scholarly journals Close Is Not Enough

2000 ◽  
Vol 150 (1) ◽  
pp. 105-118 ◽  
Author(s):  
James A. McNew ◽  
Thomas Weber ◽  
Francesco Parlati ◽  
Robert J. Johnston ◽  
Thomas J. Melia ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Fusion Protein ◽  
Membrane Fusion ◽  
Fusion Proteins ◽  
Active Role ◽  
Snare Complex ◽  
Active Process ◽  
Attachment Protein ◽  
Helical Bundle ◽  
Active Mechanism ◽  
Target Membrane

Is membrane fusion an essentially passive or an active process? It could be that fusion proteins simply need to pin two bilayers together long enough, and the bilayers could do the rest spontaneously. Or, it could be that the fusion proteins play an active role after pinning two bilayers, exerting force in the bilayer in one or another way to direct the fusion process. To distinguish these alternatives, we replaced one or both of the peptidic membrane anchors of exocytic vesicle (v)- and target membrane (t)-SNAREs (soluble N-ethylmaleimide-sensitive fusion protein [NSF] attachment protein [SNAP] receptor) with covalently attached lipids. Replacing either anchor with a phospholipid prevented fusion of liposomes by the isolated SNAREs, but still allowed assembly of trans-SNARE complexes docking vesicles. This result implies an active mechanism; if fusion occurred passively, simply holding the bilayers together long enough would have been sufficient. Studies using polyisoprenoid anchors ranging from 15–55 carbons and multiple phospholipid-containing anchors reveal distinct requirements for anchors of v- and t-SNAREs to function: v-SNAREs require anchors capable of spanning both leaflets, whereas t-SNAREs do not, so long as the anchor is sufficiently hydrophobic. These data, together with previous results showing fusion is inhibited as the length of the linker connecting the helical bundle-containing rod of the SNARE complex to the anchors is increased (McNew, J.A., T. Weber, D.M. Engelman, T.H. Sollner, and J.E. Rothman, 1999. Mol. Cell. 4:415–421), suggests a model in which one activity of the SNARE complex promoting fusion is to exert force on the anchors by pulling on the linkers. This motion would lead to the simultaneous inward movement of lipids from both bilayers, and in the case of the v-SNARE, from both leaflets.

scholarly journals A Histidine Switch in Hemagglutinin-Neuraminidase Triggers Paramyxovirus-Cell Membrane Fusion

2008 ◽  
Vol 83 (4) ◽  
pp. 1727-1741 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anuja Krishnan ◽  
Santosh K. Verma ◽  
Prashant Mani ◽  
Rahul Gupta ◽  
Suman Kundu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Fusion Protein ◽  
Membrane Fusion ◽  
Fusion Proteins ◽  
Sendai Virus ◽  
Biological Activities ◽  
Viral Envelope ◽  
Attachment Protein ◽  
Histidine Residues ◽  
Human Parainfluenza Virus ◽  
Mimicking Peptides

ABSTRACT Most paramyxovirus fusion proteins require coexpression of and activation by a homotypic attachment protein, hemagglutinin-neuraminidase (HN), to promote membrane fusion. However, the molecular mechanism of the activation remains unknown. We previously showed that the incorporation of a monohistidylated lipid into F-virosome (Sendai viral envelope containing only fusion protein) enhanced its fusion to hepatocytes, suggesting that the histidine residue in the lipid accelerated membrane fusion. Therefore, we explored whether a histidine moiety in HN could similarly direct activation of the fusion protein. In membrane fusion assays, the histidine substitution mutants of HN (H247A of Sendai virus and H245A of human parainfluenza virus 3) had impaired membrane fusion promotion activity without significant changes in other biological activities. Synthetic 30-mer peptides corresponding to regions of the two HN proteins containing these histidine residues rescued the fusion promoting activity of the mutants, whereas peptides with histidine residues substituted by alanine did not. These histidine-containing peptides also activated F-virosome fusion with hepatocytes both in the presence and in the absence of mutant HN in the virosome. We provide evidence that the HN-mimicking peptides promote membrane fusion, revealing a specific histidine “switch” in HN that triggers fusion.

scholarly journals Regulation of membrane fusion by the membrane-proximal coil of the t-SNARE during zippering of SNAREpins

2002 ◽  
Vol 158 (5) ◽  
pp. 929-940 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas J. Melia ◽  
Thomas Weber ◽  
James A. McNew ◽  
Lillian E. Fisher ◽  
Robert J. Johnston ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Membrane Fusion ◽  
Fusion Proteins ◽  
The Other ◽  
Proximal Portion ◽  
Intrinsic State ◽  
Temporal Control ◽  
Helical Bundle ◽  
Proximal Half

