![]() |
|
|
Vol. 11, Issue 7, 2191-2200, July 2000
-inducible Guanosine
Triphosphate-binding Protein
Department of Biochemistry, Biophysics, and Molecular Biology, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa 50011
Submitted December 29, 1999; Revised March 21, 2000; Accepted April 19, 2000| |
ABSTRACT |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Farnesylation of Ras proteins is necessary for transforming activity. Although farnesyl transferase inhibitors show promise as anticancer agents, prenylation of the most commonly mutated Ras isoform, K-Ras4B, is difficult to prevent because K-Ras4B can be alternatively modified with geranylgeranyl (C20). Little is known of the mechanisms that produce incomplete or inappropriate prenylation. Among non-Ras proteins with CaaX motifs, murine guanylate-binding protein (mGBP1) was conspicuous for its unusually low incorporation of [3H]mevalonate. Possible problems in cellular isoprenoid metabolism or prenyl transferase activity were investigated, but none that caused this defect was identified, implying that the poor labeling actually represented incomplete prenylation of mGBP1 itself. Mutagenesis indicated that the last 18 residues of mGBP1 severely limited C20 incorporation but, surprisingly, were compatible with farnesyl modification. Features leading to the expression of mutant GBPs with partial isoprenoid modification were identified. The results demonstrate that it is possible to alter a protein's prenylation state in a living cell so that graded effects of isoprenoid on function can be studied. The C20-selective impairment in prenylation also identifies mGBP1 as an important model for the study of substrate/geranylgeranyl transferase I interactions.
| |
INTRODUCTION |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Interest in prenylation has stemmed from the discovery that key
proteins in multiple signal transduction cascades contain covalently
attached isoprenoids (Casey, 1995
). Perhaps the most notable examples
are the Ras proteins. Mutated forms of Ras proteins are found in 30%
of all human tumors (Lowy and Willumsen, 1993
). However, these mutant
Ras proteins are not oncogenic if they cannot be prenylated (Lowy and
Willumsen, 1993
). Prevention of Ras prenylation thus holds promise as a
new tactic for cancer chemotherapy (Cox and Der, 1997
). To this end,
many prenylation inhibitors have been developed, several of which
appear to be effective anticancer agents in animal studies and are
undergoing clinical trials (Buss and Marsters, 1995
; Kohl et
al., 1995
; Liu et al., 1998
; Gelb et al.,
1999
).
It is currently presumed that, to be effective, these drugs will need
to prevent isoprenoid modification of oncogenic Ras entirely. However,
forms of Ras that are incompletely modified have received little study
(Goalstone and Draznin, 1996
; Gadbut et al., 1997
), largely
because of the assumption, based on direct physical studies, that
prenyl proteins are fully and completely modified (Farnsworth et
al., 1990
; Page et al., 1990
; Myung et al.,
1999
). It is still not known if all functions of oncogenic Ras require
prenylation or if some effector pathways may remain active regardless
of prenylation state.
The signals that permit isoprenoid attachment are known in some detail.
Either a farnesyl (C15) or geranylgeranyl (C20) isoprenoid is attached
through a thioether linkage to a cysteine residue at the C terminus of
the protein (Zhang and Casey, 1996
; Seabra, 1998
; Gelb et
al., 1999
). Enzymes that catalyze isoprenoid modification of
proteins are grouped into two major classes: geranylgeranyl transferase
II, which recognizes C-terminal X-X-Cys-Cys, Cys-Cys-X-X, and Cys-X-Cys
motifs of Rab proteins, and CaaX motif prenyl transferases. CaaX motifs consist of a cysteine followed by two amino
acids that frequently are aliphatic, then the final amino acid of the protein, X. The X residue is currently believed to be the major factor
determining which of the two CaaX protein prenyl
transferases will modify the CaaX cysteine (Kinsella
et al., 1991
; Moores et al., 1991
; Yokoyama
et al., 1991
). Farnesyl transferase (FTase) modifies
proteins with X residues such as Met, Ser, Ala, Gln, or Asn.
Geranylgeranyl transferase I (GGTase I) preferentially modifies
CaaX proteins with X residues of Leu or Phe. However, in
cells treated with an FTase inhibitor, the K-Ras4B protein, whose
CaaX motif (CVIM) is usually modified by FTase, can become C20 modified (James et al., 1996
; Rowell et al.,
1997
; Zhang et al., 1997
; Sun et al., 1998
). This
ability of GGTase I to modify particular FTase substrates is a
difficult problem for the design of drugs to prevent Ras protein
farnesylation. Current inhibitors are designed to specifically inhibit
FTase and can do little to prevent K-Ras4B cross-prenylation by GGTase I.
Despite the details identified regarding how isoprenoids are attached
to proteins, little is known of the mechanisms that GGTase I or FTase
use to exclude inappropriate proteins. FTase and GGTase I are
heterodimers with a shared
subunit but distinct
subunits (Zhang
and Casey, 1996
). The
subunit binds the isoprenoid and is therefore
responsible for the lipid specificity of each prenyl transferase.
