4.7 Article

Crystallographic analysis of the specific yet versatile recognition of distinct nuclear localization signals by karyopherin α

期刊

STRUCTURE
卷 8, 期 3, 页码 329-338

出版社

CELL PRESS
DOI: 10.1016/S0969-2126(00)00107-6

关键词

bipartite; crystal structure; karyopherin alpha; nuclear import; nuclear localization signal

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Karyopherin alpha (importin alpha) is an adaptor molecule that recognizes proteins containing nuclear localization signals (NLSs). The prototypical NLS that is able to bind to karyopherin alpha is that of the SV40 T antigen, and consists of a short positively charged sequence motif. Distinct classes of NLSs (monopartite and bipartite) have been identified that are only partly conserved with respect to one another but are nevertheless recognized by the same receptor. Results: We report the crystal structures of two peptide complexes of yeast karyopherin alpha (Kap alpha): one with a human c-myc NLS peptide, determined at 2.1 Angstrom resolution, and one with a Xenopus nucleoplasmin NLS peptide, determined at 2.4 Angstrom resolution. Analysis of these structures reveals the determinants of specificity for the binding of a relatively hydrophobic monopartite NLS and of a bipartite NLS peptide. The peptides bind Kap alpha in its extended surface groove, which presents a modular array of tandem binding pockets for amino acid residues. Conclusions: Monopaltite and bipartite NLSs bind to a different number of amino acid binding pockets and make different interactions within them. The relatively hydrophobic monopartite c-myc NLS binds extensively at a few binding pockets in a similar manner to that of the SV40 T antigen NLS. In contrast, the bipartite nucleoplasmin NLS engages the whole array of pockets with individually more limited but overall more abundant interactions, which include the NLS two basic clusters and the backbone of its non-conserved linker region. Versatility in the specific recognition of NLSs relies on the modular.

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