Premium
Oligomerization properties of GCN4 leucine zipper e and g position mutants
Author(s) -
Zeng Xiangang,
Zhu Hai,
Lashel Hilal A.,
Hu James C.
Publication year - 1997
Publication title -
protein science
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 3.353
H-Index - 175
eISSN - 1469-896X
pISSN - 0961-8368
DOI - 10.1002/pro.5560061016
Subject(s) - mutant , leucine zipper , dimer , zipper , tetramer , alanine , amino acid , chemistry , lysine , biophysics , peptide sequence , biochemistry , biology , gene , enzyme , organic chemistry , algorithm , computer science
Abstract Putative intersubunit electrostatic interactions between charged amino acids on the surfaces of the dimer interfaces of leucine zippers ( g‐e ' ion pairs) have been implicated as determinants of dimerization specificity. To evaluate the importance of these ionic interactions in determining the specificity of dimer formation, we constructed a pool of >65,000 GCN4 leucine zipper mutants in which all the e and g positions are occupied by different combinations of alanine, glutamic acid, lysine, or threonine. The oligomerization properties of these mutants were evaluated based on the phenotypes of cells expressing λ repressor‐leucine zipper fusion proteins. About 90% of the mutants do not form stable homooligomers. Surprisingly, approximately 8% of the mutant sequences have phenotypes consistent with the formation of higher‐order (>dimer) oligomers, which can be classified into three types based on sequence features. The oligomerization states of mutants from two of these types were determined by characterizing purified fusion proteins. The Type I mutant behaved as a tetramer under all tested conditions, whereas the Type III mutant formed a variety of higher‐order oligomers, depending on the solution conditions. Stable homodimers comprise less than 3% of the pool; several g‐e ' positions in these mutants could form attractive ion pairs. Putative repulsive ion pairs are not found among the homodimeric mutants. However, patterns of charged residues at the e and g positions do not seem to be sufficient to predict either homodimer or heterodimer formation among the mutants.