Recent crystallographic studies of FTase indicate that amino acids from
both
and
subunits contribute to the site at which the
CaaX motif of the protein substrate binds (Park et
al., 1997
; Strickland et al., 1998
). This combination
presents a further challenge for the design of CaaX-based
inhibitors for FTase, which must bind FTase tightly yet avoid
interactions with the GGTase I enzyme to preserve the function of
critical proteins that are C20 modified.
Although Ras and other small GTPases are the most well-known prenyl
proteins, several other classes of CaaX-containing proteins exist. One such group is the family of guanylate-binding proteins (GBPs). GBPs are 65-kDa proteins of still unknown function that are
highly induced by interferons and that were originally characterized based on their ability to bind to guanine nucleotide affinity columns
(Cheng et al., 1991
; Wynn et al., 1991
). Six of
the eight GBPs identified thus far possess CaaX motifs
(Cheng et al., 1991
; Wynn et al., 1991
; Asundi
et al., 1994
; Schwemmle et al., 1996
; Han
et al., 1998
; Vestal et al., 1998
). Only one of
the GBPs (human hGBP1) has a C15-type CaaX (CTIS) and
appears to be farnesylated, as predicted (Schwemmle and Staeheli, 1994
;
Nantais et al., 1996
). Other GBP family members have
C20-type CaaX boxes. The CaaX sequence (CTIL) of
murine mGBP1 was predicted to be a good motif for isoprenoid attachment, based on the successful prenylation of five proteins with
the same CTIL sequence (rat p67 GBP, murine GBP2, G
4, murine mRpgr
protein, and a plant calmodulin [Kalman et al., 1995
;
Vestal et al., 1996
, 1998
; Yan et al., 1998
;
Rodriguez-Concepcion et al., 1999
]). However, despite
having the hallmarks thought to be necessary, even favorable, for
prenylation, isoprenoid attachment to mGBP1 proved difficult to detect.
Detailed examination of possible reasons for the meager incorporation
of [3H]mevalonate
([3H]MVA) indicated that the defect was not the
result of problems in cellular isoprenoid metabolism or prenyl
transferase activity but arose from mGBP1 itself.
| |
MATERIALS AND METHODS |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Construction of DNAs
The 1.8-kilobase mGBP1 coding region in pRC/RSV (Wynn et
al., 1991
) was amplified by PCR and cloned directionally into the pcDNA3 vector (Invitrogen, Carlsbad, CA) with the use of
NotI and XbaI sites included on the PCR primers.
Additional mutants were generated from this mGBP1 gene with the use of
reverse primers that harbored the desired mutations. The GBP:Ras
chimera, Chim, was constructed with the use of a primer
complementary to the coding strand of the vector, with 24 mGBP1
nucleotides plus 57 nucleotides corresponding to the final 18 codons of
K-Ras4B, plus a stop codon and an XbaI site. Full-length
hGBP1 was cloned into pcDNA3 after PCR amplification from the
pHMG-SVpolyA vector (Cheng et al., 1991
) with the use of 5'
and 3' primers containing BamHI or NotI
restriction sequences, respectively. Sequences of the mutated regions
in all DNAs were verified before use in transfections.
Cell Culture, Transfection, and Interferon Treatment
COS-1 cells were maintained in DMEM (Life Technologies, Grand
Island, NY) containing 10% calf serum (Hyclone, Logan, UT)
supplemented with 2 mM L-glutamine, 1 mM sodium pyruvate,
and penicillin/streptomycin. Purified plasmid DNA (1-2 µg) was
introduced into COS-1 cells with the use of Lipofectamine (Life
Technologies), and cells were harvested 48 h later. RAW264.7 cells
were maintained in RPMI medium (Life Technologies) with similar
additions but with 10% FBS (Hyclone). Endogenous mGBP1 was induced by
treatment of RAW264.7 cells with interferon-
(IFN
; 300 U/ml) and lipopolysaccharide (LPS; 10 µg/ml) for 20 h.
Metabolic Labeling, Electrophoresis, and Fluorography
Transfected COS-1 cells were labeled overnight in medium
containing 10% serum and 100 µCi/ml [3H]MVA
(American Radiolabeled Chemicals, St. Louis, MO) in the presence of
compactin (a generous gift from D. Graves, Iowa State University, Ames,
IA) at 50 µM or as indicated in the figure legends. RAW264.7 cells
were simultaneously exposed to IFN
/LPS and labeled with 100 µCi/ml
[3H]MVA or 50 µCi/ml
[3H]geranylgeraniol (American Radiolabeled
Chemicals) in the presence of 50 µM compactin. Cells were lysed
directly in electrophoresis sample buffer, and samples were separated
by SDS-PAGE. Proteins were transferred by electroblotting onto a
polyvinylidene difluoride membrane (New England Nuclear, Boston, MA),
the membrane was sprayed with En3Hance
(DuPont/New England Nuclear), and the 3H-labeled
proteins were detected by fluorographic exposure. After fluorography,
blots were stripped of fluorographic enhancer by rinsing with methanol
and Tris-buffered saline containing 0.5% Tween 20. GBPs were then
detected directly by immunoblotting the same membrane
used for fluorography.
