cell 16, 2795–2808 (2004).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Pruneda, J. N. et al. Structure of an E3:E2Ub complex reveals an allosteric mechanism shared among ring/u-box ligases. Mol. Cell 47, 933–942 (2012).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Xu, Z. et al. Interactions between the quality control ubiquitin ligase CHIP and ubiquitin conjugating enzymes. BMC Struct. Biol. 8, 26 (2008).

    Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Zhang, M. et al. Chaperoned ubiquitylation–crystal structures of the CHIP U box E3 ubiquitin ligase and a CHIP-Ubc13-Uev1a complex. Mol. Cell 20, 525–538 (2005).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Qian, S. B. et al. CHIP-mediated stress recovery by sequential ubiquitination of substrates and Hsp70. Nature 440, 551–555 (2006).

    Article 
    ADS 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Tawo, R. et al. The ubiquitin ligase CHIP integrates proteostasis and aging by regulation of insulin receptor turnover. Cell 169, 470–482.e413 (2017).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Jones, J. D. G. et al. Intracellular innate immune surveillance devices in plants and animals. Science 354, aaf6395 (2016).

    Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Ferrell, J. E. Self-perpetuating states in signal transduction: positive feedback, double-negative feedback and bistability. Curr. Opin. Cell Biol. 14, 140–148 (2002).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Sun, Y. K. & Ferrell, J. E. Substrate competition as a source of ultrasensitivity in the inactivation of Wee1. Cell 128, 1133–1145 (2007).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Deng, Y. et al. Epigenetic regulation of antagonistic receptors confers rice blast resistance with yield balance. Science 355, 962–965 (2017).

    Article 
    ADS 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Wang, Y. et al. OsRAR1 and OsSGT1 physically interact and function in rice basal disease resistance. Mol. Plant Microbe Interact. 21, 294–303 (2008).

    Article 
    ADS 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Park, C. H. et al. The Magnaporthe oryzae effector AvrPiz-t targets the RING E3 ubiquitin ligase APIP6 to suppress pathogen-associated molecular pattern-triggered immunity in rice. Plant Cell 24, 4748–4762 (2012).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Pimprikar, P. et al. A CCaMK-CYCLOPS-DELLA complex activates transcription of RAM1 to regulate arbuscule branching. Curr. Biol. 26, 1126 (2016).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Miao, J. et al. Targeted mutagenesis in rice using CRISPR-Cas system. Cell Res. 23, 1233–1236 (2013).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Xu, X. et al. Mutagenesis of key residues in the binding center of l-Aspartate-b-semialdehyde dehydrogenase from Escherichia coli enhances utilization of the cofactor NAD(H). Chembiochem 17, 56–64 (2016).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Andersen, P. et al. Structure and biochemical function of a prototypical Arabidopsis U-box domain. J. Biol. Chem. 38, 40053–40061 (2004).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Jumper, J. et al. Highly accurate protein structure prediction with AlphaFold. Nature 596, 583–589 (2021).

    Article 
    ADS 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Adams, P. D. et al. PHENIX: a comprehensive Python-based system for macromolecular structure solution. Acta Crystallogr. D Struct. Biol. 66, 213–221 (2010).

    Article 
    ADS 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Emsley, P. & Cowtan, K. Coot: model-building tools for molecular graphics. Acta Crystallogr. D Struct. Biol. 60, 2126–2132 (2004).

    Article 
    ADS 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Delaglio, F. et al. NMRPipe: A multidimensional spectral processing system based on UNIX pipes. J. Biomol. NMR 6, 277–293 (1995).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Schwieters, C. D. et al. The Xplor-NIH NMR molecular structure determination package. J. Magn. Reson. 160, 66–74 (2003).

    Article 
    ADS 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Schwieters, C. D. et al. Using Xplor-NIH for NMR molecular structure determination. Prog. Nucl. Magn. Reson. Spectrosc. 48, 47–62 (2006).

    Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Laskowski, R. A. et al. AQUA and PROCHECK-NMR: programs for checking the quality of protein structures solved by NMR. J. Biomol. NMR 8, 477–486 (1996).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Eustermann, S. et al. Structural basis for ATP-dependent chromatin remodelling by the INO80 complex. Nature 556, 7701 (2018).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Wang, C. et al. Lotus japonicus clathrin heavy chain1 is associated with Rho-Like GTPase ROP6 and involved in nodule formation. Plant Physiol. 167, 1497–1510 (2015).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • You, Q. et al. An E3 ubiquitin ligase-BAG protein module controls plant innate immunity and broad-spectrum disease resistance. Cell Host Microbe 20, 758–769 (2016).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Proteome-scale discovery of protein degradation and stabilization effectors

    [ad_1]

  • Békés, M., Langley, D. R. & Crews, C. M. PROTAC targeted protein degraders: the past is prologue. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 21, 181–200 (2022).

    Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Deshaies, R. J. Multispecific drugs herald a new era of biopharmaceutical innovation. Nature 580, 329–338 (2020).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Takahashi, D. et al. AUTACs: cargo-specific degraders using selective autophagy. Mol. Cell 76, 797–810.e10 (2019).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Banik, S. M. et al. Lysosome-targeting chimaeras for degradation of extracellular proteins. Nature 584, 291–297 (2020).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Cotton, A. D., Nguyen, D. P., Gramespacher, J. A., Seiple, I. B. & Wells, J. A. Development of antibody-based PROTACs for the degradation of the cell-surface immune checkpoint protein PD-L1. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 143, 593–598 (2021).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Henning, N. J. et al. Deubiquitinase-targeting chimeras for targeted protein stabilization. Nat. Chem. Biol. 18, 412–421 (2022).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Lim, S. et al. bioPROTACs as versatile modulators of intracellular therapeutic targets including proliferating cell nuclear antigen (PCNA). Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 117, 5791–5800 (2020).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Caussinus, E., Kanca, O. & Affolter, M. Fluorescent fusion protein knockout mediated by anti-GFP nanobody. Nat. Struct. Mol. Biol. 19, 117–121 (2012).

    Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Liang, F.-S., Ho, W. Q. & Crabtree, G. R. Engineering the ABA plant stress pathway for regulation of induced proximity. Sci. Signal. 4, rs2 (2011).

    Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Winter, G. E. et al. Phthalimide conjugation as a strategy for in vivo target protein degradation. Science 348, 1376–1381 (2015).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Shin, Y. J. et al. Nanobody-targeted E3-ubiquitin ligase complex degrades nuclear proteins. Sci. Rep. 5, 14269 (2015).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Alerasool, N., Leng, H., Lin, Z.-Y., Gingras, A.-C. & Taipale, M. Identification and functional characterization of transcriptional activators in human cells. Mol. Cell 82, 677–695.e7 (2022).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Kawai, Y. et al. LAPTM5 promotes lysosomal degradation of intracellular CD3ζ but not of cell surface CD3ζ. Immunol. Cell Biol. 92, 527–534 (2014).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • MacLennan, M. et al. Mobilization of LINE-1 retrotransposons is restricted by Tex19.1 in mouse embryonic stem cells. eLife 6, e26152 (2017).

    Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Mund, T. & Pelham, H. R. B. Regulation of PTEN/Akt and MAP kinase signaling pathways by the ubiquitin ligase activators Ndfip1 and Ndfip2. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 107, 11429–11434 (2010).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Yip, M. C. J., Bodnar, N. O. & Rapoport, T. A. Ddi1 is a ubiquitin-dependent protease. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 117, 7776–7781 (2020).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Wang, W. et al. TRAF family member-associated NF-κB activator (TANK) inhibits genotoxic nuclear factor κB activation by facilitating deubiquitinase USP10-dependent deubiquitination of TRAF6 ligase. J. Biol. Chem. 290, 13372–13385 (2015).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Bennett, R. D. & Strehler, E. E. Calmodulin-like protein enhances myosin-10 translation. Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 369, 654–659 (2008).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Celen, A. B. & Sahin, U. Sumoylation on its 25th anniversary: mechanisms, pathology, and emerging concepts. FEBS J. 287, 3110–3140 (2020).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Segal, D. et al. A central chaperone-like role for 14-3-3 proteins in human cells. Mol. Cell 83, 974–993.e15 (2023).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Schwanhäusser, B. et al. Global quantification of mammalian gene expression control. Nature 473, 337–342 (2011).

    Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Yen, H.-C. S., Xu, Q., Chou, D. M., Zhao, Z. & Elledge, S. J. Global protein stability profiling in mammalian cells. Science 322, 918–923 (2008).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Swatek, K. N. & Komander, D. Ubiquitin modifications. Cell Res. 26, 399–422 (2016).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Cowan, A. D. & Ciulli, A. Driving E3 ligase substrate specificity for targeted protein degradation: lessons from nature and the laboratory. Annu. Rev. Biochem. 91, 295–319 (2022).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • King, E. A. et al. Chemoproteomics-enabled discovery of a covalent molecular glue degrader targeting NF-κB. Cell Chem. Biol. 30, 394–402.e9 (2023).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Hibbert, R. G., Huang, A., Boelens, R. & Sixma, T. K. E3 ligase Rad18 promotes monoubiquitination rather than ubiquitin chain formation by E2 enzyme Rad6. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 108, 5590–5595 (2011).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Kumar, P. et al. Role of a non-canonical surface of Rad6 in ubiquitin conjugating activity. Nucleic Acids Res. 43, 9039–9050 (2015).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • David, Y., Ziv, T., Admon, A. & Navon, A. The E2 ubiquitin-conjugating enzymes direct polyubiquitination to preferred lysines. J. Biol. Chem. 285, 8595–8604 (2010).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Morreale, F. E. et al. Allosteric targeting of the Fanconi anemia ubiquitin-conjugating enzyme Ube2T by fragment screening. J. Med. Chem. 60, 4093–4098 (2017).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • St-Cyr, D. et al. Identification and optimization of molecular glue compounds that inhibit a noncovalent E2 enzyme–ubiquitin complex. Sci. Adv. 7, eabi5797 (2021).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Jumper, J. et al. Highly accurate protein structure prediction with AlphaFold. Nature 596, 583–589 (2021).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Zhang, C. et al. Peptidic degron in EID1 is recognized by an SCF E3 ligase complex containing the orphan F-box protein FBXO21. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 112, 15372–15377 (2015).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Lanier, L. L., Yu, G. & Phillips, J. H. Analysis of Fc gamma RIII (CD16) membrane expression and association with CD3 zeta and Fc epsilon RI-gamma by site-directed mutation. J. Immunol. 146, 1571–1576 (1991).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Maxfield, K. E., Macion, J., Vankayalapati, H. & Whitehurst, A. W. SIK2 restricts autophagic flux to support triple-negative breast cancer survival. Mol. Cell. Biol. 36, 3048–3057 (2016).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Yang, F.-C. et al. Interaction between salt-inducible kinase 2 (SIK2) and p97/valosin-containing protein (VCP) regulates endoplasmic reticulum (ER)-associated protein degradation in mammalian cells. J. Biol. Chem. 288, 33861–33872 (2013).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Kinoshita, T. Biosynthesis and biology of mammalian GPI-anchored proteins. Open Biol. 10, 190290 (2020).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Lemus, L., Hegde, R. S. & Goder, V. New frontiers in quality control: the case of GPI-anchored proteins. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 24, 599–600 (2023).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Luka, Z., Pakhomova, S., Luka, Y., Newcomer, M. E. & Wagner, C. Destabilization of human glycine N-methyltransferase by H176N mutation. Protein Sci. 16, 1957–1964 (2007).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Clague, M. J., Urbé, S. & Komander, D. Breaking the chains: deubiquitylating enzyme specificity begets function. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 20, 338–352 (2019).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Zhang, Y.-H., Zhou, C.-J., Zhou, Z.-R., Song, A.-X. & Hu, H.-Y. Domain analysis reveals that a deubiquitinating enzyme USP13 performs non-activating catalysis for Lys63-linked polyubiquitin. PLoS ONE 6, e29362 (2011).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Walden, M., Masandi, S. K., Pawłowski, K. & Zeqiraj, E. Pseudo-DUBs as allosteric activators and molecular scaffolds of protein complexes. Biochem. Soc. Trans. 46, 453–466 (2018).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Juang, Y.-C. et al. OTUB1 co-opts Lys48-linked ubiquitin recognition to suppress E2 enzyme function. Mol. Cell 45, 384–397 (2012).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Garg, A. et al. KLHL40 deficiency destabilizes thin filament proteins and promotes nemaline myopathy. J. Clin. Invest. 124, 3529–3539 (2014).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Reitsma, J. M. et al. Composition and regulation of the cellular repertoire of SCF ubiquitin ligases. Cell 171, 1326–1339.e14 (2017).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Nguyen, T. V. et al. p97/VCP promotes degradation of CRBN substrate glutamine synthetase and neosubstrates. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 114, 3565–3571 (2017).

    Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Ganji, R., Mukkavalli, S., Somanji, F. & Raman, M. The VCP–UBXN1 complex mediates triage of ubiquitylated cytosolic proteins bound to the BAG6 complex. Mol. Cell. Biol. 38, e00154–18 (2018).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Dikic, I. & Elazar, Z. Mechanism and medical implications of mammalian autophagy. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 19, 349–364 (2018).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Bensimon, A. et al. Targeted degradation of SLC transporters reveals amenability of multi-pass transmembrane proteins to ligand-induced proteolysis. Cell Chem. Biol. 27, 728–739.e9 (2020).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Donovan, K. A. et al. Mapping the degradable kinome provides a resource for expedited degrader development. Cell 183, 1714–1731.e10 (2020).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Zeng, M. et al. Exploring targeted degradation strategy for oncogenic KRASG12C. Cell Chem. Biol. 27, 19–31.e6 (2020).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Bery, N., Miller, A. & Rabbitts, T. A potent KRAS macromolecule degrader specifically targeting tumours with mutant KRAS. Nat. Commun. 11, 3233 (2020).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Götzke, H. et al. The ALFA-tag is a highly versatile tool for nanobody-based bioscience applications. Nat. Commun. 10, 4403 (2019).

    Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Gupta, A. et al. Facile target validation in an animal model with intracellularly expressed monobodies. Nat. Chem. Biol. 14, 895–900 (2018).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Wojcik, J. et al. Allosteric Inhibition of Bcr–Abl kinase by high affinity monobody inhibitors directed to the Src homology 2 (SH2)–kinase interface. J. Biol. Chem. 291, 8836–8847 (2016).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Dowling, J. J., Weihl, C. C. & Spencer, M. J. Molecular and cellular basis of genetically inherited skeletal muscle disorders. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 22, 713–732 (2021).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Ahn, G. et al. LYTACs that engage the asialoglycoprotein receptor for targeted protein degradation. Nat. Chem. Biol. 17, 937–946 (2021).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Dey, S. K. & Jaffrey, S. R. RIBOTACs: small molecules target RNA for degradation. Cell Chem. Biol. 26, 1047–1049 (2019).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Liu, X. & Ciulli, A. Proximity-based modalities for biology and medicine. ACS Cent. Sci. 9, 1269–1284 (2023).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Modell, A. E., Lai, S., Nguyen, T. M. & Choudhary, A. Bifunctional modalities for repurposing protein function. Cell Chem. Biol. 28, 1081–1089 (2021).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Domostegui, A., Nieto-Barrado, L., Perez-Lopez, C. & Mayor-Ruiz, C. Chasing molecular glue degraders: screening approaches. Chem. Soc. Rev. 51, 5498–5517 (2022).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Spradlin, J. N., Zhang, E. & Nomura, D. K. Reimagining druggability using chemoproteomic platforms. Acc. Chem. Res. 54, 1801–1813 (2021).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Röth, S. et al. Identification of KLHDC2 as an efficient proximity-induced degrader of K-RAS, STK33, β-catenin, and FoxP3. Cell Chem. Biol. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chembiol.2023.07.006 (2023).

