Biological Activity Differences between TGF-β1 and TGF-β3 Correlate with Differences in the Rigidity and Arrangement of Their Component Monomers
TGF-β1, -β2, and -β3 are small, secreted signaling proteins. They share 71–80% sequence identity and signal through the same receptors, yet the isoform-specific null mice have distinctive phenotypes and are inviable. The replacement of the coding sequence of TGF-β1 with TGF-β3 and TGF-β3 with TGF-β1...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Biochemistry (Easton) 2014-09, Vol.53 (36), p.5737-5749 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 5749 |
---|---|
container_issue | 36 |
container_start_page | 5737 |
container_title | Biochemistry (Easton) |
container_volume | 53 |
creator | Huang, Tao Schor, Seth L Hinck, Andrew P |
description | TGF-β1, -β2, and -β3 are small, secreted signaling proteins. They share 71–80% sequence identity and signal through the same receptors, yet the isoform-specific null mice have distinctive phenotypes and are inviable. The replacement of the coding sequence of TGF-β1 with TGF-β3 and TGF-β3 with TGF-β1 led to only partial rescue of the mutant phenotypes, suggesting that intrinsic differences between them contribute to the requirement of each in vivo. Here, we investigated whether the previously reported differences in the flexibility of the interfacial helix and arrangement of monomers was responsible for the differences in activity by generating two chimeric proteins in which residues 54–75 in the homodimer interface were swapped. Structural analysis of these using NMR and functional analysis using a dermal fibroblast migration assay showed that swapping the interfacial region swapped both the conformational preferences and activity. Conformational and activity differences were also observed between TGF-β3 and a variant with four helix-stabilizing residues from TGF-β1, suggesting that the observed changes were due to increased helical stability and the altered conformation, as proposed. Surface plasmon resonance analysis showed that TGF-β1, TGF-β3, and variants bound the type II signaling receptor, TβRII, nearly identically, but had small differences in the dissociation rate constant for recruitment of the type I signaling receptor, TβRI. However, the latter did not correlate with conformational preference or activity. Hence, the difference in activity arises from differences in their conformations, not their manner of receptor binding, suggesting that a matrix protein that differentially binds them might determine their distinct activities. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1021/bi500647d |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_4165442</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>1562663512</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-a320d-21d5d1f18b9a8efbfeff72bd6b0d172d6d1ac2affbe78d9e7ffc7c544d30c7763</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNptkcFuEzEQQC0EoqFw4AeQL0hwWLC9azt7QQopbZGKkFA4W157nLjatYO9adXf6KfwIXwTXiWNqMTJ9vjNm9EMQq8p-UAJox87zwkRjbRP0IxyRqqmbflTNCMlWrFWkBP0Iufr8myIbJ6jE8YprzmtZ-j-s499XHuje7wwo7_x4x0-885BgmAg4w7GW4CAVxfn1Z_fFOtgD_caL2NK0OsR8K0fN4_SfMDjBvAPv_Z2Uk5pi5R0WMMAYcTR4dUGfCqOYRvDFPoWQxwg5ZfomdN9hleH8xT9PP-yWl5WV98vvi4XV5WuGbEVo5Zb6ui8a_UcXOfAOck6KzpiqWRWWKoN0851IOe2BemckYY3ja2JkVLUp-jT3rvddQNYU3pIulfb5Aed7lTUXj3-CX6j1vFGNVQUDSuCdwdBir92kEc1-Gyg73WAuMuKcsGEKHOe0Pd71KSYcwJ3LEOJmnaojjss7Jt_-zqSD0srwNs9oE1W13GXQhnTf0R_Afyxp-4</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1562663512</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Biological Activity Differences between TGF-β1 and TGF-β3 Correlate with Differences in the Rigidity and Arrangement of Their Component Monomers</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>ACS Publications</source><creator>Huang, Tao ; Schor, Seth L ; Hinck, Andrew P</creator><creatorcontrib>Huang, Tao ; Schor, Seth L ; Hinck, Andrew P</creatorcontrib><description>TGF-β1, -β2, and -β3 are small, secreted signaling proteins. They share 71–80% sequence identity and signal through the same receptors, yet the isoform-specific null mice have distinctive phenotypes and are inviable. The