Immunoblotting, Immunoprecipitation, and Subcellular Fractionation
GBPs were detected with the use of a rabbit polyclonal antibody
to recombinant mGBP1 (provided by D. Paulnock, University of Wisconsin,
Madison, WI) with a biotinylated secondary antibody and alkaline
phosphatase (Vector Laboratories, Burlingame, CA). Endogenous H-Ras in
COS-1 cells was detected similarly with the use of the H-Ras-specific
mouse mAb 146-03E4 (Quality Biotech, Camden, NJ). Immunoprecipitates
were isolated by solubilizing cells as described (Vestal et
al., 1998
) and incubating the clarified supernatant with
anti-GBP-coated Pansorbin (Calbiochem, La Jolla, CA). Samples were
washed and resuspended in electrophoresis sample buffer for analysis by
SDS-PAGE. Membranes (P100) were separated from cytosol (S100) by
centrifugation at 100,000 × g as described (Nantais
et al., 1996
). Proteins in both fractions were precipitated by the addition of 4 volumes of cold acetone, collected by
centrifugation, and resuspended in electrophoresis sample buffer.
| |
RESULTS |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Endogenous mGBP1 Is Poorly Labeled by [3H]MVA in
IFN
-treated RAW264.7 Cells
Our early studies on the effects of IFN
/LPS on protein
prenylation in murine bone marrow-derived macrophages had identified a
65-kDa prenyl protein (p65) that was strongly induced by this cytokine
(Vestal et al., 1995
). Incorporation of
[3H]MVA into p65 was sensitive to the farnesyl
transferase inhibitor BZA-5B, implying that p65 was farnesylated. Clear
potential candidates for p65 were the 65-kDa IFN-inducible murine GBPs.
However, both identified murine GBPs had C20-type CaaX
motifs, and the mGBP2 protein appeared to be successfully C20 modified
(Vestal et al., 1998
). Therefore, mGBP1 was examined to
determine if it would also be C20 modified or might instead be
farnesylated. Unexpectedly, when the endogenous mGBP1 protein was
induced by treatment of RAW264.7 cells with IFN
(Figure
1), no prenyl protein was visible on the
film at the correct molecular weight. Just above the position of mGBP1,
two IFN
-inducible proteins were clearly labeled with [3H]MVA. These minor proteins were also
recognized by the polyclonal anti-GBP serum. This indicated that
RAW264.7 cells were capable of attaching isoprenoids to IFN
-induced
proteins and suggested that some of these were potential GBP family
members. Surprisingly, although the immunoblot showed that
mGBP1 was abundantly expressed, the amount of isoprenoid it contained
appeared to be below our level of detection.
|
Because [3H]MVA is converted into both
[3H]farnesyl pyrophosphate and
[3H]geranylgeranyl pyrophosphate
([3H]GGPP), the possibility was tested that the
poor labeling of mGBP1 resulted from difficulties in the transport of
[3H]MVA or the production of
[3H]GGPP in RAW264.7 cells. Examination of the
other proteins present in the radiolabeled cell lysates did not support
this theory, because many 21- to 28-kDa small GTPases of the Rho and
Rab families, most of which are geranylgeranylated (Reese and Maltese,
1991
; Zhang and Casey, 1996
), were labeled successfully (Figure 1). To
more directly examine geranylgeranyl utilization, cells were incubated
with [3H]geranylgeraniol
([3H]GG-OH), an alcoholic isoprenoid that
specifically labels C20-modified proteins (Crick et al.,
1994
). The several proteins between 30 and 80 kDa that had been labeled
with [3H]MVA, including the two ~66-kDa
IFN
-induced proteins, did not incorporate label from
[3H]geranylgeraniol. This suggested that these
larger proteins contained a C15 isoprenoid, as had been reported for
other cell lines (James et al., 1994
). The group of 21- to
28-kDa proteins was labeled effectively (Figure 1), demonstrating that
IFN-treated RAW264.7 cells metabolize [3H]GG-OH
to [3H]GGPP properly. However, once again,
mGBP1 labeling was below detectable levels. These results indicated
that IFN treatment and the presence of mGBP1 did not impair C20
isoprenoid incorporation into the appropriate proteins and thus could
not explain mGBP1's poor labeling.
mGBP1 Also Displays Poor Isoprenoid Incorporation in COS-1 Cells
Two other possible explanations for the poor labeling of mGBP1
were that the poorly labeled IFN
-induced protein was not actually mGBP1 or that the monocytic RAW264.7 cells specifically had difficulty with mGBP1 modification. These possibilities were tested by transiently expressing a molecular clone of authentic mGBP1 in COS-1 cells to
produce an amount of mGBP1 similar to that attained naturally through
IFN
treatment. An endogenous prenyl protein that migrated just above
mGBP1 (as well as the labeling of other prenyl proteins in the cell
lysates) showed no differences in incorporation between mock-transfected cells and cells expressing mGBP1 (Figure
2, top). The positive control hGBP1
protein (Nantais et al., 1996
) was clearly labeled
(arrowhead). However, isoprenoid incorporation into mGBP1 was still
below the level of detection. These results indicated that authentic
mGBP1 also encountered difficulties in labeling in another cell type.
