A middle segment of Talin-R (1654-2344) interacts with talin-PTB in talin-FERM
Since talin-PTB (F3) in talin-H is solely responsible for binding to integrin β CTs during integrin activation (
Calderwood et al., 2002;
Garcia-Alvarez et al., 2003;
Tadokoro et al., 2003;
Wegener et al., 2007), we reasoned that talin-R might mask the integrin β CT binding site. To test this hypothesis, we used NMR-based 2D
1H-
15N HSQC (heteronuclear single quantum correlation) experiments to examine the interaction between
15N-labeled talin-PTB and unlabeled talin-R fragments. 2D
1H-
15N HSQC is extremely sensitive for probing protein-target interactions with a wide range of affinities (
Bonvin et al., 2005;
Vaynberg and Qin, 2006;
Takeuchi and Wagner, 2006). The HSQC spectrum of an
15N-labeled protein contains many peaks, each peak correlates to a proton attached to
15N within a particular residue in the protein. Some peaks may be shifted or broadened in the HSQC spectrum if the protein is bound to a target, an excellent indication of the binding interface. The peak broadening or disappearance can be due to the size increase or intermediate rate exchange of the protein complex at the NMR time scale. If any of the unlabeled talin-R fragments binds to
15N-labeled talin-PTB, some or all
1H/
15N amide signals of talin-PTB should be perturbed and broadened, which in turn provides information on the intramolecular interaction between talin-PTB and talin-R. Based on the available helical bundle structure of talin-R (
Papagrigoriou et al., 2004;
Fillingham et al., 2005;
Gingras et al., 2008) and a secondary structure prediction program (
Bryson et al., 2005), we dissected talin-R into nine consecutive fragments (R1:434-947, R2:944-1483, R3:1482-1653, R4: 1654-1848, R5: 1841-1983, R6: 1984-2102, R7: 2103-2229, R8:2225-2344, and R9: 2338-2541), where the division regions were predicted to be random coil or loop structures so the structural integrities of these fragments should be preserved. A series of HSQC spectra were collected for
15N-labeled talin F2F3 domain, which contains talin-PTB (F3), in the absence and presence of individual unlabeled talin-R fragments. Starting from the N-terminus of talin-R, we found that R1, R2, R3 had little effect on the HSQC spectrum of talin-F2F3 (see
supplementary Figure S1A-S1C) whereas R4 (~21 kDa) caused significant line-broadening of talin-F2F3 (~22 kDa) (
supplementary Figure S1D), suggesting that R4 binds to talin-F2F3. From the C-terminus, R9 did not bind (
supplementary Figure S1E) but R8 caused significant line-broadening of talin-F3F3, suggesting that it also interacts with talin-F2F3 (
supplementary Figure S1F). These initial mapping data indicated that talin-R does interact with talin-F2F3 and the binding site involves multiple regions, R4 and R8, but not the N-terminal R1-R3 and C-terminal R9. Based on these initial data, we then prepared another larger expression construct encompassing R4 and R8, i.e., 1654-2344, with a total molecular weight of ~76 kDa (termed talin-R
M). Talin-R
M was well-folded as assessed by its chemical shift dispersion pattern (
supplementary Figure S2). As predicted, talin-R
M also bound to talin F2F3, as indicated by the substantial line-broadening and disappearance of talin F2F3 signals in HSQC (MW~100 kDa) (data not shown). By employing a TROSY technique (Transverse Relaxation Optimized Spectroscopy) into HSQC, which is tailored for detecting NMR signals of large proteins and protein complexes (Pervusin et al., 1997), we were able to recover the majority of signals, some of which were significantly shifted due to binding ().
To understand the nature of this interaction, we performed backbone signal assignments of talin F2F3 using triple resonance NMR, including HNCACB, CBCACONH, HNCA, HNCO, HC(CO)NH, and C(CO)NH (
Bax and Grazsiek, 1993).