replacement of the coding sequence of TGF-β1 with TGF-β3 and TGF-β3 with TGF-β1 led to only partial rescue of the mutant phenotypes, suggesting that intrinsic differences between them contribute to the requirement of each in vivo. Here, we investigated whether the previously reported differences in the flexibility of the interfacial helix and arrangement of monomers was responsible for the differences in activity by generating two chimeric proteins in which residues 54–75 in the homodimer interface were swapped. Structural analysis of these using NMR and functional analysis using a dermal fibroblast migration assay showed that swapping the interfacial region swapped both the conformational preferences and activity. Conformational and activity differences were also observed between TGF-β3 and a variant with four helix-stabilizing residues from TGF-β1, suggesting that the observed changes were due to increased helical stability and the altered conformation, as proposed. Surface plasmon resonance analysis showed that TGF-β1, TGF-β3, and variants bound the type II signaling receptor, TβRII, nearly identically, but had small differences in the dissociation rate constant for recruitment of the type I signaling receptor, TβRI. However, the latter did not correlate with conformational preference or activity. Hence, the difference in activity arises from differences in their conformations, not their manner of receptor binding, suggesting that a matrix protein that differentially binds them might determine their distinct activities.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0006-2960</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1520-4995</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1021/bi500647d</identifier><identifier>PMID: 25153513</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: American Chemical Society</publisher><subject>Amino Acid Sequence ; Animals ; CHO Cells ; Cricetinae ; Cricetulus ; Models, Molecular ; Molecular Sequence Data ; Protein Conformation ; Sequence Homology, Amino Acid ; Transforming Growth Factor beta1 - chemistry ; Transforming Growth Factor beta1 - metabolism ; Transforming Growth Factor beta1 - physiology ; Transforming Growth Factor beta3 - chemistry ; Transforming Growth Factor beta3 - metabolism ; Transforming Growth Factor beta3 - physiology</subject><ispartof>Biochemistry (Easton), 2014-09, Vol.53 (36), p.5737-5749</ispartof><rights>Copyright © 2014 American Chemical Society</rights><rights>Copyright © 2014 American Chemical Society 2014 American Chemical Society</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-a320d-21d5d1f18b9a8efbfeff72bd6b0d172d6d1ac2affbe78d9e7ffc7c544d30c7763</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-a320d-21d5d1f18b9a8efbfeff72bd6b0d172d6d1ac2affbe78d9e7ffc7c544d30c7763</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/bi500647d$$EPDF$$P50$$Gacs$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/bi500647d$$EHTML$$P50$$Gacs$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,315,781,785,886,2766,27081,27929,27930,56743,56793</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25153513$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Huang, Tao</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Schor, Seth L</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hinck, Andrew P</creatorcontrib><title>Biological Activity Differences between TGF-β1 and TGF-β3 Correlate with Differences in the Rigidity and Arrangement of Their Component Monomers</title><title>Biochemistry (Easton)</title><addtitle>Biochemistry</addtitle><description>TGF-β1, -β2, and -β3 are small, secreted signaling proteins. They share 71–80% sequence identity and signal through the same receptors, yet the isoform-specific null mice have distinctive phenotypes and are inviable. The replacement of the coding sequence of TGF-β1 with TGF-β3 and TGF-β3 with TGF-β1 led to only partial rescue of the mutant phenotypes, suggesting that intrinsic differences between them contribute to the requirement of each in vivo. Here, we investigated whether the previously reported differences in the flexibility of the interfacial helix and arrangement of