Thus, the problem in the labeling of mGBP1 was not restricted to
monocytic or IFN-treated cells.
|
To allow us to examine mGBP1 more clearly, immunoprecipitation was used
to isolate mGBP1 from the endogenous prenyl protein of COS-1 cells.
With this technique, incorporation of small amounts of label into mGBP1
was detected (Figure 2, bottom). The use of immunoprecipitation to
isolate larger amounts of mGBP1 from RAW264.7 cells also revealed
[3H]MVA incorporation in IFN
-induced mGBP1
after long film exposure times (our unpublished results). This ability
to detect mGBP1 [3H]MVA incorporation in an
immunoprecipitate did not derive from a more favored interaction of the
GBP antiserum with prenylated forms of the protein, because the serum
could capture uniform amounts of proteins from lysates even when the
proteins showed up to eightfold differences in labeling (see below).
Reciprocally, the poor labeling of mGBP1 seen directly in cell lysates
(Figure 1) also indicated that immunoprecipitates had not selectively lost a prenylated form of mGBP1. Thus, the antiserum could recognize equally both prenylated and nonprenylated forms of mGBP1. Therefore, neither native, cytokine-induced, nor artificially expressed mGBP1 was
totally devoid of isoprenoid, but each appeared to contain so little
lipid that the small amounts present were difficult to detect unless
the protein was concentrated and purified by immunoprecipitation.
Finally, to determine if the problem with mGBP1 labeling might be
kinetic, and might arise from a slow equilibration of C20 pools or
inefficient modification by prenyl transferase, the amount of compactin
used to inhibit cellular hydroxymethylglutaryl-CoA reductase was
decreased (see Figure 4, top) to avoid unintentional depletion of C20
isoprenoids (Rilling et al., 1993
), and extended labeling
periods (up to 52 h; our unpublished results) were used. Both
approaches failed to improve mGBP1 [3H]MVA incorporation.
These data indicated that mGBP1 underwent neither rapid but short-lived
prenylation, nor slow but eventual prenylation, but was, at all times,
poorly labeled.
Poor Labeling of mGBP1 Is Not Due to Removal of a Prenylated C Terminus
All of the experiments described above indicated that, despite the
expectation that the mGBP1 CaaX motif should make the
protein a good target, the difficulties underlying mGBP1's poor
labeling did not involve isoprenoid metabolism or changes in prenyl
transferase activity. Therefore, reasons for limited incorporation that
might arise from special properties of the protein itself were
considered. An initial hypothesis was that mGBP1 processing might
resemble that of prelamin A. The prelamin A protein undergoes
farnesylation but subsequently loses the isoprenoid when the C-terminal
18 amino acids are removed (Kilic et al., 1997
). It was
estimated that if a C-terminal domain of similar size were removed from
mGBP1, the change in length should be detectable, because the 589-amino acid mGBP1 and the 592-amino acid hGBP1 proteins can be distinguished on our gel system (see Figure 2). When compactin was used to limit isoprenoid synthesis and force accumulation of precursors of prenylated proteins, the endogenous H-Ras protein in the COS-1 cells collected in
its unprocessed form, but the mobility of the transfected mGBP1 protein
did not change (Figure 3). The two forms
of mGBP1 with slightly different mobilities also persisted after
exposure to compactin and both incorporated
[3H]isoprenoid (Figures
4 and 5) at
the same low levels, indicating that neither protein was a
nonprenylated precursor of the other. Presumably, some other
modification or internal initiation of translation generates these two
forms. Thus, compactin treatment failed to cause accumulation of any
specific precursor form of mGBP1 and also failed to detect any
potential isoprenoid modification that might have been difficult to
observe with radiolabeling techniques.
|
|
|
mGBP1 with a C15-type CaaX Motif Is Modified Well
A second possibility was that the bulk of newly synthesized mGBP1
might be concealed in some location that was inaccessible to GGTase I
and (because they share an
subunit) FTase. This possibility was
tested by creating a chimeric mGBP1 (designated Chim) with a
signal for farnesylation derived from K-Ras4B.
[3H]MVA incorporation into this chimeric
GBP:Ras protein showed a prominent increase above the native, wild-type
mGBP1 (mGBP1wt) (Figure 4), showing that FTase had no difficulty
gaining access to the Chim protein. Therefore, mGBP1 was not sequestered.
