
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
Department of Genetics, Cell Biology and Development, University of Minnesota-Twin Cities, Minneapolis, Minnesota
Requests for reprints: Deanna M. Koepp, Department of Genetics, Cell Biology and Development, University of Minnesota, 6-160 Jackson Hall, 321 Church Street Southeast, Minneapolis, MN 55455. Phone: 612-624-4201; Fax: 612-625-4648. E-mail: koepp015{at}umn.edu
| Abstract |
|---|
|
|
|---|
| Introduction |
|---|
|
|
|---|
The SCFFbw7 complex is associated with the ubiquitination, and subsequent destruction via the proteasome, of at least four proto-oncogene protein products: cyclin E, c-Jun, c-Myc, and Notch (1-3, 12-17). The interaction of Fbw7 with several of its substrates has been linked to a phosphodegron motif first identified in cyclin E (18, 19). Conserved arginine residues in the WD40-repeat region are important for binding to the phosphodegron motif (1) and have been shown to contact the phosphate group in a crystal structure of Cdc4, the yeast orthologue of Fbw7, bound to an idealized consensus phosphopeptide (20). Many of the Fbw7 mutations found in tumors are in regions that disrupt binding to this phosphodegron motif, including changes at the conserved arginine residues (3, 8, 9, 21). Recent evidence suggests that proline isomerization may also be important in the recognition of cyclin E by Fbw7 (21, 22).
In humans, there are three splice variants of Fbw7
, ß, and
which arise from the use of independent first exons (9). Whereas expression of individual Fbw7 isoform mRNAs do show some tissue specificity, there are examples of tissues and cell lines in which all three are expressed (9). Interestingly, some of the Fbw7 tumor mutations are found in isoform-specific sequences, suggesting that individual isoforms may have distinct roles in preventing tumorigenesis (8, 9, 21). Differential localization of the Fbw7 isoforms may also regulate the function of each. Fbw7-
is largely nuclear; Fbw7-ß is primarily cytoplasmic; and Fbw7-
is reported to accumulate in the nucleolus (12, 23). The nucleolar-localized fraction of Fbw7-
has been suggested to be responsible for the ubiquitination of c-Myc (12). However, the precise role and contribution of each isoform to the ubiquitination of most Fbw7 substrates remain to be established.
For other WD40-repeat containing F-box proteins, there is evidence that the formation of homodimeric complexes, or heterodimeric complexes with highly related F-box proteins, can regulate substrate recognition and ubiquitination. In Schizosaccharomyces pombe, the F-box proteins Pop1 and Pop2 form heterodimeric complexes that regulate the ubiquitination and subsequent destruction of the cyclin-dependent kinase inhibitor Rum1, the S-phase regulator Cdc18, and the S-phase cyclin Cig2 (24-27). In humans, ßTrCP1 and ßTrCP2 homodimers are reported to bind and be responsible for the ubiquitination of the SCFßTrCP substrate I
B, whereas heterodimers fail to bind I
B (28). Dimerization of the ßTrCP proteins occurs through a region upstream of the F-box domain called the D domain. Fbw7 and its orthologues show significant sequence similarity to ßTrCP homologues, including the D domain, but the existence of homo- or hetero-oligomeric complex formation among Fbw7 isoforms has not been previously reported.
In this study, we show that the Fbw7 splice variants can interact with each other in both mammalian and insect cells. We also identify an NH2-terminal region common to all the Fbw7 isoforms that is required for the interaction. This finding is similar to studies of ßTrCP1/2 as the region required for the interaction includes the D domain. Furthermore, this region has functional implications for the Fbw7 protein as cells expressing Fbw7 mutants that fail to interact exhibit a reduced rate of cyclin E protein turnover. Our results broaden the current understanding of Fbw7 protein regulation and may have implications for investigating the tumor-suppressor function of Fbw7.
| Results |
|---|
|
|
|---|
|
coimmunoprecipitates with Flag-tagged Fbw7-
, Fbw7-ß, and Fbw7-
(lanes 1-3). Similar results are observed with myc-tagged Fbw7-
(Fig. 1C, lanes 1-3). As a negative control, we cotransfected cells with empty Flag vector and either myc-tagged Fbw7-
or Fbw7-
(Fig. 1B, lane 4, and C, lane 4). We did not observe any nonspecific interaction in these samples. Reciprocal coimmunoprecipitation experiments confirm that the Fbw7 isoforms interact with each other (data not shown). We conclude that the Fbw7 isoforms can immunoprecipitate with each other in mammalian cells in the following combinations:
/
,
/ß,
/
, ß/
, and
/
. We have been unable to generate a myc-tagged version of Fbw7-ß that expresses at levels comparable with Fbw7-
and Fbw7-
and thus have been unable to determine whether the Fbw7-ß homo-oligomeric interaction occurs in mammalian cells. However, based on the results observed in insect cells, it seems likely that such an interaction occurs.