  • Weng, G. et al. PROTAC-DB 2.0: an updated database of PROTACs. Nucleic Acids Res. 51, D1367–D1372 (2023).

    Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Tanaka, T., Williams, R. L. & Rabbitts, T. H. Tumour prevention by a single antibody domain targeting the interaction of signal transduction proteins with RAS. EMBO J. 26, 3250–3259 (2007).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Tanaka, T., Sewell, H., Waters, S., Phillips, S. E. V. & Rabbitts, T. H. Single domain intracellular antibodies from diverse libraries: emphasizing dual functions of LMO2 protein interactions using a single VH domain. J. Biol. Chem. 286, 3707–3716 (2011).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Robinson, M. D., McCarthy, D. J. & Smyth, G. K. edgeR: a Bioconductor package for differential expression analysis of digital gene expression data. Bioinformatics 26, 139–140 (2010).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Li, W. et al. MAGeCK enables robust identification of essential genes from genome-scale CRISPR/Cas9 knockout screens. Genome Biol. 15, 554 (2014).

    Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • O’Shea, J. M. et al. Generation of photocaged nanobodies for intracellular applications in an animal using genetic code expansion and computationally guided protein engineering. ChemBioChem 23, e202200321 (2022).

    Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • [ad_2]

    Source link

  • The UFM1 E3 ligase recognizes and releases 60S ribosomes from ER translocons

    [ad_1]

    Antibodies and recombinant proteins

    Details of the antibodies and recombinant proteins used in this study are provided in Supplementary Table 1.

    Mammalian cell culture and cell line generation

    Flp-In T-REx HEK293 cells (Invitrogen, R78007) were cultured in high-glucose DMEM supplemented with 10% (v/v) fetal bovine serum (FBS), 50 mg ml−1 penicillin–streptomycin and 2 mM l-glutamine. Cells were maintained at 37 °C under 5% CO2 in an incubator in a humidified environment and routinely checked for mycoplasma. CDK5RAP3-KO cells were generated using CRISPR–Cas9. CRISPR sense and anti-sense guides were cloned into pX335 (DU64982) and pBABED puro U6 (DU64977) plasmids, respectively. In a separate strategy, single guide RNAs were cloned into the px459 vector (Addgene, 48139). In brief, around 2 million cells were seeded into a 10 cm dish in antibiotic-free Dulbecco’s modified Eagle medium (DMEM) and transfected with 1 μg plasmid DNA using Lipofectamine 2000 (Invitrogen, 1168019) according to the manufacturer’s instructions. Then, 24 h after transfection, cells were selected in 2 μg ml−1 puromycin for 24 h followed by a 24 h recovery period in preconditioned medium. Cells were submitted for single-cell sorting, expanded and knockouts were confirmed by sequencing and immunoblot analysis.

    Cytosolic and membrane fractionation

    For chemical induction of ribosome stalling, cells were treated with 200 nM anisomycin for 4 h before collection. The parent cell line (Flp-In T-REx HEK293 cells) and KOs were washed once in ice-cold PBS, collected in ice-cold PBS and pelleted by centrifugation at 800g. Cell pellets (around 2 × 106 cells) were resuspended in 125 μl of 0.02% (w/v) digitonin, 50 mM HEPES pH 7.5, 150 mM NaCl, 2 mM CaCl2, and 1× cOmplete protease inhibitor cocktail EDTA-free (Roche). Cells were incubated on ice for 10 min and centrifuged at 17,000g for 10 min at 4 °C. The supernatant was transferred to a fresh tube (cytoplasmic extract). The remaining pellet was washed with 1× PBS and centrifuged at 7,000g for 5 min at 4 °C. The pellet was resuspended in 125 μl 1% Triton X-100, 50 mM HEPES pH 7.5, 150 mM NaCl and 1× EDTA-free protease inhibitor cocktail tablet. This was further incubated on ice for 10 min and centrifuged at 17,000g for 10 min at 4 °C. The supernatant was transferred to a new Eppendorf tube (membrane extract). Equal volumes of the cytosolic and membrane fractions were resolved by SDS–PAGE and analysed using immunoblotting.

    Expression and purification of recombinant proteins

    UBA5, UFC1, UFM1, UFL1–UFBP1 and CDK5RAP3 were expressed and purified as described previously3. GST–3C–UFBP1(178–204) was applied onto Glutathione Sepharose 4B beads (Cytiva) followed by 3C-protease cleavage on the beads and purified on the HiLoad 26/600 Superdex 75 pg column, pre-equilibrated with 25 mM HEPES pH 7.5 and 200 mM NaCl. E3mUU constructs were applied onto HisTrap columns, pre-equilibrated with 50 mM Tris pH 7.5, 200 mM NaCl, 20 mM imidazole (pH 8.0) and eluted with the same buffer containing 300 mM imidazole. Constructs with a cleavable His-tag were incubated with 1:50 TEV protease and dialysed against 25 mM Tris pH 7.5, 200 mM NaCl at 4 °C overnight and further purified on the HiLoad 26/600 Superdex 75 pg column, pre-equilibrated with 25 mM HEPES pH 7.5, 200 mM NaCl and 1 mM DTT. For crystallization of the E3mUU(ΔUFIM)–UFC1 complex, 6×His-TEV-UFL1(1–179) was co-expressed with a UFC1-UFBP1 204-C fusion construct. Here, the His-tag was not cleaved.

    Discharge assays

    Single-turnover lysine discharge assays were performed to analyse the activity of UFC1 and UFL1–UFBP1 as described previously3. In brief, UFC1 was charged by incubating 0.5 μM UBA5, 10 μM UFC1 and 10 μM UFM1 in reaction buffer containing 50 mM HEPES pH 7.5, 50 mM NaCl, 0.5 mM DTT, 10 mM ATP and 10 mM MgCl2 for 20 min. The reaction was quenched by addition of 50 mM EDTA (pH 8.0) to the reaction mix followed by incubation for 10 min at room temperature. Discharge was performed in the presence of 50 mM lysine (pH 8.0). The reaction was stopped at the indicated timepoints and analysed under non-reducing conditions on a 4–12% SDS–PAGE gel followed by Coomassie staining.

    Preparation of 80S ribosomes and polysomes

    HEK293 cells (around 80% confluency) grown in five 15 cm dishes were washed briefly with ice-cold PBS and collected in a 15 ml falcon tube. Cells were lysed in buffer containing 20 mM Tris pH 7.5, 150 mM NaCl, 5 mM MgCl2, 1 mM DTT, 100 µg ml−1 cycloheximide, 1% Triton X-100, 1× cOmplete protease inhibitor cocktail, EDTA-free (Roche) and RNasin for 10 min on ice followed by centrifugation at 13,000g for 10 min. The clarified supernatant was collected and layered onto a 10–50% sucrose gradient containing 20 mM Tris pH 7.5, 150 mM NaCl, 5 mM MgCl2, 1 mM DTT, 100 µg ml−1 cycloheximide and 1% Triton X-100, followed by centrifugation at 36,000 rpm for 3 h using the SW41 Ti rotor. The fractions containing 80S ribosomes and polysomes were collected and layered onto a 50% sucrose cushion and centrifuged at 40,000 rpm for 12 h in a Type 70 Ti rotor. Ribosome pellets were then resuspended in buffer containing 20 mM HEPES pH 7.6, 100 mM KCl, 5 mM Mg(OAc)2, 10 mM NH4Cl and 1 mM DTT and stored at −80 °C until further use.