Table S1 lists the chemical shift assignments of this construct. Chemical shift mapping revealed that only NMR signals of F3 (PTB) but not F2 in talin F2F3 were either significantly shifted or broadened (), thus supporting our hypothesis that talin-PTB binds to talin-R
M. To improve the spectral quality and simplify the spectral analysis, we made
15N/
2H-labeled talin-PTB and performed its TROSY-HSQC in complex with the unlabeled talin-R
M (total complex is ~90 kDa). Both deuteration and TROSY are known to dramatically reduce the line-broadening of the proteins, which led to an excellent and well-resolved spectrum of talin-PTB bound to unlabeled talin-R
M (
Figure S3A). As expected, talin-R
M caused significant chemical shift perturbation for talin-PTB (
Figure S3A). Surface plasmon resonance (SPR) experiments revealed that the dissociation constant (K
D) between talin-PTB and talin-R
M is 577 nM ( and
supplementary Figure S3B).
| Table 1KD of the talin RM or smaller fragments binding to talin-PTB and talin-PTB mutants |
Talin-RM and integrin membrane-proximal β3 CT compete for an overlapping binding site on talin-PTB
To precisely map the talin-R
M binding site on talin-PTB, we performed a series of NMR titration experiments. TROSY-HSQC spectra were collected for
15N/
2H-labeled talin-PTB in the absence and presence of increasing concentrations of talin-R
M to obtain molar ratios of 1:0.0, 1:0.5, 1:1.0, and 1:2. This experimental design allowed us to trace the significantly perturbed signals (
Figure S3A). shows the detailed chemical shift perturbation profile. Remarkably, the perturbation pattern was similar to that previously reported for integrin β3 CT or integrin membrane-proximal β3 CT segment fused to PIPKIγ peptide (
Wegener et al., 2007) (), suggesting that the talin-R
M binding site on talin-PTB overlaps with that for integrin β3 CT. Interestingly, chemical shift mapping revealed that talin-R4 (1654-1848) also induced very similar perturbation profile (
Figure S4A vs 4B), albeit with slightly reduced chemical shift changes and lower affinity (K
D~3.6μM, ) than talin-R
M (K
D~0.58μM, ). On the other hand, a larger fragment containing C-terminal talin-R
M (R6-R8, 1984-2344), induced different and very narrow-range chemical shift changes peaking around 367-375 (
Figure S4C) with much lower affinity (K
D~78.0μM, ) than talin-R
M. Combining these two fragments in a single construct (talin-R
M) yields higher affinity (0.58μM, see ). These data suggest that R4 and R6-R8 bind to different regions in talin-PTB and that R4 plays more important role in binding to talin-PTB (see more data below). highlights significantly shifted residues in talin-PTB upon binding to talin-R
M and integrin β3 CT chimera, respectively, thus providing more direct view of how the two binding sites might overlap.
To more precisely evaluate how the integrin β3 CT binding sites on talin-PTB may be involved in binding to talin-R
M, we introduced a series of structure-based talin-PTB point mutations L325R, W359A, S365D, S379R, Q381V, each has been previously shown to impair the talin-mediated integrin activation without affecting the structural integrity of talin-PTB (
Wegener et al., 2007). L325R, S365D, S379R, and Q381V disrupt the integrin β membrane-proximal CT binding to talin-PTB whereas W359A abolishes the integrin CT binding to talin-PTB by removing the bulky interaction of the membrane-distal CT with talin-PTB (
Wegener et al., 2007). We also made the M319A mutant. M319 is a surface-exposed hydrophobic residue that is not involved in interacting with either integrin β3 membrane-proximal region (
Wegener et al., 2007) or membrane-distal region (
Garcia-Alvarez et al., 2003), and thus its mutation to Ala had little effect on the interaction with integrin β3 CT chimera (
Figure S5). However, M319 is most significantly perturbed by talin-R
M (), suggesting that it may play a crucial role in interacting with talin-R
M. summarizes the K
D values of talin-R
M binding to WT talin-PTB, M319A, L325R, W359A, S365D, S379R, and Q381V by SPR. Compared to wild type talin-PTB, S365D, S379R, and Q381V exhibited markedly reduced binding to talin-R
M, whereas L325R had very small effect. As expected, while M319A still binds to integrin β3 CT as WT talin-PTB (
Figure S5A vs S5B), it had dramatically weakened interaction (~140 fold) with talin-R
M ().