A Conserved Domain Is Necessary for Fbw7 Splice Variant Interaction
We used deletion analysis to map the region necessary for the interaction between Fbw7 isoforms (Fig. 2A
). The interaction of other F-box proteins, most notably ßTrCP1 and ßTrCP2, has been shown to be dependent on the D domain, a motif located immediately upstream of the F-box domain in these proteins (28). We compared the amino acid sequence of Fbw7 with its homologues in yeast, worms, and flies. We also compared the amino acid sequence of human Fbw2, as well as ßTrCP1, with its respective homologues. We find that there is significant homology among these proteins in the D domain, particularly at the COOH-terminal end of the domain (Fig. 2B). Interestingly, only a subset of F-box proteins seems to contain the D domain. For example, a search of several F-box proteins bearing leucine-rich repeats, including human Skp2 and budding yeast Dia2, shows no significant homology to the D domain (data not shown).
|
, Fbw7-ß, and Fbw7-
in which the D domain and the NH2-terminal common region are deleted in frame such that the unique NH2 terminus for each isoform is immediately followed by the F-box domain (
DC, D domain plus common NH2-terminal region) as well as a form that deletes all residues upstream of the F-box domain (
N; Fig. 2A). The deletion mutants were then cotransfected into 293T cells with myc-tagged full-length Fbw7-
and used for coimmunoprecipitation experiments. Each of these mutants is expressed and shows comparable abundance to the full-length Fbw7-
protein (Fig. 3A and B, top
). Whereas the Flag-tagged Fbw7-
coimmunoprecipitates myc-tagged Fbw7-
, none of the
DC or
N mutants are able to immunoprecipitate myc-tagged Fbw7-
(Fig. 3A and B).
|
DC and
N mutants to bind cyclin E and Skp1. The WD40-repeat region of Fbw7 has been implicated in binding cyclin E, whereas the F-box domain has been shown to be important for binding Skp1 (1, 29). Our deletion mutants were distinct from these domains; therefore, we predicted that binding to cyclin E and Skp1 would be retained. To test this, we cotransfected 293T cells with each mutant and either a hemagglutinin (HA)tagged Skp1 expression vector or a cyclin E expression vector. As shown in Fig. 3C, the Fbw7-
, Fbw7-ß, and Fbw7-
DC mutants as well as the
N mutant are each able to coimmunoprecipitate with HA-tagged Skp1 in a manner comparable with the respective wild-type isoforms. Likewise, in Fig. 3D, each mutant also coimmunoprecipitates with cyclin E. The interactions that we observed seem to be specific for Skp1 and cyclin E as we did not observe any binding in mock immunoprecipitations (Fig. 3C, lanes 8-14, and D, lane 8). These results suggest that the deletion mutants we generated do not interfere with the F-box or WD40 domains and are not grossly misfolded. We therefore conclude that the NH2-terminal region of Fbw7 that contains the D domain is independent of the F-box and WD40 domains. Furthermore, this region is required for the interaction that we observed between the Fbw7 isoforms.
The Fbw7 Interaction Domain Is Important for Cyclin E Proteolysis
We assessed the functional contribution of the region required for the interaction using a cyclin E stability assay. For these experiments, we focused on the Fbw7-
isoform as it exhibited the most robust response in the assay (data not shown). For the stability assay, we cotransfected 293T cells with equal amounts of the Flag-tagged Fbw7-
, Fbw7-
DC, and Fbw7
N, or the empty Flag vector with a cyclin E expression vector. Cycloheximide was added to the cells 36 h after transfection, and samples were collected at 30, 90, and 180 min to assess cyclin E protein abundance by immunoblotting. The same blots were probed with antiglyceraldehyde-3-phosphate dehydrogenase (GAPDH) antibodies as a loading control. A typical cyclin E stability assay for each Fbw7-
form is shown in Fig. 4A
and the quantification of the assay is shown in Fig. 4B. We quantified the amount of cyclin E signal relative to the GAPDH signal for this experiment and used the ratio for each time point, where the ratio for the zero time point is arbitrarily set to 1, to plot the amount of cyclin E signal remaining on a logarithmic scale versus time (Fig. 4B). Although they are expressed at approximately equivalent levels as wild-type and retain their ability to bind cyclin E and Skp1, the Fbw7-
DC and
N mutants show a reduced rate of cyclin E turnover compared with the full-length Fbw7-
. We did these experiments thrice; each time, the
DC and
N mutants exhibited reduced cyclin E turnover rates, indicating that the trends we observed are reproducible.
