4.6 Article

Selectivity of Docking Sites in MAPK Kinases

期刊

JOURNAL OF BIOLOGICAL CHEMISTRY
卷 284, 期 19, 页码 13165-13173

出版社

AMER SOC BIOCHEMISTRY MOLECULAR BIOLOGY INC
DOI: 10.1074/jbc.M900080200

关键词

-

资金

  1. NIGMS [GM60366]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Protein kinases often recognize their substrates and regulators through docking interactions that occur outside of the active site; these interactions can help us to understand kinase networks, and to target kinases with drugs. During mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) signaling, the ability of MAPK kinases (MKKs, or MEKs) to recognize their cognate MAPKs is facilitated by a short docking motif (the D-site) in the MKK N terminus, which binds to a complementary region on the MAPK. MAPKs then recognize many of their targets using the same strategy, because many MAPK substrates also contain D-sites. The extent to which docking contributes to the specificity of MAPK transactions is incompletely understood. Here we characterize the selectivity of the interaction between MKK-derived D-sites and MAPKs by measuring the ability of D-site peptides to inhibit MAPK-mediated phosphorylation of D-site-containing substrates. We find that all MKK D-sites bind better to their cognate MAPKs than they do to non-cognate MAPKs. For instance, the MKK3 D-site peptide, which is a remarkably potent inhibitor of p38 alpha (IC50 < 10 nM), does not inhibit JNK1 or JNK2. Likewise, MAPKs generally bind as well or better to cognate D-sites than to non-cognate D-sites. For instance, JNK1 and JNK2 do not appreciably bind to any D-sites other than their cognate D-sites from MKK4 and MKK7. In general, cognate, within-pathway interactions are preferred about an order of magnitude over non-cognate interactions. However, the selectivity of MAPKs and their cognate MKK-derived D-sites for each other is limited in some cases; in particular, ERK2 is not very selective. We conclude that MAPK-docking sites in MAPK kinases bind selectively to their cognate MAPKs.

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