However, the loss of 18 residues and their replacement with a lysine-rich domain was a rather significant alteration of the mGBP1 C terminus. To address more precisely how well FTase could modify mGBP1, a less drastic mutant of mGBP1 was made with only the final X amino acid changed from leucine to serine. This mutant, designated CTIS, also incorporated more label than mGBP1wt (Figure 4). To determine if the increased labeling of the CTIS protein resulted simply from the change to FTase or also might result from an unintended improvement in presentation of the serine at the C terminus to a prenyl (farnesyl) transferase, an additional mutant was constructed. An alanine substitution in the X position of CaaX (CTIA) was chosen to more closely mimic the leucine present in the natural CaaX motif. The mGBP-CTIA protein also showed improved labeling, to an extent similar to that of the mGBP-CTIS protein (our unpublished results). Because this conservative change was unlikely to alter the C-terminal structure, it appeared that increased [3H]MVA incorporation resulted from the predicted change in the modifying prenyl transferase from GGTase I to FTase.
The size of isoprenoid attached to these proteins was verified with the use of [3H]GG-OH labeling. The mGBP1 protein incorporated small amounts of [3H]GG-OH (Figure 4, bottom), providing evidence that what little isoprenoid was incorporated into mGBP1 was of the expected, C20 type. The Chim and the CTIS proteins were not labeled by the [3H]C20 isoprenoid (Figure 4, bottom), indicating that these proteins were no longer substrates for GGTase I. Thus, the lipid detected on CTIS and Chim after [3H]MVA labeling was likely a C15 farnesyl moiety, as intended by their CaaX motifs. These results implied that mGBP1 was acceptable as a substrate for FTase as long as it had the appropriate CaaX motif. In addition, mGBP1 was not the still-elusive farnesylated p65 protein of bone marrow-derived macrophages.
The C Terminus of mGBP1 Interferes with C20 Modification
At this point, all of the data suggested the unexpected possibility that the problem with mGBP1 prenylation was C20-selective. To determine if it was the C terminus or a more distant part of mGBP1 that caused this difficulty, a new C20 version of Chim was constructed by remodeling the C15-type K-Ras4B CVIM motif of Chim back to CTIL. This C20-Chim would thus be modified by [3H]C20 isoprenoid of the same specific activity as mGBP1wt. The only differences between mGBP1wt and C20-Chim were in the C-terminal 14 amino acids that mimicked those of K-Ras4B, adjacent to the C20-CaaX motif. As shown in Figure 5, [3H]MVA labeling of C20-Chim was twofold to threefold higher than mGBP1wt. Therefore, mGBP1 modification by C20 isoprenoid could be improved by inserting 14 K-Ras4B amino acids directly upstream of the CaaX motif. This result identified this region of the C terminus as part of the mGBP1 structure that impaired C20 modification. Significantly, this replacement did not improve C20 prenylation to the same level as the C15-Chim, indicating that additional internal structures of mGBP1 contribute to and continue to impede C20 modification.
Among these C-terminal residues of mGBP1wt were three consecutive
prolines (Figure 6). To determine if
these prolines hindered C20 modification of mGBP1, a new mutant was
constructed in which the CTIL motif was retained but the prolines were
changed to arginines, the residues found in these positions in hGBP1.
This P-to-R mutant was labeled approximately threefold better than
mGBP1wt, to a level similar to that of the more extensively altered
C20-Chim. Therefore, among the C-terminal residues of
mGBP1wt, these prolines were responsible for at least a portion of the
difficulty in C20 modification. It should be noted that these prolines
may also impair FTase interaction, because the CTIS mutant, which
retains the prolines, was also not prenylated as well as the
C15-Chim protein. GGTase interaction appears to be hindered
by both these prolines and more N-terminal regions and thus is more
severely affected.
|
Isoprenoid Modification of mGBP1 Is Incomplete
The consistent inequalities in labeling observed among these various GBPs suggested that these proteins might not be fully prenylated in mammalian cells (Figure 6A). Direct measurement of mGBP1's isoprenoid content by mass spectrometry was not practicable, because methods have not yet been developed for purification of sufficient amounts of mGBP1 from mammalian cells (where the impairment occurs), especially given the small portion of native protein that appeared to be prenylated. Therefore, the fraction of each protein that contained isoprenoid was determined by dividing the amounts of [3H]isoprenoid incorporated into the various proteins by the amount of each protein that was expressed. To increase the accuracy of this analysis, both 3H and protein measurements for each protein were drawn from a single immunoprecipitate blotted onto a single membrane. The membrane was first exposed to film for detection of 3H, then developed with GBP antiserum for quantification of protein. As an additional control, comparisons of immunoblots from total cell lysates and immunoprecipitates of cells expressing the various GBPs showed that all forms, including those well or poorly labeled, were immunoprecipitated with equal efficiency by the antibody. To determine the reliability of the calculations, the amounts of the C15-Chim proteins on the gel were varied to verify that the immunoblot measurements were in the linear range of detection. These experiments gave identical results.