    Purification of stable 60S ribosomes from HEK293 cells

    60S ribosomes were purified as described previously39,40 with minor changes. HEK293 cells were grown to around 80% confluency in fifteen 15 cm dishes with medium containing high-glucose DMEM supplemented with 10% (v/v) FBS, 50 mg ml−1 penicillin–streptomycin and 2  mM l-glutamine. To collect cells, the medium was first removed by aspiration, washed with ice-cold PBS followed by removal of PBS by aspiration. Cells were scrapped in residual PBS and transferred to a 15 ml falcon. Cells were pelleted by centrifugation at 1,000g for 3 min and the supernatant was discarded. Next, the cell pellets were resuspended in lysis buffer (containing 15 mM Tris pH 7.6, 1,500 mM NaCl, 10 mM MgCl2, 1% Triton X-100, 2 mM DTT, RNAsin (60 U), 1× cOmplete mini protease inhibitor cocktail (Roche)) and mixed gently followed by incubation on ice for 10 min. The cell lysates were then centrifuged at 17,000g for 10 min and the supernatant was collected. The collected supernatant was layered directly onto a high-salt sucrose cushion containing 20 mM Tris pH 7.5, 500 mM KCl, 30% (v/v) sucrose, 10 mM MgCl2, 0.1 mM EDTA pH 8.0 and 2 mM DTT. Total ribosomes were sedimented by centrifugation at 63,000g (24,800 rpm) for 18 h using a Type 70 Ti rotor (Beckman Coulter). The sedimented ribosomes were then resuspended in buffer containing 20 mM Tris pH 7.5, 500 mM KCl, 7.5% (v/v) sucrose, 2 mM MgCl2, 75 mM NH4Cl, 2 mM puromycin and 2 mM DTT. The resolubilized pellet containing ribosomes was incubated at 4 °C for 1 h and then at 37 °C for 1.5 h. To isolate 40S and 60S ribosomal subunits, the solution was layered directly onto a linear 10–30% sucrose gradient containing 20 mM Tris pH 7.5, 500 mM KCl, 6 mM MgCl2 and 2 mM DTT. The 60S and 40S were separated by centrifugation at 49,123g (16,800 rpm) for 9 h 42 min at 4 °C using a SW41 Ti rotor (Beckman Coulter). Gradients were fractionated into 0.5 ml fractions using the BioComp fractionating system. The fractions containing 60S ribosomal subunits were collected and exchanged into buffer containing 20 mM HEPES pH 7.2, 100 mM KCl, 5 mM MgCl2, 2 mM DTT and stored at −80 °C.

    In vitro UREL–ribosome association assays

    Approximately, 0.2 µM of preformed UREL was added to a mixture of 0.2  µM of 60S ribosomes (1×) and 0.5 µM of 80S ribosomes (2.5×) and incubated for 15 min at 23 °C. After incubation, the mix was layered onto a 10–50% sucrose gradient containing 20 mM HEPES pH 7.5, 50 mM KCl, 5 mM MgCl2 and centrifuged at 36,000 rpm for 6 h at 4 °C. The samples were then manually fractionated into 22 fractions (100 µl each) and analysed for co-migration by immunoblotting using the indicated antibodies.

    Cryo-EM sample preparation

    Reconstitution of stable ribosome–E3 complexes

    Approximately 10 µM of UREL complexes was incubated with 1 µM of purified 60S ribosomes in the presence of excess UFC1–UFM1 conjugate (5 µM) in buffer containing 20 mM HEPES pH 7.2, 50 mM KCl, 5 mM MgCl2 and 0.25 mM TCEP for 2 h at 4 °C. After incubation, the samples were mixed with 0.05% glutaraldehyde for 30 s at 23 °C followed by quenching with 100 mM Tris pH 8.0 (final concentration). The cross-linked sample was then layered onto a 10–30% sucrose gradient containing 20 mM HEPES pH 7.5, 50 mM KCl, 5 mM MgCl2 and 0.25 mM TCEP, and centrifuged using the TLS55 rotor at 24,000 rpm for 6 h at 4 °C. The sucrose gradient of 2.2 ml volume was then manually fractionated into 100 µl fractions and analysed for co-migration of UREL components, 60S ribosomes and UFC1–UFM1 by immunoblotting. The fractions containing UREL–60S ribosome–UFC1–UFM1 were then pooled and concentrated to 7.7 mg ml−1 and buffer-exchanged to remove excess sucrose.

    Reconstitution of UFMylated 60S ribosome–UREL complexes

    First, an in vitro UFMylation reaction was performed by incubating 0.1 µM UBA5, 5 µM UFC1, 10 µM UFM1, 3 µM UFL1–UFBP1, 5 µM CDK5RAP3 and 1 µM 60S ribosomes in the presence of 5 mM MgCl2 and 5 mM ATP. After the reaction, 10 µM UFC1–UFM1 was added to the reaction and further incubated at 4 °C for 2 h. The reaction products were then separated on a sucrose gradient and the fractions containing 60S–UREL–UFC1–UFM1 were collected as described in the previous section.

    Cryo-EM data collection and image processing

    UREL–60S EM grid preparation

    Cryo-grids were prepared with 0.05% glutaraldehyde-cross-linked 60S–UREL–UFC1–UFM1 complex at 7.7 mg ml−1 in 25 mM HEPES pH 7.5, 50 mM KCl, 5 mM MgCl2, 2 mM DTT. Quantifoil R3.5/1 copper 200 mesh holey grids were glow discharged using the PELCO easiGlow glow discharge unit at 15 mA for 30 s. Cryo-grids were prepared using the Thermo Fisher Scientific Vitrobot MK IV with a chamber temperature of 4 °C and 100% humidity. A total of 3 μl of protein was applied to the grid and immediately blotted for 6 s with blot force 1, followed by rapid plunge-freezing into liquid ethane.

    UREL–60S cryo-EM data collection

    Single-particle cryo-EM data were collected on the Thermo Fisher Scientific Titan Krios G2 transmission electron microscope with a Thermo Fisher Scientific Falcon 4i direct electron detector and SelectrisX energy filter. Data were collected with an accelerating voltage of 300 kV and nominal magnification of ×165,000, which corresponds to a pixel size of 0.74 Å (full data acquisition settings are shown in Extended Data Table 1). A total of 59,394 cryo-EM videos was acquired.

    UREL–60S image processing

    Cryo-EM videos were imported, beam-induced motion corrected (MOTIONCOR2) and the CTF parameters were estimated (CTFFIND4.1) using RELION (v.3.1)41,42,43. Approximately 2.2 million particles were picked from motion-corrected micrographs using crYOLO (v.1.6.1)44 untrained particle picking (2019 general model) with a particle box size of 400 pixels and a picking confidence threshold of 0.2. Picked particles were extracted in RELION with a particle box size of 588 pixels, rescaled to 128 pixels (rescaled pixel size, ~3.4 Å). Extracted particles were imported into cryoSPARC (v.3.2)45 for processing. Seven rounds of reference-free 2D class averages were generated with the initial classification uncertainty factor set between 2 and 7, the number of online-EM iterations set to 40 and batchsize per class set to 200, and all ribosome-like particles were taken forward. The selected 1.6 million particles were used to generate an initial 3D model with C1 symmetry. The initial 3D model was further refined using the non-uniform refinement algorithm with the dynamic masking start resolution set to a value below the resolution of the data (that is, 1 Å) to generate a refined 3D model and a mask that encompasses the entire box size. The mask and model were input for 3D variability analysis asking for three classes. Particles from the class containing ligase-bound 60S ribosomes were taken forward for another round of 3D refinement, this time with dynamic masking start resolution set to default (12 Å) and the dynamic mask threshold set to 0.1. This was then followed by several more rounds of 3D variability analysis, asking for two classes to separate ligase-bound 60S ribosomes from unbound 60S ribosomes, resulting in 356,394 ligase-bound ribosome particles. Particles were then downsampled to 128 pixels and a cryoDRGN (v.3.2.0)46 model was trained with 8 latent dimensions and 50 training iterations. CryoDRGN particle filtering removed 57,386 junk particles, resulting in a final particle stack of 299,008 particles. The homogenous particle population containing ligase-bound ribosomes were re-extracted in Relion at the full box size. A 3D model was generated with C1 symmetry, followed by non-uniform refinement with per particle defocus optimization, Ewald sphere correction and CTF refinement in cryoSPARC (v.4.2.1) to generate the ligase-bound 60S ribosome map.

