4.8 Article

Structural basis of cohesin cleavage by separase

期刊

NATURE
卷 532, 期 7597, 页码 131-+

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/nature17402

关键词

-

资金

  1. Office of Science, Office of Basic Energy Sciences of the US Department of Energy [DE-AC02-05CH11231]
  2. US Department of Energy, Office of Biological and Environmental Research [DE-AC02-06CH11357]
  3. Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas [RP110465-P3]
  4. National Institutes of Health [GM107415]
  5. Welch Foundation [I-1441]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Accurate chromosome segregation requires timely dissolution of chromosome cohesion after chromosomes are properly attached to the mitotic spindle. Separase is absolutely essential for cohesion dissolution in organisms from yeast to man(1,2). It cleaves the kleisin subunit of cohesin and opens the cohesin ring to allow chromosome segregation. Cohesin cleavage is spatiotemporally controlled by separase-associated regulatory proteins, including the inhibitory chaperone securin(3-6), and by phosphorylation of both the enzyme and substrates(7-12). Dysregulation of this process causes chromosome missegregation and aneuploidy, contributing to cancer and birth defects. Despite its essential functions, atomic structures of separase have not been determined. Here we report crystal structures of the separase protease domain from the thermophilic fungus Chaetomium thermophilum, alone or covalently bound to unphosphorylated and phosphorylated inhibitory peptides derived from a cohesin cleavage site. These structures reveal how separase recognizes cohesin and how cohesin phosphorylation by polo-like kinase 1 ( Plk1) enhances cleavage. Consistent with a previous cellular study(13), mutating two securin residues in a conserved motif that partly matches the separase cleavage consensus converts securin from a separase inhibitor to a substrate. Our study establishes atomic mechanisms of substrate cleavage by separase and suggests competitive inhibition by securin.

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

4.8
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