Skip to main content
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2011 Oct 6.
Published in final edited form as: J Mol Biol. 2011 Apr 16;409(4):481–482. doi: 10.1016/j.jmb.2011.04.030

Structural Biology by Mass-Spec: Mapping protein interaction surfaces of membrane receptor complexes with ICAT

Brian R Crane 1
PMCID: PMC3187936  NIHMSID: NIHMS317026  PMID: 21515283

Multi-component protein complexes underlie most high-order cellular functions. Elucidating the structures of these complexes and understanding how the interactions that bind them change under perturbation is a major goal of structural biology. To help in this effort, Underbakke et al provide a new twist on the proteomics technique of isotope coded affinity tagging (ICAT). In proteomics, ICAT allows relative quantification of proteins in comparable samples by reacting their exposed cysteine thiols with alkylating agents that contain either a heavy (13C) or light (12C) isotope and an affinity tag1; 2. One sample/condition is modified with the heavy tag, the other with the light, they are mixed, proteolytically cleaved into peptides, affinity purified and analyzed by mass spectrometry. Relative signals from the two mass tags report on the availability of the cysteine for modification in the two conditions. This availability reflects how much of a given cysteine residue (and its cognate protein) is there to be labeled, or in the present example, how reactive the cysteine residue is under the condition tested. Originally, the tag employed was a biotin moiety1, but this has been adapted to smaller, glucanime-based labels that can be enriched on a boronate matrix3; 4. Silverman and Harbury applied this method to the foot printing of protein accessibility and interaction surfaces4, in a manner that parallels the logic of hydrogen exchange mass spectrometery5. The current report was predicated by the author’s development of new ICAT reagents based on the glucamine backbone that are more water soluble, but have varying degrees of electrophilicity6. By measuring rates of alklyation (not just total amounts of product), the relative reactivity of cysteine residues that were specifically targeted to a protein surface could be better quantified. Here, the authors extend these studies to mapping interactions within the receptor kinase complexes that compose the bacterial chemotaxis transmembrane signaling system.

Bacterial chemotaxis relys on polar clusters of transmembrane chemoreceptors coupled to the histidine kinase CheA through an adaptor protein CheW. There is great interest in the detailed architecture of the receptor arrays and how CheA activity is regulated by ligands7. Biochemical protection assays8; 9, genetic studies10; 11; 12; 13 and structural work14; 15 have probed functional interfaces in this ultrastable complex16, making it an ideal subject for testing new mapping techniques. The authors target the CheW coupling protein because it interacts with both CheA and the receptors. By substituting surface residues for cysteine and evaluating ICAT reactivity in the absence and presence of the other components they identify CheA and receptor binding regions of CheW that are largely consistent with the previous studies mentioned above. Unlike the proteomics application, careful work must be done to target the Cys residues appropriately and verify that substitution and subsequent modification does not alter activity; however, the affinity purification is a big advantage in avoiding background labeling in the complex mixture of native bacterial membranes. Importantly, the resolution of the technique is at the residue level, and has the potential to reveal how interactions between the components change subtly as they switch among activity states.

References

  • 1.Gygi SP, Rist B, Gerber SA, Turecek F, Gelb MH, Aebersold R. Quantitative analysis of complex protein mixtures using isotope-coded affinity tags. Nature Biotechnology. 1999;17:994–999. doi: 10.1038/13690. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Elliott MH, Smith DS, Parker CE, Borchers C. Current trends in quantitative proteomics. Journal of Mass Spectrometry. 2009;44:1637–1660. doi: 10.1002/jms.1692. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Liu XC, Scouten WH. Boronate affinity chromatography. Methods Mol. Biol. 2000;147:119–128. doi: 10.1007/978-1-60327-261-2_12. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Silverman JA, Harbury PB. Rapid mapping of protein structure, interactions, and ligand binding by misincorporation proton-alkyl exchange. Journal of Biological Chemistry. 2002;277:30968–30975. doi: 10.1074/jbc.M203172200. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Konermann L, Pan JX, Liu YH. Hydrogen exchange mass spectrometry for studying protein structure and dynamics. Chemical Society Reviews. 2010;40:1224–1234. doi: 10.1039/c0cs00113a. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Underbakke ES, Zhu YM, Kiessling LL. Isotope-Coded Affinity Tags with Tunable Reactivities for Protein Footprinting. Angewandte Chemie-International Edition. 2008;47:9677–9680. doi: 10.1002/anie.200803378. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Hazelbauer GL, Falke JJ, Parkinson JS. Bacterial chemoreceptors: high-performance signaling in networked arrays. Trends In Biochemical Sciences. 2008;33:9–19. doi: 10.1016/j.tibs.2007.09.014. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Miller AS, Kohout SC, Gilman KA, Falke JJ. CheA kinase of bacterial chemotaxis: Chemical mapping of four essential docking sites. Biochemistry. 2006;45:8699–8711. doi: 10.1021/bi060580y. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Zhao JS, Parkinson JS. Cysteine-scanning analysis of the chemoreceptor-coupling domain of the Escherichia coli chemotaxis signaling kinase CheA. Journal Of Bacteriology. 2006;188:4321–4330. doi: 10.1128/JB.00274-06. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Zhao JH, Parkinson JS. Mutational analysis of the chemoreceptor-coupling domain of the Escherichia coli chemotaxis signaling kinase CheA. Journal Of Bacteriology. 2006;188:3299–3307. doi: 10.1128/JB.188.9.3299-3307.2006. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Liu JD, Parkinson JS. Genetic evidence for interaction between the CheW and Tsr proteins during chemoreceptor signaling by Escherichia coli. J. Bacteriol. 1991;173:4941–4951. doi: 10.1128/jb.173.16.4941-4951.1991. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Boukhvalova M, VanBruggen R, Stewart RC. CheA kinase and chemoreceptor interactions on CheW. J. Biol. Chem. 2002;277:23596–23603. doi: 10.1074/jbc.M202288200. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Boukhvalova M, Dahlquist FW, Stewart RC. CheW binding interactions with CheA and Tar - Importance for chemotaxis signaling in Escherichia coli. J. Biol. Chem. 2002;277:22251–22259. doi: 10.1074/jbc.M110908200. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Bhatnagar J, Borbat P, Pollard AM, Bilwes AM, Freed JR, Crane BR. Structure of the ternary complex formed by a chemotaxis receptor signaling domain, the CheA histidine kinase and the coupling protein CheW as determined by pulsed dipolar ESR spectroscopy. Biochemistry. 2010;49:3824–3841. doi: 10.1021/bi100055m. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Park SY, Borbat PP, Gonzalez-Bonet G, Bhatnagar J, Freed JH, Bilwes AM, Crane BR. Reconstruction of the chemotaxis receptor:kinase assembly. Nat. Struct. Mol. Biol. 2006;13:400–407. doi: 10.1038/nsmb1085. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Erbse AH, Falke JJ. The Core Signaling Proteins of Bacterial Chemotaxis Assemble To Form an Ultrastable Complex. Biochemistry. 2009;48:6975–6987. doi: 10.1021/bi900641c. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

RESOURCES