These calculations indicated that the C15-Chim protein contained the most [3H]isoprenoid (Figure 6B). The 3H:protein ratio of C15-Chim, therefore, was set to 1 (because each protein molecule could contain no more than one isoprenoid, although it conceivably might contain less), and the ratios of the other GBP variants were expressed relative to this value. This analysis quantified the previous visual results and indicated that mGBP1wt contained only 13 ± 2% as much [3H]isoprenoid as C15-Chim (Figure 6B), implying that >85% of mGBP1 was not prenylated. Although the C20-Chim and P-to-R proteins were labeled more strongly than mGBP1wt, modification of these proteins also appeared to be incomplete (~30% of C15-Chim). Thus, all of the mGBP variants with C20-type CaaX motifs appeared to be poorly prenylated (Figure 6B). Even the C15-type CTIS protein was modified only ~40% as well as the C15-Chim. The fact that the CTIS and C15-Chim proteins had different levels of [3H]C15 labeling further confirmed that differences detected in the incorporation of 3H radioactivity reflected differences in the amount of isoprenoid attached. Thus, the level of isoprenoid modification of mGBP1 that occurred within an intact cell could be manipulated over an eightfold range by altering the last 18 residues. A more precise replacement of the three prolines with arginines could double the amount of C20-modified mGBP1, whereas simply switching to a C15-modified form could triple levels of prenylated mGBP1.
Interestingly, hGBP1 was also labeled less well than the C15-Chim. These results suggested that modification of hGBP1, although efficient enough to allow detection, was also incomplete. Finally, hGBP1 with the C20 motif CTIL was labeled as poorly as mGBP1 (12 ± 5% of C15-Chim). The hGBP-C20 protein provided a second example in which prenylation was far less than stoichiometric amounts. The threefold difference in labeling of native hGBP1 and hGBP-CTIL illustrated again that in a pair of proteins in which all non-CaaX structures were identical, C15 and C20 modification could be different.
Prenylation of GBPs Does Not Affect Membrane Association
Because for some proteins isoprenoid modification enhances
membrane binding, mutant GBPs with wide variations in prenylation were
examined to determine if this might lead to variable extents of
membrane binding. The mGBP1wt, CTIS, P-to-R, and hGBP1 proteins were
largely soluble (~70%; Figure 7A),
even though their extents of isoprenoid modification differed
threefold, from 15 to 45%. Earlier work had already found 75% of
[3H]MVA-labeled hGBP1 in cytosolic fractions
(Nantais et al., 1996
), showing that the prenylated form of
hGBP1 was not restricted to membranes. Prenylation thus had little
impact on the membrane association of these GBPs.
|
However, C15-Chim exhibited a distinct distribution, with significantly greater association with the membrane fraction (~60%). When compactin was used to deplete the amount of farnesyl available for prenylation of C15-Chim (Figure 7B), the portion of C15-Chim present in the membrane fraction decreased. The compactin sensitivity of C15-Chim membrane interaction provided additional evidence, independent of radioactive labeling, that indicated the C15-Chim contained significant amounts of isoprenoid.
| |
DISCUSSION |
|---|
|
|
|---|
mGBP1 is the first example of a protein in which a seemingly
adequate CaaX motif almost completely escapes modification.
The RhoB GTPase has been shown to exist naturally as a mixture of C15-
and C20-modified forms (Adamson et al., 1992
), but the
stoichiometry of isoprenoid attachment has been presumed to be nearly
complete. The mGBP1 protein, rather than existing as a fully prenylated protein modified by one or the other isoprenoid, represents one of the
few documented cases of incomplete prenylation. The ability of mGBP1 to
evade prenylation is particularly unusual because it applies
selectively to modification of the protein with C20 isoprenoid. Because
the CTIL CaaX sequence can be C20 modified in other
proteins, it is clear that this negative control of isoprenoid modification not only arises from regions of mGBP1 outside of its
CaaX box but must be predominant over the otherwise
acceptable CaaX motif's role.
Prenylation of mGBP1 Is Incomplete
Identification of mGBP1 as a protein with a severe deficit in [3H]MVA labeling but with an outwardly acceptable CaaX motif was unexpected. Careful examination of cellular isoprenoid utilization determined that difficulty with production of [3H]isoprenoid or IFN-induced alteration of prenyl transferase activity was not the cause of the poor incorporation.
Our results provide an important foundation for the notion that
difficulty in detecting the incorporation of
[3H]isoprenoid into a protein should not be
ignored as an experimental or cellular flaw but may actually result
from incomplete prenylation of the substrate protein. From comparison
of labeling of mGBP1 and the C15-Chim protein, we calculate
that only 15% of mGBP1wt molecules contain isoprenoid. This estimate
is based on the assumption that the specific activity of the
[3H]farnesyl pyrophosphate and
[3H]geranylgeranyl pyrophosphate pools used to
modify these proteins will be equal after >18 h of labeling in minimal
compactin. Even if C20 and C15 isoprenoids were to continue to harbor
differences in specific activities, the much better labeling of
mGBP1's C20 counterpart, C20-Chim, indicates that, at best,
only one-third of mGBP1wt is likely to be modified. Therefore, the bulk
of mGBP1 within an intact cell genuinely appears to lack isoprenoid.
