Independent education resourceInformation here does not replace care from a qualified health professional.
Peptide Therapy GuideClear peptide education

Educational guide

Exchange at Ribosomal Exit Targets Newborn Proteins to the ER

Proper cellular function needs accurate mechanisms of transporting newly synthesized proteins to their respective cellular niches. In a collaborative study, scientists have discovered how newborn proteins are transported to the endoplasmic reticulum (ER)—a cyt

Written by Peptide Therapy Guide Editorial Team
For education only

This guide cannot diagnose a condition or recommend a personal treatment plan. Discuss medical questions with a qualified professional.

Proper cellular function needs accurate mechanisms of transporting newly synthesized proteins to their respective cellular niches. In a collaborative study, scientists have discovered how newborn proteins are transported to the endoplasmic reticulum (ER)—a cytoplasmic network of membranous tunnels that leads into the nuclear membrane.

“A longstanding open question that is fundamental to life is how cells manage to produce proteins and transport them during their synthesis to their correct cellular destinations,” said Elke Deuerling, PhD, a professor of molecular microbiology at the University of Konstanz, Germany, and a senior author of this study.

In an article titled, “Mechanism of signal sequence handover from NAC to SRP on ribosomes during ER-protein targeting,” published in the journal Science, Deuerling and her team parse out the molecular mechanism of how a protein complex called NAC (nascent-polypeptide-associated complex) that reversibly binds to eukaryotic ribosomes, interacts with newly synthesized polypeptide chains as they emerge from the ribosomal tunnel, and hands over hydrophobic ER targeting signal sequences encoded in the polypeptide, to the signal recognition particle (SRP), a protein-RNA transporter complex that targets proteins to the ER.

NAC ensures that only proteins destined for the ER are passed on to the SRP. The authors showed that nascent proteins with destinations other than the ER are denied access to the SRP by NAC, which acts as a gatekeeper in the process.

“We knew already that two factors (called NAC and SRP) together with a signal sequence in the nascent protein being synthesized on the ribosome are of decisive importance for the transport of a protein to the endoplasmic reticulum, but we did not understand how they interplay with each other to regulate and ensure correct protein targeting,” said Deuerling. “A powerful international cooperation among experts in this field solved this question by unraveling the molecular details of the NAC-SRP-nascent protein interplay on ribosomes.”

Earlier studies had established NAC interacts with newly synthesized proteins at the ribosomal exit and competes with the SRP to stop proteins that are meant for the cytosol or mitochondria from ending up in the ER. Yet, SRP can also bind nonspecifically to ribosomes that have no ER signal and carry it to the ER. It was unclear until now, how NAC prevents SRP from binding to just any ribosome and how this antagonistic interaction is overcome by ER targeting signals so that only the correct ribosomes are transported to the ER.

“Uncontrolled, SRP would bind to any ribosome close by and then transport it to the ER, regardless of whether or not a protein with that destination is currently being produced. This would result in countless misdeliveries that would severely impair the function and viability of the cell,” said Deuerling.

Deuerling’s team collaborated with scientists from ETH Zurich in Switzerland, MRC Laboratory of Molecular Biology (MRC-LMB) in Cambridge, U.K., and the California Institute of Technology, to solve this puzzle. They simulated the cellular process in vitro by mixing purified ribosomes, NAC and SRP, in a test tube. They then quickly froze the mixture to -150°C and examined the sample by cryoelectron microscopy.

This enabled structural biologists and co-authors of the study, Ahmad Jomaa, PhD, and Viswanathan Chandrasekaran, PhD, to determine how NAC binds to ribosomes before and after the ER signal-carrying newborn peptide is transferred to the SRP. This clarified NAC’s gatekeeper mechanism, but the transition between the states remained unclear.

“The transition is a highly dynamic process that cannot be visualized by cryoelectron microscopy,” said Martin Gamerdinger, PhD, a lead author from the University of Konstanz.

High-resolution biochemical binding studies conducted by Gamerdinger and his team—doctoral researchers Annalena Wallisch and Zeynel Ulusoy—showed the type of protein being synthesized controls the interaction of NAC with ribosomes. Hao-Hsuan Hsieh, PhD, conducted experiments on binding strength between the components, which together with computer-assisted 3D reconstruction, allowed the team to decipher the details of NAC’s sorting function.