    To further refine the density for the ligase complex, two masks were created from the final 3D refinement volume using UCSF ChimeraX (v.1.2.5)47: one that encompasses the ligase complex plus RPL10a and another that encompasses the ribosome. The ribosome mask was used for particle signal subtraction. Signal-subtracted particles were then used for local refinement of the ligase complex plus RPL10a using the ligase mask to generate a ligase-only map. A cryoSPARC (v.4.2.1) 3DFlex19 training model was generated for the ligase with 6 latent dimensions and a rigidity prior of 2. The resulting 3DFlex model was used for 3DFlex reconstruction with 40 max BFGS iterations to generate the final ligase map.

    UREL–60S model building

    The ligase-bound 60S map was sharpened using Phenix (v.1.2.1)48 autosharpen map job and the ligase-only map was sharpened using the DeepEMhancer49 tight target sharpening protocol. Atomic models were built using Coot (v.0.9.8.1)50. For the ligase-bound 60S ribosome map, PDB 7QWR (ref. 51) was used as a starting model for the 60S ribosome by rigid-body fitting the model into the density map, followed by rebuilding in Coot. No ligase components were built into the ligase-bound ribosome map except for the UFL1 PTC loop. For the ligase complex, AlphaFold2 models of the individual proteins were separated into smaller segments and then rigid-body fitted into the density map, followed by manual rebuilding in Coot. The UFL1 CTD (residues 515–786), CDK5RAP3 UUBD (residues 15–116) and UFM1 displayed poor side-chain density and the side chains of these regions were therefore set to an occupancy of 0. Atomic models were refined using Phenix real space refinement and validated using MolProbity. All 3D density maps were visually inspected in UCSF ChimeraX (v.1.2.5)47.

    UFMylated ribosome data collection and image processing

    Cryo-EM grids were prepared as described above with 1.5 mg ml−1 sample. Single-particle cryo-EM data were collected on the Thermo Fisher Scientific Titan Krios G2 transmission electron microscope with a Thermo Fisher Scientific Falcon 4 direct electron detector. Data were collected with an accelerating voltage of 300 kV and a nominal magnification of ×96,000, corresponding to a pixel size of 0.82 Å (full data-acquisition settings shown in Extended Data Table 1). A total of 3,028 cryo-EM videos was acquired. The data were processed as previously, with the final map being generated from the particles after several rounds of 3D variability analysis.

    XL-MS sample preparation and analysis

    Approximately 1.2 µM UFL1–UFBP1, 2 µM CDK5RAP3, 0.2 µM ribosomes and 10 µM of UFC1–UFM1 were incubated with 1 mM DSBU (disuccinimidyl dibutyric urea) in buffer containing 50 mM HEPES pH 7.5, 50 mM KCl, 6 mM MgCl2, 0.5 mM TCEP for 30 min at 23 °C. The reaction was quenched by addition of 50 mM Tris pH 8.0. Cross-linked samples were processed for MS analysis using S-Trap micro spin columns (Protifi) according to the manufacturer’s protocol. In brief, cross-linked samples were reduced by adding 20 mM DTT (10 min, 50 °C), and then alkylated with 40 mM iodoacetamide (30 min, 20 °C). The samples were acidified by the addition of phosphoric acid to a final concentration of 5%, and subsequently diluted with 90% methanol in 100 mM triethylammonium bicarbonate (TEAB) pH 7.1 (1:7 (v/v) sample: buffer). A total of 1 µg trypsin (Promega) was added, and the samples were then bound to a S-Trap micro spin column (Protifi). Subsequently, the column was washed three times with 90% methanol in 100 mM TEAB. An additional 0.6 µg of trypsin was applied to the column, and digestion was then performed by incubating the S-trap column at 47 °C for 90 min. Peptides were recovered by washing the column sequentially with 50 mM TEAB (40 µl), 0.2% (v/v) formic acid (40 µl) and 50% acetonitrile/0.2% (v/v) formic acid (40 µl). The eluate was then evaporated to dryness in a vacuum centrifuge and the peptides were resuspended in 5% (v/v) acetonitrile/0.1% (v/v) formic acid (20 μl) before MS analysis. Peptides (5 µl) were injected onto the Vanquish Neo LC (Thermo Fisher Scientific) system and the peptides were trapped on the PepMap Neo C18 trap cartridge (Thermo Fisher Scientific, 5 µm particle size, 300 µm × 0.5 cm) before separation using the Easy-spray reverse-phase column (Thermo Fisher Scientific, 2 µm particle size, 75 µm × 500 mm). Peptides were separated by gradient elution of 2–40% (v/v) solvent B (0.1% (v/v) formic acid in acetonitrile) in solvent A (0.1% (v/v) formic acid in water) over 80 min at 250 nl min−1. The eluate was infused into an Orbitrap Eclipse mass spectrometer (Thermo Fisher Scientific) operating in positive-ion mode. Orbitrap calibration was performed using FlexMix solution (Thermo Fisher Scientific). Data acquisition was performed in data-dependent analysis mode and fragmentation was performed using higher-energy collisional dissociation. Each high-resolution full scan (m/z 380–1,400, R = 60,000) was followed by high-resolution product ion scans (R = 30,000), with a stepped normalized collision energies of 21%, 26% and 31%. A cycle time of 3 s was used. Only charge states 3–8+ were selected for fragmentation. Dynamic exclusion of 60 s was used. Cross-link identification was performed using Proteome discoverer (v.3.0) and the in-built XlinkX module (Thermo Fisher Scientific) using the following settings: crosslinker: DSBU, mass deviation tolerances of 10 ppm in MS and 0.02 Da for Sequest HT and 20 ppm for XlinkX tandem MS (MS/MS). Carbamidomethylation of Cys residues was set as a static modification, and dynamic modifications were set as Met oxidation and DSBU dead-end modifications (DSBU-amidated, DSBU Tris and DSBU hydrolysed) (maximum of three modifications per peptide). Only results with scores corresponding to a false-discovery rate of <1% were taken forward. Finally, a minimum XlinkX score of 45 was used to filter cross-linked peptides52,53.

    Ribosome UFMylation assays

    Ribosome UFMylation assays were performed as described previously3. Purified 60S ribosomes (approximately 0.05 µM) were mixed with 0.5 μM UBA5, 1 μM UFC1, 1 μM UFM1 and 0.1 µM UFL1–UFBP1 in a reaction buffer containing 25 mM HEPES pH 7.5, 100 mM NaCl, 10 mM MgCl2 and 5 mM ATP and incubated at 37 °C for 10 min or the indicated time duration. The reaction was stopped by the addition of SDS loading buffer and run on a 4–12% SDS–PAGE gel under reducing conditions followed by immunoblotting using the indicated antibodies. In reactions containing CDK5RAP3, approximately 0.15 µM of CDK5RAP3 was added to the reaction along with 0.1 µM of UFL1–UFBP1.