The effects of S365D, S379R, and Q381V recapitulate those for binding to the integrin membrane-proximal β3 CT and indicate that this site significantly overlaps with that for talin-RM in the talin-PTB domain. To confirm this conclusion, we prepared large quantities of two representative mutants in 15N/2H-labeled form, S365D (reduced binding to talin-RM by ~2.9×103 fold). and Q381V (reduced binding to talin-RM by ~540 fold) () and examined their chemical shift perturbation in the absence and presence of unlabeled talin-RM. Consistent with the SPR data, the extent of the chemical shift changes was decreased for Q381V and much more decreased for S365D as compared to WT talin-PTB ().
Interestingly, W359A, which completely abolished the talin-PTB binding to integrin β3 CT by disrupting the bulky hydrophobic interaction between talin-PTB and membrane-distal β3 CT (
Garcia-Alvarez et al., 2003;
Wegener et al., 2007), had little effect on the K
D of the talin-PTB/talin-R
M interaction (). This observation, together with the above described effects of other mutants, suggests that the binding sites on talin-PTB for talin-R
M and integrin β3 CT are overlapping but not identical. To further investigate this possibility, we performed HSQC-based competition experiments. As shown in
Figure S6A and S6B, while the majority of signals disappear from
15N-labeled talin-PTB upon binding to the large talin-R
M (total MW~90 kDa, K
D~577nM, see ), these signals return upon addition of equal molar β3 CT chimera (β3 membrane-proximal CT fused to PIPKIγ peptide, MW~3.5 kDa, K
D~140nM, see
Wegener et al., 2007), yielding a spectrum identical to that for
15N-labeled talin-PTB bound to the unlabeled β3 CT chimera (
Figure S6C). These data demonstrate that the small β3 CT chimera peptide competed with large talin-R
M for binding to talin-PTB. In contrast, excess PIPKIγ peptide, which mimics the β3 membrane-distal CT binding and binds tightly to talin-PTB (K
D~270nM) (
de Perera et al., 2005), did not recover the broadened signals at all (
Figure S6D), indicating that PIPKIγ and talin-R
M do not have overlapping binding sites on talin-PTB. Since PIPKIγ mimics the β3 membrane-distal CT for binding to talin-PTB (
de Pereda et al., 2005; Kong et al., 2006;
Wegener et al., 2007), our NMR data are in agreement with our SPR data on W359A mutant () indicating that while the integrin membrane-proximal CT binding site is significantly masked by talin-R
M, the β3 membrane-distal CT binding site for talin-PTB is not. Consistently, a F730A mutant in the chimera peptide, which has dramatically reduced membrane-proximal β3 CT binding to talin-PTB (
Wegener et al., 2007), did not compete effectively with talin-R
M (
Figure S7A vs S7B). Note that the β3 CT also binds to talin-R
M (
Tremuth et al., 2004). However, such binding does not appear to interfere with the talin-PTB/talin-R
M interaction since β3 CT did not affect the talin-R
M interaction with talin-PTB W359A (
Figure S8). Note that W359A has the same affinity for talin-R
M as WT talin-PTB () but does not bind to β3 CT (
Wegener et al., 2007).
