Counting Degrons: Lessons From Multivalent Substrates for Targeted Protein Degradation

Abstract

E3s comprise a structurally diverse group of at least 800 members, most of which target multiple substrates through specific and regulated protein-protein interactions. These interactions typically rely on short linear motifs (SLiMs), called “degrons”, in an intrinsically disordered region (IDR) of the substrate, with variable rules of engagement governing different E3-docking events. These rules of engagement are of importance to the field of targeted protein degradation (TPD), where substrate ubiquitination and destruction require tools to effectively harness ubiquitin ligases (E3s). Substrates are often found to contain multiple degrons, or multiple copies of a degron, contributing to the affinity and selectivity of the substrate for its E3. One important paradigm for E3-substrate docking is presented by the Anaphase-Promoting Complex/Cyclosome (APC/C), a multi-subunit E3 ligase that targets hundreds of proteins for destruction during mitotic exit. APC/C substrate targeting takes place in an ordered manner thought to depend on tightly regulated interactions of substrates, with docking sites provided by the substoichiometric APC/C substrate adaptors and coactivators, Cdc20 or Cdh1/FZR1. Both structural and functional studies of individual APC/C substrates indicate that productive ubiquitination usually requires more than one degron, and that degrons are of different types docking to distinct sites on the coactivators. However, the dynamic nature of APC/C substrate recruitment, and the influence of multiple degrons, remains poorly understood. Here we review the significance of multiple degrons in a number of E3-substrate interactions that have been studied in detail, illustrating distinct kinetic effects of multivalency and allovalency, before addressing the role of multiple degrons in APC/C substrates, key to understanding ordered substrate destruction by APC/C. Lastly, we consider how lessons learnt from these studies can be applied in the design of TPD tools.

SCFcyclin F- EXO1 axis controls cell cycle dependent execution of double strand break repair

“…In addition, the same model predicts a hydrogen bond forming between EXO1’s T824 (mutated to E824 to mimic the phosphorylated residue) and cyclin F’s Y387, indicating a potential second valence mediating the cyclin F-EXO1 interaction. The results above suggest a multivalent binding mechanism similar to that used by other ligases 35 and they outline a possible multi-step procedure to prevent uncontrolled degradation of CDK/cyclin substrates by SCF cyclin F at the G2 and M transition.…”

A conditional strategy for cell-type specific labeling of endogenous excitatory synapses inDrosophilareveals subsynaptic architecture

“…Moreover, we also envision the strategy as expandable. Though dlg1[4K] includes an epitope tag, this can be modified to include a fluorescent reporter, any kind of general effector, or even a degron (Okoye et al, 2022) to study the targeted function of DLG1. Moreover, by adjusting the homology arms of the construct (Fig.…”

Investigating the interactions of the cucumber mosaic virus 2b protein with the viral 1a replicase component and the cellular RNA silencing factor Argonaute 1

“…The importance of residues 56-60 in the 1a-2b interaction and residues 39-60 in the AGO1-2b interaction (which overlaps with the sequence needed for 1a-2b complex formation) suggests that larger regions of the 2b protein structure are required for these interactions. Such effects can occur when two or more proteins with intrinsically disordered structures interact (Okoye et al, 2022) and may also explain 1a-2b protein complex formation in P-bodies (Wallmann and Kesten, 2020).…”

“…Although the mechanism has not been investigated, it is not based on the formation of disulfide bridges and another explanation is required. This could be the emergence of structure from the interactions of intrinsically disordered domains within the interaction partners (Dunker et al, 1998(Dunker et al, , 2005Wright and Dyson, 1999;Tompa and Fuxreiter, 2008;Ulrich et al, 2008;Okoye et al, 2022).…”