The mechanistic model that results from the study proposes NAC uses two domains with opposing effects to control SRP access. NAC’s core globular domain prevents SRP from binding to ribosomes that do not bear the ER signal, whereas a flexibly attached domain temporarily grabs SRP to permit scanning of newborn peptides. When a peptide bearing an ER-targeting signal emerges from the ribosomal tunnel, it destabilizes NAC’s globular domain allowing SRP to bind to the correct chain and carry it off to the ER.

“Our study reveals the molecular function of NAC as a gatekeeper, granting SRP only access for those nascent proteins whose destination is the endoplasmic reticulum,” said Deuerling.

Errors in protein sorting are the mechanistic basis for many diseases. Deuerling believes this study that clarifies a vital cellular process will help advance studies in several fields of cell biology and life sciences.

Deuerling and her collaborators, Nenad Ban, PhD, from ETH Zurich, Shu-ou Shan, PhD, from Caltech, and Ramanujan Hegde, PhD, from MRC-LMB, believe determining whether NAC play other regulatory roles at the ribosomal exit will need further experimentations.

“There is a whole ‘welcoming committee’ including NAC and SRP but also many other factors that bind to ribosomes during the synthesis of new proteins,” said Deuerling. “Understanding how these factors acting at the front-end of the protein production line are coordinated in a spatial and temporal manner to ensure proteome integrity and cell viability will be the next steps.”

Connected reading

Helpful context for this guide

Source-derived material selected through this article’s indexed topics.

Related questions

01Undruggable or unscreenable?

Another obstacle to discovering new PPI inhibitors is the lack of libraries designed to hunt for them, points out Philippe Roche, PhD, senior scientist at the Integrative Structural and Chemical Biology team at the Cancer Research Center of Marseilles, France. “If you screen PPIs using libraries that were designed for kinases or GPCRs, that’s why you don’t get a lot of good results,” he says. To that end, his group began assembling a library focused on orthosteric inhibitors of PPIs. The result was 2P2Idb, a hand-curated, structural database cataloguing orthosteric inhibitors of PPIs for which the interface had been 3D characterized. From analyzing these known PPI inhibitors, and what structures they had in common, Roche and his colleagues developed a model to predict whether compounds would likely inhibit PPIs. Using this method, 2P2Idb creates an enriched screening library that dramatically increases the hit rate compared to standard libraries. Having proven their success with a small library of 1600 compounds, they are in the process of expanding the library to 10,000 compounds. Once that’s published, “the idea is to make this library available to labs around the world,” Roche says. “We will provide the library free of charge for people to be able to screen PPI targets.”

Source: www.genengnews.com ↗
02How stable is the antibody?

A crucial question often addressed during preclinical development focuses on the in vivo stability of therapeutic antibodies. Increasing the half-life of a therapeutic antibody has several benefits ranging from higher treatment efficacy to increased advantages for the patients who will have a fewer number of therapy sessions and a reduced cost. Given these compelling benefits, following the identification of therapeutic antibodies with the desired specificity, developers usually subject them to a refinement step to increase their stability. This process is often hindered by the lack of reliable experimental tools to predict the half-life of antibodies in patients. The major hurdle of using mouse models to predict antibody stability in the serum lies in the way immunoglobulin proteins are processed by the organism. In mammals, most proteins circulating in the serum undergo constant uptake by endothelial cells and are routed through the endosomes to the lysosomal compartment for degradation. In the endosomes, immunoglobulin G (IgG) proteins are recognized and bound by a transmembrane protein, called the neonatal Fc receptor (FcRn), which mediates their recycling to the plasma membrane and subsequent release back into the serum. As a result, the half-life of IgGs are significantly extended by this mechanism. Since most therapeutic antibodies belong to the IgG class, this recycling system is very relevant for their relative stability in the body. Remarkably, the relative affinity between IgGs and FcRn is extremely disparate between different species, with the mouse receptor showing a much higher affinity than its human counterpart.

Source: www.genengnews.com ↗
P

About the author

Peptide Therapy Guide Editorial Team

Editorial team for Peptide Therapy Guide.

View all articles →