Even this simple estimate gives mGBP1 the distinction of being the most
poorly prenylated protein identified to date (Farnsworth et
al., 1990
; Page et al., 1990
). There are reports that
there may be some nonfarnesylated Ras proteins in cholesterol-deprived cardiac cells (Gadbut et al., 1997
) and insulin-starved
3T3-L1 adipocytes (Goalstone and Draznin, 1996
); additionally, the
Rab24 protein also appears to be prenylated inefficiently by the Rab GGTase II (Erdman et al., 2000
). Our work with mGBP1 and
hGBP1 now suggests that serious deficits in prenylation can occur in other proteins and cell types and with all three classes of prenyl transferase.
Native mGBP1 thus appears to exist persistently in the cell as a mixture of C20-modified and (more predominantly) nonmodified forms. However, the amount of isoprenoid-modified mGBP1 could be increased up to eightfold by replacing mGBP1's 18 C-terminal residues. Furthermore, mutant proteins with varying degrees of C20 or C15 modification could be produced either by altering more specific residues of the C-terminal domain or by changing the prenyl transferase responsible for modification to FTase. Thus, the extent of mGBP1 prenylation can be manipulated through relatively modest changes in the C-terminal domain. Similarly, mutation of C-terminal residues of other proteins may allow mixed populations of prenyl and nonmodified proteins to be produced within a living cell and isoprenoid-sensitive functions studied. Experiments are under way to determine if replacing the C terminus of K-Ras4B with that of mGBP1 can produce a mixture of lipidated and nonlipidated forms of an oncogenic Ras. This would allow the study of responses that might be encountered if treatment with prenyl transferase inhibitors were only partially effective.
Mechanism Limiting Prenylation of mGBP1
The incomplete prenylation of mGBP1 does not appear to result from prelamin A-like proteolysis or from sequestration of the protein from cellular prenyl transferases. Simply changing the CaaX motif of mGBP1 to a form recognized by FTase significantly improved mGBP1 modification. This result also indicates that the CaaX motif of mGBP1 is not likely to be buried within the structure of the protein, because such masking would presumably impede interaction with either FTase or GGTase I.
Occupation of the mGBP1 CaaX cysteine by another modifying
group remains a possibility, although we have not been able to detect
incorporation of [3H]palmitate into mGBP1 (our
unpublished results). ADP ribosylation of the mGBP1 CaaX is
a theoretical possibility, because pertussis toxin modifies the
subunits of heterotrimeric Gi and
Go proteins at a cysteine in the position
analogous to the CaaX (West et al., 1985
).
However, in normal circumstances, these
subunit cysteines are
unmodified (Jones and Spiegel, 1990
) and available to interact with
heptahelical receptors (Blahos et al., 1998
; Yang et
al., 1999
). Additional information on the physiological function
of mGBP1 will be needed to form a clearer picture of whether the CaaX cysteine of mGBP1 might undergo an alternative modification.
Notably, the mechanism that interferes with isoprenoid attachment to
mGBP1 appears to differ from that of the G protein
subunits. For
the pertussis toxin-sensitive Gi
proteins,
the glycine in the second position of the "pseudo-CaaX"
sequence (CGLF) interferes with prenyl transferase interaction, making
this sequence a very poor substrate (Jones and Spiegel, 1990
). In
contrast, the CTIL CaaX motif of mGBP1 has been shown to be
a good substrate for prenylation in four other proteins (Kalman
et al., 1995
; Vestal et al., 1998
; Yan et
al., 1998
; Rodriguez-Concepcion et al., 1999
). Thus,
the mechanism that negatively regulates mGBP1 prenylation is
sufficiently strong to limit prenylation of an acceptable
CaaX motif.
The Defect in mGBP1 Prenylation Is Selective for C20 Modification
The negative influence of C-terminal non-CaaX regions on mGBP1 prenylation is intriguing because it appears to selectively impair the ability of GGTase I to modify the protein. This is seen most clearly with the CTIS mutant, which retains all residues of the wild type except for the final residue that confers FTase recognition and that is modified three times as well as native mGBP1. One major structural impediment to GGTase I interaction appears to be in the C-terminal region of mGBP1, because replacement of 14 C-terminal residues (C20-Chim) or the somewhat unusual triplet of prolines (P-to-R) increases mGBP1's C20 modification approximately threefold. However, neither of these mutants of mGBP1 show the eightfold improvement in MVA incorporation seen with C15-Chim. Thus, N-terminal structures of mGBP1, in addition to its C terminus, appear to contribute to hindering GGTase I-mediated prenylation. The C20-selective impairment in prenylation identifies mGBP1 as an important model for the study of substrate/GGTase I interactions. With the use of mGBP1 as a platform, additional model structures that can produce this selective interference can be tested and help guide the design of compounds to better prevent C20 modification of K-Ras4B. Including non-CaaX elements modeled on mGBP1 may decrease a prenyl transferase inhibitor's affinity for GGTase I while retaining good FTase interaction.
