4.6 Article

Structural Characterization of the EphA4-Ephrin-B2 Complex Reveals New Features Enabling Eph-Ephrin Binding Promiscuity

期刊

JOURNAL OF BIOLOGICAL CHEMISTRY
卷 285, 期 1, 页码 644-654

出版社

AMER SOC BIOCHEMISTRY MOLECULAR BIOLOGY INC
DOI: 10.1074/jbc.M109.064824

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health [CA116099, HD25938]
  2. Singapore National Medical Research Council [NMRC/1216/2009, NMRC/1126/2007]
  3. EUNICE KENNEDY SHRIVER NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF CHILD HEALTH &HUMAN DEVELOPMENT [P01HD025938] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  4. NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE [R01CA116099] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

EphA and EphB receptors preferentially bind ephrin-A and ephrin-B ligands, respectively, but EphA4 is exceptional for its ability to bind all ephrins. Here, we report the crystal structure of the EphA4 ligand-binding domain in complex with ephrin-B2, which represents the first structure of an EphA-ephrin-B interclass complex. A loose fit of the ephrin-B2 G-H loop in the EphA4 ligand-binding channel is consistent with a relatively weak binding affinity. Additional surface contacts also exist between EphA4 residues Gln(12) and Glu(14) and ephrin-B2. Mutation of Gln(12) and Glu(14) does not cause significant structural changes in EphA4 or changes in its affinity for ephrin-A ligands. However, the EphA4 mutant has similar to 10-fold reduced affinity for ephrin-B ligands, indicating that the surface contacts are critical for interclass but not intraclass ephrin binding. Thus, EphA4 uses different strategies to bind ephrin-A or ephrin-B ligands and achieve binding promiscuity. NMR characterization also suggests that the contacts of Gln(12) and Glu(14) with ephrin-B2 induce dynamic changes throughout the whole EphA4 ligand-binding domain. Our findings shed light on the distinctive features that enable the remarkable ligand binding promiscuity of EphA4 and suggest that diverse strategies are needed to effectively disrupt different Eph-ephrin complexes.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据