monomers was responsible for the differences in activity by generating two chimeric proteins in which residues 54–75 in the homodimer interface were swapped. Structural analysis of these using NMR and functional analysis using a dermal fibroblast migration assay showed that swapping the interfacial region swapped both the conformational preferences and activity. Conformational and activity differences were also observed between TGF-β3 and a variant with four helix-stabilizing residues from TGF-β1, suggesting that the observed changes were due to increased helical stability and the altered conformation, as proposed. Surface plasmon resonance analysis showed that TGF-β1, TGF-β3, and variants bound the type II signaling receptor, TβRII, nearly identically, but had small differences in the dissociation rate constant for recruitment of the type I signaling receptor, TβRI. However, the latter did not correlate with conformational preference or activity. Hence, the difference in activity arises from differences in their conformations, not their manner of receptor binding, suggesting that a matrix protein that differentially binds them might determine their distinct activities.</description><subject>Amino Acid Sequence</subject><subject>Animals</subject><subject>CHO Cells</subject><subject>Cricetinae</subject><subject>Cricetulus</subject><subject>Models, Molecular</subject><subject>Molecular Sequence Data</subject><subject>Protein Conformation</subject><subject>Sequence Homology, Amino Acid</subject><subject>Transforming Growth Factor beta1 - chemistry</subject><subject>Transforming Growth Factor beta1 - metabolism</subject><subject>Transforming Growth Factor beta1 - physiology</subject><subject>Transforming Growth Factor beta3 - chemistry</subject><subject>Transforming Growth Factor beta3 - metabolism</subject><subject>Transforming Growth Factor beta3 - physiology</subject><issn>0006-2960</issn><issn>1520-4995</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2014</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>N~.</sourceid><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNptkcFuEzEQQC0EoqFw4AeQL0hwWLC9azt7QQopbZGKkFA4W157nLjatYO9adXf6KfwIXwTXiWNqMTJ9vjNm9EMQq8p-UAJox87zwkRjbRP0IxyRqqmbflTNCMlWrFWkBP0Iufr8myIbJ6jE8YprzmtZ-j-s499XHuje7wwo7_x4x0-885BgmAg4w7GW4CAVxfn1Z_fFOtgD_caL2NK0OsR8K0fN4_SfMDjBvAPv_Z2Uk5pi5R0WMMAYcTR4dUGfCqOYRvDFPoWQxwg5ZfomdN9hleH8xT9PP-yWl5WV98vvi4XV5WuGbEVo5Zb6ui8a_UcXOfAOck6KzpiqWRWWKoN0851IOe2BemckYY3ja2JkVLUp-jT3rvddQNYU3pIulfb5Aed7lTUXj3-CX6j1vFGNVQUDSuCdwdBir92kEc1-Gyg73WAuMuKcsGEKHOe0Pd71KSYcwJ3LEOJmnaojjss7Jt_-zqSD0srwNs9oE1W13GXQhnTf0R_Afyxp-4</recordid><startdate>20140916</startdate><enddate>20140916</enddate><creator>Huang, Tao</creator><creator>Schor, Seth L</creator><creator>Hinck, Andrew P</creator><general>American Chemical Society</general><scope>N~.</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20140916</creationdate><title>Biological Activity Differences between TGF-β1 and TGF-β3 Correlate with Differences in the Rigidity and Arrangement of Their Component Monomers</title><author>Huang, Tao ; Schor, Seth L ; Hinck, Andrew P</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-a320d-21d5d1f18b9a8efbfeff72bd6b0d172d6d1ac2affbe78d9e7ffc7c544d30c7763</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2014</creationdate><topic>Amino Acid Sequence</topic><topic>Animals</topic><topic>CHO Cells</topic><topic>Cricetinae</topic><topic>Cricetulus</topic><topic>Models, Molecular</topic><topic>Molecular Sequence Data</topic><topic>Protein Conformation</topic><topic>Sequence Homology, Amino Acid</topic><topic>Transforming Growth Factor beta1 - chemistry</topic><topic>Transforming Growth Factor beta1 - metabolism</topic><topic>Transforming Growth Factor beta1 - physiology</topic><topic>Transforming Growth Factor beta3 - chemistry</topic><topic>Transforming Growth Factor beta3 - metabolism</topic><topic>Transforming Growth Factor beta3 - physiology</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Huang, Tao</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Schor, Seth L</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hinck, Andrew P</creatorcontrib><collection>American