4.6 Article

Crystal Structure of a Complex between Amino and Carboxy Terminal Fragments of mDia1: Insights into Autoinhibition of Diaphanous-Related Formins

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 5, 期 9, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0012992

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health (NIH) [R01GM071834]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Formin proteins direct the nucleation and assembly of linear actin filaments in a variety of cellular processes using their conserved formin homology 2 (FH2) domain. Diaphanous-related formins (DRFs) are effectors of Rho-family GTPases, and in the absence of Rho activation they are maintained in an inactive state by intramolecular interactions between their regulatory N-terminal region and a C-terminal segment referred to as the DAD domain. Although structures are available for the isolated DAD segment in complex with the interacting region in the N-terminus, it remains unclear how this leads to inhibition of actin assembly by the FH2 domain. Here we describe the crystal structure of the N-terminal regulatory region of formin mDia1 in complex with a C-terminal fragment containing both the FH2 and DAD domains. In the crystal structure and in solution, these fragments form a tetrameric complex composed of two interlocking N+C dimers. Formation of the tetramer is likely a consequence of the particular N-terminal construct employed, as we show that a nearly full-length mDia1 protein is dimeric, as are other autoinhibited N+C complexes containing longer N-terminal fragments. The structure provides the first view of the intact C-terminus of a DRF, revealing the relationship of the DAD to the FH2 domain. Delineation of alternative dimeric N+C interactions within the tetramer provides two general models for autoinhibition in intact formins. In both models, engagement of the DAD by the N-terminus is incompatible with actin filament formation on the FH2, and in one model the actin binding surfaces of the FH2 domain are directly blocked by the N-terminus.

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