It will be important to determine which distant residues outside of the
C-terminal region also contribute to the difficulty in C20
modification. Work with chimeric G
s of heterotrimeric G proteins has
suggested that GGTase I recognizes protein sequences outside of the
CaaX box (Kalman et al., 1995
). In vitro
prenylation assays and further testing of deletion mutants of mGBP1 in
living cells will be necessary to clarify the location of these
residues and whether they interfere directly with GGTase I interaction or bind another protein that impairs enzyme access.
An explanation of why mGBP1 might evade prenylation is not yet clear.
Very little is known about the cellular function of any of the GBP
proteins. One study indicates that hGBP1, like the more well-studied
IFN-inducible MxA GTPase protein, may produce antiviral effects
(Anderson et al., 1999
). The recent solution of the
three-dimensional structure of hGBP1 led to speculation that this
protein might be structurally related to the dynamin family of GTPases
(Prakash et al., 2000
). Whether mGBP1 will show any natural
variation in its prenylation or stay largely unmodified remains to be
studied. Two somewhat divergent forms of murine GBPs (mag-2 and mGBP3)
lack CaaX motifs and therefore will never be prenylated
(Wynn et al., 1991
; Han et al., 1998
). The
variety of mGBP1 proteins constructed here, especially the
C15-Chim protein with its gain in prenylation and membrane
association, may be useful for studies on GBP function.
The exceptionally poor isoprenoid modification of mGBP1 indicates that
our understanding of protein prenylation in the intact cell is far from
complete. Our results clearly show that full prenylation of a protein,
even one with an excellent CaaX motif, is not automatic,
suggesting that mechanisms that regulate isoprenoid attachment do exist
but appear to function via the structure of the protein substrate
rather than through changes in transferase activity. Such information
is particularly needed for the newly described prenyl transferases of
protozoa (Yokoyama et al., 1998
) and fungi (Omer and Gibbs,
1994
) and for isoprenoid-modified viral proteins such as hepatitis
delta antigen (Glenn et al., 1998
), in which it may be
possible to exploit differences between pathogen and mammalian enzymes
and their recognition of protein substrates in the treatment of
infectious diseases.
| |
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS |
|---|
We thank Dave Lucas and Donna Paulnock for the original mGBP1 plasmid and polyclonal anti-GBP1 antiserum and also for helpful suggestions, Peter Staeheli for the hGBP1 plasmid, W. Robert Bishop and Deborah Vestal for comments on the manuscript, Molly Foster for technical assistance, and Michelle Booden for technical advice and assistance. These studies were funded by National Science Foundation Research Training Group award DBI960-2259 to J.T.S., Public Health Service award CA5189, and the Roy J. Carver Charitable Trust.
| |
FOOTNOTES |
|---|
* Corresponding author. E-mail address: jbuss{at}iastate.edu.
| |
REFERENCES |
|---|
|
|
|---|
-subunit contains a site that discriminates between Gi-coupled metabotropic glutamate receptors.
J. Biol. Chem.
273, 25765-25769
subunit in determining effector activation.
J. Biol. Chem.
274, 16595-16603
-induced GTP-binding protein: the human guanylate binding protein, huGBP1.
J. Leukocyte Biol.
60, 423-431[Abstract].This article has been cited by other articles:
![]() |
D. Degrandi, C. Konermann, C. Beuter-Gunia, A. Kresse, J. Wurthner, S. Kurig, S. Beer, and K. Pfeffer Extensive Characterization of IFN-Induced GTPases mGBP1 to mGBP10 Involved in Host Defense J. Immunol., December 1, 2007; 179(11): 7729 - 7740. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
N. Modiano, Y. E. Lu, and P. Cresswell Golgi targeting of human guanylate-binding protein-1 requires nucleotide binding, isoprenylation, and an IFN-{gamma}-inducible cofactor PNAS, June 14, 2005; 102(24): 8680 - 8685. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
J. T. Stickney, W. C. Bacon, M. Rojas, N. Ratner, and W. Ip Activation of the Tumor Suppressor Merlin Modulates Its Interaction with Lipid Rafts Cancer Res., April 15, 2004; 64(8): 2717 - 2724. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
R. C. Uthaiah, G. J. K. Praefcke, J. C. Howard, and C. Herrmann IIGP1, an Interferon-{gamma}-inducible 47-kDa GTPase of the Mouse, Showing Cooperative Enzymatic Activity and GTP-dependent Multimerization J. Biol. Chem., August 1, 2003; 278(31): 29336 - 29343. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
V. Y. Gorbacheva, D. Lindner, G. C. Sen, and D. J. Vestal The Interferon (IFN)-induced GTPase, mGBP-2. ROLE IN IFN-gamma -INDUCED MURINE FIBROBLAST PROLIFERATION J. Biol. Chem., February 15, 2002; 277(8): 6080 - 6087. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||