    Polysome profiling using HEK293 cell lysates

    Polysomes were isolated from HEK293 cells as described previously with slight modification. In brief, HEK293 cells were seeded one night before the experiment. On the day of the experiment, cells were treated with either 0.1% DMSO or 200 nM anisomycin for around 20 min before collection. Cells were washed with ice-cold PBS, scraped off and pelleted by centrifugation at 800g for 5 min. The pellet was then resuspended in lysis buffer containing 20 mM Tris pH 7.5, 150 mM NaCl, 5 mM MgCl2, 1 mM DTT, 100 µg ml−1 cycloheximide, 0.02% Digitonin, cOmplete protease inhibitor cocktail, EDTA-free (Roche) and RNasin. Digitonin-treated cells were incubated for 5 min on ice and centrifuged at 17,000g for 10 min at 4 °C. The supernatant containing the cytoplasmic extract was discarded and the remaining pellet was washed with 20 mM Tris pH 7.5, 150 mM NaCl and 5 mM MgCl2 and centrifuged at around 7,000g for 5 min. Supernatant was discarded and the pellet was resuspended in lysis buffer containing 20 mM Tris pH 7.5, 150 mM NaCl, 5 mM MgCl2, 1 mM DTT, 100 µg ml−1 cycloheximide, 0.5% Triton X-100, cOmplete protease inhibitor cocktail, EDTA-free (Roche) and RNasin. The resuspended pellets were incubated on ice for 10 min and centrifuged at 17,000g for 10 min at 4 °C. The supernatant containing the membrane fraction extract was transferred to a new Eppendorf tube and the amount of RNA was quantified for each sample using the NanoDrop system. RNA-normalized samples were then layered onto a 10–50% sucrose gradient containing 20 mM Tris pH 7.5, 150 mM NaCl, 5 mM MgCl2, 1 mM DTT, 100 µg ml−1 cycloheximide and RNAsin, and then centrifuged at 36,000 rpm for 3 h. Polysomes were then separated by fractionation using the Biocomp fractionating system and analysed using western blotting.

    Comparison of 60S and 80S UFMylation in vitro

    In vitro UFMylation reactions were performed by incubating 0.1 µM 60S ribosome, 0.2 µM or 0.3 µM enriched 80S (two or threefold excess over 60S) with 0.5 µM UBA5, 1 µM UFC1, 1 µM UFM1, 0.3 µM UFL1–UFBP1 and 0.3 µM CDK5RAP3 in the presence of 5 mM MgCl2 and 5 mM ATP at 37 °C for 15 min. After incubation, the reaction mix was layered over a 10–50% sucrose gradient containing 20 mM Tris pH 7.5, 150 mM NaCl, 5 mM MgCl2, 1 mM DTT and centrifuged at 36,000 rpm for 3 h at 4 °C using a SW41 Ti rotor. The gradients were fractionated using the BioComp fractionation system. The sucrose gradient fractions were then run on a 4–12% SDS–PAGE gel and analysed for UFMylation of RPL26 by immunoblotting.

    Preparation of membrane-associated 60S ribosomes

    Parental cells (WT HEK293) or CDK5RAP3-KO cells (around 80% confluency) grown in ten 15 cm dishes were washed briefly with ice-cold PBS and collected in a 15 ml falcon tube. Cells were pelleted down by centrifugation at 500g for 5 min. Cell pellets were resuspended in buffer containing 20 mM Tris pH 7.5, 150 mM NaCl, 5 mM MgCl2, 1 mM DTT, 100 µg ml−1 cycloheximide, 0.02% (w/v) digitonin, 1× cOmplete protease inhibitor cocktail, EDTA-free (Roche) and RNasin for 10 min on ice followed by centrifugation at 17,000g for 10 min. The clarified supernatant is the cytosolic fraction and was discarded. The remaining membrane pellet was resuspended in lysis buffer containing 20 mM Tris pH 7.5, 150 mM NaCl, 5 mM MgCl2, 1 mM DTT, 100 µg ml−1 cycloheximide, 1% (w/v) decyl maltose neopentyl glycol (DMNG), 1× cOmplete protease inhibitor cocktail, EDTA-free (Roche) and RNasin for 15 min on ice, and then centrifuged at 17,000g for 10 min. The clarified supernatant was collected and layered onto a 10–30% sucrose gradient containing 20 mM Tris pH 7.5, 150 mM NaCl, 5 mM MgCl2, 1 mM DTT, 100 µg ml−1 cycloheximide and 0.01% DMNG, and then centrifuged at 36,000 rpm for 3 h using the SW41 Ti rotor. Fractions containing 60S ribosomes were collected and exchanged into buffer containing 20 mM HEPES pH 7.2, 100 mM KCl, 5 mM MgCl2 and 2 mM DTT and stored at −80 °C until use.

    In vitro 60S ribosome–SEC61 dissociation assays

    The in vitro 60S–SEC61 dissociation reaction was performed by incubating 0.05 µM membrane solubilized 60S ribosomes (60S–SEC61 solubilized and enriched from CDK5RAP3-KO cells) with 0.5 µM UBA5, 1 µM UFC1, 1 µM UFM1, 0.1 µM UFL1–UFBP1, 0.1 µM CDK5RAP3 in the presence of 5 mM MgCl2 and 5 mM ATP at 37 °C for 25 min. At the end of the reaction, the reaction mix was layered over a 10–50% sucrose gradient containing 20 mM Tris pH 7.5, 150 mM NaCl, 5 mM MgCl2 and 1 mM DTT, and centrifuged at 36,000 rpm for 3 h using the SW41 Ti rotor. Sucrose gradients were fractionated using the BioComp fractionation system. The sucrose gradient fractions were separated on a 4–12% SDS–PAGE gel and analysed for co-migration of SEC61β with 60S ribosomes by immunoblotting.

    LC–MS/MS sample preparation, data acquisition and analysis

    First, an in vitro ribosome UFMylation reaction was performed to generate UFMylated ribosomes in the presence of either UFL1–UFBP1 or UREL. Then, the reaction products were run on a 4–12% SDS–PAGE gel to separate the mono- and di-UFMylated ribosomes. Next, the bands corresponding to mono- and di-UFMylated ribosomes were excised and in-gel digestion was performed according to a previously described protocol54. Digested peptides were analysed by liquid chromatography coupled with MS/MS (LC–MS/MS) on the Exploris 240 (Thermo Fisher Scientific) system coupled to the Evosep One (Evosep). The samples were loaded onto the Evotips according to the manufacturer’s recommendations and analysed using the 30 SPD method. Peptides were then analysed in on the Exploris 240 system using data-dependant acquisition with an MS1 resolution of 60,000, an AGC target of 300% and a maximum injection time of 25 ms. Peptides were then fragmented using TOP 2 s method, MS2 resolution of 15,000, NCE of 30%, AGC of 100% and maximum injection time of 100 ms. Peptide identification was performed in MaxQuant (v.2.0.2.0) against UniProt SwissProt Human containing isoforms (released 5 May 2021) with match between runs enabled. Carbamidomethylation (C) was set as a fixed modification and oxidation (M), acetyl (protein N-term) and the addition of the dipeptide valine–glycine (K) were set as variable modifications. The other parameters were left as the default.

    Preparation of isopeptide-linked UFC1–UFM1 conjugate

    First, 30 µM UBA5, 30 µM UFC1(C116K) and 60 µM UFM1 were incubated in 25 mM HEPES pH 7.5, 200 mM NaCl, 10 mM MgCl2 and 10 mM ATP. The pH of the reaction mixture was adjusted to 9.8 with 0.5 M CAPS, pH 11.5, and incubated for 18 h at 23 °C. UFC1–UFM1 was subsequently separated from UBA5 and unreacted UFC1 and UFM1 using the HiLoad 26/600 Superdex 75 pg column, pre-equilibrated with 25 mM HEPES pH 7.5, 200 mM NaCl, 1 mM DTT.