|
DC mutant localizes to the nucleus like the wild-type Fbw7-
protein; thus, the effect of the
DC mutant on cyclin E stability cannot be due to localization differences. The
N mutant exhibits both nuclear and cytoplasmic staining, consistent with previous work indicating that the Fbw7-
nuclear localization signal is in the NH2 terminus (12). However, the
N mutant and the
DC mutant exhibited similar effects on cyclin E stability; thus, we did not observe a significant correlation between cytoplasmic localization and reduced cyclin E turnover in this assay.
If the Fbw7
N and
DC mutants were unstable, that might explain the decreased rate of cyclin E turnover we observed. To test this possibility, we did stability assays with 293T cells expressing Flag-tagged Fbw7 mutants. Cycloheximide was added to cells 36 h after transfection with Fbw7-
, Fbw7
DC, or Fbw7
N. Then, samples were collected at 45, 120, and 210 min to assess Fbw7 abundance by immunoblotting with anti-Flag antibodies. The same blots were probed with anti-GAPDH antibodies as a loading control (Fig. 4D). We observed no change in the stability of the Fbw7 mutants compared with the full-length protein, indicating that the reduced rate of cyclin E turnover in the Fbw7-
DC and Fbw7
N mutants is not due to changes in the stability of the Fbw7 protein itself. Instead, our results strongly suggest that it is the failure of the Fbw7-
mutants to interact with other Fbw7-
molecules that has a deleterious effect on the degradation of the cyclin E protein.
| Discussion |
|---|
|
|
|---|
residue number), in the region of Fbw7 required for its interaction with other isoforms (8). This serine is conserved in Fbw7 homologues from multicellular organisms. Additional studies will be necessary to determine if there is a link between the defect in the S245T mutant and the interaction of Fbw7 with other isoforms. The precise mechanism by which an Fbw7 homo-oligomeric interaction promotes cyclin E degradation remains to be determined. Because Fbw7 is the specificity factor for an SCF complex that ubiquitinates cyclin E, presumably the Fbw7-Fbw7 interaction promotes the rate of ubiquitination of cyclin E. One possibility is that the processivity of the reaction is enhanced, perhaps by reducing lag time between ubiquitination of individual cyclin E molecules. For example, it is possible that an Fbw7-Fbw7 dimer, bound through the interaction domain upstream of the F-box domain, could potentially dock with the SCF complex via the binding of one F-box domain. In this way, two cyclin E molecules would be available for ubiquitination by the same complex.
Alternatively, dimerization or oligomerization of F-box proteins might influence the neddylation-deneddylation cycle proposed for Cul1 (31). In this cycle, deneddylation of Cul1 by the Cop9 signalosome releases Cul1 from the SCF complex, upon which it is bound by the CAND1 protein and held inactive. Neddylation of Cul1 leads to its release from CAND1 and subsequent binding by a new F-box protein (32, 33). There is evidence that cyclin E turnover is regulated by the Cop9 signalosome in both Drosophila and mice (34, 35). Intriguingly, recent work on the SCFSkp2 complex indicates that increasing the amount of the Skp1-Skp2 subcomplex enhances Cul1 dissociation from CAND1 and that increased Skp2-substrate subcomplex inhibits Cul1 deneddylation (36). Likewise, perhaps Fbw7 dimers are more efficient than monomers at dissociation of Cul1 from CAND1 or an Fbw7-Fbw7 dimer bound to cyclin E might prevent Cul1 from being deneddylated by the Cop9 signalosome for a longer period of time. In either case, the result would be an increase in the active pool of Cul1 and a decrease in the inactive pool of Cul1.
