“What’s in a name? That which we call a rose By any other name would smell as sweet.” From “Romeo and Juliet”, William Shakespeare (1594) This article opens a series of publications on disambiguation of the basic terms used in the field of intrinsically disordered proteins. We start from the beginning, namely from the explanation of what the expression “intrinsically disordered protein” actually means and why this particular term has been chosen as the common denominator for this class of proteins characterized by broad structural, dynamic and functional characteristics.

The use of proteins for in vitro studies or as therapeutic agents is frequently hampered by protein aggregation during expression, purification, storage, or transfer into requisite assay buffers. A large number of potential protein stabilizers are available, but determining which are appropriate can take days or weeks. We developed a solubility assay to determine the best cosolvent for a given protein that requires very little protein and only a few hours to complete. This technique separates native protein from soluble and insoluble aggregates by filtration and detects both forms of protein by SDS-PAGE or Western blotting. Multiple buffers can be simultaneously screened to determine conditions that enhance protein solubility. The behavior of a single protein in mixtures and crude lysates can be analyzed with this technique, allowing testing prior to and throughout protein purification. Aggregated proteins can also be assayed for conditions that will stabilize native protein, which can then be used to improve subsequent purifications. This solubility assay was tested using both prokaryotic and eukaryotic proteins that range in size from 17 to 150 kDa and include monomeric and multimeric proteins. From the results presented, this technique can be applied to a variety of proteins.

During animal development, distinct tissues, organs, and appendages are specified through differential gene transcription by Hox transcription factors. However, the conserved Hox homeodomains bind DNA with high affinity yet low specificity. We have therefore explored the structure of the Drosophila melanogaster Hox protein Ultrabithorax and the impact of its nonhomeodomain regions on DNA binding properties. Computational and experimental approaches identified several conserved, intrinsically disordered regions outside the homeodomain of Ultrabithorax that impact DNA binding by the homeodomain. Full-length Ultrabithorax bound to target DNA 2.5-fold weaker than its isolated homeodomain. Using N-terminal and C-terminal deletion mutants, we demonstrate that the YPWM region and the disordered microexons (termed the I1 region) inhibit DNA binding ϳ2-fold, whereas the disordered I2 region inhibits homeodomain-DNA interaction a further ϳ40-fold. Binding is restored almost to homeodomain affinity by the mostly disordered N-terminal 174 amino acids (R region) in a length-dependent manner. Both the I2 and R regions contain portions of the activation domain, functionally linking DNA binding and transcription regulation. Given that (i) the I1 region and a portion of the R region alter homeodomain-DNA binding as a function of pH and (ii) an internal deletion within I1 increases Ultrabithorax-DNA affinity, I1 must directly impact homeodomain-DNA interaction energetics. However, I2 appears to indirectly affect DNA binding in a manner countered by the N terminus. The amino acid sequences of I2 and much of the I1 and R regions vary significantly among Ultrabithorax orthologues, potentially diversifying Hox-DNA interactions.

No abstract

No abstract

Models for genetic regulation and cell fate specification characteristically assume that gene regulatory networks (GRNs) are essentially deterministic and exhibit multiple stable states specifying alternative, but pre-figured cell fates. Mounting evidence shows, however, that most eukaryotic precursor RNAs undergo alternative splicing (AS) and that the majority of transcription factors contain intrinsically disordered protein (IDP) domains whose functionalities are context dependent as well as subject to post-translational modification (PTM). Consequently, many transcription factors do not have fixed cis-acting regulatory targets, and developmental determination by GRNs alone is untenable. Modeling these phenomena requires a multi-scale approach to explain how GRNs operationally interact with the intra- and intercellular environments. Evidence shows that AS, IDP, and PTM complicate gene expression and act synergistically to facilitate and promote time- and cell-specific protein modifications involved in cell signaling and cell fate specification and thereby disrupt a strict deterministic GRN-phenotype mapping. The combined effects of AS, IDP, and PTM give proteomes physiological plasticity, adaptive responsiveness, and developmental versatility without inefficiently expanding genome size. They also help us understand how protein functionalities can undergo major evolutionary changes by buffering mutational consequences.

The Hox protein family consists of homeodomain-containing transcription factors that are primary determinants of cell fate during animal development. Specific Hox function appears to rely on protein-protein interactions; however, the partners involved in these interactions and their function are largely unknown. Disconnected Interacting Protein 1 (DIP1) was isolated in a yeast two-hybrid screen of a 0 -12-h Drosophila embryo library designed to identify proteins that interact with Ultrabithorax (Ubx), a Drosophila Hox protein. The Ubx⅐DIP1 physical interaction was confirmed using phage display, immunoprecipitation, pull-down assays, and gel retardation analysis. Ectopic expression of DIP1 in wing and haltere imaginal discs malforms the adult structures and enhances a decreased Ubx expression phenotype, establishing a genetic interaction. Ubx can generate a ternary complex by simultaneously binding its target DNA and DIP1. A large region of Ubx, including the repression domain, is required for interaction with DIP1. These more variable sequences may be key to the differential Hox function observed in vivo. The Ubx⅐DIP1 interaction prevents transcriptional activation by Ubx in a modified yeast one-hybrid assay, suggesting that DIP1 may modulate transcriptional regulation by Ubx. The DIP1 sequence contains two dsRNAbinding domains, and DIP1 binds double-stranded RNA with a 1000-fold higher affinity than either singlestranded RNA or double-stranded DNA. The strong interaction of Ubx with an RNA-binding protein suggests a wider range of proteins may influence Ubx function than previously appreciated.

The steroid hormone ecdysone and its receptor (EcR) play critical roles in orchestrating developmental transitions in arthropods. However, the mechanism by which EcR integrates nutritional and developmental cues to correctly activate transcription remains poorly understood. Here, we show that EcR-dependent transcription, and thus, developmental timing in Drosophila, is regulated by CDK8 and its regulatory partner Cyclin C (CycC), and the level of CDK8 is affected by nutrient availability. We observed that cdk8 and cycC mutants resemble EcR mutants and EcR-target genes are systematically down-regulated in both mutants. Indeed, the ability of the EcR-Ultraspiracle (USP) heterodimer to bind to polytene chromosomes and the promoters of EcR target genes is also diminished. Mass spectrometry analysis of proteins that co-immunoprecipitate with EcR and USP identified multiple Mediator subunits, including CDK8 and CycC. Consistently, CDK8-CycC interacts with EcR-USP in vivo; in particular, CDK8 and Med14 can directly interact with the AF1 domain of EcR. These results suggest that CDK8-CycC may serve as transcriptional cofactors for EcR-dependent transcription. During the larval–pupal transition, the levels of CDK8 protein positively correlate with EcR and USP levels, but inversely correlate with the activity of sterol regulatory element binding protein (SREBP), the master regulator of intracellular lipid homeostasis. Likewise, starvation of early third instar larvae precociously increases the levels of CDK8, EcR and USP, yet down-regulates SREBP activity. Conversely, refeeding the starved larvae strongly reduces CDK8 levels but increases SREBP activity. Importantly, these changes correlate with the timing for the larval–pupal transition. Taken together, these results suggest that CDK8-CycC links nutrient intake to developmental transitions (EcR activity) and fat metabolism (SREBP activity) during the larval–pupal transition.