NMR-based competition experiments also revealed that talin-R4 (
Figure S9A) but not talin-R6-R8 (
Figure S9B) competed with β3 CT chimeria for binding to talin-PTB. Since talin-R4 induced very similar chemical shift perturbations as talin-R
M when binding to talin-PTB (
Figure S4), this finding suggests that talin-R4 plays a major role in masking the membrane-proximal CT binding site on talin-PTB. It also further supports our prior chemical shift mapping and affinity-based results that talin-R4 and talin-R6-R8 bind to different regions of talin-PTB. summarizes the surface depiction of the talin-PTB structure in which key residues directly involved in binding to talin-R
M are highlighted based on the chemical shift mapping, mutagenesis and competition data. The binding surface is compared to that for the talin-PTB/integrin β CT complex () (
Wegener et al., 2007) and shows that the membrane-proximal β3 CT binding site significantly overlaps with that for talin-R
M, thus providing a view of how talin-R may sterically suppress the β CT binding to talin-PTB in intact talin.
To further evaluate the significance of the talin autoinhibition, we examined the activity of talin M319A in integrin activation. Since this mutant still maintains the integrin binding (
Figure S5) but has dramatically reduced the talin-PTB/talin-R
M affinity (), we speculated that full length talin M319A would activate the integrin. As shown in , M319A indeed dramatically enhanced talin induced αIIbβ3 activation as compared to WT talin. This enhancement was abolished by RGDS peptide, a inhibitor of ligand binding to β
3 integrins (data not shown), indicating specificity. Thus, this observation offers strong support for our hypothesis. Note that the M319A-induced integrin activation is even more potent than talin-H. While the precise mechanism for this higher potency remains to be determined, one can envision two possibilities: (i) Full length talin M319A has higher affinity to integrin than talin-H alone thus leading to the more potent integrin activation. In addition to talin-H, isolated talin-R also binds to integrin β CT (
Xing et al., 2001;
Yan et al., 2001;
Tremuth et al., 2004) at the membrane-distal region (
Tremuth et al., 2004) but not the membrane-proximal site (Goksoy and Qin, data not shown). Thus, the constitutively open conformation of M319A may have higher affinity for integrin than talin-H alone due to both talin-H (M319A)/integrin and talin-R/integrin interactions. (ii) Membrane-anchoring of talin is important for integrin activation (
Vinogradova et al., 2004;
Wegener et al., 2007). It is possible that the open conformation of M319A has stronger capacity to anchor to the membrane than talin-H alone, resulting in more potent integrin activation.
Conformational activation by PIP2
Given the above findings, an obvious question is how the closed conformation of talin is opened. A well-known talin activator is phosphatidylinositol 4,5-bisphosphate (PIP2), which promotes strong talin binding to integrin β CT (
Martel et al., 2001), resulting in the formation of a ternary PIP2/talin/integrin complex in living cells for mediating integrin activation and clustering (
Cluzel et al., 2005). Our SPR experiment revealed that talin-H, but not talin-R
M, can potently bind to biotinylated PIP2 with high affinity (K
D~89.2±1.25nM,
Figure S10A). The biotinylated PIP2 was mounted on a biotin sensor chip, and such positioned PIP2 should mimic PIP2 anchored to the membrane. Since talin-H FERM domain and multiple FERM domains bind to PIP2 involving PTB/PH subdomains (
Hamada et al., 2000;
Bompard et al., 2003;
Cai et al., 2008), we considered if talin-PTB is involved in binding PIP2. Our HSQC-based mapping experiment revealed that PIP2 can indeed interact with talin-PTB with the most significant perturbation around 370-378 (
Figure S10B), which overlaps with the talin-R
M binding site (). SPR experiments demonstrated that PIP2 can disrupt the talin-R
M/talin-PTB interaction in a concentration-dependent manner (). Such competition was confirmed by HSQC experiments where soluble C
4-PIP2 was able to compete with talin-R
M for binding to talin-PTB (). Since PIP2/talin-H interaction has been shown not to interfere with the talin-H/integrin interaction (see in
Martel et al., 2001) and instead it induces conformational change of talin for high affinity integrin binding (
Martel et al., 2001), our findings provide a mechanism by which PIP2 binds to talin-PTB and sterically displaces the inhibitory talin-R to expose the integrin binding site.