Recent results indicate that blocking the activity of the Cop9 signalosome leads to enhanced turnover of a subset of F-box proteins, including Fbw7, presumably via increased auto-ubiquitination as the F-box protein remains bound to the catalytic core of the SCF complex because it cannot be dissociated by deneddylation of Cul1 (37). If the Fbw7
DC mutant were to prevent the activity of the Cop9 signalosome on neddylated Cul1, perhaps by altering the conformation of the catalytic complex, that might explain the decreased rate of cyclin E turnover that we observed with this mutant. This explanation predicts that the Fbw7
DC mutant should be less stable than wild-type Fbw7. However, as we find that this mutant shows no appreciable difference in protein stability than wild-type Fbw7, we think that this possibility is unlikely.
Finally, it is possible that the
DC mutant has a reduced binding affinity for cyclin E that our assay is not sufficiently sensitive to detect, although how the NH2 terminus might affect the substrate-binding domain in the WD40 region is unclear. Crystal structures of SCF complexes indicate that several
-helices of the F-box domain and Skp1 are interdigitated; however, unfortunately, no structural information for the NH2 terminus of any Fbw7 homologue that includes the D domain is available (38, 39).
Further work will be required to determine the stoichiometry of the Fbw7 complexes and to determine the extent of interaction among endogenously expressed Fbw7 isoforms. Other F-box proteins have been shown to form dimers; indeed, the D domain derives its name from its role in ßTrCP dimerization (28). Fbw7 and its homologues in model organisms exhibit significant homology to the D domain and it is interesting that this domain appears in only a subset of F-box proteins. The region required for the interaction encompasses the D domain; however, we still observed substantial interaction among the Fbw7 isoforms when just the D domain is deleted in frame (Supplementary Fig. 1 ). Therefore, at least for the Fbw7 isoforms, residues in addition to the D domain are important for the formation of oligomeric complexes.
|
is localized to the nucleus, whereas Fbw7-ß is cytoplasmic. Our coimmunoprecipitation results suggest that the hetero-oligomeric interactions can occur with the mammalian proteins; however, if they do so in intact cells, it must either mean that only a small fraction of each population interacts or that Fbw7-
or Fbw7-ß can shuttle between the nucleus and the cytoplasm.
In conclusion, we have shown that alternative splice variants of the F-box protein Fbw7 interact with each other and we have identified the region of the protein necessary for this interaction. This observation broadens the current understanding of F-box protein regulation, and it will be important to determine in the future if Fbw7 isoform interaction represents a common regulatory mechanism for other SCFFbw7 substrates. In the case of the Fbw7
/
complex, our results may link F-box protein complex formation with tumorigenesis, as the cyclin E turnover rate is reduced in Fbw7-
mutants that fail to bind each other.
| Materials and Methods |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Cell Transfection and Infection
HEK293T cells were transfected with LipofectAMINE 2000 (Invitrogen, Carlsbad, CA) according to the standard procedure provided by the manufacturer. Forty hours after transfection, cells were collected and washed with PBS (137 mmol/L NaCl, 2.7 mmol/L KCl, 10 mmol/L Na2HPO4, 2 mmol/L KH2PO4). Baculovirus expressing GST- or Flag-tagged Fbw7 isoforms were generated in Sf9 cells using BD BaculoGold Linearized Baculovirus DNA (BD Biosciences, San Jose, CA). For expression of recombinant proteins, Hi5 insect cells were infected with recombinant baculovirus and incubated for 40 h before collection.
Generation of Expression Constructs
To generate either GST- or Flag-tagged Fbw7-expressing baculovirus, we used the Cre recombinasebased univector plasmid fusion system (40). Generation of Fbw7-ß baculovirus has been described (1). Fbw7-
was amplified in two overlapping fragments using oligonucleotides DK396, DK398, DK399, and DK376. The NH2 terminus of the Fbw7-
isoform was cloned using three overlapping primersDK373, DK373, and DK374that were annealed, and a full-length product generated with primers DK373 and DK376. To generate Myc-tagged Fbw7-
and
N plasmids, these fragments were amplified using primer pairs DK397/DK400 and DK355/DK400, respectively. PCR products were digested with EcoRI and XbaI and cloned into pcDNA3.1-MycHis vector (Invitrogen). We also made 6x Myc-tagged Fbw7-
plasmids (in pCS2+MT) by amplifying Fbw7-
using primers DK221 and DK375 and cloning the PCR product into the EcoRI and XbaI sites.