We utilize structurally targeted peptides to identify a “tC fusion switch” inherent to the coil domains of the neuronal t-SNARE that pairs with the cognate v-SNARE. The tC fusion switch is located in the membrane-proximal portion of the t-SNARE and controls the rate at which the helical bundle that forms the SNAREpin can zip up to drive bilayer fusion. When the fusion switch is “off” (the intrinsic state of the t-SNARE), zippering of the helices from their membrane-distal ends is impeded and fusion is slow. When the tC fusion switch is “on,” fusion is much faster. The tC fusion switch can be thrown by a peptide that corresponds to the membrane-proximal half of the cognate v-SNARE, and binds reversibly to the cognate region of the t-SNARE. This structures the coil in the membrane-proximal domain of the t-SNARE and accelerates fusion, implying that the intrinsically unstable coil in that region is a natural impediment to the completion of zippering, and thus, fusion. Proteins that stabilize or destabilize one or the other state of the tC fusion switch would exert fine temporal control over the rate of fusion after SNAREs have already partly zippered up.

scholarly journals A Vacuolar v–t-SNARE Complex, the Predominant Form In Vivo and on Isolated Vacuoles, Is Disassembled and Activated for Docking and Fusion

1998 ◽  
Vol 140 (1) ◽  
pp. 61-69 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christian Ungermann ◽  
Benjamin J. Nichols ◽  
Hugh R.B. Pelham ◽  
William Wickner
Keyword(s):  
Atp Hydrolysis ◽  
Complex Structure ◽  
Snare Complex ◽  
Functional Aspect ◽  
Independent Function ◽  
Attachment Protein ◽  
Vacuole Fusion ◽  
Predominant Form ◽  
Target Membrane

Homotypic vacuole fusion in yeast requires Sec18p (N-ethylmaleimide–sensitive fusion protein [NSF]), Sec17p (soluble NSF attachment protein [α-SNAP]), and typical vesicle (v) and target membrane (t) SNAP receptors (SNAREs). We now report that vacuolar v- and t-SNAREs are mainly found with Sec17p as v–t-SNARE complexes in vivo and on purified vacuoles rather than only transiently forming such complexes during docking, and disrupting them upon fusion. In the priming reaction, Sec18p and ATP dissociate this v–t-SNARE complex, accompanied by the release of Sec17p. SNARE complex structure governs each functional aspect of priming, as the v-SNARE regulates the rate of Sec17p release and, in turn, Sec17p-dependent SNARE complex disassembly is required for independent function of the two SNAREs. Sec17p physically and functionally interacts largely with the t-SNARE. (a) Antibodies to the t-SNARE, but not the v-SNARE, block Sec17p release. (b) Sec17p is associated with the t-SNARE in the absence of v-SNARE, but is not bound to the v-SNARE without t-SNARE. (c) Vacuoles with t-SNARE but no v-SNARE still require Sec17p/Sec18p priming, whereas their fusion partners with v-SNARE but no t-SNARE do not. Sec18p thus acts, upon ATP hydrolysis, to disassemble the v–t-SNARE complex, prime the t-SNARE, and release the Sec17p to allow SNARE participation in docking and fusion. These studies suggest that the analogous ATP-dependent disassembly of the 20-S complex of NSF, α-SNAP, and v- and t-SNAREs, which has been studied in detergent extracts, corresponds to the priming of SNAREs for docking rather than to the fusion of docked membranes.

scholarly journals Sequence Analysis and Expression of the Attachment and Fusion Proteins of Canine Distemper Virus Wild-Type Strain A75/17

1999 ◽  
Vol 73 (3) ◽  
pp. 2263-2269 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pascal Cherpillod ◽  
Karin Beck ◽  
Andreas Zurbriggen ◽  
Riccardo Wittek
Keyword(s):  
Amino Acid ◽  
Fusion Protein ◽  
Translation Initiation ◽  
Fusion Proteins ◽  
Canine Distemper Virus ◽  
Protein A ◽  
Biological Properties ◽  
Canine Distemper ◽  
Wild Type ◽  
Attachment Protein

ABSTRACT The biological properties of wild-type A75/17 and cell culture-adapted Onderstepoort canine distemper virus differ markedly. To learn more about the molecular basis for these differences, we have isolated and sequenced the protein-coding regions of the attachment and fusion proteins of wild-type canine distemper virus strain A75/17. In the attachment protein, a total of 57 amino acid differences were observed between the Onderstepoort strain and strain A75/17, and these were distributed evenly over the entire protein. Interestingly, the attachment protein of strain A75/17 contained an extension of three amino acids at the C terminus. Expression studies showed that the attachment protein of strain A75/17 had a higher apparent molecular mass than the attachment protein of the Onderstepoort strain, in both the presence and absence of tunicamycin. In the fusion protein, 60 amino acid differences were observed between the two strains, of which 44 were clustered in the much smaller F2 portion of the molecule. Significantly, the AUG that has been proposed as a translation initiation codon in the Onderstepoort strain is an AUA codon in strain A75/17. Detailed mutation analyses showed that both the first and second AUGs of strain A75/17 are the major translation initiation sites of the fusion protein. Similar analyses demonstrated that, also in the Onderstepoort strain, the first two AUGs are the translation initiation codons which contribute most to the generation of precursor molecules yielding the mature form of the fusion protein.

