N-end rule specificity within the ubiquitin/proteasome pathway is not an affinity effect.
The N-end rule relates the amino terminus to the rate of degradation through the ubiquitin/26 S proteasome pathway. Proteins bearing basic (type 1) or large hydrophobic (type 2) amino termini are assumed to be targeted through this pathway by their higher affinity for binding to the responsible E3 ligase compared with proteins bearing other residues (type 3). Paradoxically, a significant fraction of eukaryotic protein degradation occurs through the N-end rule pathway, although the majority of cellular proteins are type 3 substrates. We have exploited specific interactions between ubiquitin carrier proteins (E2/Ubc) and their cognate E3 ligases to purify for the first time the mammalian N-end rule ligase E3alpha/Ubr1 to near homogeneity. In vitro studies show that E3alpha forms lysine 48-linked polyubiquitin degradation signals on type 1-3 substrates and is absolutely dependent on Ubc2/Rad6 orthologs. Biochemically defined kinetic studies show that the basis of N-end rule specificity is a k(cat) rather than the K(m) effect originally proposed, since all three substrate classes show similar binding affinities (K(m) approximately 5 microm) but V(max) values that are 100- and 50-fold greater for type 1 and 2 versus type 3 model substrates, respectively. In addition, the N-end rule dipeptides lysylalanine and phenylalanylalanine are general noncompetitive inhibitors for E3alpha-catalyzed ubiquitination of type 1-3 substrates rather than type-specific competitive inhibitors as predicted. These observations are consistent with a model in which the N-end rule effect reflects substrate binding-induced transitions in E3alpha to a catalytically competent conformer, the equilibrium for which depends on the identity of the amino terminus or the presence of basic or hydrophobic surface features. The model reconciles conflicts between specific predictions and empirical observations relating N-end rule targeting in addition to explicating the efficacy of selected dipeptides as potent in vivo inhibitors of this pathway.
Baboshina
O V
OV
Department of Biochemistry, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53226, USA.
Crinelli
R
R
Siepmann
T J
TJ
Haas
A L
AL
D000409:Alanine / Q000737:chemistry; D000818:Animals; D001667:Binding, Competitive; D002417:Cattle; D002850:Chromatography, Gel; D003546:Cysteine Endopeptidases / Q000378:metabolism*; D004305:Dose-Response Relationship, Drug; D007700:Kinetics; D008024:Ligands; D008099:Liver / Q000201:enzymology / Q000378:metabolism; D008956:Models, Chemical; D009097:Multienzyme Complexes / Q000378:metabolism*; D010455:Peptides / Q000737:chemistry; D010649:Phenylalanine / Q000737:chemistry; D046988:Proteasome Endopeptidase Complex; D011485:Protein Binding; D017434:Protein Structure, Tertiary; D011817:Rabbits; D013379:Substrate Specificity; D025801:Ubiquitin / Q000378:metabolism*
D008024:Ligands; D009097:Multienzyme Complexes; D010455:Peptides; D025801:Ubiquitin; D010649:Phenylalanine; D003546:Cysteine Endopeptidases; D046988:Proteasome Endopeptidase Complex; D000409:Alanine