Chemical Society (ACS) Open Access</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>Biochemistry (Easton)</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Huang, Tao</au><au>Schor, Seth L</au><au>Hinck, Andrew P</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Biological Activity Differences between TGF-β1 and TGF-β3 Correlate with Differences in the Rigidity and Arrangement of Their Component Monomers</atitle><jtitle>Biochemistry (Easton)</jtitle><addtitle>Biochemistry</addtitle><date>2014-09-16</date><risdate>2014</risdate><volume>53</volume><issue>36</issue><spage>5737</spage><epage>5749</epage><pages>5737-5749</pages><issn>0006-2960</issn><eissn>1520-4995</eissn><abstract>TGF-β1, -β2, and -β3 are small, secreted signaling proteins. They share 71–80% sequence identity and signal through the same receptors, yet the isoform-specific null mice have distinctive phenotypes and are inviable. The replacement of the coding sequence of TGF-β1 with TGF-β3 and TGF-β3 with TGF-β1 led to only partial rescue of the mutant phenotypes, suggesting that intrinsic differences between them contribute to the requirement of each in vivo. Here, we investigated whether the previously reported differences in the flexibility of the interfacial helix and arrangement of monomers was responsible for the differences in activity by generating two chimeric proteins in which residues 54–75 in the homodimer interface were swapped. Structural analysis of these using NMR and functional analysis using a dermal fibroblast migration assay showed that swapping the interfacial region swapped both the conformational preferences and activity. Conformational and activity differences were also observed between TGF-β3 and a variant with four helix-stabilizing residues from TGF-β1, suggesting that the observed changes were due to increased helical stability and the altered conformation, as proposed. Surface plasmon resonance analysis showed that TGF-β1, TGF-β3, and variants bound the type II signaling receptor, TβRII, nearly identically, but had small differences in the dissociation rate constant for recruitment of the type I signaling receptor, TβRI. However, the latter did not correlate with conformational preference or activity. Hence, the difference in activity arises from differences in their conformations, not their manner of receptor binding, suggesting that a matrix protein that differentially binds them might determine their distinct activities.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>American Chemical Society</pub><pmid>25153513</pmid><doi>10.1021/bi500647d</doi><tpages>13</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0006-2960 |
ispartof | Biochemistry (Easton), 2014-09, Vol.53 (36), p.5737-5749 |
issn | 0006-2960 1520-4995 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_4165442 |
source | MEDLINE; ACS Publications |
subjects | Amino Acid Sequence Animals CHO Cells Cricetinae Cricetulus Models, Molecular Molecular Sequence Data Protein Conformation Sequence Homology, Amino Acid Transforming Growth Factor beta1 - chemistry Transforming Growth Factor beta1 - metabolism Transforming Growth Factor beta1 - physiology Transforming Growth Factor beta3 - chemistry Transforming Growth Factor beta3 - metabolism Transforming Growth Factor beta3 - physiology |
title | Biological Activity Differences between TGF-β1 and TGF-β3 Correlate with Differences in the Rigidity and Arrangement of Their Component Monomers |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-14T19%3A55%3A33IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Biological%20Activity%20Differences%20between%20TGF-%CE%B21%20and%20TGF-%CE%B23%20Correlate%20with%20Differences%20in%20the%20Rigidity%20and%20Arrangement%20of%20Their%20Component%20Monomers&rft.jtitle=Biochemistry%20(Easton)&rft.au=Huang,%20Tao&rft.date=2014-09-16&rft.volume=53&rft.issue=36&rft.spage=5737&rft.epage=5749&rft.pages=5737-5749&rft.issn=0006-2960&rft.eissn=1520-4995&rft_id=info:doi/10.1021/bi500647d&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E1562663512%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1562663512&rft_id=info:pmid/25153513&rfr_iscdi=true |