scholarly journals Differential Cholesterol Binding by Class II Fusion Proteins Determines Membrane Fusion Properties

2008 ◽  
Vol 82 (18) ◽  
pp. 9245-9253 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. Umashankar ◽  
Claudia Sánchez-San Martín ◽  
Maofu Liao ◽  
Brigid Reilly ◽  
Alice Guo ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Fusion Protein ◽  
Membrane Fusion ◽  
Fusion Proteins ◽  
Sindbis Virus ◽  
Semliki Forest Virus ◽  
Yellow Fever Virus ◽  
Class Ii ◽  
Binding Properties ◽  
Functional Differences ◽  
Cholesterol Binding

ABSTRACT The class II fusion proteins of the alphaviruses and flaviviruses mediate virus infection by driving the fusion of the virus membrane with that of the cell. These fusion proteins are triggered by low pH, and their structures are strikingly similar in both the prefusion dimer and the postfusion homotrimer conformations. Here we have compared cholesterol interactions during membrane fusion by these two groups of viruses. Using cholesterol-depleted insect cells, we showed that fusion and infection by the alphaviruses Semliki Forest virus (SFV) and Sindbis virus were strongly promoted by cholesterol, with similar sterol dependence in laboratory and field isolates and in viruses passaged in tissue culture. The E1 fusion protein from SFV bound cholesterol, as detected by labeling with photocholesterol and by cholesterol extraction studies. In contrast, fusion and infection by numerous strains of the flavivirus dengue virus (DV) and by yellow fever virus 17D were cholesterol independent, and the DV fusion protein did not show significant cholesterol binding. SFV E1 is the first virus fusion protein demonstrated to directly bind cholesterol. Taken together, our results reveal important functional differences conferred by the cholesterol-binding properties of class II fusion proteins.

scholarly journals Ordering the Final Events in Yeast Exocytosis

2000 ◽  
Vol 151 (2) ◽  
pp. 439-452 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eric Grote ◽  
Chavela M. Carr ◽  
Peter J. Novick
Keyword(s):  
Plasma Membrane ◽  
Fusion Protein ◽  
Late Stage ◽  
Binding Protein ◽  
Secretory Vesicle ◽  
Snare Complex ◽  
Wild Type ◽  
Attachment Protein ◽  
Complex Assembly ◽  
Protein Receptor

In yeast, assembly of exocytic soluble N-ethylmaleimide–sensitive fusion protein (NSF) attachment protein receptor (SNARE) complexes between the secretory vesicle SNARE Sncp and the plasma membrane SNAREs Ssop and Sec9p occurs at a late stage of the exocytic reaction. Mutations that block either secretory vesicle delivery or tethering prevent SNARE complex assembly and the localization of Sec1p, a SNARE complex binding protein, to sites of secretion. By contrast, wild-type levels of SNARE complexes persist in the sec1-1 mutant after a secretory block is imposed, suggesting a role for Sec1p after SNARE complex assembly. In the sec18-1 mutant, cis-SNARE complexes containing surface-accessible Sncp accumulate in the plasma membrane. Thus, one function of Sec18p is to disassemble SNARE complexes on the postfusion membrane.

scholarly journals Functions of the Stem Region of the Semliki Forest Virus Fusion Protein during Virus Fusion and Assembly

2006 ◽  
Vol 80 (22) ◽  
pp. 11362-11369 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maofu Liao ◽  
Margaret Kielian
Keyword(s):  
Fusion Protein ◽  
Membrane Fusion ◽  
Semliki Forest Virus ◽  
Virus Assembly ◽  
Protein A ◽  
Stem Length ◽  
Membrane Fusion Protein ◽  
Virus Fusion ◽  
Target Membrane ◽  
Domain Iii