    Crystallization and structure determination

    UFC1–UFM1 conjugate

    UFC1–UFM1 crystals were obtained using the sitting-drop vapour diffusion technique whereby UFC1–UFM1 (22.8 mg ml−1) was 1:1 mixed with 30% (v/v) PEG 400, 0.1 M Tris pH 8.5, 0.2 M Na citrate and incubated at 19 °C. Single crystals appeared within 2–3 days. Crystals were flash-frozen in crystallization buffer containing 30% (v/v) ethylene glycol. Datasets were collected at Diamond Light Source (DLS), beamline I04, and processed with Xia2 (ref. 55) and DIALS56. The crystal structure was solved by molecular replacement (PHASER)57 using the crystal structures of UFC1 (PDB: 3EVX)58 and UFM1 (PDB: 5IA7)59 as the starting model. Refinement and model building was performed using REFMAC60 and Coot50 (CCP4i2 suite), respectively. The statistics for data collection and refinement are listed in Extended Data Table 2.

    UFL1–UFBP1–UFC1 complex

    UFL1–UFBP1–UFC1 crystals were obtained using the sitting-drop vapour diffusion technique whereby UFL1–UFC1–UFBP1 (20.2 mg ml−1) was 1:1 mixed with 1.03 M Li2SO4, 0.1 M HEPES pH 7.2 and incubated at 19 °C. Single crystals appeared within 1–2 days. Crystals were flash-frozen in crystallization buffer containing 30% (v/v) ethylene glycol. Datasets were collected at the European Synchrotron Radiation Facility (ESRF), beamline ID23-EH2, and processed with the autoPROC suite61 (including XDS62, Pointless63 Aimless64, CCP4 (ref. 65) and STARANISO66). The crystal structure was solved by molecular replacement (PHASER)57 using the AlphaFold11 predicted models for UFL1 and UFBP1 and the crystal structure of UFC1 (PDB: 3EVX)58 as starting models. Refinement and model building was performed using REFMAC60 and Coot50 (CCP4i2 suite), respectively. The statistics for data collection and refinement are listed in Extended Data Table 2.

    SEC

    Analytical SEC runs were performed using the Superdex 200 Increase 3.2/300 column, pre-equilibrated with 25 mM HEPES pH 7.5, 200 mM NaCl, 0.5 mM TCEP. A total of 50 µl protein of the different components was mixed and incubated on ice for 30 min before loading onto the column.

    ITC

    ITC experiments were performed using a MicroCal PEAQ-ITC (Malvern). Proteins were first dialysed into ITC buffer containing 25 mM HEPES pH 7.5, 200 mM NaCl, 0.44 mM TCEP. Each experiment consisted of 13 injections for a duration of 6 s each followed by a 150 s spacing between injections except the experiment for UFBP1 UFIM–UFM1, which consisted of 19 injections instead. All of the experiments were performed at 25 °C.

    Figures

    Adobe Illustrator, BioRender and ChimeraX47 were used to make figures.

    Materials availability

    All cDNA constructs in this study were generated by H.M.M., J.J.P. and the cloning team at the MRC PPU Reagents and Services team. All of the plasmids have been deposited at the MRC PPU Reagents and Services and are available at https://mrcppureagents.dundee.ac.uk/.

    Reporting summary

    Further information on research design is available in the Nature Portfolio Reporting Summary linked to this article.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • UFM1 E3 ligase promotes recycling of 60S ribosomal subunits from the ER

    [ad_1]

  • Cappadocia, L. & Lima, C. D. Ubiquitin-like protein conjugation: structures, chemistry, and mechanism. Chem. Rev. 118, 889–918 (2018).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Walczak, C. P. et al. Ribosomal protein RPL26 is the principal target of UFMylation. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 116, 1299–1308 (2019).

    Article 
    ADS 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Wang, L. et al. UFMylation of RPL26 links translocation-associated quality control to endoplasmic reticulum protein homeostasis. Cell Res. 30, 5–20 (2020).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Scavone, F., Gumbin, S. C., DaRosa, P. A. & Kopito, R. R. RPL26/uL24 UFMylation is essential for ribosome-associated quality control at the endoplasmic reticulum. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 120, e2220340120 (2023).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Millrine, D., Peter, J. J. & Kulathu, Y. A guide to UFMylation, an emerging posttranslational modification. FEBS J. 290, 5040–5056 (2023).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Peter, J. J. et al. A non-canonical scaffold-type E3 ligase complex mediates protein UFMylation. EMBO J. 41, e111015 (2022).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Ishimura, R. et al. Mechanistic insights into the roles of the UFM1 E3 ligase complex in ufmylation and ribosome-associated protein quality control. Sci. Adv. 9, eadh3635 (2023).

    Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Gerakis, Y., Quintero, M., Li, H. & Hetz, C. The UFMylation system in proteostasis and beyond. Trends Cell Biol. 29, 974–986 (2019).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Xie, Z., Fang, Z. & Pan, Z. Ufl1/RCAD, a Ufm1 E3 ligase, has an intricate connection with ER stress. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 135, 760–767 (2019).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Branon, T. C. et al. Efficient proximity labeling in living cells and organisms with TurboID. Nat. Biotechnol. 36, 880–887 (2018).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Kang, S. H. et al. Two novel ubiquitin-fold modifier 1 (Ufm1)-specific proteases, UfSP1 and UfSP2. J. Biol. Chem. 282, 5256–5262 (2007).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Millrine, D. et al. Human UFSP1 is an active protease that regulates UFM1 maturation and UFMylation. Cell Rep. 40, 111168 (2022).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Russell, D. W. & Spremulli, L. L. Mechanism of action of the wheat germ ribosome dissociation factor: interaction with the 60S subunit. Arch. Biochem. Biophys. 201, 518–526 (1980).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Gartmann, M. et al. Mechanism of eIF6-mediated inhibition of ribosomal subunit joining. J. Biol. Chem. 285, 14848–14851 (2010).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Lyumkis, D. et al. Structural basis for translational surveillance by the large ribosomal subunit-associated protein quality control complex. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 111, 15981–15986 (2014).

    Article 
    ADS 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Shao, S., Brown, A., Santhanam, B. & Hegde, R. S. Structure and assembly pathway of the ribosome quality control complex. Mol. Cell 57, 433–444 (2015).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Shen, P. S. et al. Protein synthesis. Rqc2p and 60S ribosomal subunits mediate mRNA-independent elongation of nascent chains. Science 347, 75–78 (2015).

    Article 
    ADS 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Jumper, J. & Hassabis, D. Protein structure predictions to atomic accuracy with AlphaFold. Nat. Methods 19, 11–12 (2022).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Evans, R. et al. Protein complex prediction with AlphaFold-Multimer. Preprint at bioRxiv https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.10.04.463034 (2022).

  • Halic, M. et al. Signal recognition particle receptor exposes the ribosomal translocon binding site. Science 312, 745–747 (2006).

    Article 
    ADS 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Beckmann, R. et al. Alignment of conduits for the nascent polypeptide chain in the ribosome–Sec61 complex. Science 278, 2123–2126 (1997).

    Article 
    ADS 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Habisov, S. et al. Structural and functional analysis of a novel interaction motif within UFM1-activating enzyme 5 (UBA5) required for binding to ubiquitin-like proteins and ufmylation. J. Biol. Chem. 291, 9025–9041 (2016).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Padala, P. et al. Novel insights into the interaction of UBA5 with UFM1 via a UFM1-interacting sequence. Sci. Rep. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-00610-0 (2017).

  • Martinez-Sanchez, A. et al. Template-free detection and classification of membrane-bound complexes in cryo-electron tomograms. Nat. Methods 17, 209–216 (2020).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Braunger, K. et al. Structural basis for coupling protein transport and N-glycosylation at the mammalian endoplasmic reticulum. Science 360, 215–219 (2018).