The
DC deletion mutants of Fbw7-
, Fbw7-ß, and Fbw7-
were cloned into p3X FLAG-CMV 7.1 expression vector (Sigma, St. Louis, MO) by a two-step PCR. To delete the
DC region of each isoform, we first amplified the unique region of each isoform (
primers: WZ1, WZ2; ß primers: WZ4, WZ5;
primers: WZ7, WZ8) and the fragments starting from the F-box motif to the 3' end by PCR (
primers WZ3/DK376; ß primers: WZ6/DK376;
primers: WZ9/DK376). The sequence at the 3' of the each unique fragment and at the 5' of the COOH-terminal fragment was complementary to each other. The two fragments of each isoform were annealed and the annealed fragment was used as the template for the next PCR. The final PCR products were digested by EcoRI and SalI, and ligated into the p3X FLAG-CMV7.1 vector. A complete list of the constructs and primers used in this study are shown Tables 1
and 2
, respectively.
|
|
Coimmunoprecipitation Assays
Two hundred to 500 µL of cell lysate were incubated with NETN buffer containing antibody at 4°C for 4 h; then, 20 µL of protein A/G beads (Santa Cruz Biotechnology) were added for another 2 h or overnight. The beads were washed thrice with NETN lysis buffer. Anti-Flag M2 (Sigma) agarose affinity gel was used to purify Flag-tagged proteins.
Protein Stability Assays
The cyclin E construct together with Fbw7 isoform or deletion mutant constructs were transfected into HEK293T cells. Thirty-six to 40 h after transfection, cycloheximide (Sigma) was added to a final concentration of 30 µg/mL to stop the protein synthesis (time 0). Cell extracts from each time point were analyzed by Western blotting.
Immunofluorescence Microscopy
HEK293T cells were transfected with Flag-tagged Fbw7, or deletion mutants were grown on coverslips for 40 h. Cells were fixed with 3% paraformaldehyde and 2% sucrose solution for 10 min at room temperature. Cells were permeabilized in ice-cold 0.5% Triton X-100 solution [0.5% Triton X-100, 20 mmol/L HEPES (pH 7.4), 50 mmol/L NaCl, 3 mmol/L MgCl2, 300 mmol/L sucrose] on ice for 5 min and blocked with 1% bovine serum albumin in PBS (137 mmol/L NaCl, 2.7 mmol/L KCl, 10 mmol/L Na2HPO4, 2 mmol/L KH2PO4) at 37°C for 30 min. Cells were incubated with anti-Flag antibody (1:2,000) at 37°C for 30 min followed by incubation with anti-mouse FITC (1:5,000) for 20 min at 37°C. Images were collected on a Zeiss Axioskop 2 microscope equipped with a Zeiss Axiocam R2 digital camera using Zeiss Axiovision software release 3.1 (Carl Zeiss, Thornwood, NY).
| Acknowledgements |
|---|
|
|
|---|
| Notes |
|---|
|
|
|---|
The costs of publication of this article were defrayed in part by the payment of page charges. This article must therefore be hereby marked advertisement in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1734 solely to indicate this fact.
Note: Supplementary data for this article are available at Molecular Cancer Research Online (http://mcr.aacrjournals.org/).
Received 8/14/06; revised 10/ 6/06; accepted 10/16/06.
| References |
|---|
|
|
|---|
B
for signal-dependent ubiquitination. J Biol Chem 2000;275:287784.This article has been cited by other articles:
![]() |
D. Plesca, S. Mazumder, V. Gama, S. Matsuyama, and A. Almasan A C-terminal Fragment of Cyclin E, Generated by Caspase-mediated Cleavage, Is Degraded in the Absence of a Recognizable Phosphodegron J. Biol. Chem., November 7, 2008; 283(45): 30796 - 30803. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
S. Akhoondi, D. Sun, N. von der Lehr, S. Apostolidou, K. Klotz, A. Maljukova, D. Cepeda, H. Fiegl, D. Dofou, C. Marth, et al. FBXW7/hCDC4 Is a General Tumor Suppressor in Human Cancer Cancer Res., October 1, 2007; 67(19): 9006 - 9012. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
J. O'Neil, J. Grim, P. Strack, S. Rao, D. Tibbitts, C. Winter, J. Hardwick, M. Welcker, J. P. Meijerink, R. Pieters, et al. FBW7 mutations in leukemic cells mediate NOTCH pathway activation and resistance to {gamma}-secretase inhibitors J. Exp. Med., August 6, 2007; 204(8): 1813 - 1824. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
| Cancer Research | Clinical Cancer Research |
| Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention | Molecular Cancer Therapeutics |
| Molecular Cancer Research | Cancer Prevention Research |
| Cancer Prevention Journals Portal | Cancer Reviews Online |
| Annual Meeting Education Book | Meeting Abstracts Online |