ABSTRACT Membrane fusion of the alphaviruses is mediated by the E1 protein, a class II virus membrane fusion protein. During fusion, E1 dissociates from its heterodimer interaction with the E2 protein and forms a target membrane-inserted E1 homotrimer. The structure of the homotrimer is that of a trimeric hairpin in which E1 domain III and the stem region fold back toward the target membrane-inserted fusion peptide loop. The E1 stem region has a strictly conserved length and several highly conserved residues, suggesting the possibility of specific stem interactions along the trimer core and an important role in driving membrane fusion. Mutagenesis studies of the alphavirus Semliki Forest virus (SFV) here demonstrated that there was a strong requirement for the E1 stem in virus assembly and budding, probably reflecting its importance in lateral interactions of the envelope proteins. Surprisingly, however, neither the conserved length nor any specific residues of the stem were required for membrane fusion. Although the highest fusion activity was observed with wild-type E1, efficient fusion was mediated by stem mutants containing a variety of substitutions or deletions. A minimal stem length was required but could be conferred by a series of alanine residues. The lack of a specific stem sequence requirement during SFV fusion suggests that the interaction of domain III with the trimer core can provide sufficient driving force to mediate membrane merger.

scholarly journals Capture and release of partially zipped trans-SNARE complexes on intact organelles

2009 ◽  
Vol 185 (3) ◽  
pp. 535-549 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthew L. Schwartz ◽  
Alexey J. Merz
Keyword(s):  
Fusion Protein ◽  
Membrane Fusion ◽  
Attachment Protein ◽  
Binding Partner ◽  
Straightforward Method ◽  
Protein Receptors ◽  
Trans Complex ◽  
In Trans ◽  
Capture And Release ◽  
Protein Attachment

Soluble N-ethyl-maleimide sensitive fusion protein attachment protein receptors (SNAREs) are hypothesized to trigger membrane fusion by complexing in trans through their membrane-distal N termini and zippering toward their membrane-embedded C termini, which in turn drives the two membranes together. In this study, we use a set of truncated SNAREs to trap kinetically stable, partially zipped trans-SNARE complexes on intact organelles in the absence of hemifusion and content mixing. We show that the C-terminal zippering of SNARE cytoplasmic domains controls the onset of lipid mixing but not the subsequent transition from hemifusion to full fusion. Moreover, we find that a partially zipped nonfusogenic trans-complex is rescued by Sec17, a universal SNARE cochaperone. Rescue occurs independently of the Sec17-binding partner Sec18, and it exhibits steep cooperativity, indicating that Sec17 engages multiple stalled trans-complexes to drive fusion. These experiments delineate distinct functions within the trans-complex, provide a straightforward method to trap and study prefusion complexes on native membranes, and reveal that Sec17 can rescue a stalled, partially zipped trans-complex.

scholarly journals Reevaluating Herpes Simplex Virus Hemifusion

2010 ◽  
Vol 84 (22) ◽  
pp. 11814-11821 ◽  
Author(s):  
Julia O. Jackson ◽  
Richard Longnecker
Keyword(s):  
Herpes Simplex Virus ◽  
Herpes Simplex ◽  
Fusion Protein ◽  
Membrane Fusion ◽  
Fusion Proteins ◽  
Fusion Pore ◽  
Viral Fusion ◽  
Viral Fusion Protein ◽  
Viral Fusion Proteins ◽  
Simplex Virus

ABSTRACT Membrane fusion induced by enveloped viruses proceeds through the actions of viral fusion proteins. Once activated, viral fusion proteins undergo large protein conformational changes to execute membrane fusion. Fusion is thought to proceed through a “hemifusion” intermediate in which the outer membrane leaflets of target and viral membranes mix (lipid mixing) prior to fusion pore formation, enlargement, and completion of fusion. Herpes simplex virus type 1 (HSV-1) requires four glycoproteins—glycoprotein D (gD), glycoprotein B (gB), and a heterodimer of glycoprotein H and L (gH/gL)—to accomplish fusion. gD is primarily thought of as a receptor-binding protein and gB as a fusion protein. The role of gH/gL in fusion has remained enigmatic. Despite experimental evidence that gH/gL may be a fusion protein capable of inducing hemifusion in the absence of gB, the recently solved crystal structure of HSV-2 gH/gL has no structural homology to any known viral fusion protein. We found that in our hands, all HSV entry proteins—gD, gB, and gH/gL—were required to observe lipid mixing in both cell-cell- and virus-cell-based hemifusion assays. To verify that our hemifusion assay was capable of detecting hemifusion, we used glycosylphosphatidylinositol (GPI)-linked hemagglutinin (HA), a variant of the influenza virus fusion protein, HA, known to stall the fusion process before productive fusion pores are formed. Additionally, we found that a mutant carrying an insertion within the short gH cytoplasmic tail, 824L gH, is incapable of executing hemifusion despite normal cell surface expression. Collectively, our findings suggest that HSV gH/gL may not function as a fusion protein and that all HSV entry glycoproteins are required for both hemifusion and fusion. The previously described gH 824L mutation blocks gH/gL function prior to HSV-induced lipid mixing.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document