4.7 Article

Structure determination protocol for transmembrane domain oligomers

期刊

NATURE PROTOCOLS
卷 14, 期 8, 页码 2483-2520

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/s41596-019-0188-9

关键词

-

资金

  1. US National Institutes of Health [GM116898, AI127193]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The transmembrane (TM) anchors of cell surface proteins have been one of the 'blind spots' in structural biology because they are generally very hydrophobic, sometimes dynamic, and thus difficult targets for structural characterization. A plethora of examples show these membrane anchors are not merely anchors but can multimerize specifically to activate signaling receptors on the cell surface or to stabilize envelope proteins in viruses. Through a series of studies of the TM domains (TMDs) of immune receptors and viral membrane proteins, we have established a robust protocol for determining atomic-resolution structures of TM oligomers by NMR in bicelles that closely mimic a lipid bilayer. Our protocol overcomes hurdles typically encountered by structural biology techniques such as X-ray crystallography and cryo-electron microscopy (cryo-EM) when studying small TMDs. Here, we provide the details of the protocol, covering five major technical aspects: (i) a general method for producing isotopically labeled TM or membrane-proximal (MP) protein fragments that involves expression of the protein (which is fused to TrpLE) into inclusion bodies and releasing the target protein by cyanogen bromide (CNBr) cleavage; (ii) determination of the oligomeric state of TMDs in bicelles; (iii) detection of intermolecular contacts using nuclear Overhauser effect (NOE) experiments; (iv) structure determination; and (v) paramagnetic probe titration (PPT) to characterize the membrane partition of the TM oligomers. This protocol is broadly applicable for filling structural gaps of many type I/II membrane proteins. The procedures may take 3-6 months to complete, depending on the complexity and stability of the protein sample.

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

4.7
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