    Article 
    ADS 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • McGilvray, P. T. et al. An ER translocon for multi-pass membrane protein biogenesis. eLife 9, e56889 (2020).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Smalinskaitė, L., Kim, M. K., Lewis, A. J. O., Keenan, R. J. & Hegde, R. S. Mechanism of an intramembrane chaperone for multipass membrane proteins. Nature 611, 161–166 (2022).

    Article 
    ADS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Sundaram, A. et al. Substrate-driven assembly of a translocon for multipass membrane proteins. Nature 611, 167–172 (2022).

    Article 
    ADS 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Blobel, G. Extraction from free ribosomes of a factor mediating ribosome detachment from rough microsomes. Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 68, 1–7 (1976).

    Article 
    ADS 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Borgese, D., Blobel, G. & Sabatini, D. D. In vitro exchange of ribosomal subunits between free and membrane-bound ribosomes. J. Mol. Biol. 74, 415–438 (1973).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Grau-Bové, X., Sebé-Pedrós, A. & Ruiz-Trillo, I. The eukaryotic ancestor had a complex ubiquitin signaling system of archaeal origin. Mol. Biol. Evol. 32, 726–739 (2015).

    Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Picchianti, L. et al. Shuffled ATG8 interacting motifs form an ancestral bridge between UFMylation and autophagy. EMBO J. 42, e112053 (2023).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Jan, C. H., Williams, C. C. & Weissman, J. S. Principles of ER cotranslational translocation revealed by proximity-specific ribosome profiling. Science 346, 1257521 (2014).

    Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Jaako, P. et al. eIF6 rebinding dynamically couples ribosome maturation and translation. Nat. Commun. 13, 1562 (2022).

    Article 
    ADS 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Weis, F. et al. Mechanism of eIF6 release from the nascent 60S ribosomal subunit. Nat. Struct. Mol. Biol. 22, 914–919 (2015).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Leto, D. E. et al. Genome-wide CRISPR analysis identifies substrate-specific conjugation modules in ER-associated degradation. Mol. Cell 73, 377–389.e11 (2019).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • An, H., Ordureau, A., Körner, M., Paulo, J. A. & Harper, J. W. Systematic quantitative analysis of ribosome inventory during nutrient stress. Nature 583, 303–309 (2020).

    Article 
    ADS 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • McAlister, G. C. et al. Increasing the multiplexing capacity of TMTs using reporter ion isotopologues with isobaric masses. Anal. Chem. 84, 7469–7478 (2012).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Paulo, J. A., O’Connell, J. D. & Gygi, S. P. A triple knockout (TKO) proteomics standard for diagnosing ion interference in isobaric labeling experiments. J. Am. Soc. Mass. Spectrom. 27, 1620–1625 (2016).

    Article 
    ADS 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Schweppe, D. K. et al. Characterization and optimization of multiplexed quantitative analyses using high-field asymmetric-waveform ion mobility mass spectrometry. Anal. Chem. 91, 4010–4016 (2019).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Erickson, B. K. et al. Active instrument engagement combined with a real-time database search for improved performance of sample multiplexing workflows. J. Proteome Res. 18, 1299–1306 (2019).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Schweppe, D. K. et al. Full-featured, real-time database searching platform enables fast and accurate multiplexed quantitative proteomics. J. Proteome Res. 19, 2026–2034 (2020).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Elias, J. E. & Gygi, S. P. Target–decoy search strategy for increased confidence in large-scale protein identifications by mass spectrometry. Nat. Methods 4, 207–214 (2007).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Elias, J. E. & Gygi, S. P. Target–decoy search strategy for mass spectrometry-based proteomics. Methods Mol. Biol. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-60761-444-9_5 (2010).

  • Huttlin, E. L. et al. A tissue-specific atlas of mouse protein phosphorylation and expression. Cell 143, 1174–1189 (2010).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Tyanova, S. et al. The Perseus computational platform for comprehensive analysis of (prote)omics data. Nat. Methods 13, 731–740 (2016).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Itzhak, D. N., Tyanova, S., Cox, J. & Borner, G. H. Global, quantitative and dynamic mapping of protein subcellular localization. eLife 5, e16950 (2016).

    Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Ishihama, Y., Rappsilber, J. & Mann, M. Modular stop and go extraction tips with stacked disks for parallel and multidimensional peptide fractionation in proteomics. J. Proteome Res. 5, 988–994 (2006).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Ha, B. H. et al. Structural basis for Ufm1 processing by UfSP1. J. Biol. Chem. 283, 14893–14900 (2008).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Zheng, S. Q. et al. MotionCor2: anisotropic correction of beam-induced motion for improved cryo-electron microscopy. Nat. Methods 14, 331–332 (2017).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Rohou, A. & Grigorieff, N. CTFFIND4: fast and accurate defocus estimation from electron micrographs. J. Struct. Biol. 192, 216–221 (2015).

    Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Zhang, K. Gctf: real-time CTF determination and correction. J. Struct. Biol. 193, 1–12 (2016).

    Article 
    ADS 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Wagner, T. et al. SPHIRE-crYOLO is a fast and accurate fully automated particle picker for cryo-EM. Commun Biol. 2, 218 (2019).

    Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Punjani, A., Rubinstein, J. L., Fleet, D. J. & Brubaker, M. A. cryoSPARC: algorithms for rapid unsupervised cryo-EM structure determination. Nat. Methods 14, 290–296 (2017).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Wells, J. N. et al. Structure and function of yeast Lso2 and human CCDC124 bound to hibernating ribosomes. PLoS Biol. 18, e3000780 (2020).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Zivanov, J. et al. New tools for automated high-resolution cryo-EM structure determination in RELION-3. eLife 7, e42166 (2018).

    Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Kimanius, D., Dong, L., Sharov, G., Nakane, T. & Scheres, S. H. W. New tools for automated cryo-EM single-particle analysis in RELION-4.0. Biochem. J. 478, 4169–4185 (2021).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Liang, X. et al. Structural snapshots of human pre-60S ribosomal particles before and after nuclear export. Nat. Commun. 11, 3542 (2020).

    Article 
    ADS 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Sanchez-Garcia, R. et al. DeepEMhancer: a deep learning solution for cryo-EM volume post-processing. Commun. Biol. 4, 874 (2021).

    Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Pettersen, E. F. et al. UCSF ChimeraX: structure visualization for researchers, educators, and developers. Protein Sci. 30, 70–82 (2021).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Holm, M. et al. mRNA decoding in human is kinetically and structurally distinct from bacteria. Nature 617, 200–207 (2023).

    Article 
    ADS 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Emsley, P. & Cowtan, K. Coot: model-building tools for molecular graphics. Acta Crystallogr. D Biol. Crystallogr. 60, 2126–2132 (2004).

    Article 
    ADS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Liebschner, D. et al. Macromolecular structure determination using X-rays, neutrons and electrons: recent developments in Phenix. Acta Crystallogr. D Struct. Biol. 75, 861–877 (2019).

    Article 
    ADS 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Yamashita, K., Palmer, C. M., Burnley, T. & Murshudov, G. N. Cryo-EM single-particle structure refinement and map calculation using Servalcat. Acta Crystallogr. D Struct. Biol. 77, 1282–1291 (2021).

    Article 
    ADS 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Croll, T. I. ISOLDE: a physically realistic environment for model building into low-resolution electron-density maps. Acta Crystallogr. D Struct. Biol. 74, 519–530 (2018).

    Article 
    ADS 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Williams, C. J. et al. MolProbity: more and better reference data for improved all-atom structure validation. Protein Sci. 27, 293–315 (2018).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Goddard, T. D. et al. UCSF ChimeraX: meeting modern challenges in visualization and analysis. Protein Sci. 27, 14–25 (2018).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Amici, D. R. et al. FIREWORKS: a bottom-up approach to integrative coessentiality network analysis. Life Sci. Alliance 4, e202000882 (2021).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • [ad_2]

    Source link